Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

Morgoth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:26 GMT, greywolf42 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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