Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You know that discovery that won you the nobel prize
This is bad. My eldest's thesis title this year is "The expansion history of the universe", of which dark energy is a large part. Couldn't have come at a worse time.
This is bad. My eldest's thesis title this year is "The expansion history of the universe", of which dark energy is a large part. Couldn't have come at a worse time.
I wouldn't worry about it
bout 80% of what i did in Astrophysics 20 odd years ago has since proven to be wrong or only correct in given situations etc....
They can only write about what is available and agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community at the time.
There is a more interesting alternative theory that goes something like this:-
The speed of light slows down gradually over distance, thus light will have a red shift. This is especially so when light slows over a long distance therefore, a red shift does not mean the Universe is expanding. The same theory also accounts for very distant stars and galaxies not showing visible light because by the time light reaches Earth, the wave length is too long to be visable (radio waves?) Moreover, the theory shows there was no big bang .
"A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell
Personally, I'd be a little skeptical about this. It's not uncommon for a single research paper to make bold claims and be found wanting through further analysis. Time will tell, but it's premature. Also, the analysis is statistical in nature, and relies on a particular test of significance as the basis for questioning earlier, longstanding and closely scrutinized, analysis. I don't know anything about this particular subject area, but it fits a pattern I've seen many times before in my own area. The general public doesn't really have a good sense of the practice of science, which is pretty messy and conditional in nature.
Comment