Friday, August 04, 2006

Observatory Hill


Sydney Observatory was established in 1858 and is the oldest observatory in Australia. The night sky here is beautiful, starting with the Southern Cross and a lovely view of the Milky Way. We also have fine views of nearby stars like Sirius and Alpha Centauri. Australia still has that frontier spirit of unlimited horizons. Especially when talking with Antarctic scientists, there is a feeling of teamwork toward common goals. Women in science are most welcome here. By the way, we have a whole group of astronomers working on a changing speed of light.

I have added a further comment on Cosmic Variance:
One could question the wisdom of calling something a "cosmic jerk," naming a "dark energy" after what Sith Lords peddled, or christening "Concordance" cosmology after a plane that crashed and doesn't fly anymore.

However, it is time to question the "independently supported" mantra. Evidence of cosmic acceleration was published simultaneously by two groups in 1998. One group was headed by Saul Perlmutter at LBL. The other lead author was Adam Riess of Berkeley, whose office was only 500 m from Perlmutter's. Both groups looked at the same phenomenon, redshifts of Type Ia supernovae. The independence was that Perlmutter was head of one group and Riess part of another.

Redshifts are the only evidence of cosmic acceleration. The CMB says nothing about acceleration. In fact, the CMB is good evidence that c has changed. Average temperature is the same over large parts of the sky, indicating that large regions were in causal contact. Even at the time of recombination 300,000 years after the Big Bang, c was much greater.

Additional evidence comes from Active Galactic Nuclei. These massive primordial Black Holes are observed to have formed shortly after the Big Bang. This could only occur if the horizon distance determined by c was much greater. There is even more precise evidence from a nearby star.

If one knows how to read a Graph, it can be seen that GM=tc^3 precisely predicts redshifts of Type Ia supernovae, even in the transitional "jerk" period. All this has been shown without inferring repulsive "dark" energies.

On the lighter side, in his comment on Not Even Wrong, Chris offers some hilarious career advice for a woman. He was also nice enough to include a trackback, so you can quickly return here. Not to worry, Chris, I have already met Stephen H. Your comments on Woit's post have been cut off, so you are welcome to leave them here.

6 Comments:

Blogger Rae Ann said...

"Are there similiar parties for woman scientists?"

Well, I'm nowhere near being a billionaire, but I know how to throw a good party. ;-)

12:37 PM  
Blogger Kea said...

If you're in Sydney at present, we should go and climb the tower one day, or sip some smoothies down at Avalon beach! I put a few handy links to some QG stuff on my new blog.

3:01 PM  
Anonymous Chris Oakley said...

Hi Louise,

I forgot to add this: assuming that the plan works and you get invited to one of Jeffrey Epstein's "parties" in the "Virgin" Islands, I would appreciate it if you post some videos here.

Thanks, Chris

3:09 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Rae Ann, I would go to your parties any day.

Kea, I very much enjoy your posts on the Cosmic Variance thread. You show yet again why we need more women like you contributing to science. I would love to do something in Sydney with you sometime.

Chris, your site is extremely interesting too. Your opinion of renormalisation and the string enterprise is dead-on. I hope your ideas get wider play, for I know firsthand about "determined to ensure that nothing I ever wrote went into print." There is hope, for more and more people agree that physics needs new ideas.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Chris Oakley said...

Your opinion of renormalisation and the string enterprise is dead-on

I am glad you think so ... I thought that there was a last holdout of anti-renormalisers in the so-called Axiomatic/Algebraic Field Theorists, one of whom (Bert Schroer) has posted a lot on Peter's blog, but what they sanction seems only to be a more elaborate version of the same thing.

Although I may not live to see it, I think that, in the end, people will have to accept what I am saying - theories have to be mathematically elegant for people to want to work on them, and however much renormalisation may have got physicists out of a tight spot, it is extremely ugly.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Medicine said...

The independence was that Perlmutter was head of one group and Riess part of another.

1:16 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page