WIMPs AWOL Again?

On Aug 23, 3:37*am, eric gisse wrote:

A proton (Hydrogen) is about 0.8 fm, and Uranium is [1] roughly 175,000
fm. So taking 10km as the middle of the neutron star range gives a rough
upper limit of...two million kilometers? Using *your* "predicted" (when
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh,

There is a simple formula for calculating the radii of nuclei.

It is: R = (1.3 fermi)(atomic number)^1/3

You can find versions of this approximation in virtually any book on
nuclear physics.

I have no idea how you can believe a number like 175,000 fm.

But there is something seriously wrong with what you say, which is not
all that surprising.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Have you read Mike Hawkins' preprint: "The case for primordial black
holes as dark matter"?

I think that he would vigorously disagree with your statement above.

Probably.

And bear in mind that he is a university professor who actually does
scientific research and publishes scientific papers, rather than an
amateur.

AFAIK, he is not a professor (not that that is really relevant here):

http://www.roe.ac.uk/roe/staff/index.html

I think it is fair to say that Mike's ideas here are regarded with some
scepticism within the community.

Of course, there have been many debates within astronomy, with
professors on both sides.

He had a very good idea, based on observations originally made for
something completely different, and it made some testable predictions.
One was already confirmed when his first Nature paper on this was
published (it was suggested by the referee). However, other predictions
have been falsified. It doesn't even look like he could save the
appearances by using epicycles, not that that should appeal to you.

His work has been discussed here many times, with references.

In article ,
eric gisse wrote:

A proton (Hydrogen) is about 0.8 fm, and Uranium is [1] roughly 175,000
fm.

That figure for uranium is an orbital radius rather than a nuclear
radius - it's half the distance between uranium atoms in a crystal of
uranium metal. Uranium nucleus is about 14 femtometres across.

Tom

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Aug 23, 3:37*am, eric gisse wrote:

A proton (Hydrogen) is about 0.8 fm, and Uranium is [1] roughly 175,000
fm. So taking 10km as the middle of the neutron star range gives a rough
upper limit of...two million kilometers? Using *your* "predicted" (when
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh,

There is a simple formula for calculating the radii of nuclei.

It is: R = (1.3 fermi)(atomic number)^1/3

You can find versions of this approximation in virtually any book on
nuclear physics.

I have no idea how you can believe a number like 175,000 fm.

I have to agree with Robert here. It looks like Eric quoted a number
for a hydrogen NUCLEUS but for a uranium ATOM (possibly ionized). Atoms
can be quite large, especially if they are not in the ground state. The
formula above shows that the size is given by the number of nucleons,
which makes sense only if they are densely packed. (Thus, it should be
"atomic weight" rather than "atomic number" above.) The lower limit is
obvious. The upper limit is more complicated, but completely well
understood within nuclear physics (which is an effective theory and
works fine---there are no mysteries---even if the underlying theory is
not completely understood). Stars, of whatever type, have a range of
sizes also given by physics and also by nuclear physics, however there
is no Great Chain of Being which makes this a simple scaling relation.

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Aug 22, 6:00*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Like for example, if one theory predicts dark matter is made of solar
mass MACHOs but years of surveys only find some planets that make up
a few percentage points, I suppose you would consider that an example
of a theory that is fundamentally wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------------------

Have you read Mike Hawkins' preprint: "The case for primordial black
holes as dark matter"?

No, Robert. All those times I've quoted it directly and argued against
its' contents were just elaborate ruses.

Hawkins doesn't even meaningfully address the MACHO surveys. He just
wishes and hopes.


I think that he would vigorously disagree with your statement above.

Because much like yourself, Hawkins has been pushing the same ideas for
the past thirty years. I've written about them previously, and the
problems are manifold.

This is nothing new. Hawkins is wrong. There is an abundance of
literature on why Hawkins is wrong. Why Hawkins is wrong has been
explained to you before, and doesn't need to be explained for the n+1'th
time just because you weren't listening hte previous n times.


And bear in mind that he is a university professor who actually does

No, he isn't.

scientific research and publishes scientific papers, rather than an
amateur.

I can just imagine the huff and sneer that came after the period.


You might consider 0.2 trillion unbound planetary-mass objects
trivial, but I think if you had predicted them then you would be
singing quite a different tune.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Even *IF* the amount is correct (and both you and the author of the
study question that), the integrated mass value of all those objects is
in the neighborhood of a few percent of the entire required mass budget
to satisfy what is required.

You also predict a ton of objects in the tenths to integer solar mass
range, which have happened to evade the last 15 years of MACHO surveys.
You have no explanation for this.

These surveys, as I have repeatedly given literature citations to, are
not incompatible with the discovered planets. But they are - without any
doubt - incompatible with theories of dark matter that are based on
MACHOs.

When you have an actual argument as to how you can have MACHOs being
dark matter while escaping all known MACHO surveys then there'll be
something to talk about.


RLO
Fractal Cosmology

On Aug 23, 5:40 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

He had a very good idea, based on observations originally made for
something completely different, and it made some testable predictions.
One was already confirmed when his first Nature paper on this was
published (it was suggested by the referee). However, other predictions
have been falsified. It doesn't even look like he could save the
appearances by using epicycles, not that that should appeal to you.

His work has been discussed here many times, with references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have read Mike's most recent preprint, can you make brief,
specific, and hopefully more substantive comments on exactly where you
think his scientific arguments are weak or appear to be refuted by
empirical evidence.

Let's confine the discussion to the contents of the specific preprint:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3875 .

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Aug 23, 5:39*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

It is: R = (1.3 fermi)(atomic number)^1/3
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse the typo. R = (1.3 fermi)(atomic mass)^1/3

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote in :
I have to agree with Robert here. It looks like Eric quoted a number
for a hydrogen NUCLEUS but for a uranium ATOM (possibly ionized).

Correct. I wasn't paying sufficient attention, which then causes me to
look like an idiot.

On the other hand, I specifically searched for nuclei as opposed to atom
(because I know the difference) and the reference says 'nuclei'.

Probably should have noticed.

[...]

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Aug 23, 5:40 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

He had a very good idea, based on observations originally made for
something completely different, and it made some testable
predictions. One was already confirmed when his first Nature paper
on this was published (it was suggested by the referee). However,
other predictions have been falsified. It doesn't even look like he
could save the appearances by using epicycles, not that that should
appeal to you.

His work has been discussed here many times, with references.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------------

If you have read Mike's most recent preprint, can you make brief,
specific, and hopefully more substantive comments on exactly where you
think his scientific arguments are weak or appear to be refuted by
empirical evidence.

Let's confine the discussion to the contents of the specific preprint:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3875 .

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

This is an especially aggrivating and stupid aspect of your personality,
Robert. I'm rather ****ed off that I didn't immediately remember I went
over this with you all the way back in June (All those 3 months ago, aka
'forever ago') you cited arXiv:1106.3875v1; under the theory that MRS
Hawkins is an unfamiliar personality to me. Then tell me to 'read it
carefully' [1] . Apparently not expecting me to actually do so, or
whatever.

So being bored of gazing into my navel I take a shot at reading it, and
I spot a problem or five. I also remark about how Hawkins' arguments
have been chewed up and spat out in the literature rather consistently
since I was like three years old. I reply as such. [2]

This is where things end, because apparently you decided that you'd post
to the thread a few more times then ignore what I wrote. Then you have
the raw audacity to ask me whether I've *read the goddamn paper* before?

It'd be nice to carry on a technical discussion with you in which you
carry your end of the bargain by not running away when I make the effort
to bring out technical details.


(Normally I would have merely cited the google groups thread, but gg is
being a useless heap tonight)

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...91f1edfb8ec46?
dmode=source

[2]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...44576e1ddcecb?
dmode=source

On Aug 23, 3:33*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:

This is a straw-man argument. *Most theories are not theories of
everything which unanimously predict everything of interest. *Most
theories have some parameters which (as far as we know now) must be
determined by observation. *This does not mean that the theory is
fundamentally wrong. *For example, many new species of animals and
plants are still being discovered. *Our theories of biology are not
fundamentally wrong on the grounds that they were not all predicted. *In
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh,

This is quite beyond the pale, or even the pail.

You set up the incorrect statement: A theory should "predict
everything".

Then you courageously knock down that foolishly absolute argument.

The only problem is that I have never said anything like that
statement, and you can look through everything I have ever written to
verify that I have never said it. I do not deal in such
unsophisticated philosophical posturing.

It is you who have given us the straw-man argumentation.
----------------------

And, while the original naive steady-state model has safely been put
to rest, there are much more sophisticated "steady-state" models that
involve oodles of "local" change on every observable Scale, but are
globally eternal and statistically unchanging overall.

We can do better,
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw