More on LIGO, DM, PBHs, CIB and CXB

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:54:14 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig
(undress to reply) wrote:
I think that you would probably accuse anyone else extrapolating from
two events of being over-confident.

I'm not. It is you who "knows" what the dark matter is and who rushes
to judgements about the significance of negative results. Again,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One is, correctly, not
required to prove one's innocence in court.

We are not as far apart in our thinking as we used to be. Empirical
evidence has a way of doing that.

By the way, your two statements above violate the rules of SAR.

(1) We are not allowed to speculate on what someone might or might
not do/think.

(2) The second statement is not true and is a personal attack.

Some of my posts have been rejected for these reasons. The same
rules should apply to all. Right?

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


[[Mod. note -- Our newsgroup charter forbids discussion of the
moderation policy in the newsgroup. (I'm not quite sure where it
would be discussable in a public forum; there's always private E-mail.)
So let's close the discussion (speculation) about what various people
do or don't think here, and get back to discussing research in
astronomy and astrophysics.
-- jt]]

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

I think that you would probably accuse anyone else extrapolating from
two events of being over-confident.

I'm not. It is you who "knows" what the dark matter is and who rushes
to judgements about the significance of negative results. Again,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One is, correctly, not
required to prove one's innocence in court.

We are not as far apart in our thinking as we used to be. Empirical
evidence has a way of doing that.

That's good.

Maybe my post will be rejected by the moderator for similar reasons, but
if so, I ask him to send it to you nonetheless.

By the way, your two statements above violate the rules of SAR.

(1) We are not allowed to speculate on what someone might or might
not do/think.

Since there is ample evidence in the newsgroup archives, it is not
speculation.

(2) The second statement is not true and is a personal attack.

I don't see why it's a personal attack. In this context, a "personal
attack" means attacking the person and not the positions held by that
person. I am discussing your position, and it should be evident to all
that you think---with no evidence at all, based mainly on your theory
which has failed a testable prediction---compact macroscopic objects are
the only viable dark-matter candidate.

[An earlier version of this article seems to have vanished; sorry if
it appears twice. This version is better.]

In article ,
Jos Bergervoet writes:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04023
....
Or is it ruled out that they are PBHs? (That would
in fact be contrary to what the paper mentions..)

I don't see how it's possible to rule out that any black holes are
primordial, but that doesn't seem to be the way to bet. Current
theory of binary star evolution naturally produces such mergers. One
recent paper is at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture18322.html
(As far as I can tell, this is open access, but if not, there's a
preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04531 .)

Commentary on the article is at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/534478a.html

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA