Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Any theory will ultimately rely on observed constants and not ones which are derived. Observation will always leave you with disjoint subsets because you can't observe it all. According to your logic, measuring the mass of protons in a lab on earth tells us nothing about the mass or protons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Maybe you've discovered the source of dark matter. Its not really an unknown particle, its just that protons on earth are a little light.

Do you see why I reject your thinking?

If the mass of the proton was different in another galaxy, stars will behave differently. We can observe how stars in other galaxies behave. Plus, you won't get the required density profile for dark matter is you just change the proton mass.

You still cannot observe every proton or even every galaxy. There is the set of all Galaxies, within that set are two disjoint subsets, the set off all observed galaxies, and the set of all unobserved galaxies. If we accept Chas's thinking then drawing conclusions about observed galaxies tells us nothing about unobserved galaxies.

If all the galaxies we observe contain dark matter, isn't it reasonable to conclude that all the galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter? I think you would find it reasonable to conclude that galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter.....but Chas should not. Chas's thinking precludes science...which is why it is hogwash.

---

All photons propagate at the speed of light which is a constant throughout the universe. Any 'photon' that does not propagate at the speed of light is not a photon.

I agree...even though I can't observe them all. Why? Because the more I observe photons and find that they all travel at the same speed, the more likely it becomes that all of them, including the ones I can't observe, travel at the same speed.