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?
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 microlensingPhillip has dealt with this.
>results pertaining to stellar-mass objects are premature and far more
>uncertain than you claim.
>2. My X-ray luminosity predictions are based on the work of Hegyi, KolbSo have you looked at the differences between my estimates and theirs?
>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.
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 researchObvious fallacy: one doesn't need to be 'married' to any particular
>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!
model to note that the claims you're making are inconsistent with
I'm puzzled by the line you're taking, in fact. I'm claiming that your
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.