|
Posted by Kent Paul Dolan on January 28, 2010, 6:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
[Somewhat sorry for chopping unneeded attributions of the top
of this.]
show/hide quoted text
>>>> In the Jan. 14th issue of Nature is a paper that
>>>> claims to resolve a serious problem that has
>>>> plagued the CDM cosmology for a long time.
I emphasize here the word "claims". As far as I
know, the situation is "resolves", full stop.
People who can't or won't do the math before
commenting shouldn't be casting aspersions on the
writings of those who can and do.
This is the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem.
This unaccepted resolution of a problem in an
existing theory brings to mind a failure (within my
knowledge) of the system of scientific journals in
general, which affects discussions here.
To show first how an alternative system works...
The Request for Comments series of Internet
Engineering Task Force papers,
http://rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html
which are in many cases pretty much the law,
despite the mildness of the series title, for
how the Internet will work, are comprised of
papers submitted by interested participants and
reviewed and maintained available by the IETF
working body.
Each, in the above index, carries with it, among
other possible annotations, "updates", "is
updated by", "obsoletes", and "is obsoleted by".
This makes it possible to navigate easily to the
most current information.
Thus, one is not tempted to cite papers overcome
by events as if they were the current
understanding of matters.
This avoids the endless rounds of rediscussions of
already visited subjects based on superseded
information that is so prevalent in
sci.astro.research, one among several myriad of
similarly afflicted discussion forums, and many
instances of which have come on display here in the
weeks recently passed.
In part, this problem exists simply because there is
not a mechanism such as the one above for RFCs to
annotate a list of "all the journal articles since
the inventtion of writing", that update or obsolete
earlier articles, despite, say, that the later
article may be published in some obscure journal
with little reputation and the former article may
have been published in a journal with great
prestige.
It can far too often be the case that an article
suggesting, correctly, that some deeply entrenched
folk wisdom of science is just flatly wrong has to
go begging to the most mediocre of journals for page
space, at best. [In times past, the situation was
certainly even worse, as persecutions of scientists
for correctly opposing church dogma document.]
Is there any hope for a way to be put forward by
someone participating here (not by me, my knowledge
is insufficient, as are my political skills), or
adopted from elsewhere, to shed the endless rounds
of bickering, based entirely on superseded
information, which eat up so much of the meme-space
here?
I'd really like to read much more about interesting
new research here, and much less from long simmering
interpersonal feuds, science repudiated by
convincing evidence (even if not convincing to its
proponent) or kook science unsupported by evidence
convincingly (beyond the mind of the originator)
differentiating its validity from accepted science
and in its favor.
The internet already has endless venues for kook
science, one of them founded by a participant here,
and for interminable arguments (29 of them on
Usenet attributable to me).
IMWTK
xanthian.
A similar situation prevails here where persons
introducing themselves as having little knowledge,
ask questions and then spend endless rounds
of postings quarreling with or ignoring in their
responses answers furnished to their questions by
experts, while making no attempt to consult
recommended reference material.
Sigh.
[Mod. note: however accurate it may be, further meta-discussion of the
standards of posting to the group is discouraged. I can only say that
if s.a.r. was filled with professional astronomers talking to each
other about genuine research issues, nobody would be happier than
your humble servant -- mjh]
|
|
Posted by Oh No on January 29, 2010, 3:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options
show/hide quoted text
>[Somewhat sorry for chopping unneeded attributions of the top
>of this.]
> >>>> In the Jan. 14th issue of Nature is a paper that
> >>>> claims to resolve a serious problem that has
> >>>> plagued the CDM cosmology for a long time.
>I emphasize here the word "claims". As far as I
>know, the situation is "resolves", full stop.
>People who can't or won't do the math before
>commenting shouldn't be casting aspersions on the
>writings of those who can and do.
In this case you are wrong. The math has been done, in the form of
simulations on supercomputers (don't ask individuals to do that kind of
math), and this inconsistency in CDM is well known). It is you who
should understand the situation before making claims that it has been
resolved.
[Mod. note: perhaps references would prevent this discussion from
degenerating into contradiction -- mjh]
show/hide quoted text
>This is the tip of the iceberg of a larger problem.
It is indeed. A hypothesis is presented, and becomes accepted as de
facto scientific knowledge siimply because it is the first idea which
gains currency. Then problems with that hypothesis are ignored, and
alternative hypothesis are dismissed as overspeculative, although in
fact they may be no more speculative and less problematic than the first
hypothesis.
Your post is a case in point. You want to suppress discussion, although
the situation with CDM is very far from resolved.
show/hide quoted text
>Is there any hope for a way to be put forward by
>someone participating here (not by me, my knowledge
>is insufficient, as are my political skills), or
>adopted from elsewhere, to shed the endless rounds
>of bickering, based entirely on superseded
>information, which eat up so much of the meme-space
>here?
show/hide quoted text
>A similar situation prevails here where persons
>introducing themselves as having little knowledge,
>ask questions and then spend endless rounds
>of postings quarreling with or ignoring in their
>responses answers furnished to their questions by
>experts, while making no attempt to consult
>recommended reference material.
I cannot help but remark on the conflict between these two paragraphs.
You yourself profess insufficient knowledge in the one, and yet you then
take the very role which you criticise in the second.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
http://www.rqgravity.net
|
|
Posted by Nicolaas Vroom on February 2, 2010, 6:53 pm
Please log in for more thread options
show/hide quoted text
> In this case you are wrong. The math has been done, in the form of
> simulations on supercomputers.
That is correct. However all of this is very complicated
and very difficult to evaluate if it is done correctly.
To get an idea about the software being used read this:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/gadget/gadget2-paper.pdf
"The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2" by Volker Springel
The above software also takes supernovae into account.
The details are at page 1109.
SPH = Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
For a general document about SPH simulations read this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3115v1.pdf
"Gas cooling in semi-analytic models and SPH simulations: are
results consistent?"
Specific read the introduction.
Here we read:
"In fact, lacking a 'complete theory' of star formation (as well
as of almost all the physical processes at play), we are currently not
in the position to model galaxy formation from first principles"
For a detailed document using Gadget 2 read this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.0664v1.pdf
"Simulating the effect of AGN feedback on the metal enrichment of
galaxy clusters"
IMO there are two types of simulations:
1. N body simulations. A typical application is the merger of two galaxies.
2. Physical simulations. A typical application is one supernova.
Of course you can combine those two.
The problem is they are extremely complex.
For example: to study metal enrichment in a galaxy.
The easy part is that you can test your simulation because this simulation
belongs to the visible realm.
What IMO is also important that this is some sort of mixing process
i.e. the leftovers from the supernova are the building blocks
for the next generation of "heavier" stars.
In the simulation under discussion:
"Bulgeless dwarf galaxies and dark matter cores from
supernova-driven outflows" the physics involved is totally different:
the underlying concept is gas removal.
The question now becomes:
How does CDM responds to a supernova ?
Will it stay within or will it be removed from ?
IMO the simplest is a mixing process.
A removal process which results in a halo (NFW profile)
is much more complex.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile
The extra complication is that this whole process which
involves dark matter is invisible.
For more comments see:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/nature%2014%20Jan%202010.htm
show/hide quoted text
> Regards
> --
> Charles Francis
> http://www.rqgravity.net
Nicolaas Vroom
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: formation of dwarf galaxies in CDM cosmology (was: Re: Kepler's Recent Results in Contradiction to Standard Planet Formation Theory) | January 16, 2010, 3:52 am |
| Luminous (baryonic) masses of dwarf spheroidal galaxies? | February 16, 2007, 5:18 am |
| MOND and the mass discrepancies in tidal dwarf galaxies | August 8, 2007, 6:45 am |
| Redshift of solar limb and in cosmology | February 28, 2006, 5:42 am |
| "Fractal Cosmology" entry in Wikipedia | May 2, 2008, 5:32 pm |
| Re: "Fractal Cosmology" entry in Wikipedia | May 5, 2008, 1:44 pm |
| Flat Earthers back in charge of Cosmology? | November 20, 2007, 4:34 am |
| Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars. | July 15, 2005, 8:50 am |
| Re: Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars. | July 15, 2005, 11:23 am |
| Re: Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars. | August 8, 2005, 11:00 am |
|
![[Meta] in re CDM Cosmology (was Re: formation of dwarf galaxies in CDM cosmology)](/images/header.png)
XML Sitemap
>>>> claims to resolve a serious problem that has
>>>> plagued the CDM cosmology for a long time.