Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

In contrast the evidence for Cold Dark Matter and
its behaviour is about as clear as the evidence
for Phlogiston

You know, considering that you recommend so heavily
in your disputes with Chalky and John Bell for
deference to the known experts when it comes to
standard candle quality measures, velocity error
bars, and other data, which support your analyses,
it seems a bit self serving that you can be so much
in denial on the growing evidence from rafts of
other, equally skilled experts that cold dark matter
exists, and that only a limited amount of it can be
MACHOs, evidence that seemingly confounds your
theories.

As I said in that thread, the bottom line is one consults the facts, not
the experts. In that particular case the facts fitted what the bulk of
the experts said, not what the one expert that Chalky and John Bell
wanted to cite as an authority.

Consult Ted's just posted URL,

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107248

for both example direct content, and a long, long
list of references on the subject.

I am very familiar with the subject.

That particular evidence, moreover, is right here at
home in the Local Group, not in galaxies far, far
away where accuracy of standard candles is
exceptionally important. Having it here, and using
the "least astonishment" that probably what we see
here is pretty typical of the universe, makes it
likely that dark matter is everywhere, not just here
where we live, and surely not of "Phlogiston
credibility".

Precisely of that level imv. Worse, actually, because phlogiston was not
in conflict with scientific knowledge at the time. But it did have many
self contradictory properties swept under the carpet, in so far as I
know, and that does make it very similar.

The recent Hubble data and image from survey of the
dark matter lensing in a narrow window toward the
universe is pretty convincing on an
"authoritativeness" level as well:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2...mats/print.jpg
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../2007/01/full/

Not in the least. These is just an interpretation of data according to
laws. It may be no better than trying to estimate distances while
wearing fish eyed lense goggles.


How about if you start letting the data play on an even
field,

There's nothing wrong with the data. The issue is how should it be
interpreted.




Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email