|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |