|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" wrote
in message ... Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. It would be a surprise if this tells us something different. I think this is what Robert was saying, and again I quote Lavoisier: "We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation." Science is anvanced more often by suprises than by confirmations. [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 14, 8:01*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: In article , "Robert L. Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. *It would be a surprise if this tells us something different. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microlensing results have considerable uncertainty [for example degeneracies and assumptions about galaxy models, lens distributions, and velocity distributions]. Moreover, the observational results have been somewhat contradictory. It would be a most pleasant "surprise" if NuSTAR gave us a more direct empirical handle on the issue. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Fractal Cosmology |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:41:41 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:55�am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: In article , "Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? When someone identifies something else. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched. It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do so. If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black holes, then this telescope should detect them. Unlikely. NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes. Craig Markwardt |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 14, 1:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Jun 13, 6:55 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to wrote: In article , "Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? When someone identifies something else. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched. It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do so. If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black holes, then this telescope should detect them. No. Primordial black holes, should they exist, would be invisible to NuSTAR for the simple reason that no other telescope has seen them. The telescope's ability to study black holes is actually its' ability to study x-ray emissions from accretion disks. No accretion disk, no imagery. It cost about 100 times less than the LHC. [$174 million?] Scientific observations are scheduled to start in about 30 days. I, for one, look forward to what it tells us about the the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. You have no interest in such research, as evidenced by your dismissal of equivalent research. RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 14, 9:43*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Jun 14, 8:01 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to wrote: In article , "Robert L. Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. It would be a surprise if this tells us something different. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microlensing results have considerable uncertainty [for example degeneracies and assumptions about galaxy models, lens distributions, and velocity distributions]. No, Robert, they do not have "considerable uncertainty". This claim is borne out of you simply not reading the material and not attempting to understand it. I feel safe in saying this as folks, including myself, have tried to get you to read the relevant literature multiple times to no avail. But since you consider yourself enough of a domain expert to ignore 20+ years of literature, could you please post your published works on the subject? Saying "20 years" isn't an understatement either, because just the OGLE research constitutes 20 years of work. Or how about a simple explanation as to why you feel you are free to ignore microlensing observations that conclusively falsify your numerology while constantly citing the MOA group results which are based on the same fundamental methodology? *Moreover, the observational results have been somewhat contradictory. No, they are not. The bounds on what the microlensing surveys say are rather clear to those who have actually read the literature. For example, your oft- cited MOA group results do not in any way contradict OGLE/EROS results. You don't discuss them because they completely and undeniably disprove your numerology. Read: http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl/cont/4_ma..._smc/text.html I'm sure you have some examples of the "contradictions" that aren't misunderstanding-based. It would be a most pleasant "surprise" if NuSTAR gave us a more direct empirical handle on the issue. It would be a huge surprise considering the telescope has no ability to detect such objects. RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Fractal Cosmology Say, have you taken a look at those Kepler results yet? I remember when you were talking about Kepler and how it would prove you right. Is there a reason you have not taken a look at the Kepler planetary mass results yet? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 15, 2:58*am, "
wrote: Unlikely. *NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes. Craig Markwardt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass black holes. Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? Many! Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about their implications. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:46:52 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:58�am, " wrote: Unlikely. �NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes. Craig Markwardt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass black holes. I don't dispute the NuSTAR press release, but the objects being discussed there are stellar mass black holes in our galaxy, accreting in X-ray binary systems. They are not "primordial." (Binary star systems go through a very specific evolutionary sequence to produce a black-hole+star system.) It's not like this is a mystery. There are several observatories capable of detecting and imaging in the same hard X-ray band as NuSTAR. I helped build one that's still operating today. NuSTAR's unique capabilities are to be more sensitive and to resolve blended (confused) images, not to be magically able to detect primordial black holes. Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? Many! I don't disagree with this statement, but it doesn't support the claim that primordial black holes will be discovered by NuSTAR. Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about their implications. We were having a discussion now, starting with a claim by *you*, that NuSTAR would be able to detect primordial black holes. There is no evidence to support that claim. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass black holes. It is an X-ray telescope. It can observe anything which is sufficiently bright in the wavelengths it is sensitive to. [Mod. note: and so the question is: how would isolated primordial black holes produce X-rays? -- mjh] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 17, 9:04*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: In article , "Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass black holes. It is an X-ray telescope. *It can observe anything which is sufficiently bright in the wavelengths it is sensitive to. [Mod. note: and so the question is: how would isolated primordial black holes produce X-rays? -- mjh] They don't, which is the point. [Mod. note: yes, I was kind of hoping to lead Robert to that realization too -- mjh] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 17, 6:46*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: On Jun 15, 2:58 am, ...@gmail. com wrote: Unlikely. NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes. Craig Markwardt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass black holes. It has been mentioned to you - several times now - that what the telescope will observe is in reality the accretion disk of the object which is the actual reason they are x-ray luminious. Please don't try to do "science by press release". It doesn't work because press releases are for people with minimal scientific training and certain subtleties are left out. The result is that you don't notice the missing subtlety and here we are. Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? *Many! Just because a new telescope is launched does not mean that all previous science is wiped clean. There is literally no reason to expect what you are expecting, whic his what we are trying to tell you. How do we know this? Because we have been searching for primordial black holes for /years/. I have personally given you many papers on the searches that you were apparently unable to find for yourself in which all but a very small mass range have been excluded by various types of observation. I seem to recall you soundly rejected the observations which explains your current wishing and hoping that a new x-ray telescope will find what everything else has excluded to high confidence. Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about their implications. RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Sorry Robert, you have tried that game before which is why folks don't play it with you anymore. Back in September or there-abouts you were posting a ton about how stellar and planetary masses were quantized. Using actual observational data from various surveys, your numerology was falsified (again). But you were claiming that you were indeed interested in what the data had to say, but as of yet we have seen absolutely nothing from you! Have you looked at the Kepler data that falsifies your quantized planetary mass claims? How about the eclipsing binary data that falsifies your quantized stellar mass claims? So why should we punt the discussion ahead 6 months when we realize that it is merely another one of your delaying tactics you use when the argument has not gone in your favor? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Xenon100: No "WIMPs" | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | April 14th 11 09:39 AM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |