... of

We indicate with the subscript  ₀ that the estimates are based on Solar System observations.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...Acquaviva et al. 2005)

It is worth noting that the legitimacy of the procedure of direct comparison of local and cosmological observations, in order to estimate variations of the physical constants, is a rather strong assumption, which deserves a proof or at least a justification. There is actually no reason a priori why local experiments should reveal variations occurring on cosmological scales, and in regions which are participating in the Hubble expansion. This interesting aspect of scalar tensor theories of gravity is discussed in Clifton et al. (2005) and in Shaw & Barrow (2005), where it is shown that such procedure is correct.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... freedom

It is worth noting that there are also different hydrodynamical models that predict universal gas density and gas temperature profiles that agree with the observations (see for instance the one illustrated in Komatsu & Seljak (2001), derived from the universal dark matter density profile, assuming that the gas density traces the dark matter density in the outer parts of halos, or the one introduced in Rasia et al. (2004).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... observations

http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.