A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Status of the Big Bang Cosmology



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 14, 09:25 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Status of the Big Bang Cosmology

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:25:34 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

But in the case of MACHOs, obervations were done which would have

detected a significant population, if such a population did exist.

----------------------------------------

Those research scientists without a hidden
or overt agenda will inform Helbig that a
significant population of MACHOs was found.

Those who actually do microlensing research
argue about the size of the MACHO population,
its composition, and its potential contribution
to the DM.

Few objective scientists would try to tell us
that it has been empirically demonstrated that
MACHOs do not exist.

If our assumptions about galactic models, DM
spatial distributions, DM velocity distributions,
etc., contain errors or unexpected surprises
(as is the usual case in fundamental physics)
then the MACHO candidacy might have to be
radically re-evaluated.

Compare this status with that of WIMPs:
nothing, nothing, nothing, hint-oops-nothing,
nothing, nothing, hint-oops-nothing, nothing,
nothing, nothing, nothing, hint-oops-nothing, ...
  #2  
Old April 21st 14, 09:25 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Status of the Big Bang Cosmology

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:25:34 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

But in the case of MACHOs, obervations were done which would have
detected a significant population, if such a population did exist.

----------------------------------------
Those research scientists without a hidden
or overt agenda will inform Helbig that a
significant population of MACHOs was found.


Not significant in the sense of "making up a significant amount of dark
matter". If you believe otherwise, name names so that I can get these
people to inform me.

In general, please inform us who the scientists without a hidden or
overt agenda are and who the others are.

Those who actually do microlensing research
argue about the size of the MACHO population,
its composition, and its potential contribution
to the DM.


With the conclusion that it is not significant.

I actually did some microlensing research, and was co-author on a paper
which shows why microlensing by MACHOs cannot be a significant cause of
the QSO variabilty observed by Hawkins (IIRC this variability, and its
interpretation as microlensing, is your main observational evidence that
dark matter is made of MACHOs):

http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/he...sing_qsos.html

If there is an error in this paper, please point it out in detail here.
Or, better, publish a refereed-journal paper pointing out the error.

The fact that Hawkins has ignored this paper proves that he has left the
arena of academic research in this area. Even if one does not agree
with criticism, one should address it or at least acknowledge it.
Instead, his newer papers essentially repeat his old, valid arguments.
However, one wrong prediction rules out the theory even if other
predictions are confirmed. (For example, if I give you a list of
numbers and ask you to test whether they are consistent with being drawn
from a list of uniform deviates (i.e. random numbers), then you could
plot a histogram and if it is flat except for Poisson noise that looks
good. However, if you then earn the order in which the numbers were
generated, and find that they were generated in order, or that there is
a maximum distance between consecutive numbers which is much smaller
than the range, or whatever, then you have to conclude that the
random-number generator is not a good one EVEN IF THE FIRST TEST IS OK.)

Few objective scientists would try to tell us
that it has been empirically demonstrated that
MACHOs do not exist.


No-one claims that NONE exist, only that they are not a significant
fraction of dark matter.

If our assumptions about galactic models, DM
spatial distributions, DM velocity distributions,
etc., contain errors or unexpected surprises
(as is the usual case in fundamental physics)
then the MACHO candidacy might have to be
radically re-evaluated.


Sure. If all we know about science is wrong, then we will have to
re-evaluate almost everything.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology Robert L. Oldershaw Research 5 April 26th 14 09:13 AM
Challenge to Big Bang cosmology David Crawford Astronomy Misc 5 April 12th 07 01:27 AM
Big Bang Cosmology [email protected] Misc 8 March 29th 07 05:35 PM
Evidence keeps coming in for Big Bang cosmology Wally Anglesea™ Misc 9 April 8th 06 03:23 AM
is there a center to the Big Bang cosmology? Mad Scientist Misc 12 August 27th 04 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.