Re: Slow Motion Cosmological Train Wreck


Rob wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
Study the paper some more. You will eventually find that the values
predicted by the Discrete Fractal paradigm, and published in the
Astrophysical Journal, 0.15 solar masses and roughly 0.5 solar masses
are cited as the most likely mass estimates for the observed events, ..

Now look at figure 7 - no peaks. Your prediction is
not borne out, but as you say repeatedly pointing
out the same fact and expecting you to understand
when you didn't the first time is a pointless
excercise.

Bye.


Near Fig. 4 in the preprint I have, the authors state that "m = 0.15
solar masses with alpha ~ 0.1,... gives us the parameters with the
highest confidence level."

Later in the Conclusions, they summarize by saying "the preferred
values for the MACHO mass are about 0.5 and 0.2 solar masses,
respectively.

Let's give the full quote:

"First, we have compared the observed timescales with
those expected for the two different MACHO populations,
the MW and the LMC one. As a result we have shown
that the preferred values for the MACHO mass are about
0.5 and 0.2 Msun respectively and, through a KS test,
that the latter solution is preferred."

They are comparing two possibiities, the first being that the
events are due to bodies in the MW halo and the second
that they are in the LMC halo. They already showed in fig 2
that those would have similar characteristics (compare the
red solid line with the black dashed line). Their conclusion
is that it is more likely the events were caused by LMC halo
objects. They are not saying anything about there being
peaks in the distribution curve or preferred masses in the
distribution, only that they LMC source model is preferred
over the MW source model.

The mass range for potential dark matter candidates involves 70 orders
of magnitiude. That is like the span between 1 and a 1 with 70 zeros
after it. From the unimaginably huge range of possible masses, the
Discrete Fractal paradigm picks out two numbers: 0.15 solar masses and
0.58 solar masses. Maybe nature is trying to tell us something.

Again I suggest you look at the actual evidence in the
form of the distribution curves of figure 7. Your claim
AIUI is that there are two preferred masses, 0.15 Msun
and 0.58 Msun which should show up as peaks in those
curves. The 0.15 value. There is _no_ evidence of such
peaks.

In terms of science, or the turn of a phrase, you are no Einstein.

Perhaps not, but I can use my eyes and the peaks you
imagine simply do not exist in the data presented in that
paper. Both curves are smooth and monotonic.

George

.