Galaxies without dark matter halos?

In article , greywolf42
writes:

The probability of a hypothetical event (the Big Bang) can never be greater
than the probability of the most likely theory that supports the existence
of that event. See my discussion of the class of theories called 'Big
Bang.'

I'm Sherlock Holmes. I discover a body on the way home. He's dead,
Jim. After some discussion with the police, local residents etc, Watson
explains several possible theories about the man's death. Some of them
seem more probable than others. In any case, the probability that the
man is dead (1) is higher than the probability that even the most likely
theory of his demise is true. Also, if I rule out one of these
theories, even the most likely one, through brilliant deduction, he's
still dead. Even if I rule them all out.

It is quite common in science for a phenomenon to be observed before the
underlying mechanism is understood: Mendel's hereditary experiments,
continental drift, radioactivity. Initially, some wrong explanations
were advanced for these. Nevertheless, these phenomena were always MORE
certain than the best theory of the time. You have it completely
backwards.

The universe is independent of our discussions. If I say that my new
theory is the big-bang theory plus the Moon being made of green cheese,
refuting the latter says nothing about the former, unless I somehow
show that the former must DEPEND on the latter.

I strongly recommend that you read the book by Peter Coles and George
Ellis in order to understand why 0.2 or 0.3, in this context, is not
"significantly different" than 1.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
wrote in message ...
In article , greywolf42
writes:

The probability of a hypothetical event (the Big Bang) can never be
greater
than the probability of the most likely theory that supports the
existence
of that event. See my discussion of the class of theories called 'Big
Bang.'

I'm Sherlock Holmes. I discover a body on the way home. He's dead,
Jim.

You're confusing Spock with Holmes with Data.

After some discussion with the police, local residents etc, Watson
explains several possible theories about the man's death. Some of them
seem more probable than others. In any case, the probability that the
man is dead (1) is higher than the probability that even the most likely
theory of his demise is true. Also, if I rule out one of these
theories, even the most likely one, through brilliant deduction, he's
still dead. Even if I rule them all out.

Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past *cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory.

It is quite common in science for a phenomenon to be observed before the
underlying mechanism is understood: Mendel's hereditary experiments,
continental drift, radioactivity. Initially, some wrong explanations
were advanced for these. Nevertheless, these phenomena were always MORE
certain than the best theory of the time. You have it completely
backwards.

You are confusing observation with theory. No one observed the 'big bang.'
The 'phenomena' that we can observe are the EM radiation that we observe in
our various telescopes. From this, we can theorize the existence of many
parts of our current universe (based partly on how long it takes the light
to travel). However, the origin of the current situation will always
remain theory. Not observation or 'phenomenon.'

The universe is independent of our discussions. If I say that my new
theory is the big-bang theory plus the Moon being made of green cheese,
refuting the latter says nothing about the former, unless I somehow
show that the former must DEPEND on the latter.

This is a correct statement. But how does it advance your argument?

I strongly recommend that you read the book by Peter Coles and George
Ellis in order to understand why 0.2 or 0.3, in this context, is not
"significantly different" than 1.

Could you be more specific? Like provide the title (which I can look up)
and the page numbers to which you refer (which I can't? Thanks.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
wrote in message ...
In article , greywolf42
writes:

The probability of a hypothetical event (the Big Bang) can never be
greater
than the probability of the most likely theory that supports the
existence
of that event. See my discussion of the class of theories called 'Big
Bang.'

I'm Sherlock Holmes. I discover a body on the way home. He's dead,
Jim.

You're confusing Spock with Holmes with Data.

After some discussion with the police, local residents etc, Watson
explains several possible theories about the man's death. Some of them
seem more probable than others. In any case, the probability that the
man is dead (1) is higher than the probability that even the most likely
theory of his demise is true. Also, if I rule out one of these
theories, even the most likely one, through brilliant deduction, he's
still dead. Even if I rule them all out.

Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past *cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory.

It is quite common in science for a phenomenon to be observed before the
underlying mechanism is understood: Mendel's hereditary experiments,
continental drift, radioactivity. Initially, some wrong explanations
were advanced for these. Nevertheless, these phenomena were always MORE
certain than the best theory of the time. You have it completely
backwards.

You are confusing observation with theory. No one observed the 'big bang.'
The 'phenomena' that we can observe are the EM radiation that we observe in
our various telescopes. From this, we can theorize the existence of many
parts of our current universe (based partly on how long it takes the light
to travel). However, the origin of the current situation will always
remain theory. Not observation or 'phenomenon.'

The universe is independent of our discussions. If I say that my new
theory is the big-bang theory plus the Moon being made of green cheese,
refuting the latter says nothing about the former, unless I somehow
show that the former must DEPEND on the latter.

This is a correct statement. But how does it advance your argument?

I strongly recommend that you read the book by Peter Coles and George
Ellis in order to understand why 0.2 or 0.3, in this context, is not
"significantly different" than 1.

Could you be more specific? Like provide the title (which I can look up)
and the page numbers to which you refer (which I can't? Thanks.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:
Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it.
No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang'
is
one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory. As I wrote in the prior post (and you
snipped):

"In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory."

For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those observations.
And so and so on. I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:
Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it.
No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang'
is
one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory. As I wrote in the prior post (and you
snipped):

"In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory."

For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those observations.
And so and so on. I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:49:39 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:
Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

Yet you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between
human-observed data/events and non-human-observed data/events.

Whither there is anyone in the forest or not, the tree still falls!


In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it.
No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang'
is
one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory.

So is gravity. So is heliocentralism. So even is general relativity.

As I wrote in the prior post (and you
snipped):

"In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory."

But what is your problem? It is not a theory because no one present
witnessed it. The Fall of Rome is not a theory, but no one alive has
witnessed it.


For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those observations.

Not so. They are explained by the Big Bang.

And so and so on.

But if you wish to come up with an alternative for the big-bang you
must account for the above, and none of the alternatives can do so.

Best,
Dave

I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Author of the Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Visions of Light, Visions of Darkness - B&W Photography of Wessex
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/visions.html

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:49:39 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:
Elementary, Watson!

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present) witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

Yet you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between
human-observed data/events and non-human-observed data/events.

Whither there is anyone in the forest or not, the tree still falls!


In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it.
No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang'
is
one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory.

So is gravity. So is heliocentralism. So even is general relativity.

As I wrote in the prior post (and you
snipped):

"In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big bang' is
one such theory."

But what is your problem? It is not a theory because no one present
witnessed it. The Fall of Rome is not a theory, but no one alive has
witnessed it.


For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those observations.

Not so. They are explained by the Big Bang.

And so and so on.

But if you wish to come up with an alternative for the big-bang you
must account for the above, and none of the alternatives can do so.

Best,
Dave

I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Author of the Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Visions of Light, Visions of Darkness - B&W Photography of Wessex
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/visions.html

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:49:39 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

That's a very strange addition you seem to be compelled to make.

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present)
witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

Yet you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between
human-observed data/events and non-human-observed data/events.

That is not at all my claim. I discriminate between observations of a
current physical state, and theories of prior causation.

Whither there is anyone in the forest or not, the tree still falls!

Yes. But since if we find a downed tree (later), we cannot know what caused
the fall. Identifying causation after the event is theorizing -- not
observing.

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see
it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big
bang' is one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory.

So is gravity. So is heliocentralism. So even is general relativity.

Yes. It is still not the 'observation' claimed by the original poster.

But what is your problem? It is not a theory because no one present
witnessed it. The Fall of Rome is not a theory, but no one alive has
witnessed it.

In the former case, there were no observers whatsoever (or if there were,
they haven't contacted us). In the latter case, there were observers -- and
they left us written records. Therefore, the former is only a theory and
the latter is a 'historical event.' If there were observers, but we have no
validated records, then our 'historical event' is demoted into 'legend',
'tradition' or even to 'myth' (if we no longer really believe the reported
accounts of the observers).

For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those
observations.

Not so. They are explained by the Big Bang.

They are 'explained' by the current model of the big bang. However, the
'big bang' is really a set of different theories that include one basic
event: the expansion of the 'cosmic egg.' (Lemaitre, I believe.) "Red
shift" was the foundation of the original theory termed 'big bang'. This
was renovated by adjusting contants to match observed light elements (big
bang, version 2.0). This was later upgraded to BB 3.0: CMBR.

There is nothing 'wrong' with ad hoc adjustments of a theory. But such
'observations' are not substantive support for a theory -- as they've been
put in 'by hand' to match the observations, after the fact. For this
reason, prediction is preferred to ad hoc adjustment.

And so and so on.

But if you wish to come up with an alternative for the big-bang you
must account for the above, and none of the alternatives can do so.

Yes, valid theories -- or combinations thereof -- need to address all valid
observations. Hence Watson (above) may have had many theories. And it
might be that not one of Watson's theories contained the actual
cause-of-death.

I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

I see you made no comment. Did you note the similarity in your approach and
Ptolemy's approach?

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:49:39 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

That's a very strange addition you seem to be compelled to make.

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Only one problem with your allegory. The body is not a hypothetical
event
that took place in the past. It is a very local, current, direct
observation. It is data, not the 'event.' The 'event' is the past
*cause*
of the dead body that we see in the present. No one (present)
witnessed
the
event. Hence, we must theorize.

Do you tell that to all the historians and archaeologists that you
meet?

I certainly would in the above described situation (which you snipped).

Yet you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between
human-observed data/events and non-human-observed data/events.

That is not at all my claim. I discriminate between observations of a
current physical state, and theories of prior causation.

Whither there is anyone in the forest or not, the tree still falls!

Yes. But since if we find a downed tree (later), we cannot know what caused
the fall. Identifying causation after the event is theorizing -- not
observing.

In the case of the hypothetical 'big bang', the 'event' is the initial
expansion of the 'cosmic egg'. The 'body' is the universe as we see
it. No
one present witnessed the event. Hence we must theorize. The 'big
bang' is one such theory.

Supported by literally humungous amounts of evidence, old chap.

However, it is still only a theory.

So is gravity. So is heliocentralism. So even is general relativity.

Yes. It is still not the 'observation' claimed by the original poster.

But what is your problem? It is not a theory because no one present
witnessed it. The Fall of Rome is not a theory, but no one alive has
witnessed it.

In the former case, there were no observers whatsoever (or if there were,
they haven't contacted us). In the latter case, there were observers -- and
they left us written records. Therefore, the former is only a theory and
the latter is a 'historical event.' If there were observers, but we have no
validated records, then our 'historical event' is demoted into 'legend',
'tradition' or even to 'myth' (if we no longer really believe the reported
accounts of the observers).

For
example, the observed abundances of light elements, the CRB and so and
so on.

Those two examples are not predictions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was
reinvented with new ad hoc assumptions in order to meet those
observations.

Not so. They are explained by the Big Bang.

They are 'explained' by the current model of the big bang. However, the
'big bang' is really a set of different theories that include one basic
event: the expansion of the 'cosmic egg.' (Lemaitre, I believe.) "Red
shift" was the foundation of the original theory termed 'big bang'. This
was renovated by adjusting contants to match observed light elements (big
bang, version 2.0). This was later upgraded to BB 3.0: CMBR.

There is nothing 'wrong' with ad hoc adjustments of a theory. But such
'observations' are not substantive support for a theory -- as they've been
put in 'by hand' to match the observations, after the fact. For this
reason, prediction is preferred to ad hoc adjustment.

And so and so on.

But if you wish to come up with an alternative for the big-bang you
must account for the above, and none of the alternatives can do so.

Yes, valid theories -- or combinations thereof -- need to address all valid
observations. Hence Watson (above) may have had many theories. And it
might be that not one of Watson's theories contained the actual
cause-of-death.

I could have said the same for the Ptolemaic system.

I see you made no comment. Did you note the similarity in your approach and
Ptolemy's approach?

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
wrote in message ...
In article , greywolf42
writes:

They are 'explained' by the current model of the big bang. However, the
'big bang' is really a set of different theories that include one basic
event: the expansion of the 'cosmic egg.' (Lemaitre, I believe.) "Red
shift" was the foundation of the original theory termed 'big bang'.

There is some serious confusion here. Yes, Lemaitre was the first to
extensively discuss the "cosmic egg". The redshift was predicted
somewhat earlier by de Sitter and for a time the cosmological red****
was known as the "de Sitter effect".

There is no confusion at all.

We agree that the big bang is essentially the theory that the universe
expanded from a hotter, denser state---the cosmic egg, if you like.

That is the commonality between the various theories that are often lumped
together as the 'big bang.'


This
was renovated by adjusting contants to match observed light elements
(big
bang, version 2.0). This was later upgraded to BB 3.0: CMBR.

There is nothing 'wrong' with ad hoc adjustments of a theory. But such
'observations' are not substantive support for a theory -- as they've
been
put in 'by hand' to match the observations, after the fact. For this
reason, prediction is preferred to ad hoc adjustment.

You have it backwards. The CMBR was PREDICTED (by Gamow in 1948 or so)
long before it was observed (Penzias and Wilson, 1965 or so).

Flatly untrue, though commonly believed. This is one of the myths of
science. See the thread "Gamow's CMBR 'prediction' claims finally put to
rest?" on the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0nntp2.onemain.
com

Similarly, predictions of the relative abundances of light elements were
on the record before these were observed.

Your statement contradicts the texts I've seen. Please identify the
specific reference(s) that first predicted the abundances of the light
elements.

It did NOT happen that some
arbitrary values were observed and then the big-bang theory made to fit
them, as if it could be made to fit any values. (Gamow also did some
work on element synthesis.)

Your claim is unsupported, and -- I believe -- incorrect. I await
substantiation of the 'light element' claim.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas