Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved

Tim Killian <TJK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:_P2dndbSzZuXIcjfRVn-qw@xxxxxxxxxxx:

> Yes, there's nothing like using a naive, first-order model in a
> computer simulation to to validate another unexplained and
> unobservable phenomenon.
>

1. How do you know the that the model they used was naive?

2. The phenomenon they were attempting to model was certainly observed.
Otherwise why would they be attempting to explain it.

> Modern cosmology (in the guise of science) marches on -- LOL!
>

What do you suggest they do? Give up and say this stuff can never be
understood?

Klazmon.




>
> shneor wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4422555.stm
>>
>> Shneor
>>
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved
    ... Yes, there's nothing like using a naive, first-order model in a computer simulation to to validate another unexplained and unobservable phenomenon. ... shneor wrote: ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved
    ... unobservable phenomenon. ... Because it's the first instance for use of the high-res N body model in this application. ... The authors admit that they assumed a distribution for the dark matter "halo", even though no such distribution has ever been measured! ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)