Exactly the point. Evidence contrary to theory is 'explained away' by conveniently-invisible, assumed 'dark matter' that is then 'identified' by the conveniently-circular appeal to the anomalous effect as evidence for the invisible evidence.
"When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity."
Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.
"First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )"
To be able to disprove a theory, anomalous evidence must be considered in light of scientifically observable evidence rather than 'explained away' by assumed, invisible matter that is invoked because the observations are off. Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)
No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities.
Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.
And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?
Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.