Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

[Mod. note: mangled accented character fixed up. The path that news
takes to get to me is not 8-bit clean, so please stick to plain ASCII
if you can -- mjh]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Maltek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 

> >No-one ever 
> >suggested that Omega was 0.3 and lambda 0.7 based on anything except 
> >data.  
> 
> <http://www.daec.obspm.fr/users/nottale/arRevFST.pdf>[par.7.1]
> 1995 prediction was Omega_lambda=0.36*h^(-2)

With h = 0.71, that's very close.

Touche'.  :-(

Almost.  :-)

As Bill Press said in 1995 (when the range of more or less serious 
suggestions for the Hubble constant spanned a factor of two or so, with 
the error bars too small to allow for any overlap), someone knows the 
value of the Hubble constant to 1%---we just don't know who that someone 
is.

I'm sure that if one reads enough papers, one could find quite a range 
of "predicted" values, and by coincidence one might happen to correspond 
to the correct one. 

I think that's the case here.  Admittedly, I haven't read this huge 
paper in its entirety, but it appears to be, err, rather off the beaten 
path.  Has anyone read it enough to form an opinion?  If so, is it worth 
my time to read it?

More to the point, the author first bounds lambda BASED ON OBSERVATIONS 
to between 0.01 and 1.  Then, it is mentioned that this range includes 
some interesting scales in particle physics: several are listed.  Then 
comes "Then we can MAKE THE CONJECTURE [my emphasis] that the value of 
the cosmological constant has been fixed at the end of the quark-hadron 
transition".  It is then commented on how this results in an acceptable 
age of the universe etc.

Apart from the fact that no evidence is presented to support the 
conjecture, I also get the impression that---from the many possibilities 
the author mentions just a couple of sentences previously---that scale 
was chosen which "happens" to give the correct answer.  Of course, 
having it result in the proper age of the universe is "basing it on 
data".

Actually, one doesn't need this paper at all to arrive at the same 
result: given the same facts and assumptions the author uses, namely 
flat universe, h=0.7 or so and age 13 Gy, lambda has to be about 0.7, 
whatever its theoretical basis.