LOL, all 92 pages might take a while.
This paper stands as a refutation to anybody who says there's no value in unmanned space missions. This one mission has completely realigned our understanding of the universe, and done it with solid fact. Many ships of faith and fancy will rip their bellies open on this hard rock of truth.
But then, that's what the science-haters feared most about these missions.
That was but one reason why I only skimmed it, and then skipped straight to "CONCLUSIONS" when looking for something from it to post here.
This paper stands as a refutation to anybody who says there's no value in unmanned space missions. This one mission has completely realigned our understanding of the universe, and done it with solid fact. Many ships of faith and fancy will rip their bellies open on this hard rock of truth.
But then, that's what the science-haters feared most about these missions.
Nicely stated. Inflationary Cosmology wins another round. Speaking of which, I think the article goes into details of how several alternative models do stacking up against the evidence (I think I even saw a mention of MOND, though it might only have been for comic relief). If you get the chance to review that section of the paper, could you give the lay people here a "score card summary" on exactly which alternative cosmologies got gutted by the latest WMAP data and analysis?