Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cooray et al - A Possible Solution to IR/X-ray Correlation?
158 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 24, 2012, 10:25:24 PM10/24/12
to
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6031
The paper, just published in Nature, claims that stars in the dark
matter halo of nearby galaxies might explain IR anisotropies.
So if dark matter halos were primarily composed of low-mass black
holes emitting very faint accretion-generated X-ray radiation, and if
the DM halo stars produced IR emissions, is it possible that nearby DM
halo populations are a viable explanation for the IR/X-ray
Cross-Correlation?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
The paper, just published in Nature, claims that stars in the dark
matter halo of nearby galaxies might explain IR anisotropies.
So if dark matter halos were primarily composed of low-mass black
holes emitting very faint accretion-generated X-ray radiation, and if
the DM halo stars produced IR emissions, is it possible that nearby DM
halo populations are a viable explanation for the IR/X-ray
Cross-Correlation?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Eric Gisse
Oct 25, 2012, 11:30:51 AM10/25/12
to
[Mod. note: Google Groups has started to send articles through without
line wrapping. I am experimentally posting some of these without doing
manual line wrapping. Please let me know if this causes you problems
in reading them -- mjh]
No.
1) Microlensing observations exclude {micro, low, medium, large} mass black holes as the primary component(s) of dark matter.
I note you continue to have no technical response to this falsification of your claims nor do you have anything published that supports you.
2) You cannot explain where the accretion input comes from. Black holes don't glow of their own accord at optically relevant wavelengths.
3) Your numerology makes a certain prediction about this. Another observational falsification.
4) The paper:
"The high-z interpretation of the detected CIB anisotropies has received further confirmation in the recent Akari data analysis which measured source-subtracted CIB fluctuations to wavelengths as short as 2.4 μm and pointed out that the colors of the fluctuations require their being produced by highly redshifted very luminous sources (Matsumoto et al. 2011)."
5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
So in summary:
nope.avi
line wrapping. I am experimentally posting some of these without doing
manual line wrapping. Please let me know if this causes you problems
in reading them -- mjh]
1) Microlensing observations exclude {micro, low, medium, large} mass black holes as the primary component(s) of dark matter.
I note you continue to have no technical response to this falsification of your claims nor do you have anything published that supports you.
2) You cannot explain where the accretion input comes from. Black holes don't glow of their own accord at optically relevant wavelengths.
3) Your numerology makes a certain prediction about this. Another observational falsification.
4) The paper:
"The high-z interpretation of the detected CIB anisotropies has received further confirmation in the recent Akari data analysis which measured source-subtracted CIB fluctuations to wavelengths as short as 2.4 μm and pointed out that the colors of the fluctuations require their being produced by highly redshifted very luminous sources (Matsumoto et al. 2011)."
5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
So in summary:
nope.avi
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 25, 2012, 11:40:54 AM10/25/12
to
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:25:46 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6031
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6031
>
If the DM halos are mainly composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass ultrcompacts, i.e., black holes, then this model might also explain the ARCADE-2 radio excess.
In the early universe galaxies were far more crowded and interactions were the norm. One would expect that much more accretion was occurring in the DM halo and consequently the X-ray luminosity of the DM objects would be much higher than in the late universe. The radio excess could be explained as the redshifted X-ray radiation.
[Mod. note: !!! -- mjh]
This is basically quite similar to Kogut's original model for the ARCADE-2 radio excess, and I think his intuition might be spot-on.
Are we on the verge of discovering the true nature of the galactic DM?
Quite possibly!
Empirical guidance from NuSTAR would be timely and diagnostic, at least for the high-mass tail of the proposed DM black hole population.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 25, 2012, 1:16:47 PM10/25/12
to
[Note to moderator: I don't like the long lines. I have rewrapped them
for clarity.]
In article <mt2.0-26204...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
the identity of the DM is clear in your model?
> In the early universe galaxies were far more crowded and interactions
> were the norm. One would expect that much more accretion was occurring
> in the DM halo and consequently the X-ray luminosity of the DM objects
> would be much higher than in the late universe. The radio excess could
> be explained as the redshifted X-ray radiation.
> [Mod. note: !!! -- mjh]
Indeed! X-rays have a wavelength of about 10^{-10} metres while radio
waves have a wavelength of about 10^{-1} metres. (Definitions vary, and
both cover a few orders of magnitudes, but we don't need that precision
here.) This corresponds to a redshift of 10^9. Roughly speaking, the
present density of the universe is about that of a hydrogen atom per
cubic metre, so this would mean a 10^27 increase in density, or about
that of a kg per cubic metre. The Sun has about the same density as
water, i.e. a tonne per cubic metre, i.e. 1000 times more. Thus, at this
redsfhift the density would correspond to a solar mass per 1000 solar
volumes, or per cube with sides of about 8 million km. The radius of
the orbit of Mercury is about 60 million km. So, yes, it would be
crowded and there would be much more interaction. But the redshift of
the CMB is only 1000, or a million times less. Since the CMB
corresponds to the time when the universe became optically thin,
whatever radiation, from whatever source, which existed before then
would be part of the thermal CMB.
In other words, X-rays which are redshifted into the radio range would
be at a redshift a million times that of the CMB and hence would not be
visible as radio excess. They would, essentially, be part of the CMB,
but the CMB is not the radio excess here. (Note, by the way, that by
far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
for clarity.]
In article <mt2.0-26204...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
Oldershaw" wrote:
> If the DM halos are mainly composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass
> ultrcompacts, i.e., black holes, then this model might also explain the
> ARCADE-2 radio excess.
Question: Did your model PREDICT this excess? If not, why not, since
> If the DM halos are mainly composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass
> ultrcompacts, i.e., black holes, then this model might also explain the
> ARCADE-2 radio excess.
the identity of the DM is clear in your model?
> In the early universe galaxies were far more crowded and interactions
> were the norm. One would expect that much more accretion was occurring
> in the DM halo and consequently the X-ray luminosity of the DM objects
> would be much higher than in the late universe. The radio excess could
> be explained as the redshifted X-ray radiation.
> [Mod. note: !!! -- mjh]
waves have a wavelength of about 10^{-1} metres. (Definitions vary, and
both cover a few orders of magnitudes, but we don't need that precision
here.) This corresponds to a redshift of 10^9. Roughly speaking, the
present density of the universe is about that of a hydrogen atom per
cubic metre, so this would mean a 10^27 increase in density, or about
that of a kg per cubic metre. The Sun has about the same density as
water, i.e. a tonne per cubic metre, i.e. 1000 times more. Thus, at this
redsfhift the density would correspond to a solar mass per 1000 solar
volumes, or per cube with sides of about 8 million km. The radius of
the orbit of Mercury is about 60 million km. So, yes, it would be
crowded and there would be much more interaction. But the redshift of
the CMB is only 1000, or a million times less. Since the CMB
corresponds to the time when the universe became optically thin,
whatever radiation, from whatever source, which existed before then
would be part of the thermal CMB.
In other words, X-rays which are redshifted into the radio range would
be at a redshift a million times that of the CMB and hence would not be
visible as radio excess. They would, essentially, be part of the CMB,
but the CMB is not the radio excess here. (Note, by the way, that by
far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 25, 2012, 8:29:24 PM10/25/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:31:13 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> 5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
>
------------------------------------------
>
> 5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
>
1. Good grief! The model we are discussing does NOT say the different emissions are coming from the same source populations. If you are going to objectively evaluate the model, then as a minimum you must understand what Cappelluti et al, and what Cooray et al, and what I, are talking about.
2. Are EG, PH and CM the only participating members of this newsgroup? Where are the others? Have they no opinion? Are they intimidated?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 25, 2012, 8:38:29 PM10/25/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:17:09 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
> > If the DM halos are mainly composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass
>
> > ultrcompacts, i.e., black holes, then this model might also explain the
>
> > ARCADE-2 radio excess.
> Question: Did your model PREDICT this excess? If not, why not, since
> the identity of the DM is clear in your model?
-------------------------------------------
>
> > If the DM halos are mainly composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass
>
> > ultrcompacts, i.e., black holes, then this model might also explain the
>
> > ARCADE-2 radio excess.
> Question: Did your model PREDICT this excess? If not, why not, since
> the identity of the DM is clear in your model?
1. Thank you for keeping the polemics at a low level.
Discrete Scale Relativity did not predict the ARCADE-2 radio excess. When I heard about it, and read Kogut's interpretation in terms of a previously unknown black hole population, then I thought that the DM constituents I have predicted might be involved. We will eventually know whether that is correct or not.
Discrete Scale Relativity, because it is a theory of principle, potentially makes a huge number of definitive predictions. However, I want to focus on the 14 definitive predictions I have cited ( http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity )because they are the most readily testable in a more or less direct manner.
>
2.
> > [Mod. note: !!! -- mjh]
>
> Indeed! X-rays have a wavelength of about 10^{-10} metres while radio
>
> waves have a wavelength of about 10^{-1} metres. (Definitions vary, and
>
> both cover a few orders of magnitudes, but we don't need that precision
>
> here.) This corresponds to a redshift of 10^9. Roughly speaking, the
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Indeed! X-rays have a wavelength of about 10^{-10} metres while radio
>
> waves have a wavelength of about 10^{-1} metres. (Definitions vary, and
>
> both cover a few orders of magnitudes, but we don't need that precision
>
> here.) This corresponds to a redshift of 10^9. Roughly speaking, the
>
Perhaps I have misinterpreted Kogut's black hole model for the ARCADE-2 results. I do not think he published a paper on this subject, so all I have to go on is his quoted statements in the science magazines.
We could turn the question around: if a black hole model were able to explain the ARCADE-2 results, what properties would it have to have? Given Kogut's status as a respected astrophysicist, I have assumed that his intuition that a large and previously unknown population of black holes was a likely solution to the ARCADE-2 enigma is not a crackpot idea, but rather has considerable merit.
[Mod. note: *extragalactic* black holes could certainly produce it
under certain conditions. Galactic, stellar-mass black holes in the
halo will struggle to do so for reasons we've discussed here already.
-- mjh]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 27, 2012, 1:48:33 PM10/27/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:38:50 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> [Mod. note: *extragalactic* black holes could certainly produce it
>
> under certain conditions. Galactic, stellar-mass black holes in the
>
> halo will struggle to do so for reasons we've discussed here already.
>
> -- mjh]
------------------------------------------------
>
> [Mod. note: *extragalactic* black holes could certainly produce it
>
> under certain conditions. Galactic, stellar-mass black holes in the
>
> halo will struggle to do so for reasons we've discussed here already.
>
> -- mjh]
Thanks Martin,
I am hoping that you or others will offer some general thoughts on what those certain conditions might be.
Given the factor of 6 excess over expectations, can anything be said about the masses or locations of the putative BHs that would be capable of explaining this result?
Does anybody know what Kogut was specifically thinking of was when he proposed black holes as the sources?
Most importantly, the ARCADE-2 results need to be verified by follow-up experiments, and hopefully refined and/or expanded so as to provide more diagnostic evidence.
Eric Gisse
Oct 27, 2012, 1:49:32 PM10/27/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:29:45 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:31:13 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 1. Good grief! The model we are discussing does NOT say the different emissions are coming from the same source populations. If you are going to objectively evaluate the model, then as a minimum you must understand what Cappelluti et al, and what Cooray et al, and what I, are talking about.
I believe it is is pretty clear from context that my remarks are about your model, especially since that's what YOU were talking about and what I was discussing in my reply.
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:31:13 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 5) It makes absolutely no sense at all for an accreting object to be both x-ray and infrared luminious but having no optical or radio footprint across the ENTIRE MILK WAY HALO.
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 1. Good grief! The model we are discussing does NOT say the different emissions are coming from the same source populations. If you are going to objectively evaluate the model, then as a minimum you must understand what Cappelluti et al, and what Cooray et al, and what I, are talking about.
I note you have no technical argument against the rest of what I said.
>
>
>
> 2. Are EG, PH and CM the only participating members of this newsgroup? Where are the others? Have they no opinion? Are they intimidated?
First off, this newsgroup is pretty small to begin with. You should know this, considering it has been your dumping ground for *years*.
Next, you are a well known poster with a history going back a long way.
Finally, because you are a well known poster it is very much remembered in how you have sidestepped, ignored, and dissembled your way out of every substantial discussion of your numerology over the past few years.
This is not a write-only medium. If you are going to browbeat and ignore that which does not agree with you, you would be more suited to a blogspot page or your own personal website rather than a particpatory medium such as this.
I've done nontrivial amounts of work for you, and you have disregarded it all. You haved asked people *not* in that list of yours to repeat the work on a data sample you prefer, and you then ignored the analysis when for some reason it disagreed with you.
People aren't intimidated, they are simply not interested in your work.
That gambit doesn't even work in the unmoderated parts of USENET and the internet at large. If there's no interest in your work considering how much you do to spread it around, you should probably take that as a sign.
Eric Gisse
Oct 27, 2012, 1:52:23 PM10/27/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:38:50 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> 1. Thank you for keeping the polemics at a low level.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity did not predict the ARCADE-2 radio excess. When I heard about it, and read Kogut's interpretation in terms of a previously unknown black hole population, then I thought that the DM constituents I have predicted might be involved. We will eventually know whether that is correct or not.
I'm sorry, what?
> 1. Thank you for keeping the polemics at a low level.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity did not predict the ARCADE-2 radio excess. When I heard about it, and read Kogut's interpretation in terms of a previously unknown black hole population, then I thought that the DM constituents I have predicted might be involved. We will eventually know whether that is correct or not.
We know *RIGHT NOW* that it is not correct. The accretion calculations have been given to you, and you have ignored them.
Microlensing collaborations have conclusively excluded the objects as well.
> Discrete Scale Relativity, because it is a theory of principle, potentially makes a huge number of definitive predictions. However, I want to focus on the 14 definitive predictions I have cited ( http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity )because they are the most readily testable in a more or less direct manner.
#2 is falsified because the cited paper claims electron substructure where none exists.
Why do you keep posting falsified predictions while simultaneously wondering why nobody wants to talk to you anymore?
> Perhaps I have misinterpreted Kogut's black hole model for the ARCADE-2 results. I do not think he published a paper on this subject, so all I have to go on is his quoted statements in the science magazines.
>
> We could turn the question around: if a black hole model were able to explain the ARCADE-2 results, what properties would it have to have? Given Kogut's status as a respected astrophysicist, I have assumed that his intuition that a large and previously unknown population of black holes was a likely solution to the ARCADE-2 enigma is not a crackpot idea, but rather has considerable merit.
The ARCADE-2 results can't be explained by black holes, and the reasons for this have been given to you repeatedly so there's no point in revisiting them until you have a technical argument against them.
> [Mod. note: *extragalactic* black holes could certainly produce it
> under certain conditions. Galactic, stellar-mass black holes in the
> halo will struggle to do so for reasons we've discussed here already.
> -- mjh]
Richard D. Saam
Oct 27, 2012, 1:54:02 PM10/27/12
to
On 10/25/12 12:16 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> (Note, by the way, that by
> far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
>
The current CMB density is
> (Note, by the way, that by
> far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
>
sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = 4.67E-34 g/cc
which is about four orders of magnitude
below current rho_c at 9.57E-30 g/cc.
Since ~95 percent of rho_c physical content is unknown
an opening is apparent to diverse explanatory theories
including the photonic nature of rho_c.
[Mod. note: no it's not: we know it's not photons at any waveband
currently visible to us -- mjh]
Martin Hardcastle
Oct 27, 2012, 4:40:39 PM10/27/12
to
In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Condon et al paper, they show that there's no association with bright
galaxies; therefore they'd have to be in the very early universe; this
conveniently shoves them far enough away that our constraints on their
masses and environments are much less good than for objects in the
Milky Way halo, so that many more models are possible. I guess the
sort of thing that might work is AGN-like activity from
intermediate-mass black holes associated with the end products of the
first stars (which would also have the desirable feature that it
explains why we don't see such objects now).
>Does anybody know what Kogut was specifically thinking of was when he
>proposed black holes as the sources?
Not me. He may have done so before the Condon et al results were published?
>Most importantly, the ARCADE-2 results need to be verified by follow-up
>experiments, and hopefully refined and/or expanded so as to provide more
>diagnostic evidence.
Agreed.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>Thanks Martin,
>
>I am hoping that you or others will offer some general thoughts on what
>those certain conditions might be.
Pretty simple, really: they would need to be distant (because, in the
>Thanks Martin,
>
>I am hoping that you or others will offer some general thoughts on what
>those certain conditions might be.
Condon et al paper, they show that there's no association with bright
galaxies; therefore they'd have to be in the very early universe; this
conveniently shoves them far enough away that our constraints on their
masses and environments are much less good than for objects in the
Milky Way halo, so that many more models are possible. I guess the
sort of thing that might work is AGN-like activity from
intermediate-mass black holes associated with the end products of the
first stars (which would also have the desirable feature that it
explains why we don't see such objects now).
>Does anybody know what Kogut was specifically thinking of was when he
>proposed black holes as the sources?
>Most importantly, the ARCADE-2 results need to be verified by follow-up
>experiments, and hopefully refined and/or expanded so as to provide more
>diagnostic evidence.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 28, 2012, 2:42:31 AM10/28/12
to
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:41:01 PM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Thanks again Martin.
The ARCADE-2 results are very provocative, but still allow too much flexibility in modeling. Some models put on arxiv.org are at least as speculative as anything I have proposed regarding ARCADE-2. Hopefully, future research on the radio background will provide clearer clues relating to this interesting result. Is it real, and if so are the generating sources local or very distant?
RLO
DSR
> In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> >Most importantly, the ARCADE-2 results need to be verified by follow-up
> >experiments, and hopefully refined and/or expanded so as to provide more
> >diagnostic evidence.
>
> Agreed.
>
-------------------------------------------
> >Most importantly, the ARCADE-2 results need to be verified by follow-up
> >experiments, and hopefully refined and/or expanded so as to provide more
> >diagnostic evidence.
>
> Agreed.
>
Thanks again Martin.
The ARCADE-2 results are very provocative, but still allow too much flexibility in modeling. Some models put on arxiv.org are at least as speculative as anything I have proposed regarding ARCADE-2. Hopefully, future research on the radio background will provide clearer clues relating to this interesting result. Is it real, and if so are the generating sources local or very distant?
RLO
DSR
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 28, 2012, 7:07:49 AM10/28/12
to
In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
> Since ~95 percent of rho_c physical content is unknown
> an opening is apparent to diverse explanatory theories
> including the photonic nature of rho_c.
>
> [Mod. note: no it's not: we know it's not photons at any waveband
> currently visible to us -- mjh]
Right. Just to be clear: the majority of the photons IN TERMS OF
NUMBERS is in the CMB, not the majority of the mass-energy density of
the universe, which is about 27% matter (baryonic and non-baryonic,
light and dark, known and unknown) and 73% in the cosmological
constant (or something similar but more complicated, though all current
observations are compatible with the traditional cosmological constant),
the amount in radiation being negligible.
We also know that there is not a large unaccounted source of photons.
As I said, most known photons are from the CMB. There can't be any
large hidden contribution, since the expansion history of the universe
(and hence things like the magnitude-redshift relation) would be
different in a radiation-dominated universe.
<rds...@att.net> writes:
> On 10/25/12 12:16 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> > (Note, by the way, that by
> > far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
> >
> The current CMB density is
>
> sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = 4.67E-34 g/cc
> which is about four orders of magnitude
> below current rho_c at 9.57E-30 g/cc.
Right.
> On 10/25/12 12:16 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> > (Note, by the way, that by
> > far the majority of photons in the universe are in the CMB.)
> >
> The current CMB density is
>
> sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = 4.67E-34 g/cc
> which is about four orders of magnitude
> below current rho_c at 9.57E-30 g/cc.
> Since ~95 percent of rho_c physical content is unknown
> an opening is apparent to diverse explanatory theories
> including the photonic nature of rho_c.
>
> [Mod. note: no it's not: we know it's not photons at any waveband
> currently visible to us -- mjh]
NUMBERS is in the CMB, not the majority of the mass-energy density of
the universe, which is about 27% matter (baryonic and non-baryonic,
light and dark, known and unknown) and 73% in the cosmological
constant (or something similar but more complicated, though all current
observations are compatible with the traditional cosmological constant),
the amount in radiation being negligible.
We also know that there is not a large unaccounted source of photons.
As I said, most known photons are from the CMB. There can't be any
large hidden contribution, since the expansion history of the universe
(and hence things like the magnitude-redshift relation) would be
different in a radiation-dominated universe.
Richard D. Saam
Oct 29, 2012, 5:29:45 AM10/29/12
to
On 10/28/12 6:07 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> Right. Just to be clear: the majority of the photons IN TERMS OF
> NUMBERS is in the CMB, not the majority of the mass-energy density of
> the universe, which is about 27% matter (baryonic and non-baryonic,
> light and dark, known and unknown) and 73% in the cosmological
> constant (or something similar but more complicated, though all current
> observations are compatible with the traditional cosmological constant),
> the amount in radiation being negligible.
>
> We also know that there is not a large unaccounted source of photons.
> As I said, most known photons are from the CMB. There can't be any
> large hidden contribution, since the expansion history of the universe
> (and hence things like the magnitude-redshift relation) would be
> different in a radiation-dominated universe.
>
let the radiation CMB density component be
> Right. Just to be clear: the majority of the photons IN TERMS OF
> NUMBERS is in the CMB, not the majority of the mass-energy density of
> the universe, which is about 27% matter (baryonic and non-baryonic,
> light and dark, known and unknown) and 73% in the cosmological
> constant (or something similar but more complicated, though all current
> observations are compatible with the traditional cosmological constant),
> the amount in radiation being negligible.
>
> We also know that there is not a large unaccounted source of photons.
> As I said, most known photons are from the CMB. There can't be any
> large hidden contribution, since the expansion history of the universe
> (and hence things like the magnitude-redshift relation) would be
> different in a radiation-dominated universe.
>
sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = rho_b = 4.67E-34 g/cc (present value at Tb = 2.73K)
and mass density component
(3/8pi)*H^2/G = rho_c = 9.57E-30 g/cc (present value)
rho_b scales as (1+z)^4
and
rho_c scales as (1+z)^3
Looking back,
the mass dominated universe transitions
into radiation dominated universe at:
Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
rho_b = rho_c = 1.62E-17 g/cc
At this point before the first light at z=1,100 and Tb = 3,000,
is the 73% cosmological constant and 23% dark matter maintained?
RDS
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 29, 2012, 1:38:47 PM10/29/12
to
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:42:53 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
If Cappelluti et al are correct about the X-ray/IR cross-correlation, and if Cooray et al are correct that the CIB is generated by stars in the DM halos of galaxies, is it possible that DM halos also have a substantial population of low-luminosity X-ray sources that can only (so far) be detected by their collective X-ray output.
A. What is the range of integrated total X-ray output (in ergs/sec) for galaxies? What is an average value?
B. If the DM halo X-ray sources had luminosities of 10^26 to 10^31 ergs/sec, how many sources would be needed to produce a typical galaxy's total X-ray output?
Thanks for any help on these questions.
>
I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
If Cappelluti et al are correct about the X-ray/IR cross-correlation, and if Cooray et al are correct that the CIB is generated by stars in the DM halos of galaxies, is it possible that DM halos also have a substantial population of low-luminosity X-ray sources that can only (so far) be detected by their collective X-ray output.
A. What is the range of integrated total X-ray output (in ergs/sec) for galaxies? What is an average value?
B. If the DM halo X-ray sources had luminosities of 10^26 to 10^31 ergs/sec, how many sources would be needed to produce a typical galaxy's total X-ray output?
Thanks for any help on these questions.
Jos Bergervoet
Oct 29, 2012, 1:40:26 PM10/29/12
to
On 10/28/2012 12:07 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
...
> In article <mt2.0-4485...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
>> Since ~95 percent of rho_c physical content is unknown
>> an opening is apparent to diverse explanatory theories
>> including the photonic nature of rho_c.
>>
>> [Mod. note: no it's not: we know it's not photons at any waveband
>> currently visible to us -- mjh]
>
> Right. Just to be clear: the majority of the photons IN TERMS OF
> NUMBERS is in the CMB,
Can we be sure that there aren't even larger
>> an opening is apparent to diverse explanatory theories
>> including the photonic nature of rho_c.
>>
>> [Mod. note: no it's not: we know it's not photons at any waveband
>> currently visible to us -- mjh]
>
> Right. Just to be clear: the majority of the photons IN TERMS OF
> NUMBERS is in the CMB,
numbers at extremely low frequencies? Wouldn't
slowly varying strong magnetic fields require
an enormous amount of photons?
--
Jos
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 30, 2012, 4:47:06 AM10/30/12
to
In article <mt2.0-26063...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
> Looking back,
> the mass dominated universe transitions
> into radiation dominated universe at:
> Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
Right. So for all practical purposes in conventional astronomy and
cosmology (e.g. m-z relation, gravitational lensing etc), the radiation
can be neglected.
> rho_b = rho_c = 1.62E-17 g/cc
>
> At this point before the first light at z=1,100 and Tb = 3,000,
> is the 73% cosmological constant and 23% dark matter maintained?
No. Here, for all practical purposes, Omega=1 and lambda=0. All
non-empty big-bang models start out arbitrarily close to the Einstein-de
Sitter model. In general, lambda and Omega change with time.
Omega := \frac{8\pi G \rho}{3H^2}
lambda := \frac{Lambda}{3H^2}
where Lambda is constant in time. So, (in general) both vary in time
since (in general) H varies with time. In addition, Omega varies since
\rho drops as the universe expands. The reason for this is the
different dependence of lambda and Omega on z.
Check out http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html#solution for
an interactive visualization of how lambda and Omega change with time.
For the theoretical basis (but with an older notation) check out:
@ARTICLE {RStabellSRefsdal66a,
AUTHOR = "Rolf Stabell and Sjur Refsdal",
TITLE = "Classification of general relativistic
world models",
JOURNAL = MNRAS,
YEAR = "1966",
VOLUME = "132",
NUMBER = "3",
PAGES = "379",
}
I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
should be it.
<rds...@att.net> writes:
> let the radiation CMB density component be
> sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = rho_b = 4.67E-34 g/cc (present value at Tb = 2.73K)
> and mass density component
> (3/8pi)*H^2/G = rho_c = 9.57E-30 g/cc (present value)
>
> rho_b scales as (1+z)^4
> and
> rho_c scales as (1+z)^3
Right.
> let the radiation CMB density component be
> sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = rho_b = 4.67E-34 g/cc (present value at Tb = 2.73K)
> and mass density component
> (3/8pi)*H^2/G = rho_c = 9.57E-30 g/cc (present value)
>
> rho_b scales as (1+z)^4
> and
> rho_c scales as (1+z)^3
> Looking back,
> the mass dominated universe transitions
> into radiation dominated universe at:
> Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
cosmology (e.g. m-z relation, gravitational lensing etc), the radiation
can be neglected.
> rho_b = rho_c = 1.62E-17 g/cc
>
> At this point before the first light at z=1,100 and Tb = 3,000,
> is the 73% cosmological constant and 23% dark matter maintained?
non-empty big-bang models start out arbitrarily close to the Einstein-de
Sitter model. In general, lambda and Omega change with time.
Omega := \frac{8\pi G \rho}{3H^2}
lambda := \frac{Lambda}{3H^2}
where Lambda is constant in time. So, (in general) both vary in time
since (in general) H varies with time. In addition, Omega varies since
\rho drops as the universe expands. The reason for this is the
different dependence of lambda and Omega on z.
Check out http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html#solution for
an interactive visualization of how lambda and Omega change with time.
For the theoretical basis (but with an older notation) check out:
@ARTICLE {RStabellSRefsdal66a,
AUTHOR = "Rolf Stabell and Sjur Refsdal",
TITLE = "Classification of general relativistic
world models",
JOURNAL = MNRAS,
YEAR = "1966",
VOLUME = "132",
NUMBER = "3",
PAGES = "379",
}
I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
should be it.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 30, 2012, 4:54:11 AM10/30/12
to
In article <mt2.0-26675...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Jos Bergervoet
metre-wave radiation being photons, but of course it is. (What I mean
is that the typical radio receiver is not a photon-counting device.)
So, to answer your question, I don't know.
What is true, though, is that most of the energy in radiation comes from
CMB photons.
[Mod. note: for observational constraints on the low-frequency radio
background, see the summary in Section 4 of
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/617/1/281/fulltext/59883.text.html
-- mjh]
<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Can we be sure that there aren't even larger
> numbers at extremely low frequencies? Wouldn't
> slowly varying strong magnetic fields require
> an enormous amount of photons?
Interesting point. I admit that I normally don't think of, say,
> Can we be sure that there aren't even larger
> numbers at extremely low frequencies? Wouldn't
> slowly varying strong magnetic fields require
> an enormous amount of photons?
metre-wave radiation being photons, but of course it is. (What I mean
is that the typical radio receiver is not a photon-counting device.)
So, to answer your question, I don't know.
What is true, though, is that most of the energy in radiation comes from
CMB photons.
[Mod. note: for observational constraints on the low-frequency radio
background, see the summary in Section 4 of
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/617/1/281/fulltext/59883.text.html
-- mjh]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 30, 2012, 12:07:55 PM10/30/12
to
On Monday, October 29, 2012 1:39:08 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
>
--------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
>
I may be talking mainly to myself, but perhaps there are one or two readers out there in the ether who would be interested in a rough answer to the questions I posed in my 10/29 post.
A typical total X-ray luminosity for a normal (non-AGN) galaxy would be roughly 10^40 ergs/sec, with a range of 10^38 to 10^42 ergs/sec.
I looked up the predicted X-ray luminosities for Discrete Scale Relativity's major dark matter candidates and the values were 10^26 ergs/sec and 10^27 ergs/sec for the discrete masses of 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses.
Making a initial rough and tentative calculation:
10^40 divided by 10^26 = 10^14 stellar-mass black holes, i.e., 100 trillion! That is decreased by a factor of 10 if 10^27 ergs/sec is a more accurate average X-ray luminosity.
Bottom line: Stellar-mass black holes generating X-rays via low-level accretion processes might well be an excellent candidate for the galactic dark matter. The isolated ones would be low-luminosity emitters and the interacting ones (LMXRBs + HMXRBs) could be much stronger emitters.
Are there problems in my reasoning and/or analysis?
Do we have a new and promising explanation for the galactic DM?
Eric Gisse
Oct 30, 2012, 2:10:56 PM10/30/12
to
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:08:16 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2012 1:39:08 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I may be talking mainly to myself, but perhaps there are one or two readers out there in the ether who would be interested in a rough answer to the questions I posed in my 10/29 post.
>
This is why you are talking to yourself, Robert. You writing stuff like this:
> On Monday, October 29, 2012 1:39:08 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I would like to make a second attempt at stimulating a discussion of the main theme of this thread.
>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I may be talking mainly to myself, but perhaps there are one or two readers out there in the ether who would be interested in a rough answer to the questions I posed in my 10/29 post.
>
>
> Are there problems in my reasoning and/or analysis?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/8de8522fc2152d6a?dmode=source
IT DOES NOT WORK. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD WHY IT DOES NOT WORK.
Your theory is DEAD. It has been dead for years. The accretion aspect is wrong as per the above, the actual existence of the objects is wrong as per LITERALLY EVERY MICROLENSING SURVEY EVER PERFORMED.
You have NO ARGUMENT against this. Not one. Zilch. Zero.
This was your response to the above: "We are going to have to agree to disagree on the mass issue. I am unwilling to concede that any evidence currently available, including all available microlensing observations, rule out my prediction that virtually all of the dark matter mass is in the form of ultracompacts with masses of 8 x 10^-5, 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses."
This is why you hardly get any responses anymore. You ignore them.
The ultracompacts do not exist. It is as simple as that. I can prove they do not exist while you cannot prove that they do, and I'm baffled as to why you refuse to accept it.
Why don't you take the time to explain exactly why you don't accept the microlensing surveys? Please do us the favor of elaborating beyond "Mike Hawkins says something I find useful."
Martin Hardcastle
Oct 30, 2012, 5:42:19 PM10/30/12
to
In article <mt2.0-9205...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
how you do this calculation -- imply accretion rates that are way
higher than anything that's plausible for isolated objects in the halo
of this or any other galaxy. Eric has given you the link to the
calculation I did in the summer; you should be able to plug in the
numbers for the black hole masses you propose to check this. And
third, you're missing the fact that the dominant contribution to X-ray
luminosity is known: X-ray binaries in the case of low-mass galaxies,
hot gas at the virial temperature at larger masses. X-ray telescopes
can resolve a substantial fraction of the XRB population in nearby
galaxies, so we know pretty well how much this contributes (see e.g.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A%26A...534A..55S for M31, or
various papers by my colleagues on Centaurus A), and of course it
is relatively easy to study individual XRB in the MW. Lest you think that
the XRB actually are the sub-solar mass BH population, it may be worth
adding that where masses of the compact components of XRB are known,
as they often are in the Milky Way, they are much higher than the
masses you're talking about; their luminosities are ~ 10 orders of
magnitude higher than the luminosities you're talking about; they are
distributed locally like stars, not like dark matter; and there are,
of course, many, many fewer of them than would be required to make up
the dark matter. Putting points (2) and (3) together, I would suggest
that even if your putative black hole population existed, and all the
evidence is that it does not, the X-ray properties of galaxies would
be expected to tell us nothing about it, since it would be expected to
contribute negligibly to the X-ray emission of galaxies, which comes
from other sources.
Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>Are there problems in my reasoning and/or analysis?
Yes: three. Firstly, a population of compact objects as the major
explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
how you do this calculation -- imply accretion rates that are way
higher than anything that's plausible for isolated objects in the halo
of this or any other galaxy. Eric has given you the link to the
calculation I did in the summer; you should be able to plug in the
numbers for the black hole masses you propose to check this. And
third, you're missing the fact that the dominant contribution to X-ray
luminosity is known: X-ray binaries in the case of low-mass galaxies,
hot gas at the virial temperature at larger masses. X-ray telescopes
can resolve a substantial fraction of the XRB population in nearby
galaxies, so we know pretty well how much this contributes (see e.g.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A%26A...534A..55S for M31, or
various papers by my colleagues on Centaurus A), and of course it
is relatively easy to study individual XRB in the MW. Lest you think that
the XRB actually are the sub-solar mass BH population, it may be worth
adding that where masses of the compact components of XRB are known,
as they often are in the Milky Way, they are much higher than the
masses you're talking about; their luminosities are ~ 10 orders of
magnitude higher than the luminosities you're talking about; they are
distributed locally like stars, not like dark matter; and there are,
of course, many, many fewer of them than would be required to make up
the dark matter. Putting points (2) and (3) together, I would suggest
that even if your putative black hole population existed, and all the
evidence is that it does not, the X-ray properties of galaxies would
be expected to tell us nothing about it, since it would be expected to
contribute negligibly to the X-ray emission of galaxies, which comes
from other sources.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 30, 2012, 7:18:01 PM10/30/12
to
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:42:41 PM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-9205...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
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.
You probably would have also summarily ruled out trillions of planetary-mass microlenses until Sumi et al apparently discovered them in 2011.
As I have pointed out numerous times here: (a) the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-dependent, and others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population I have predicted.
You look at one set of negative data and interpretations, and I emphasize another set that is more positive.
This will eventually be resolved empirically, and not by anyone merely saying it has been resolved, no matter how loudly or often.
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.
3. Obviously, the total X-ray lunimosity of galaxies is not due entirely to my predicted populations, and I specifically mentioned this in my last post, as if it is even necessary! It is the unidentified and mis-identified X-ray components, and I include here the one they always chalk up to cataclysmic variables when all else fails, that might be produced by the predicted stellar-mass black holes.
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!
> In article <mt2.0-9205...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> Yes: three. Firstly, a population of compact objects as the major
>
> explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
>
> observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
>
> 'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
>
> how you do this calculation --
----------------------------------------------------------
> Yes: three. Firstly, a population of compact objects as the major
>
> explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
>
> observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
>
> 'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
>
> how you do this calculation --
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.
You probably would have also summarily ruled out trillions of planetary-mass microlenses until Sumi et al apparently discovered them in 2011.
As I have pointed out numerous times here: (a) the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-dependent, and others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population I have predicted.
You look at one set of negative data and interpretations, and I emphasize another set that is more positive.
This will eventually be resolved empirically, and not by anyone merely saying it has been resolved, no matter how loudly or often.
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.
3. Obviously, the total X-ray lunimosity of galaxies is not due entirely to my predicted populations, and I specifically mentioned this in my last post, as if it is even necessary! It is the unidentified and mis-identified X-ray components, and I include here the one they always chalk up to cataclysmic variables when all else fails, that might be produced by the predicted stellar-mass black holes.
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!
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oct 31, 2012, 3:30:01 AM10/31/12
to
In article <mt2.0-31630...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
basically says that if there are two opinions, they deserve equal time,
even though one might have MUCH more evidence than the other. (I think
Fox News knows that this is wrong but sticks to it since it suits them.
They don't even realize, though, that there might be 3 opinions.)
Hawkins's latest microlensing paper---by the way, it should be noted
that no-one else in the refereed literature agrees with him---is a good
example of cherry-picking: for our galaxy, he intentionally skews all
possible errors in the direction he wants in order to show that it just
might barely fit, making use of the latest, greatest information about
our galaxy, but in the case of other galaxies, where superficially the
observations tend to be compatible with his ideas (at least in his
analysis), he is content with decades-old data. Moreover, it is
otherwise just a rehash of his older claims, ignoring literature
critical of his claims. Even if he disagrees with them, he should
mention them in his paper (and, of course, show why they are wrong).
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> 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.
You are falling into the "Fox News concept of balanced reporting" which
> 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.
basically says that if there are two opinions, they deserve equal time,
even though one might have MUCH more evidence than the other. (I think
Fox News knows that this is wrong but sticks to it since it suits them.
They don't even realize, though, that there might be 3 opinions.)
Hawkins's latest microlensing paper---by the way, it should be noted
that no-one else in the refereed literature agrees with him---is a good
example of cherry-picking: for our galaxy, he intentionally skews all
possible errors in the direction he wants in order to show that it just
might barely fit, making use of the latest, greatest information about
our galaxy, but in the case of other galaxies, where superficially the
observations tend to be compatible with his ideas (at least in his
analysis), he is content with decades-old data. Moreover, it is
otherwise just a rehash of his older claims, ignoring literature
critical of his claims. Even if he disagrees with them, he should
mention them in his paper (and, of course, show why they are wrong).
Martin Hardcastle
Oct 31, 2012, 4:45:10 AM10/31/12
to
In article <mt2.0-31630...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>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?
Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@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.
>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, 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.
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!
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?
Eric Gisse
Oct 31, 2012, 7:32:10 AM10/31/12
to
On Oct 30, 6:18�pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
fraction of dark matter cannot be these objects. This does in no way
contradict the Sumi, et al, results. You know this because you have
been given the results from the various microlensing collaborations
over and over and over and over and over and over and you have no
technical argument beyond "BUT MIKE HAWKINS SAYS...."
Further, you have forgotten your own thoughts on the Sumi, et al
results. What happened to the caution about how the the microlensing
events were being extrapolated from a star forming region out over the
entire volume of the galaxy?
>
> As I have pointed out numerous times here: (a) the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-dependent, and others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population I have predicted.
Robert, the technical criticisms of Hawkins' work are legion in both
the published literature and on this newsgroup. You need to do more
than say "BUT MIKE HAWKINS SAYS..." because if that's your only
foothold in reality you are in deep trouble.
I have personally posted the criticisms repeatedly in the past but you
ignored the criticisms and refused to engage.
Let's go to your comments:
1) "the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-
dependent"
What models would those be?
Can you name them?
Can you explain what issues you have with the models?
What are the crucial parameters and assumptions of the model?
Can you give us some literature references to these models?
I'm rather curious because the last time I read the literature on the
subject, the results were pretty model-agnostic because the only thing
the microlensing collaborations are measuring is the optical depth of
the LMC. Do you have an issue with how events are identified as self-
lensing?
2) "others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population
I have predicted."
Hawkins' work is not taken seriously by the community at large, has
major technical flaws, and you've never cited anyone else.
You use Mike Hawkins as a lifeline. Not once have I ever seen you do a
deep dive into his work and justify it to anyone. Not once.
>
> You look at one set of negative data and interpretations, and I emphasize another set that is more positive.
What on Earth do you think you are talking about?
The MOA group observations you love to cite happen to have two issues
you do not discuss:
1) They are consistent with all the falsifying datasets I have ever
given you. Just because you've never once read the literature I have
cited you does not mean it is wrong.
2) They did not find your objects. ~ 1 M_sun objects have a far, far
larger signature than ~planet massed objects yet none of the
ultracompacts were found.
I, of course, would be happy to engage in a technical discussion on
this. Are you?
>
> This will eventually be resolved empirically, and not by anyone merely saying it has been resolved, no matter how loudly or often.
>
> 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.
"...until someone convinces me" should be a warning flag to everyone.
>
> 3. Obviously, the total X-ray lunimosity of galaxies is not due entirely to my predicted populations, and I specifically mentioned this in my last post, as if it is even necessary! It is the unidentified and mis-identified X-ray components, and I include here the one they always chalk up to cataclysmic variables when all else fails, that might be produced by the predicted stellar-mass black holes.
>
> 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!
The previous years of microlensing work is dismissed because it
doesn't produce the answer you want. You refuse to partake in a
meaningful discussion of the results you ignore.
The previous years of X-ray observations by more sensitive telescopes
is dismissed because it doesn't produce the answer you want. You
refuse to partake in a meaningful discussion of the results you
ignore.
Please stop acting like this in public. It diminishes you.
wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:42:41 PM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
> > In article <mt2.0-9205-1351613...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> > Yes: three. Firstly, a population of compact objects as the major
>
> > explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
>
> > observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
>
> > 'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
>
> > how you do this calculation --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> You probably would have also summarily ruled out trillions of planetary-mass microlenses until Sumi et al apparently discovered them in 2011.
The OGLE {1,2,3} results are pretty straight forward. The dominant
> > Yes: three. Firstly, a population of compact objects as the major
>
> > explanation for the dark matter is ruled out by microlensing
>
> > observations, as you know very well. Second, the luminosities you
>
> > 'predict' -- and I use the scare-quotes because you have not told us
>
> > how you do this calculation --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> You probably would have also summarily ruled out trillions of planetary-mass microlenses until Sumi et al apparently discovered them in 2011.
fraction of dark matter cannot be these objects. This does in no way
contradict the Sumi, et al, results. You know this because you have
been given the results from the various microlensing collaborations
over and over and over and over and over and over and you have no
technical argument beyond "BUT MIKE HAWKINS SAYS...."
Further, you have forgotten your own thoughts on the Sumi, et al
results. What happened to the caution about how the the microlensing
events were being extrapolated from a star forming region out over the
entire volume of the galaxy?
>
> As I have pointed out numerous times here: (a) the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-dependent, and others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population I have predicted.
the published literature and on this newsgroup. You need to do more
than say "BUT MIKE HAWKINS SAYS..." because if that's your only
foothold in reality you are in deep trouble.
I have personally posted the criticisms repeatedly in the past but you
ignored the criticisms and refused to engage.
Let's go to your comments:
1) "the existing microlensing interpretations are highly model-
dependent"
What models would those be?
Can you name them?
Can you explain what issues you have with the models?
What are the crucial parameters and assumptions of the model?
Can you give us some literature references to these models?
I'm rather curious because the last time I read the literature on the
subject, the results were pretty model-agnostic because the only thing
the microlensing collaborations are measuring is the optical depth of
the LMC. Do you have an issue with how events are identified as self-
lensing?
2) "others like Hawkins make a viable case for the type of population
I have predicted."
Hawkins' work is not taken seriously by the community at large, has
major technical flaws, and you've never cited anyone else.
You use Mike Hawkins as a lifeline. Not once have I ever seen you do a
deep dive into his work and justify it to anyone. Not once.
>
> You look at one set of negative data and interpretations, and I emphasize another set that is more positive.
The MOA group observations you love to cite happen to have two issues
you do not discuss:
1) They are consistent with all the falsifying datasets I have ever
given you. Just because you've never once read the literature I have
cited you does not mean it is wrong.
2) They did not find your objects. ~ 1 M_sun objects have a far, far
larger signature than ~planet massed objects yet none of the
ultracompacts were found.
I, of course, would be happy to engage in a technical discussion on
this. Are you?
>
> This will eventually be resolved empirically, and not by anyone merely saying it has been resolved, no matter how loudly or often.
>
> 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.
>
> 3. Obviously, the total X-ray lunimosity of galaxies is not due entirely to my predicted populations, and I specifically mentioned this in my last post, as if it is even necessary! It is the unidentified and mis-identified X-ray components, and I include here the one they always chalk up to cataclysmic variables when all else fails, that might be produced by the predicted stellar-mass black holes.
>
> 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!
doesn't produce the answer you want. You refuse to partake in a
meaningful discussion of the results you ignore.
The previous years of X-ray observations by more sensitive telescopes
is dismissed because it doesn't produce the answer you want. You
refuse to partake in a meaningful discussion of the results you
ignore.
Please stop acting like this in public. It diminishes you.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Oct 31, 2012, 11:26:15 AM10/31/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:45:32 AM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
>
> 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?
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> 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?
>
I guess there is a misunderstanding of my argument. If I say the X-ray luminosity of these predicted stellar-mass black holes is in the 10^26 to 10^27 ergs/sec range, then they are clearly very faint.
I am saying that there could be a very large number of these predicted DM objects and still not run aoul of existing X-ray observations.
If you want to show me some alternative numbers for what you think would be the accretion-generated X-ray luminosity for stellar-mass black holes in the 0.2 to 0.6 solar mass range and located in the DM halo, I would be quite interested in that.
Everyone has staked out their positions on this topic. If NuSTAR does not see the high-mass tail of the stellar-mass black hole population predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity, then I am willing to alter my thinking accordingly. But I want nature to hand down the verdict because the human track record on presuming and estimating what is possible and what is impossible is so spotty.
Eric Gisse
Nov 2, 2012, 4:34:42 AM11/2/12
to
On Oct 31, 10:26 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
very over as there's no point in continuing.
Besides, integrate the number of objects with their "predicted"
luminosities across the entire milky way volume. Yeah, your numerology
is wrong again.
The objects aren't there, the accretion model you need is impossible,
and the theory is falsified from a dozen different directions.
Why are you still posting?
>
> I am saying that there could be a very large number of these predicted DM objects and still not run aoul of existing X-ray observations.
You are wrong.
>
> If you want to show me some alternative numbers for what you think would be the accretion-generated X-ray luminosity for stellar-mass black holes in the 0.2 to 0.6 solar mass range and located in the DM halo, I would be quite interested in that.
You are only interested in things you can use. Contradictory evidence
or analyses are of no interest to you.
For example, let's look at your LITERALLY MADE UP OUT OF THING AIR
number of 10^27 erg/sec.
The conversion efficiency of an accretion disk is something like ~10%
of the rest mass of the inflow. This is assuming the flow is large
enough to be viscous because the friction is needed to generate the
luminosity.
10^27 ergs = 10^20 J
This will require approximately an inflow rate of 10^5 kg/s of mass-
equivalent inflow, adjusting for E=mc^2 and efficiency. A more exact
computation could be done but this is close enough.
You will need this for EVERY ULTRACOMPACT YOU PREDICT. Across the
ENTIRE MILKY WAY.
Matter densities are of the "atom per cubic centimeter" order of
magnitude. Where's your mass inflow coming from?
Radio observations that measure polarization of light traveling
through the galaxy would see massive distortions from the accretion
disks of such objects. Which are not seen at any wavelength.
Is there a level of wrongness that must be achieved before you can
finally admit your numerology has no bearing on reality? Because this
is embarassing to watch at this juncture.
>
> Everyone has staked out their positions on this topic. If NuSTAR does not see the high-mass tail of the stellar-mass black hole population predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity, then I am willing to alter my thinking accordingly. But I want nature to hand down the verdict because the human track record on presuming and estimating what is possible and what is impossible is so spotty.
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativityhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Oh nonsense. You'll just move the goalposts as you have always done.
There's sufficient evidence right now. You just refuse to look at it
because you want to keep pretending for a few more years. By the time
those results come out and assuming you can't find some absolute
nonsense reason to reject them, you'll simply move the goalpost.
Please don't pretend otherwise as we both know better.
The complete lack of actual due dilligence on your end tells us
exactly how serious you are about this. You posting nonstop for years
on end is trumped by your unwillingness to do the actual work.
wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:45:32 AM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess there is a misunderstanding of my argument. If I say the X-ray luminosity of these predicted stellar-mass black holes is in the 10^26 to 10^27 ergs/sec range, then they are clearly very faint.
And when you are asked for a citation of this figure and give out a
>
> > 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?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess there is a misunderstanding of my argument. If I say the X-ray luminosity of these predicted stellar-mass black holes is in the 10^26 to 10^27 ergs/sec range, then they are clearly very faint.
paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
very over as there's no point in continuing.
Besides, integrate the number of objects with their "predicted"
luminosities across the entire milky way volume. Yeah, your numerology
is wrong again.
The objects aren't there, the accretion model you need is impossible,
and the theory is falsified from a dozen different directions.
Why are you still posting?
>
> I am saying that there could be a very large number of these predicted DM objects and still not run aoul of existing X-ray observations.
>
> If you want to show me some alternative numbers for what you think would be the accretion-generated X-ray luminosity for stellar-mass black holes in the 0.2 to 0.6 solar mass range and located in the DM halo, I would be quite interested in that.
or analyses are of no interest to you.
For example, let's look at your LITERALLY MADE UP OUT OF THING AIR
number of 10^27 erg/sec.
The conversion efficiency of an accretion disk is something like ~10%
of the rest mass of the inflow. This is assuming the flow is large
enough to be viscous because the friction is needed to generate the
luminosity.
10^27 ergs = 10^20 J
This will require approximately an inflow rate of 10^5 kg/s of mass-
equivalent inflow, adjusting for E=mc^2 and efficiency. A more exact
computation could be done but this is close enough.
You will need this for EVERY ULTRACOMPACT YOU PREDICT. Across the
ENTIRE MILKY WAY.
Matter densities are of the "atom per cubic centimeter" order of
magnitude. Where's your mass inflow coming from?
Radio observations that measure polarization of light traveling
through the galaxy would see massive distortions from the accretion
disks of such objects. Which are not seen at any wavelength.
Is there a level of wrongness that must be achieved before you can
finally admit your numerology has no bearing on reality? Because this
is embarassing to watch at this juncture.
>
> Everyone has staked out their positions on this topic. If NuSTAR does not see the high-mass tail of the stellar-mass black hole population predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity, then I am willing to alter my thinking accordingly. But I want nature to hand down the verdict because the human track record on presuming and estimating what is possible and what is impossible is so spotty.
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativityhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
There's sufficient evidence right now. You just refuse to look at it
because you want to keep pretending for a few more years. By the time
those results come out and assuming you can't find some absolute
nonsense reason to reject them, you'll simply move the goalpost.
Please don't pretend otherwise as we both know better.
The complete lack of actual due dilligence on your end tells us
exactly how serious you are about this. You posting nonstop for years
on end is trumped by your unwillingness to do the actual work.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 2, 2012, 3:35:19 PM11/2/12
to
On Friday, November 2, 2012 4:35:04 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> And when you are asked for a citation of this figure and give out a
> paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
> things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
> very over as there's no point in continuing.
>
>
> And when you are asked for a citation of this figure and give out a
> paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
> things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
> very over as there's no point in continuing.
>
> For example, let's look at your LITERALLY MADE UP OUT OF THING AIR
> number of 10^27 erg/sec.
-----------------------------------------------------
> number of 10^27 erg/sec.
Perhaps you missed my explict citing of the Hegyi, Kolb and Olive paper [ApJ] in yesterday's post to SAR. This paper is the basis for my X-ray luminosity predictions?
Would it be possible for you to discuss these issues in a more dignified and professional manner? When your hostility level is at a max, how am I to distinguish any relevant signal from the copious noise?
Eric Gisse
Nov 3, 2012, 8:11:25 AM11/3/12
to
On Nov 2, 2:35 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
incorrect?
You did not even acknowledge my above quick little calculation, nor
have you proffered a technical argument against martin hardcastle's
earlier more detailed computation beyond "lets agree to disagree".
>
> Would it be possible for you to discuss these issues in a more dignified and professional manner? When your hostility level is at a max, how am I to distinguish any relevant signal from the copious noise?
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativityhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Absolutely, Robert. I just don't see the value in doing so.
For example, would you like to professionally and in a dignified
manner discuss why you feel your numerology is still valid despite the
undisputed fact that the electron substructure you predict has not
been observed?
How about a professional and dignified discussion as to the observed
non-existence of your ultracompacts?
How about a professional and dignified discussion about how stellar
masses are not quantified? Feel free to consider either full datasets
as analyzed by myself (with no technical argument by you) or stuff
like the eclipsing binary datasets (as referenced by me, analysis
requested by you, analysis done by martin hardcastle, analysis ignored
by you)?
How about a professional and dignified discussion of the neutron star
radii which vastly disagree with your predictions?
I have literally no interest in you changing the subject to yet
another timewasting thing like the subject of this thread. You have
yet to meaningfully handle any of the past technical challenges so
adding additional ones will add nothing to the discussion since you
have already setup the mental routing necessary to shift all doubt
away from yourself and right into /dev/null.
wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 4:35:04 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > And when you are asked for a citation of this figure and give out a
> > paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
> > things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
> > very over as there's no point in continuing.
>
> > For example, let's look at your LITERALLY MADE UP OUT OF THING AIR
> > number of 10^27 erg/sec.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps you missed my explict citing of the Hegyi, Kolb and Olive paper [ApJ] in yesterday's post to SAR. This paper is the basis for my X-ray luminosity predictions?
How does the basis of the predictions matter when the predictions are
>
> > And when you are asked for a citation of this figure and give out a
> > paper that makes multiple unambiguously falsified predictions about
> > things like 'electron substructure', then the conversation is clearly
> > very over as there's no point in continuing.
>
> > For example, let's look at your LITERALLY MADE UP OUT OF THING AIR
> > number of 10^27 erg/sec.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps you missed my explict citing of the Hegyi, Kolb and Olive paper [ApJ] in yesterday's post to SAR. This paper is the basis for my X-ray luminosity predictions?
incorrect?
You did not even acknowledge my above quick little calculation, nor
have you proffered a technical argument against martin hardcastle's
earlier more detailed computation beyond "lets agree to disagree".
>
> Would it be possible for you to discuss these issues in a more dignified and professional manner? When your hostility level is at a max, how am I to distinguish any relevant signal from the copious noise?
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
> Discrete Scale Relativityhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
For example, would you like to professionally and in a dignified
manner discuss why you feel your numerology is still valid despite the
undisputed fact that the electron substructure you predict has not
been observed?
How about a professional and dignified discussion as to the observed
non-existence of your ultracompacts?
How about a professional and dignified discussion about how stellar
masses are not quantified? Feel free to consider either full datasets
as analyzed by myself (with no technical argument by you) or stuff
like the eclipsing binary datasets (as referenced by me, analysis
requested by you, analysis done by martin hardcastle, analysis ignored
by you)?
How about a professional and dignified discussion of the neutron star
radii which vastly disagree with your predictions?
I have literally no interest in you changing the subject to yet
another timewasting thing like the subject of this thread. You have
yet to meaningfully handle any of the past technical challenges so
adding additional ones will add nothing to the discussion since you
have already setup the mental routing necessary to shift all doubt
away from yourself and right into /dev/null.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 4, 2012, 5:52:04 AM11/4/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:11:46 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
> sos
---------------------------------------
1. One notices that you avoid mentioning:
pulsar/planets,
the peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum,
the huge population of unbound planetary-mass "nomads",
the planet abundance anomaly associated with the lowest mass M-dwarf stars.
the approximately 36 successful DSR retrodictions of fundamental parameters concerning particles, atoms, stars and galaxies,
my reasoned arguments countering your misleading criticism on the electron substructure prediction, the status of microlensing research,...
etc., etc, etc., ...
And we know why you avoid these topics: because they all support Discrete Scale Relativity observationally.
Any new theory, and I mean any, can be trashed by someone whose only motivation is to do so, and whose methods include selective choice of what to talk about and what to keep hidden.
[Mod. note: it's fairly standard scientific practice to consider a
theory falsified when its predictions are proved wrong, irrespective
of how many other correct predictions or 'retrodictions' it makes.
In that context there is nothing wrong with being 'selective' about
the evidence one considers.
I suggest that since we are now rehashing old arguments about topics
that have already been discussed at length here, we draw this part of
the thread to a close. -- mjh]
RLO
DSR
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> sos
---------------------------------------
1. One notices that you avoid mentioning:
pulsar/planets,
the peak of the exoplanet mass spectrum,
the huge population of unbound planetary-mass "nomads",
the planet abundance anomaly associated with the lowest mass M-dwarf stars.
the approximately 36 successful DSR retrodictions of fundamental parameters concerning particles, atoms, stars and galaxies,
my reasoned arguments countering your misleading criticism on the electron substructure prediction, the status of microlensing research,...
etc., etc, etc., ...
And we know why you avoid these topics: because they all support Discrete Scale Relativity observationally.
Any new theory, and I mean any, can be trashed by someone whose only motivation is to do so, and whose methods include selective choice of what to talk about and what to keep hidden.
[Mod. note: it's fairly standard scientific practice to consider a
theory falsified when its predictions are proved wrong, irrespective
of how many other correct predictions or 'retrodictions' it makes.
In that context there is nothing wrong with being 'selective' about
the evidence one considers.
I suggest that since we are now rehashing old arguments about topics
that have already been discussed at length here, we draw this part of
the thread to a close. -- mjh]
RLO
DSR
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Richard D. Saam
Nov 6, 2012, 2:27:15 AM11/6/12
to
On 10/30/12 3:47 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> Check out http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html#solution for
> an interactive visualization of how lambda and Omega change with time.
> For the theoretical basis (but with an older notation) check out:
>
> @ARTICLE {RStabellSRefsdal66a,
> AUTHOR = "Rolf Stabell and Sjur Refsdal",
> TITLE = "Classification of general relativistic
> world models",
> JOURNAL = MNRAS,
> YEAR = "1966",
> VOLUME = "132",
> NUMBER = "3",
> PAGES = "379",
> }
>
> I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
> should be it.
>
and available at:
> Check out http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html#solution for
> an interactive visualization of how lambda and Omega change with time.
> For the theoretical basis (but with an older notation) check out:
>
> @ARTICLE {RStabellSRefsdal66a,
> AUTHOR = "Rolf Stabell and Sjur Refsdal",
> TITLE = "Classification of general relativistic
> world models",
> JOURNAL = MNRAS,
> YEAR = "1966",
> VOLUME = "132",
> NUMBER = "3",
> PAGES = "379",
> }
>
> I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
> should be it.
>
NASA astrophysics data system
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966MNRAS.132..379S
Underlying these many Friedman Equation solutions
is the assumption that universe mass Mu is constant with time
such that constant Mu = rho_m*R^3.
Having universe mass Mu not constant with time
may complicate the solution
but does not in itself negate the Friedman Equations
or supporting Einstein theory.
Richard D. Saam
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Nov 6, 2012, 3:32:49 PM11/6/12
to
In article <mt2.0-9010...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
laws. If mass is converted to radiation, then this changes the
expansion behaviour, but this is important only in the early universe
(at least for models which even broadly agree with current
observations).
<rds...@att.net> writes:
> > I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
> > should be it.
> >
> > I've said many times that if one reads just one paper in cosmology, this
> > should be it.
> >
> and available at:
> NASA astrophysics data system
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966MNRAS.132..379S
>
> Underlying these many Friedman Equation solutions
> is the assumption that universe mass Mu is constant with time
> such that constant Mu = rho_m*R^3.
> Having universe mass Mu not constant with time
> may complicate the solution
> but does not in itself negate the Friedman Equations
> or supporting Einstein theory.
This is not really an assumption but follows from basic conservation
> NASA astrophysics data system
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966MNRAS.132..379S
>
> Underlying these many Friedman Equation solutions
> is the assumption that universe mass Mu is constant with time
> such that constant Mu = rho_m*R^3.
> Having universe mass Mu not constant with time
> may complicate the solution
> but does not in itself negate the Friedman Equations
> or supporting Einstein theory.
laws. If mass is converted to radiation, then this changes the
expansion behaviour, but this is important only in the early universe
(at least for models which even broadly agree with current
observations).
Richard D. Saam
Nov 10, 2012, 4:39:58 AM11/10/12
to
repeating from before:
let the radiation CMB density component be
sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = rho_b = 4.67E-34 g/cc (present value at Tb = 2.73K)
and mass density component
(3/8pi)*H^2/G = rho_c = 9.57E-30 g/cc (present value)
rho_b scales as (1+z)^4
and
rho_c scales as (1+z)^3
sigma*Tb^4*4/c^3 = rho_b = 4.67E-34 g/cc (present value at Tb = 2.73K)
and mass density component
(3/8pi)*H^2/G = rho_c = 9.57E-30 g/cc (present value)
rho_b scales as (1+z)^4
and
rho_c scales as (1+z)^3
Looking back,
the mass dominated universe transitions
into radiation dominated universe at:
Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
the mass dominated universe transitions
into radiation dominated universe at:
Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
rho_b = rho_c = 1.62E-17 g/cc
From this point back
the universe extrapolates to 100 percent radiation.
These discussions are in terms of densities and relative abundances.
Until universe volumetrics are known,
absolute universe masses remain unknown.
Richard D. Saam
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Nov 10, 2012, 9:06:07 AM11/10/12
to
In article <mt2.0-22005...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
> the mass dominated universe transitions
> into radiation dominated universe at:
> Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
> These discussions are in terms of densities and relative abundances.
> Until universe volumetrics are known,
> absolute universe masses remain unknown.
Right; we don't even know if the universe is finite or not.
> I thought logic dictated radiation came first
> repeating from before:
Well, yes; I was thinking of going back in time.
> repeating from before:
> the mass dominated universe transitions
> into radiation dominated universe at:
> Tb = 37,200 K z= 13,600 age = 8,600 years
> rho_b = rho_c = 1.62E-17 g/cc
>
>
> From this point back
> the universe extrapolates to 100 percent radiation.
Yes.
> the universe extrapolates to 100 percent radiation.
> These discussions are in terms of densities and relative abundances.
> Until universe volumetrics are known,
> absolute universe masses remain unknown.
Richard D. Saam
Nov 16, 2012, 4:43:13 PM11/16/12
to
that something happened at the early universe
that thermodynamically proceeds to the current state.
Robertson, H. P.,
"Relativistic Cosmology," Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 62-90 (1933)
Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-012-1401-0
Robertson gives all the options flowing from Einstein's theory
with a very good timeline of the preceding logic
VI. Bibliography
Current observations (including dark matter and dark energy)
indicate a need for more emphasis
related to ongoing synthetic processes
the nature of which is problematic.
0 new messages