Galaxies without dark matter halos?

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:45:34 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
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

*sigh^.

Again, from Carroll & Ostlie (1998), p. 1240

"Sixteen years after Alpher and Herman predicted that the universe had
cooled to 5K and was filled with blackbody radiation",

referring to events in 1964 when Peebles calculated the temperature of
the left-over blackbody radiation from the Big Bang should have a
temperature of 10K.

Therefore, Greywolf, the temperature and existance of the CMBR was
*predicted* before it was ever observed.

Best,
Dave
Author of the TalkOrigins Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Visions of Light, Visions of Darkness - Photography of Wessex
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/visions.html
Conception 2004 - the South Coast Gaming Convention
http://www.wessexgaming.org
Musings from Thangorodrim - A livejournal
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrmorgoth

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. I have to do this over a laggy
wireless connection at the moment -- please do it yourself and save me
the hassle -- mjh]

greywolf42 wrote:

Ulf Torkelsson wrote in message
...


This is wrong. The Hubble scheme for classification of galaxies is
purely morphological. It does not depend on any form of distances.
As long as you can get a good picture of a galaxy you can determine
its Hubble typ.



We are not discussing the Hubble morphological classification scheme. We
are discussing the theoretical relationship between galactic type and
absolute luminosity. Absolute luminosity is not included in the Hubble
classification.


There is no such theoretical relationship as you imagine. For most
Hubble types you can find both small and large galaxies, and always
there is a significant spread in the luminosities.




colonel_hack is then providing a brief, but accurate description of the
calibration of the Tully-Fisher and Faber-Jackson relations in modern
times, and nowhere in that process do you need to put in Hubble's
constant. On the contrary these relations can be and have been used
to determine Hubble's constant.



Any calibration of a distance scale needs something to calibrate with.
There are between 20 and 40 galaxies containing resolvable Cepheid variables
(depending on study). Galaxies beyond this range use the Hubble constant.
The Tully-Fisher scheme was calibrated using "nearer"
Hubble-constant-determined distances, in order to avoid them in the far
distances.


No, the Tully-Fisher scheme has never been calibrated based on the
Hubble constant, that is plainly wrong. There are also more distance
indicators than the Cepheids. May I suggest that you pick up the book:

Rowan-Robinson, M., 1985,
The cosmological distance ladder,
W. H. Freeman & Comp., New York

Rowan-Robinson describes in detail how you build up the cosmological
distance scale. You start with the primary indicators, cepheids,
supernovae, novae and RR Lyrae variables. You then use these to
calibrate new distance indicators, such as the size of HII-regions,
globular clusters, the brightest stars in the galaxies, the
Tully-Fisher relation and so on. In the end you can even use the
brightest cluster galaxies to determine the distances to clusters of
galaxies. Nowhere in this process do you use Hubble's constant.

Ulf Torkelsson

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed and reformatted -- mjh]

greywolf42 wrote:

Ulf Torkelsson wrote in message
...


This is wrong. The Hubble scheme for classification of galaxies is
purely morphological. It does not depend on any form of distances.
As long as you can get a good picture of a galaxy you can determine
its Hubble typ.



We are not discussing the Hubble morphological classification scheme. We
are discussing the theoretical relationship between galactic type and
absolute luminosity. Absolute luminosity is not included in the Hubble
classification.


There is no such theoretical relationship as you imagine. For most
Hubble types you can find both small and large galaxies, and always
there is a significant spread in the luminosities.




colonel_hack is then providing a brief, but accurate description of the
calibration of the Tully-Fisher and Faber-Jackson relations in modern
times, and nowhere in that process do you need to put in Hubble's
constant. On the contrary these relations can be and have been used
to determine Hubble's constant.



Any calibration of a distance scale needs something to calibrate with.
There are between 20 and 40 galaxies containing resolvable Cepheid variables
(depending on study). Galaxies beyond this range use the Hubble constant.
The Tully-Fisher scheme was calibrated using "nearer"
Hubble-constant-determined distances, in order to avoid them in the far
distances.


No, the Tully-Fisher scheme has never been calibrated based on the
Hubble constant, that is plainly wrong. There are also more distance
indicators than the Cepheids. May I suggest that you pick up the book:

Rowan-Robinson, M., 1985,
The cosmological distance ladder,
W. H. Freeman & Comp., New York

Rowan-Robinson describes in detail how you build up the cosmological
distance scale. You start with the primary indicators, cepheids,
supernovae, novae and RR Lyrae variables. You then use these to
calibrate new distance indicators, such as the size of HII-regions,
globular clusters, the brightest stars in the galaxies, the
Tully-Fisher relation and so on. In the end you can even use the
brightest cluster galaxies to determine the distances to clusters of
galaxies. Nowhere in this process do you use Hubble's constant.

Ulf Torkelsson

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed and reformatted -- mjh]

Daniel R. Reitman wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:09:09 GMT, greywolf42
wrote:

M
. . . .

Gamow's paper of 1946 was the light element version of the big-bang
(supplanting the cosmic ray version). However, Gamow attempted to
theorize
to obtain previously-measured elemental abundances. Elemental abundance
measurements and theories to explain them existed in the 1930s.

What you forget is that Gamow's model received additional support from
the fact that it predicted the CBR.

No. Gamow never predicted the CMBR. See the information presented earlier
in this thread (and snipped):

==============
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
==============

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Daniel R. Reitman wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:09:09 GMT, greywolf42
wrote:

M
. . . .

Gamow's paper of 1946 was the light element version of the big-bang
(supplanting the cosmic ray version). However, Gamow attempted to
theorize
to obtain previously-measured elemental abundances. Elemental abundance
measurements and theories to explain them existed in the 1930s.

What you forget is that Gamow's model received additional support from
the fact that it predicted the CBR.

No. Gamow never predicted the CMBR. See the information presented earlier
in this thread (and snipped):

==============
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
==============

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Morgoth wrote in message
...
What is your problem? Why such obfuscation to deny that you are wrong
on this point.

What obfuscation? Your quote states that Gamow explained
previously-measured abundances.

For instance, in Carroll & Ostlie, 1998, p. 1236:

"In 1946 George Gamow was pondering the comic abundances of the
elements. Realizing that the newborn, dense universe must have been
hot enough for a burst of nuclear reactions to occur, he proposed that
a sequence of reactions in the very early universe could explain the
measured cosmic abundance curve. Gamow, together with Ralph Alpher,
published this idea two years later..."

Thank you for proving my point. The measurements of the light elements came
BEFORE the Big Bang was arranged to meet them. See the words in your quote
"... could explain the measured cosmic abundance curve."

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. -- mjh]

Morgoth wrote in message
...
What is your problem? Why such obfuscation to deny that you are wrong
on this point.

What obfuscation? Your quote states that Gamow explained
previously-measured abundances.

For instance, in Carroll & Ostlie, 1998, p. 1236:

"In 1946 George Gamow was pondering the comic abundances of the
elements. Realizing that the newborn, dense universe must have been
hot enough for a burst of nuclear reactions to occur, he proposed that
a sequence of reactions in the very early universe could explain the
measured cosmic abundance curve. Gamow, together with Ralph Alpher,
published this idea two years later..."

Thank you for proving my point. The measurements of the light elements came
BEFORE the Big Bang was arranged to meet them. See the words in your quote
"... could explain the measured cosmic abundance curve."

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. -- mjh]

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:45:34 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

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

*sigh^.

Again, from Carroll & Ostlie (1998), p. 1240

"Sixteen years after Alpher and Herman predicted that the universe had
cooled to 5K and was filled with blackbody radiation",

referring to events in 1964 when Peebles calculated the temperature of
the left-over blackbody radiation from the Big Bang should have a
temperature of 10K.

Therefore, Greywolf, the temperature and existance of the CMBR was
*predicted* before it was ever observed.

This is a nice repeat of the myth. It's still not true.

One cannot determine the truth or falsity of a claim by referring to books
written decades after the event. One must actually go to the papers written
at the time -- as was done in the thread mentioned above.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Morgoth wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:45:34 GMT, greywolf42
inscribed in blood upon a parchment:

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

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

*sigh^.

Again, from Carroll & Ostlie (1998), p. 1240

"Sixteen years after Alpher and Herman predicted that the universe had
cooled to 5K and was filled with blackbody radiation",

referring to events in 1964 when Peebles calculated the temperature of
the left-over blackbody radiation from the Big Bang should have a
temperature of 10K.

Therefore, Greywolf, the temperature and existance of the CMBR was
*predicted* before it was ever observed.

This is a nice repeat of the myth. It's still not true.

One cannot determine the truth or falsity of a claim by referring to books
written decades after the event. One must actually go to the papers written
at the time -- as was done in the thread mentioned above.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, greywolf42 wrote:
-- I believe the original set of luminosity and
galaxy type was built by using distances determined with the Hubble
redshift method.

If by "the original set" you mean something like "The original set that
Hubble made" (or other decades old set), so what? It's not in use now and
the Hubble relation is still there.

If you mean that the Hubble constant is used the calibrate, say,
Tully-Fischer *TODAY* -That- -is- -*still*- -just- -flat- -wrong-. As an
almost trivial amount of reading would show you. People in fact calibrate
T-F
with different methods just to compare the results.

Then what is used? Why simply assert that I'm wrong? Why not mention the
physical process used to calibrate Tully-Fischer?

A list from an introductory text does not provide all the information
required to address the issue.

It does, however, point out how easy it would be for you to find such
information -if- you wanted to. Since you now imply that such intro texts
are too basic should I revert to an obvious reason other than lack of
knowledge why you would make an incorrect statement?

And I still recommend you read Shu.

Why add another text, since you apparently don't know what the reason is
yourself?

My point was that the (local) Cepheid
galaxies are the primary basis of the Hubble distance relation.

If that is you point, say it, not somthing else.

I did say it.

But even if the Chepeid distance is off by a factor of a million:
"Still it moves" --A plot of distance vs. redshift which is linear in
ly vs delta l/l is still linear when re-labeled parsecs vs. delta l/l
or cm or teraparsecs.

How does this relate to the calibration of the Tully-Fischer scaling law?

To generalize my point, using your classification scheme, the
intermermediate and global distance relationships (except for the
supernovae) were all founded on distances that were based on the Hubble
constant.

But this is not true.

I measure the distance to some galaxies using Cepheids & RR Lyae.

RR Lyrae stars are less luminous that Cepheids. Hence Cepheids determine
the maximum distance to which we have a non-redshift-based correlation.

I measure the 21cm line of these galaxies. I do a regression of
distance vs. line width. I measure the 21cm line width of a new
galaxie and use my regression result to calculate the distance.
I have not even measured a red shift yet, so how am I possibly
using the Hubble relation??

Because you are making the theoretical assumption that the cause of the
change in line width is velocity of the galaxy. Just like the assumption
that the cause of the hubble shift is velocity.

Which is why the universal distance scale shifted when Hipparcos
was actually able to measure the parallax of a Cepheid variable star.
Hipparcos found that Cepheids were closer than theoretically expected.
Which shifted 'in' the two dozen baseline galaxies. Which shifted the
Hubble constant. Which 'shrank' the rest of the universe.

Again, so what? In fact no, not "So what" --they corrected the error and
changed the distances. Something you repeatedly imply they don't do.

The point is, that if the long distance range was not based solely on the
hubble relation, then shifting in the 'hubble' galaxies would not have
affected the long distance scales. Because those 'other' methods wouldn't
change.

People have cross compared these where ever it makes sense. They know
when calibrating method A from method B and Method C from B errors build
up, both statistical & flaws in the methods. That is why you see them
delighted that -different- methods agree.

And most importantly, even if you do prove the units are wrong the
distance-redshift relation doesn't go away.

I have no idea why you think this is important, because I never claimed or
implied that the discussion was over 'units.' Nor did I imply that there is
no distance-redshift relationship in the nearer galaxies.

I once saw a plot of a set of random* galaxies plotted appearant size
vs. redshift. There was a Hubble law.

I presume you mean that they used the hubble constant to determine the
distances to those random galaxies.

If you can, explain it some
nonstandard way, but denial or misrepresentation of the observations
or observational methods isn't going to work.

Explain what? I've never denied the observations or the methods. I've
merely tried to point out to you that the conversion of the observations to
conclusions about distance in the far field are all based on the theoretical
assumption of the big bang. Hence, one cannot use these observations
themselves as support for the big bang -- because the distance were all
determined from that assumption.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas