“Dark Flow” isn't “statistically significant”.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
Next: does the blueshift support the Atom Totality more than the Big Bang? #15; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
From: JeffRelf.F-M.FM on 22 Apr 2010 19:22 Quoting ARXIV.ORG: “ We revisit the statistical significance of the "dark flow" presented in Kashlinsky et al. (2009). We do not find a statistically significant detection of a bulk flow. Instead we find that CMB correlations between the 8 WMAP channels used in this analysis decrease the inferred significance of the detection to .7\sigma. ” ― http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4233
From: Painius on 23 Apr 2010 01:01
<JeffRelf.F-M.FM � � @.> wrote in message... news:JeffRelf.F-M.FM.5y(a)2010_Apr22.4.22pm... > > Quoting ARXIV.ORG: > “ We revisit the statistical significance of > the "dark flow" presented in Kashlinsky et al. (2009). > > We do not find a statistically significant detection of a bulk flow. > > Instead we find that > CMB correlations between the 8 WMAP channels used in this analysis > decrease the inferred significance of the detection to .7\sigma. ” ― > http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4233 Yes, i'm familiar with Keisler's very short paper that, interestingly enough, uses a "similar" sampling of galaxy clusters, BUT NOT THE SAME CLUSTERS, and this makes me wonder if the "similar" sampling is close enough to the GA (or DF, if you prefer) to show similar measurements. I'm also familiar with Ned Wright's arguments, three of which were soundly refuted and the other two just a typo and a technicality that did not affect the DF measurements and their interpretation. It truly sounds more to me like Keisler's technique was the one that was flawed (no degradation to that study because, after all, the involved clusters of galaxies are mostly in the "Zone of Avoidance", which is the area of the night sky that is obscured by the disk of our Milky Way galaxy). I only say this due to the discovery, then the *REdiscovery*, and again the *RE*-REdiscovery of this anomaly by different sky studies at different times within the last 90 years that involved different scientists who were quite evidently unaware of the previous discoveries. This alone makes me think twice about discarding the Great Attractor anomaly out-of-hand as you seem to do. It really *does* seem to be "there", Jeff. And as i said before, no amount of sweeping it under the rug is going to make it go away. It is thus far the best evidence soundly against the present mainstream acceptance of a uniform expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang cause of it. That's worth repeating: E V I D E N C E A G A I N S T the BIG BANG ! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "You never find yourself until you face the truth." > Pearl Bailey P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth |