Sorry I can't help much, but maybe a little...

This might be of some interest, if the mass derived from kinematics can be used as a proxy for baryonic mass...

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/312840

Interestingly, there are some large spiral galaxies that have no significant bulge.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4190

"The black hole masses are systematically higher than expected from established bulge-black hole relations. However, if the mean Eddington ratio of the systems with measured black hole masses (L/L_Edd = 0.065) is typical, 10 of 13 sources are consistent with the correlation between black hole mass and total stellar mass. That pure disk galaxies and their central black holes may be consistent with a relation derived from elliptical and bulge-dominated galaxies with very different formation histories implies the details of stellar galaxy evolution and dynamics may not be fundamental to the co-evolution of galaxies and black holes."

also see http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1743921308027403 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54

This may simply be an outlier due to peculiar merger activity

http://www.mpia.de/Public/menu_q2e.php?Aktuelles/PR/2012/PR121128/PR_121128_en.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature11592

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6429

or not...

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fmnras%2Fstt840

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3630

Likewise here: http://www.eso.org/public/usa/images/potw1148a/

Best wishes!

Dear John,

I state that such calculated phenomena as dark matter, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc. are no more than fantasies resulted from voluntary and unconditioned initial Eddington's assumptions of 90-year age about fusion reactions that allegedly proceed within stars and possibility of likening of the stars to the spheres of ideal gases and no less voluntary assumptions about the constancy of the gravitation coefficient over the entire Universe and its consequence about the constancy of the electromagnetic radiation in the gravitational field over the space. Just these assumptions led to the fantastic dark energy and matter, black holes, and other phantoms and, practically, showed that these assumptions are no class. Historically, the astronomic notions changed not once or twice, but many times, and this is an ordinary process. Scientific views develop by trial-and-error method, as was stated by K. Popper. Now it's time to come down to earth and get at the root of the widely distributed notions on the celestial phenomena and objects. Today, we have giant number of direct measurements and Einstein's theory, and we should use all this thriftily. People search miracles, but Nature is simple and develops on the basis of simple laws.

The Eddington's assumptions were used by perforce until no new hypothesis was available but at present, when the PFO-CFO Hypothesis is available (including at ResearchGate), a critical consideration of the today views at the Universe is necessary and unavoidable.

Indeed, I am sorry if my issue is capable of bringing disappointment to anybody but the science doesn’t bear stagnation.

Regards.

Dear John,

The fusion reaction which proceeds with no common explosion for billions years over giant volumes, can it really be obvious true?

The compliance of the concentrate plasma, where fusion reactions proceed, with the ideal gas laws, can it really be obvious true?

The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obvious true?

But if the gravitation coefficient is different over the space and time, the deviation of the electromagnetic radiation (light) (from any celestial object) from its linear direction is different and unknown over the space and time.

In truth, the application of the first two these assumptions to the Sun and formulation of the so-called standard solar model raised a number of difficult questions.

It would seem, the "discovery' of the so-called dark matter should force the community to return back to the initial assumptions. But this has not happened.

Now the plot thickens.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and each vacuum zone is dangerous.

Best regards.

Victor,

"It would seem, the "discovery' of the so-called dark matter should force the community to return back to the initial assumptions."

I certainly agree, but suggest that reconsideration of the methods used to infer the existence of dark matter does not require a complete reboot. Instead, I suggest that traditional methods of evaluating the gravitational interactions of discrete bodies were improperly extended to vast, compound structures composed of many billions of discretely interacting masses spanning many thousands of light years. Simplified approximations appropriate for spherically symmetrical distributions of mass do not properly apply to all mass configurations - especially not the planar mass distributions of spiral galaxies.

IMO, it's not necessary to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'...

Dear James,

Unfortunately, your improvement is quite insufficient. My criticism is deeper than you think. You can see this from the following issue.

Any calculations are senseless if their primitive conjectures are wrong. The primary assumptions that are used for calculations resulted in the Standard Solar Model, masses and speeds of the celestial objects out of the Solar System, dark matter and energy, black holes, and other phantoms are unconditioned and arbitrary and, therefore, are wrong.

The fusion reaction which proceeds with no common explosion for billions years over giant volumes, can it really be obvious true?

The compliance of the concentrate plasma, where fusion reactions proceed, with the ideal gas laws, can it really be obvious true?

The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obvious true?

But if the gravitation coefficient is different over the space and time, the deviation of the electromagnetic radiation (light) (from any celestial object) from its linear direction is different and unknown over the space and time.

In truth, the application of the first two these assumptions to the Sun and formulation of the so-called standard solar model raised a number of difficult questions.

It would seem, the "discovery' of the so-called dark matter should force the community to return back to the initial assumptions. But this has not happened.

Now the plot thickens.

When discussing Origins, scientists have no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics, and Origin should be absolute, i.e., the question about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all. Otherwise, this is not Origin. Therefore and taking into account Einstein’s statement about the equality of the notions of energy and mass, we should take that the unique World state capable of fulfilling these conditions is the eternal and infinite space filled with the low-concentration energy/mass. This our conclusion satisfies completely to Friedrich Engels’s concept (Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction).

When considering the transformations of the eternal and infinite energy/mass space, we should take into account the inadequacy of the notions of matter and of mass that is the consequence of the just-mentioned Einstein’s statement and the energy/mass conservation law and should supplement this notion with the notion of the infinite (!) rotational moment because energy is impossible without motion, three-dimensional energy being impossible without rotational motion.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and because each vacuum zone is dangerous.

The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, and its ignoring is senseless. I call you to read our works of 2013 about the PFO-CFO Hypothesis and the paper of 2011 in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics. In 2013, we somewhat developed the hypothesis, however, these improvements did not decrease, in our opinion, the importance of the paper of 2011.

You write that it's not necessary to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'...

But allow the question: "is it baby or imitation?"

Sincerely.

Dr. Ostrovskii, You make an interesting statement “I state that such calculated phenomena as dark matter, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc. are no more than fantasies resulted from voluntary and unconditioned initial Eddington's assumptions…” While the nature of dark matter is subject to debate, you might want to read some of the many published articles on supermassive black holes before placing black holes in the fantasy category. For example, this is what Max Planck study leader Professor Reinhard Genzel said about them, "Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long-term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do really exist," The data from several studies is graphically summarized at this website. http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/UCLA_GCG/

If these stars at the center of the Milky Way are not orbiting a supermassive black hole, they are orbiting something that behaves in a manner that is very similar to a theoretical black hole.

Dear Dr. John Wilson,

Thank you for your issue. I believe, you understand that I know that you are not alone in your opinion. As for your issue, you cite not the main portion of my post. I am forced to repeat my main statement.

“Any calculations are senseless if their primitive conjectures are wrong. The primary assumptions that are used for calculations resulted in the Standard Solar Model, masses and speeds of the celestial objects out of the Solar System, dark matter and energy, black holes, and other phantoms are unconditioned and arbitrary and, therefore, are wrong.

The fusion reaction which proceeds with no common explosion for billions years over giant volumes, can it really be obvious true?

The compliance of the concentrate plasma, where fusion reactions proceed, with the ideal gas laws, can it really be obvious true?

The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obvious true?

But if the gravitation coefficient is different over the space and time, the deviation of the electromagnetic radiation (light) (from any celestial object) from its linear direction is different and unknown over the space and time.

In truth, the application of the first two these assumptions to the Sun and formulation of the so-called standard solar model raised a number of difficult questions.”

I believe, you know as well as I do that just the primary assumptions are that which should be subject to independent verification in any theoretical calculations. The less evident the primary assumptions, the more important the fulfillment of this rule. The debatableness of each of three assumptions pointed out by me doesn’t give rise to doubt. None of them obtained independent confirmation over 90 years. Inadequacy of any one of them is able of changing abruptly the results of calculations and the widely distributed notions of the Universe, including those of the “theoretical black hole”. Meanwhile, when admitting that “the nature of dark matter is subject to debate”, you admit the debatableness of the “theoretical black holes”.

Summing up, I allow myself to cite, in addition, one more statement from my post. “Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone, and because each vacuum zone is dangerous. The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, and its ignoring is senseless.”

I wish you to win a logical victory in our discussion.

Regards.

Dear All,

I see three factors that force me to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (I think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe.

(1) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of the earlier Einstein’s theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.

(2) Even through the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (I have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates, in preference, along the between-galaxy boundaries (between-galaxy space) where no gravitation exists and, thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, chooses the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.

(3) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property, in each atomic nucleus. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period, and, today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles. It must not be ruled out (although I do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.

I wrote earlier about different other criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances of the celestial bodies.

The PFO-CFO Hypothesis represents answer to these doubts and criticism.

Sincerely.

Victor.

going back to the original question.

1. Yes the existence of very large spiral galaxies without bulges has been known for a very long time and there are many examples of such objects. They are a problem for any kind of galaxy formation theory.

2. Calculating actual baryonic masses of galaxies is difficult (google on "Stacy McGaugh Baryonic Mass" for some references). In principle for this calculation you need to know

a) all the Mass-to-light ratios for the various stellar populations

b) the total gas mass (atomic and molecular)

c) the extinction in the galaxy so that M/L is corrected for that.

Just deriving the baryonic mass of the bulge itself, is difficult and imagine that is a far more important physical tracer than the baryonic mass of the entire galaxy.