Damage Control! Damage Control!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 Jun 2010 12:58 Just when you thought your cosmological assumptions were rock solid... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf All cosmologists on deck! Limber up your arms. Heat up lots of fudge. Paradigm on fire!
From: dlzc on 14 Jun 2010 14:01 Dear Robert L. Oldershaw: On Jun 14, 9:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Just when you thought your cosmological > assumptions were rock solid... > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf > > All cosmologists on deck! > Limber up your arms. > Heat up lots of fudge. > Paradigm on fire! Well, some "Dark Energy" will still exist, it is the value of the cosmological constant that might change. After all, we went form "inflation" to "stagnation" to "accelerated expansion"... that this observation does not change. But good riddance to Dark Matter. David A. Smith
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 14 Jun 2010 14:01 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT), "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > >Just when you thought your cosmological assumptions were rock solid... > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm > >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf > >All cosmologists on deck! >Limber up your arms. >Heat up lots of fudge. >Paradigm on fire! haha, what a fun. Read this: > New research by astronomers in the Physics Department at Durham > University suggests that the conventional wisdom about the content > of the Universe may be wrong. Simple Logic tells me that the conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe MUST be wrong. See, if above statement were not true, it would mean the end of science. hahah, understand? No? It would simply mean that we already knew the CONTENT OF THE UNIVERSE. Which is too much for us. hahaha, stay tuned to the next science cabaret. w.
From: Hayek on 14 Jun 2010 16:32 dlzc wrote: > Dear Robert L. Oldershaw: > > On Jun 14, 9:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: >> Just when you thought your cosmological >> assumptions were rock solid... >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm >> >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf >> >> All cosmologists on deck! >> Limber up your arms. >> Heat up lots of fudge. >> Paradigm on fire! > > Well, some "Dark Energy" will still exist, it is the value of the > cosmological constant that might change. We do not need it. GR has gravitational volume contraction, that shrinks every object in the universe. There is your inflation or expansion. Uwe Hayek. > After all, we went form > "inflation" to "stagnation" to "accelerated expansion"... that this > observation does not change. > > But good riddance to Dark Matter. > > David A. Smith -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Uncle Al on 14 Jun 2010 16:40
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: > > Just when you thought your cosmological assumptions were rock solid... > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf > > All cosmologists on deck! > Limber up your arms. > Heat up lots of fudge. > Paradigm on fire! "The reasons for the difference between the radio source and the Jupiter beam profiles are therefore still unclear." 1) Jupiter is neihter a point source nor a broad sky source. 2) Bob, enjoy a well-earned retirement while demonstrably better minds think original thoughts. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |