Posted on 10/24/2016 1:58:12 PM PDT by LibWhacker
I knew it!
Well, not really.
They will form a group Dark Matter Matters.
I think what they are saying is only that the statistical procedure Perlmutter et al. used to arrive at 5 sigma wasn’t the “correct” one. It was too simplistic, and now, using a more sophisticated procedure, together with the additional data they have, they cannot reject the null hypothesis (namely, the hypothesis that the expansion rate is constant or slowing). Type 1a supernovae are still the standard candle.
Still... 3 sigma is very, very significant! More data are needed, imo.
George Box. I got to see him speak once. Very, very impressive guy.
The reptilians created a Dark Net. They used it to capture all the Dark Energy which they put in their basement for later nefarious purposes.
It is only settled until the GRANT money runs out!
What is Dr. Cooper going to do now? They took him off ‘String theory’ and had him researching ‘dark matter’, which apparently now does not exist.
1. The universe is not imploding; it is expanding.From our reference point, I would think the universe exploding or imploding would look about the same.
2. The universe has no center.
3. If it were imploding, distant objects would be blue-shifted and moving toward us.
No, distant objects would either be moving away from each other (red-shifted from the observer) under expansion or blue-shifted under implosion because the space between objects not gravitationally bound would be shrinking.
how does knowing this help me?
Don’t confuse dark matter with dark energy, the latter of which is what is under discussion.
Now, to be clear, this is just one study, and it’s a big, extremely controversial claim that a Nobel Prize-winning discovery is fundamentally wrong.
...
No kidding. The article looks like BS to me.
I didn’t think so.
I don't know what they are talking about here.
A 5 sigma result might require that the data support the hypothesis with in excess of 99.99 percent probablility.
A 3 sigma result would still support that same hypothesis with perhaps a 99 percent probability. Ninety-nine percent certainty would not seem to justify the headline, "... the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate".
What am I missing here.
Algore told me it was settled science.
5.56mm
Tossing out of an epicycle is a beautiful thing.
Not so sure about that. The Council did rig things against Worf's family.
See, I never read the thread before posting.
Since 1998...oh, I had a FReeper birthday.
5.56mm
Scientists assume that there is no “center of the universe”, so questions framed like that won’t get you anywhere.
However, if the universe began shrinking, we would cease to see almost universal redshifts in the stars and galaxies around us, and start seeing almost universal blueshifts. Since that isn’t happening, we know the universe can’t be contracting.
Probably won’t help many people except only insofar as they enjoy learning about the world they live in. It definitely isn’t going to help us survive Hillary if she is elected!
and that is floating in the aether
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.