On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: >> >> OK, I'm just curious to know....I don't know what plausible answers were >> provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed >> them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...) >> >> I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to >> the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed >> to be relatively negligible? >> > > Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in > terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of > course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter > interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, > if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You > are 100% in the logic IMHO. > > I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. > That being a person piece of effort (unpublished) that expects the result. > Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner > madness. > > But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else > provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. > > If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on > his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. > > Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to > tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a > brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also > an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of > his own personality or personal biases. > > his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media > distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't > follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and > training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it > worthwhile. > > look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/ > > In terms of my bit on the side work....for me it's very much linked to a > lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the > frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy > away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). > > GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. > Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the > universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. > Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might > look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. > > > > But then again, who is. >
that 'but then again, who is' was supposed to go under the point Motl is not independent of his own temperament and biases. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
