An upper limit to the central density of dark matter haloes
in [Physics]
|
From: oriel36 on 24 Mar 2010 12:47 On Mar 24, 3:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Don't be naughty Sam by snipping at the wrong place - "dumb mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense" is the full quote and given that our race is dominated by people who refuse to accept that the dimensions and rotational characteristics are wrapped up in rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,it is about time people addressed this serious issue in the manner it is meant to be treated,personally,if I dwell on the matter for a few moments,it represents a living nightmare,nothing more or less. 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. What you call 'celestial mechanics' is shorthand for attempting to transfer experimental sciences directly to planetary dynamics by way of the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec but unlike the empiricist side,I neither expect nor compel the readers to know the difference between the raw astronomical cycles as opposed to timekeeping averages which arise from them.What I will say is the tight,if not elaborate scheme of Isaac,to bridge the divide between experiment and astronomy is a failure,it is a failure in a very specific and geometric way,as for the fuss of the last 100 years,well,that is just the sound of guys completely capitulating to Newton,losing the geometric arguments entirely and going on a 100 year long speculative binge that is now going nowhere. Rather than celestial mechanics,the same guys should be working with the fluid dynamics of the planet's interior for geological purposes instead of wasting time chasing Ra/Dec rainbows so it is not a matter of just being dumb mathematicians but rather what avenues are in the ascendant and it happens to be the power of modern imaging,the great interpretative faculties and the ability to mesh astronomical cause with terrestrial effects or use terrestrial effects to extract clues as to cosmological structure. Be my guest and spend the next 20 years trying to talk up dark this and dark that but I will tell you right now,unless you exist in a college atmosphere,nobody really wants to know.
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Mar 2010 12:52 On 3/24/10 11:47 AM, oriel36 wrote: > On Mar 24, 3:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Don't be naughty Sam by snipping at the wrong place - "dumb > mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense" is the full quote > and given that our race is dominated by people who refuse to accept > that the dimensions and rotational characteristics are wrapped up in > rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,it is about time people > addressed this serious issue in the manner it is meant to be > treated,personally,if I dwell on the matter for a few moments,it > represents a living nightmare,nothing more or less. > > > > 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. > > What you call 'celestial mechanics' is shorthand for attempting to > transfer experimental sciences directly to planetary dynamics by way > of the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec but unlike the empiricist > side,I neither expect nor compel the readers to know the difference > between the raw astronomical cycles as opposed to timekeeping averages > which arise from them.What I will say is the tight,if not elaborate > scheme of Isaac,to bridge the divide between experiment and astronomy > is a failure,it is a failure in a very specific and geometric way,as > for the fuss of the last 100 years,well,that is just the sound of guys > completely capitulating to Newton,losing the geometric arguments > entirely and going on a 100 year long speculative binge that is now > going nowhere. > > Rather than celestial mechanics,the same guys should be working with > the fluid dynamics of the planet's interior for geological purposes > instead of wasting time chasing Ra/Dec rainbows so it is not a matter > of just being dumb mathematicians but rather what avenues are in the > ascendant and it happens to be the power of modern imaging,the great > interpretative faculties and the ability to mesh astronomical cause > with terrestrial effects or use terrestrial effects to extract clues > as to cosmological structure. > > Be my guest and spend the next 20 years trying to talk up dark this > and dark that but I will tell you right now,unless you exist in a > college atmosphere,nobody really wants to know. > I suppose it might be the case that most people could care less about dark matter and dark energy. On the other hand many do have a yearn to know what the universe is all about and their place in it. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: oriel36 on 24 Mar 2010 14:42 On Mar 24, 5:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/24/10 11:47 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 3:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Don't be naughty Sam by snipping at the wrong place - "dumb > > mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense" is the full quote > > and given that our race is dominated by people who refuse to accept > > that the dimensions and rotational characteristics are wrapped up in > > rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,it is about time people > > addressed this serious issue in the manner it is meant to be > > treated,personally,if I dwell on the matter for a few moments,it > > represents a living nightmare,nothing more or less. > > > 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. > > > What you call 'celestial mechanics' is shorthand for attempting to > > transfer experimental sciences directly to planetary dynamics by way > > of the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec but unlike the empiricist > > side,I neither expect nor compel the readers to know the difference > > between the raw astronomical cycles as opposed to timekeeping averages > > which arise from them.What I will say is the tight,if not elaborate > > scheme of Isaac,to bridge the divide between experiment and astronomy > > is a failure,it is a failure in a very specific and geometric way,as > > for the fuss of the last 100 years,well,that is just the sound of guys > > completely capitulating to Newton,losing the geometric arguments > > entirely and going on a 100 year long speculative binge that is now > > going nowhere. > > > Rather than celestial mechanics,the same guys should be working with > > the fluid dynamics of the planet's interior for geological purposes > > instead of wasting time chasing Ra/Dec rainbows so it is not a matter > > of just being dumb mathematicians but rather what avenues are in the > > ascendant and it happens to be the power of modern imaging,the great > > interpretative faculties and the ability to mesh astronomical cause > > with terrestrial effects or use terrestrial effects to extract clues > > as to cosmological structure. > > > Be my guest and spend the next 20 years trying to talk up dark this > > and dark that but I will tell you right now,unless you exist in a > > college atmosphere,nobody really wants to know. > > I suppose it might be the case that most people could care less about > dark matter and dark energy. On the other hand many do have a yearn to > know what the universe is all about and their place in it. > Right now your place in the Universe is somewhere between a flat Earther and intellectual oblivion and that is not an insult but a specific consequence of how you look at the celestial arena through an Ra/Dec framework and as for the foundation of 'big bang' (my goodness, I wish you could understand how crude that sounds) it remains the same as Nicolas of Cusa expressed it in the 15th century except that he knew how not to take circumpolar motion seriously - " For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa ,15th century If that sounds familiar in terms of 'big bang',it is because empiricists insist on being the only people ever to justify planetary dynamics in terms of the circumpolar motion of the constellations. and in direct conflict with thousands of years of astronomical thinking. The thing most people yearn for at the moment is some stability after a speculative binge based on the late 17th century predictive/ modelling agendas,agendas which sent the Western world into penury or more importantly,eroded the interpretative instincts normally paramount in investigations of terrestrial and celestial phenomena for a 'scientific method' which constantly dilutes and suffocates raw talent for raw bandwagons that come and go.I have said many times that this is actually a golden era for astronomy when they jettison the conceptual junk which arose before the emergence of modern imaging power so indeed you are welcome to dark this and dark that,I have already shown you one of the greatest arguments for modifying Kepler's flawed view of orbital periods and distance from the Sun and the default elliptical geometry in terms of direct images - http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0811/fomalhaut_hst_lab.jpg http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0507/fomalhaut_hst_wf.jpg All you lot want to do is stay on the safe side with wide sweeping statements where nobody is going to challenge you and indeed you got what you wished for as now the ideologies you present are completely ignored.So much to do with so little time to do it Sam and that is the good news. > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: BURT on 24 Mar 2010 15:55 On Mar 24, 11:42 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 5:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/24/10 11:47 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 3:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > Don't be naughty Sam by snipping at the wrong place - "dumb > > > mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense" is the full quote > > > and given that our race is dominated by people who refuse to accept > > > that the dimensions and rotational characteristics are wrapped up in > > > rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,it is about time people > > > addressed this serious issue in the manner it is meant to be > > > treated,personally,if I dwell on the matter for a few moments,it > > > represents a living nightmare,nothing more or less. > > > > 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. > > > > What you call 'celestial mechanics' is shorthand for attempting to > > > transfer experimental sciences directly to planetary dynamics by way > > > of the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec but unlike the empiricist > > > side,I neither expect nor compel the readers to know the difference > > > between the raw astronomical cycles as opposed to timekeeping averages > > > which arise from them.What I will say is the tight,if not elaborate > > > scheme of Isaac,to bridge the divide between experiment and astronomy > > > is a failure,it is a failure in a very specific and geometric way,as > > > for the fuss of the last 100 years,well,that is just the sound of guys > > > completely capitulating to Newton,losing the geometric arguments > > > entirely and going on a 100 year long speculative binge that is now > > > going nowhere. > > > > Rather than celestial mechanics,the same guys should be working with > > > the fluid dynamics of the planet's interior for geological purposes > > > instead of wasting time chasing Ra/Dec rainbows so it is not a matter > > > of just being dumb mathematicians but rather what avenues are in the > > > ascendant and it happens to be the power of modern imaging,the great > > > interpretative faculties and the ability to mesh astronomical cause > > > with terrestrial effects or use terrestrial effects to extract clues > > > as to cosmological structure. > > > > Be my guest and spend the next 20 years trying to talk up dark this > > > and dark that but I will tell you right now,unless you exist in a > > > college atmosphere,nobody really wants to know. > > > I suppose it might be the case that most people could care less about > > dark matter and dark energy. On the other hand many do have a yearn to > > know what the universe is all about and their place in it. > > Right now your place in the Universe is somewhere between a flat > Earther and intellectual oblivion and that is not an insult but a > specific consequence of how you look at the celestial arena through an > Ra/Dec framework and as for the foundation of 'big bang' (my goodness, > I wish you could understand how crude that sounds) it remains the same > as Nicolas of Cusa expressed it in the 15th century except that he > knew how not to take circumpolar motion seriously - > > " For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a > sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of > Cusa ,15th century > > If that sounds familiar in terms of 'big bang',it is because > empiricists insist on being the only people ever to justify planetary > dynamics in terms of the circumpolar motion of the constellations. and > in direct conflict with thousands of years of astronomical thinking. > > The thing most people yearn for at the moment is some stability after > a speculative binge based on the late 17th century predictive/ > modelling agendas,agendas which sent the Western world into penury or > more importantly,eroded the interpretative instincts normally > paramount in investigations of terrestrial and celestial phenomena for > a 'scientific method' which constantly dilutes and suffocates raw > talent for raw bandwagons that come and go.I have said many times that > this is actually a golden era for astronomy when they jettison the > conceptual junk which arose before the emergence of modern imaging > power so indeed you are welcome to dark this and dark that,I have > already shown you one of the greatest arguments for modifying Kepler's > flawed view of orbital periods and distance from the Sun and the > default elliptical geometry in terms of direct images - > > http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0811/fomalha... > > http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0507/fomalha... > > All you lot want to do is stay on the safe side with wide sweeping > statements where nobody is going to challenge you and indeed you got > what you wished for as now the ideologies you present are completely > ignored.So much to do with so little time to do it Sam and that is the > good news. > > > > > No Center > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If dark matter began at the Big Bang it should have a big density everywhere by being mixed with normal matter. But we do not find it around. Mitch Raemsch
From: palsing on 24 Mar 2010 22:25
On Mar 24, 11:42 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 5:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/24/10 11:47 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 3:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > Don't be naughty Sam by snipping at the wrong place - "dumb > > > mathematicians with not enough astronomical sense" is the full quote > > > and given that our race is dominated by people who refuse to accept > > > that the dimensions and rotational characteristics are wrapped up in > > > rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,it is about time people > > > addressed this serious issue in the manner it is meant to be > > > treated,personally,if I dwell on the matter for a few moments,it > > > represents a living nightmare,nothing more or less. > > > > 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. > > > > What you call 'celestial mechanics' is shorthand for attempting to > > > transfer experimental sciences directly to planetary dynamics by way > > > of the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec but unlike the empiricist > > > side,I neither expect nor compel the readers to know the difference > > > between the raw astronomical cycles as opposed to timekeeping averages > > > which arise from them.What I will say is the tight,if not elaborate > > > scheme of Isaac,to bridge the divide between experiment and astronomy > > > is a failure,it is a failure in a very specific and geometric way,as > > > for the fuss of the last 100 years,well,that is just the sound of guys > > > completely capitulating to Newton,losing the geometric arguments > > > entirely and going on a 100 year long speculative binge that is now > > > going nowhere. > > > > Rather than celestial mechanics,the same guys should be working with > > > the fluid dynamics of the planet's interior for geological purposes > > > instead of wasting time chasing Ra/Dec rainbows so it is not a matter > > > of just being dumb mathematicians but rather what avenues are in the > > > ascendant and it happens to be the power of modern imaging,the great > > > interpretative faculties and the ability to mesh astronomical cause > > > with terrestrial effects or use terrestrial effects to extract clues > > > as to cosmological structure. > > > > Be my guest and spend the next 20 years trying to talk up dark this > > > and dark that but I will tell you right now,unless you exist in a > > > college atmosphere,nobody really wants to know. > > > I suppose it might be the case that most people could care less about > > dark matter and dark energy. On the other hand many do have a yearn to > > know what the universe is all about and their place in it. > > Right now your place in the Universe is somewhere between a flat > Earther and intellectual oblivion and that is not an insult but a > specific consequence of how you look at the celestial arena through an > Ra/Dec framework and as for the foundation of 'big bang' (my goodness, > I wish you could understand how crude that sounds) it remains the same > as Nicolas of Cusa expressed it in the 15th century except that he > knew how not to take circumpolar motion seriously - > > " For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a > sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of > Cusa ,15th century > > If that sounds familiar in terms of 'big bang',it is because > empiricists insist on being the only people ever to justify planetary > dynamics in terms of the circumpolar motion of the constellations. and > in direct conflict with thousands of years of astronomical thinking. > > The thing most people yearn for at the moment is some stability after > a speculative binge based on the late 17th century predictive/ > modelling agendas,agendas which sent the Western world into penury or > more importantly,eroded the interpretative instincts normally > paramount in investigations of terrestrial and celestial phenomena for > a 'scientific method' which constantly dilutes and suffocates raw > talent for raw bandwagons that come and go.I have said many times that > this is actually a golden era for astronomy when they jettison the > conceptual junk which arose before the emergence of modern imaging > power so indeed you are welcome to dark this and dark that,I have > already shown you one of the greatest arguments for modifying Kepler's > flawed view of orbital periods and distance from the Sun and the > default elliptical geometry in terms of direct images - > > http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0811/fomalha... > > http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod/image/0507/fomalha... > > All you lot want to do is stay on the safe side with wide sweeping > statements where nobody is going to challenge you and indeed you got > what you wished for as now the ideologies you present are completely > ignored.So much to do with so little time to do it Sam and that is the > good news. > > > > > No Center > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html The vastness of your ignorance is simply astounding... |