- 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!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "You know that discovery that won you the nobel prize"
Collapse
-
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.
-
There is a more interesting alternative theory that goes something like this:-Originally posted by eek View PostYou know the one that has been the basis of most physics research for the past 15 years - well it may not be right
Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims
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 .
Leave a comment:
-
I wouldn't worry about itOriginally posted by Moose423956 View PostThis 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.Originally posted by eek View PostYou know the one that has been the basis of most physics research for the past 15 years - well it may not be right
Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims
Leave a comment:
-
You know that discovery that won you the nobel prize
You know the one that has been the basis of most physics research for the past 15 years - well it may not be right
Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study ClaimsTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Leave a comment: