Re: Slow Motion Cosmological Train Wreck

George Dishman wrote:

Indeed, and so far microlensing has shown that
there is insufficient macroscopic DM and hence
those observations (not GR) suggest it is more
likely to be in the form of some sort of unfamiliar
matter.

This is contradicted by microlensing results you yourself present
below. The EROS group is the odd man out in microlensing studies.
Several other groups find support for stellar-mass dark matter. The
Calchi Novati et al paper (cited in the original post), a very recent
update, gives the best scientific view of the situation. Why do you
emphasize the much less probable result? Because of a wee bit of bias
towards CDM, perhaps? I think you are in for a mighty big wake-up call
soon.

The key property of fractals is that they have structure
at _all_ levels and the most obvious place where this
would show up would be in the angular power spectrum,
so where is your prediction or is your theory incapable
of making one?

If you really want to know what the Discrete Fractal paradigm says
about metagalactic scale structure, go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
and read the page entitled "Galactic Scale Self-Similarity". When you
have done that, it might be possible for us to have a meaningful
discussion on this topic.

2. The basic, well-tested, properties of the local Hubble Bubble bang
are part of the Discrete Fractal paradigm. The DF paradigm does not
dispute the bang, the microwave background radiation, global expansion
of the Hubble Bubble, evidence for high-energy plasma-like turbulence
within the Hubble Bubble, etc. It does say, however, that it was most
certainly not the Universe that went "Bang!", but rather just one
metagalactic system on the next higher Scale of nature's unbounded
discrete fractal hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing#History

"The MACHO collaboration ultimately found that their
data suggested that roughly 20% of the mass of the
dark halo of the milky way was composed of compact
objects of mass ~0.5 solar masses [8]. If correct, it
would suggest a major change in our view of the universe
since there is no good candidate object with the right
mass to explain this measurement [9]. However, the
MACHO result has not been borne out by subsequent
measurements by the EROS collaboration [10]. The
cause of the MACHO measurement -whether a
detection of dark matter, ordinary stars, supernovae, or
a statistical fluke- is still uncertain."

Read the Calchi Novati et al paper for a more current and accurate
assessment of the situation.

So there you have the result from nature,

No way, George. What we got was your bias on how you would prefer
things to work out. Keep an open mind. As scientists, that is an
important task of ours. It reflects our personal integrity and it is
crucial to the scientific search for knowledge of nature.

Rob

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science and Equations
    ... |> The upper limit for the mass of a neutrino is ... |> are mundane objects far less massive? ... Dishman is as daft as they come. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Science and Equations
    ... |> The upper limit for the mass of a neutrino is ... | two versions for the Planck scale, which are posted above, and draw ... | If the revised Planck scale of the Discrete Fractal paradigm looks ...
    (sci.astro)
Quantcast