Science is filled with phlogiston.
#UniverseExpansionMatters
the DarkEnergy is everywhere and it knows the scientists were uncovering it
so
its gone into deeper hiding.
DeeperDark.
new comics action hero
(will be announced TransSexual in issue No. 2)
The Democrat Klingons are controlling the universe now.
I thought it was “settled science.”
Who on earth has been giving out the Nobel prizes lately?
Bush’s fault. Make ‘em pay back the prize money.
"ISA 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree."
"Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
Yet another countless example,why science is not about,
consensus. And why we should not put our faith in it,100% at any given time, and not ever cut off debate about other theories and data that doesnt match preconceived notions.
Does this mean that the type 1A super nova is NOT the standard candle they think it is??
Sheldon Cooper on ‘Big Bang Theory’ will probably be ranking out Perlmutter again in an upcoming episode.
> “They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can’t reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset.”
ALL MODELS ARE FALSE; SOME ARE USEFUL.
Like Global Warming, the Consensus was wrong?
Sure, and what is the weather going to be next month? Tomorrow?
Thought so.
We are now in what physicists call the “Millennial” phase of the Universe, its pretty pretty much not doing anything.
I knew it!
Well, not really.
how does knowing this help me?
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