Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, greywolf42
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 

> At least the use of the Hubble constant is based on the assumption of known
> physics -- the doppler shift.  

As I've stated many times in this group, and a few times in this thread,
providing references to referee-journal papers as well as less technical
textbooks, the (bulk of the) redshift of objects at cosmological
distances is not due to the Doppler shift. 

At large redshifts, this can get you into trouble.  Even if you use the
relativistic Doppler formula, you get the wrong answer.  First, it is
not clear WHICH of the many cosmological distances should have its
temporal derivative correspond to the velocity in the formula.  Second,
the formula doesn't contain the cosmological parameters.  If you believe
the recession velocity at large redshift is given by the Doppler
formula, then you must also believe that this velocity is independent of 
the cosmological parameters!