Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.astro.research
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Cooray et al - A Possible Solution to IR/X-ray Correlation?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Martin Hardcastle  
View profile  
 More options Oct 31 2012, 4:45 am
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
From: Martin Hardcastle <m.j.hardcas...@herts.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 12 08:45:10 GMT
Local: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:45 am
Subject: Re: Cooray et al - A Possible Solution to IR/X-ray Correlation?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <mt2.0-31630-1351639...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Robert L. Oldershaw <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:

>1. I believe that the conclusions you draw from existing microlensing
>results pertaining to stellar-mass objects are premature and far more
>uncertain than you claim.

Phillip has dealt with this.

>2. My X-ray luminosity predictions are based on the work of Hegyi, Kolb
>and Olive ["Black holes and local dark matter", ApJ 300(2), 492-495,
>1986]. I'll stick with their analyses for the disk and halo until
>someone convinces me that better estimates are now available.

So have you looked at the differences between my estimates and theirs?
Do you see why they're different? Which set of assumptions is more
likely to be correct? Have you thought about this at all?

>At any rate, it is abundantly clear that until microlensing research
>produces further breakthroughs like the Sumi et al results, or until
>NuSTAR discovers that there are FAR more black holes in our galaxy than
>people generally assume, it is a waste of time asking people to consider
>stellar-mass black holes as a viable dark matter candidate. They appear
>to be married to no-show WIMPs. Good luck with that!

Obvious fallacy: one doesn't need to be 'married' to any particular
model to note that the claims you're making are inconsistent with
observation.

I'm puzzled by the line you're taking, in fact. I'm claiming that your
isolated black hole population would be too faint in X-rays to be
ruled out by observation. You're claiming that they would be so bright
that they'd dominate the X-ray emission from normal galaxies, which is
*clearly not the case*; the vast majority of the X-ray emission from
normal galaxies is identified with other sources. Wouldn't it be
better for your model if I were right? Or is this one of those
'definitive' predictions that has to be correct no matter what the
observations say?

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google