"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> Those of you interested in these areas, may be interested in
> the following paper: "Death of Stellar Baryonic Dark Matter"
> by Katherine Freese, et. al.:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0002058
>
> Katherine is one of the leading theoretical physicists
> in this area. To quote her conclusions:
>
> 1) Nonbaryonic dark matter in our Galaxy seems to be required, and
>
> (I freely grant this point, but suspect if my perspective on
> the activities of intelligent technological civilizations turns out
> to be true, then this point may need to be reexamined.)
>
> 2) The nature of the Machos seen in microlensing experiments and
> interpreted as the dark matter in the Halo of our Galaxy
> *remains a mystery*. Are we driven to primordial black
> holes [25] [26], nonbaryonic Machos (Machismos?), mirror
> matter Machos ([27]) or perhaps a no-Macho Halo?
>
> No, no, it couldn't be, it would be terrible if it were....
> (drum role in the background please...): "astroengineering".
>
> It is amazing how some people will accept things that require
> huge amounts of imagination in one area, but will not grant
> similar flexibility in other areas.
The idea of granting to intention what could potentially be more easily
explained by accident (without uncomfortable questions about Fermi
Filters) seems to be avoided as a matter of de rigeur SOP.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:45 MDT