>>12562528>i don't know how to do my own researchPiss off. Now I know you're talking out your ass.
There's a reason published papers cite papers specifically and give the biographical data, because it would be fucking impossible to find most papers otherwise. You haven't given the authors, the paper titles, the journal, the year, nothing. You've told me it's in English but also Farsi, which is completely fucking useless. Try publishing a paper where you don't give a citation, you just tell them the language. The reviewer will send it back.
It is downright fucking rude to tell someone to just "look it up", like there aren't thousands of papers on rotation curves. No I'm not going to waste hours of my life looking for a paper which may or may not exist, and I would have no way of even knowing if it was the right one.
>search engines are a good place to look if you don't have access to a astronomical library. You clearly don't know anything about research. Everything is on ADS now. If you cannot find the paper on there then there is no way anyone else can.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/>they're peer reviewed, so you'll just have to accept that daddy says its real science.The text may be peer reviewed, but you haven't cited a fucking thing. Your "rational debate" consists of you claiming that these papers definitely exist, and must be correct. A desperate grasp at an argument from authority but you won't actually even cite the evidence. It's retarded.
