Galaxies without dark matter halos?

Jeffery wrote in message
...

This post has been redirected from sci.physics.research and
sci.astro.research, because the 'moderator' will not allow me to reply
there. (More on that funny aside, later.) My replies were originally
submitted on the 8th.

If you deny the Big Bang, how do explain the redhift of the galaxies?

Two of the easy ways are recessional velocity (sans big-bang) from a
matter-antimatter energy release (breakdown of Leidenfrost layers); and
dynamic resistance in the aether superfluid. The latter predicted the
non-linearity of the Hubble constant that big-bangers now use to postulate a
new epicycle called 'dark energy.'

How do explain the CMB?

Emission from electrons interacting with the aether.

How do you explain the isotropy of the CMB to 1 part in 10^5?

Emission from electrons interacting with the aether.

The evidence for the Big Bang is beyond overwhelming.

There is no significant evidence remaining for the big bang. There are
about a dozen separate ad hoc epicycles now hanging from that structure.
Each required the postulation of a 'new' physics that had no foundation or
evidence except that it allowed the 'big bang' model to escape from yet
another physical disproof.

A separate question is whether the Universe existed for an infinite
length of time. Within the inflationary model, you could have eternal
inflation. So the irony is that inflation, which saved the Big Bang
model, could ultimately allow the possibility that the Universe could
have existed for an infinite length of time after all.

Since your speculation is based on one of the ad hoc epicycles invented
solely to save the big bang model -- which I personally tossed in the
wastebin over 10 years ago -- I have no comment on your speculation.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas