Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved



Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

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?


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! Yes, I'd call that naive.


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


Yes, they know where the 11 satellite galaxies are located -- wow. I was referring to their "cold, dark matter" blather.



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?



No, but building your castle on a foundation of sand is never a good idea. Science should be about observation, repeatable experiments and fact, not video-game computer models, wishful thinking, or arm-waving explanations using untenable assumptions.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Computing the Nth moments
    ... >> feasible but very intensive.I feel a computer simulation approach ... > The advice given to you to use the mgf is sound. ... about the distribution. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Galactic pancake mystery solved
    ... > computer simulation to to validate another unexplained and ... > unobservable phenomenon. ... > shneor wrote: ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • 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)