On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com 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 That being a person piece of effort (unpublished) that expects the result.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
