Weak Evidence
Aloha and Happy Easter! April is also 20th birthday of the Hubble Space Telescope. It was launched April 24, 1990 aboard Space Shuttle Discovery.
The wondrous Kea pointed out this paper, which uses data mined from the Hubble Space Telescope COSMOS survey.
Evidence for accelerated expansion of the universe from 3d weak lensing with COSMOS
Graviational lensing is the bending of light by mass. Weak lensing is the warping of local Space/Time by the presence of mass concentrations, such as galaxy clusters. The distortions produced by weak lensing are extremely small, and must be measured statistically. This produces many opportunities for researchers to massage the data to fit their assumptions.
The abstract admits that they are "Assuming a flat LCDM cosmology,..." This hypothetical universe is flat, like the Earth. It requires a repulsive "dark energy" to expand. Despite its many shortcomings, this consensus is promoted by a noisy minority in physics. The most telling quote begins on page 13:
"We note that the lensing data alone cannot formally exclude a non-flat 0CDM cosmology. However, the cosmological parameters inferred for such a model would be inconsistent with various other cosmological probes. We therefore perform our analysis in the context of the well-established LCDM model, where the lensing data provide additional evidence of cosmic acceleration."
After pages and pages of statistical analysis, the study can not exclude a non-flat cosmology with no "dark energy." The authors admit to adjusting their conclusions to fit the groupthink LCDM model. Researchers feel pressure to find some "dark energy" and justify their funding.
The evidence is, for lack of a better term, weak. It depends on ray-tracing through a Millenium Simulation, which in itself is just a computer construct. The models used to support the conclusion are subject to interpretation and bias. As has been seen many times, the "dark energy" enterprise is in deep trouble. The reading public doesn't care for Monte Carlo analysis or non-Gaussian sample variance. Expensive Space probes designed to find DE have little chance of launching in today's funding climate. Physicists are desperate to show that DE even exists.
GM=tc^3, a child could figure it out.
The wondrous Kea pointed out this paper, which uses data mined from the Hubble Space Telescope COSMOS survey.
Evidence for accelerated expansion of the universe from 3d weak lensing with COSMOS
Graviational lensing is the bending of light by mass. Weak lensing is the warping of local Space/Time by the presence of mass concentrations, such as galaxy clusters. The distortions produced by weak lensing are extremely small, and must be measured statistically. This produces many opportunities for researchers to massage the data to fit their assumptions.
The abstract admits that they are "Assuming a flat LCDM cosmology,..." This hypothetical universe is flat, like the Earth. It requires a repulsive "dark energy" to expand. Despite its many shortcomings, this consensus is promoted by a noisy minority in physics. The most telling quote begins on page 13:
"We note that the lensing data alone cannot formally exclude a non-flat 0CDM cosmology. However, the cosmological parameters inferred for such a model would be inconsistent with various other cosmological probes. We therefore perform our analysis in the context of the well-established LCDM model, where the lensing data provide additional evidence of cosmic acceleration."
After pages and pages of statistical analysis, the study can not exclude a non-flat cosmology with no "dark energy." The authors admit to adjusting their conclusions to fit the groupthink LCDM model. Researchers feel pressure to find some "dark energy" and justify their funding.
The evidence is, for lack of a better term, weak. It depends on ray-tracing through a Millenium Simulation, which in itself is just a computer construct. The models used to support the conclusion are subject to interpretation and bias. As has been seen many times, the "dark energy" enterprise is in deep trouble. The reading public doesn't care for Monte Carlo analysis or non-Gaussian sample variance. Expensive Space probes designed to find DE have little chance of launching in today's funding climate. Physicists are desperate to show that DE even exists.
GM=tc^3, a child could figure it out.
Labels: physics, speed of light
posted by L. Riofrio at 6:46 AM
3 Comments:
You''ll need M-theory math.
This would clarify the situation with empiracle results.
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/04/03/magnetic-fields-in-spiral-galaxies-%25e2%2580%2593-explained-at-last/
Another article with added supportive evidence [the occurance occurs around our own solar system.
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/20/does-zonal-swishing-play-a-part-in-earths-magnetic-field-reversals/
Post a Comment
<< Home