Prev: Robo-Plow
Next: You really can freeze hot water faster than cold*
From: Quadibloc on 25 Mar 2010 06:26
On Mar 24, 10:47 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

This is, no doubt, why it failed so spectacularly in allowing the
position of Neptune to be predicted, or why it failed in leading to
just enough unexplained advance of Mercury's perihelion to match the
predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Of course, if you knew enough to understand just how ridiculous some
of your statements sound, you would not be making them in the first
place.

John Savard
From: Martin Brown on 20 Apr 2010 15:41
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.

I take it you intend to deny the existence of planets then.
Hint: not everything is in stars.

There was a time when dark matter could have been hidden as lumps of
rock, broken chair legs and biros but not any more. The observational
constraints are too tight now. And the motion of stars still bound in
the galactic arms is too fast unless there is something providing extra
gravitational attraction more than the stars and nebulae we can see.

We can argue about the existence or otherwise of cold dark matter that
is non-baryonic and does not interact through the electromagnetic force.
But the models that include it seem to work pretty well.

Regards,
Martin Brown
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Robo-Plow
Next: You really can freeze hot water faster than cold*