Strange

But that goal has to be tempered by reality/practicality. As Einstein never said: make it as simple as possible but no simpler.

I have no idea if that is criminal or not. I know nothing about the engineering issues and even less about the legal issues. If you say it is, I am not going to argue.

I assume you are referring to this: Is that your description of the CSB findings? (I assume so as you don't give a source for it.) If that description of the CSB findings is correct then it sounds very bad. But I have no idea what the CSB report says, and probably would not have any understanding of the significance if I did see the report. Beyond the obvious: "something very bad happened". I don't know what else you expect me to say about it. (Or why.)

Are you expecting me to say something about this? I don't know anything about it, other than the paragraphs you quoted.

1. Why would the answers come in a form that is indistinguishable from random chance / noise? 2. How do you distinguish an answer that is disguised as a random chance event from a genuine random chance event?

Of course. But dark matter is not distributed as a "shell". I haven't seen anything to suggest it is not symmetrical. Can you provide a reference? 1. Because that is the density pattern required to produce the observed velocities of stars and dust. 2. Because that is also the result of simulations of the behaviour of dark matter (based on what we know about it) Because of the shell theorem - the (symmetrically distributed) mass outside the solar system has no effect.

Is there any evidence for that?

What if it doesn't?

It is. It is a spherical mass, which extends beyond the visible galaxy and is densest at the centre.

No there isn't. What I meant was that the shell theorem is a mathematical proof. It can be applied to any spherical mass (such as the central bulge). Is the bulge more uniformly distributed? It seems unlikely. Can you provide a reference for this? And how is that connected to the shell theorem? The distribution of dark matter is calculated from the velocities of stars and from simulation of the behaviour of dark matter. I assume the same is done for the stars in the bulge. So it will be interestuing to see why it is more uniform.

You could be more specific. Perhaps you could show how you do that.

Of course. It is a mathematical proof. Is it?

Perhaps you could show how you achieve that?

Can you show that the predictions made by your theory match those made by general relativity?

That looks really interesting. If there are others, like me, who can't watch videos there is a good description here: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/robot-collapses-pressure-good-way/

I thought Mark Antony was being ironic. I wasn't. (I would be tempted to give you a down vote but I have used them all up in my vendettas against various members. </irony>)

It's true. I kept repeating the same simple declaration in order to garner some negative points for Ant. I didn't realise it would be so easy. </sarcasm>

Why? Have you calculated how much charge objects would have to have at that distance to generate enough force to cause the acceleration? And it would also require galaxies to all have the same charge. Why would that be? And why would galaxies stay together if that was the case? It makes no sense to me. But go ahead and present dat, calculations and evidence to change my mind. Renaming it doesn't help solve the problem.

Yes. Which is why the distribution is not uniform.

[Response here to avoid taking derailing the other thread] You do that. Hopefully they will have a better grasp of the English language than you. And don't forget to tell them that I also repeated about a dozen times: "I do not think he is lying."

[Response made in this thread to avoid derailing the other thread] Where "it" is the suggestion that the "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" argument has just been copied from the Internet. The other possibility is that multiple people have independently identified the same fallacy. As this is a very common fallacy in people's assessment of risk and cause and effect, it isn't surprising that many commentators would highlight it was occurring. Especially when there is little evidence of the Fukushima incident causing significant damage. (I am more than a little upset that so many people obsess over minute amounts of radiation while the thousands killed and displaced by a bloody big wave were almost instantly forgotten.)

Why would you assume that phrase (or any other) was "copied and pasted from the Internet"? In the most recent thread where I have seen that phrase used, it seemed like an accurate assessment of the fallacious thinking involved. It was neither derogatory nor jokey.

The fact that I repeatedly gave you the direct answer you asked for but you ignored it and kept claiming I that I had not, is probably the reason for the negative votes. Anyone can go to that thread and see how many times I said: "I do not believe he is lying". Perhaps you could suggest how that statement could be made more direct?

I should explain that this distribution of dark matter is required to explain the observed velocity distributions of gas and stars in galaxies.

"Better" might include: - Not posting your opinion as fact - Providing some evidence to support your "theories" - Not attacking people who disagree with you