Prev: Robo-Plow
Next: You really can freeze hot water faster than cold*
From: john on 24 Mar 2010 01:55
On Mar 23, 5:00 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0553
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0553v1.pdf
>
> > We study the growth rates of massive black holes in the centres of
> > galaxies from accretion of dark matter from their surrounding haloes.
>
> [snip]
>
> There is no dark matter nor is there anything of which is could be
> composed.  There is only persistent defective theory and curve
> fitting.
>
hear hear
From: eric gisse on 24 Mar 2010 03:30
Uncle Al wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0553
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0553v1.pdf
>>
>> We study the growth rates of massive black holes in the centres of
>> galaxies from accretion of dark matter from their surrounding haloes.
> [snip]
>
> There is no dark matter nor is there anything of which is could be
> composed. There is only persistent defective theory and curve
> fitting.
>

The "defective" theory is curiously consistent with observation given a
rather small amount of adjustable parameters.
From: Martin Brown on 24 Mar 2010 05:07
Uncle Al wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0553
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0553v1.pdf
>>
>> We study the growth rates of massive black holes in the centres of
>> galaxies from accretion of dark matter from their surrounding haloes.
> [snip]
>
> There is no dark matter nor is there anything of which is could be
> composed. There is only persistent defective theory and curve
> fitting.

However you look at it there is something providing an additional
gravitational attractive force that allows the stars in spiral arms of
galaxies to have bound orbits at the high speeds that are observed.
There is not enough visible bright material in a galaxy to explain the
observed velocity curve.

Giving it the name "dark matter" doesn't seem too unreasonable -
whatever it is that supplies the additional force is not visible to
electromagnetic radiation. Time was when you could have hidden dark
matter as old biros, and broken chair legs but not any more.
Multispectral studies have put paid to that - it isn't baryonic matter.

I confess I am less keen on dark energy.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: oriel36 on 24 Mar 2010 05:39
On Mar 24, 10:07 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> I confess I am less keen on dark energy.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

Ah,you are just dumb mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense
to know where you have gone wrong with all these 'dark' assumptions to
fit ad hoc conclusions,dark matter to explain this and dark energy to
explain that and it looks like a mess,a conceptual moster as
Copernicus would have called it -

" . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions,
with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like
someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543

All that handwringing means nothing,Isaac attempted to isolate the
solar system within the calendar based Ra/Dec framework he inherited
from Flamsteed,at least the equatorial coordinate system based on
timekeeping averages,Isaac thinks he is basing his experimental agenda
for planetary dynamics on the stars scattered willy nilly but in fact
Flamsteed's system is a celestial sphere -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."

All you lot can do is create a bigger unintelligent mess although I
now think it is no longer possible to get worse than 'big bang' but it
takes an astronomer to untangle the crude conceptions that attached
themselves to astronomy through mathematicians losing control right
from the beginning in the late 17th century.
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Mar 2010 10:21
On 3/24/10 4:39 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Mar 24, 10:07 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> > I confess I am less keen on dark energy.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Martin Brown

> Ah,you are just dumb mathematicians...

An important distinction should be noted here, Gerald. The fact is
that you DO NOT know mathematics and are not in a good position to
understand modern Celestial Mechanics. You choose not to educate
yourself--perhaps you think it not worthwhile.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Robo-Plow
Next: You really can freeze hot water faster than cold*