Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by BdS, Jan 8, 2016.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Is there something about this you wanted to discuss?
I think this is journalistic hype. Cosmology, by its nature, is highly speculative. Conclusive observations, to support or discard its hypotheses, have always been hard to come by. I see nothing in the article that indicates any new internal contradictions or problems that justify the term "crisis".
The suspicion of confirmation bias is an interesting and cautionary finding, however, which should serve as a useful warning to cosmologists of what can happen when observational data is so sparse.
Do the curie temperatures have a role here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature
I can't see how they could, given that stars are gaseous (or rather plasma), while the Curie temperature is that at which the ordered dipoles in a solid become disordered.
Extracted from OP reference..
......A study that surveyed all the published cosmological literature between the years 1996 and 2008 showed that the statistics of the results were too good to be true. In fact, the statistical spread of the results was not consistent with what would be expected mathematically, which means cosmologists were in agreement with each other – but to a worrying degree. This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals.......
Above argument cannot be termed as grapes are sour...its a fact.
Why, what results "would be expected mathematically"?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!And evidence?? [of course not]Or links [of course not!]???? Or is this just another ego inflated anti science rant?[Bingo!]
And to really get down to the nitty gritty facts, cosmology and science continues on unaware of such emotional sensationalistic journalism and the usual god bothering hangers on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Science/cosmology knows what problems they face...They afterall are asking the most fundamental of all questions: Why and How are we here!
The simple act of cosmologists daring to ask such questions, let alone giving reasonable scenarios based on current knowledge as to how everything came to be, eats at the heart of our god bothering nuts.
They see the mere act of asking as sacrilege, and attempting to answer them [other than via mythical deity] as a affront to there way of life.
But ask they will, and continue to reasonably give solutions they will also.
[Religious nuts, cranks and anti science ratbags not withstanding]
One thing we can be 100% certain of, of course, is that the solutions and questions will be solved and answered by those professionals I speak of: Not by any deluded ego inflated nobody, who can not drag himself off a common science forum, in his vain attempt to try and invalidate that which he'll never invalidate.
It is not necessary, idea can come from any source, from anybody, from any situation, from any event...It is the question of working on that idea, thats when the real professional in general get in.
For example GR (of course Einstein himself was well qualified), the great work on GR maths was not done by Einstein, see how mathematicians developed it later on......You not aware of many Japanese Quality systems, they seek inputs and ideas from labor on the shop floor and work on that.....
If you ask a room full of cosmologists what 2+2=? was, and they ALL said 4, would they be agreeing with each other to "a worrying degree"?
"This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals" or maybe that they got it right, perhaps...?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not very likely as much as your delusions may like to object to that fact.
It will not happen...Particularly from yourself obviously...pure and simple; That's reality.
Another furphy my friend to prop up your dreams.
I also participated in many work quality systems when I started out: Nothing new about that.
We called them quality control and time and motion study worshops. ;shrug":
If you think that cosmology is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, then yes, you are right in your argument.
For an intelligent, professionally trained and experienced cosmologist, it may indeed be that simple.
But that's exactly what you seem to think!
No credentials, never any references or links [except one of course when you may can show that finally you may not be totally wrong]writing off links showing you wrong as pop science, and the attitude that everyone should accept you on your word, as doubtful and as questionable as that word has shown to be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And you seem to firmly believe that crap...such delusions!!
If i read post #15 and Post # 16 together, then the irrestible conclusion is that I am an intelligent, professionally trained and experienced cosmologist..thats called 2+2 = 4.....Enjoy
That was written by a clueless crank. What's in crisis is the authors knowledge of modern physics. Now a days many cosmological theoretical predictions are falsifiable. Over the last 30 years several profound cosmological experiments have been conducted culminating in WMAP and Planck. That knucklehead probably never heard of them or any of the scholarship that was confirmed. This kind of bullshit crank article isn't worthy of discussion. Physics.org is a continuing piece of nonintelltual dung.
It's crank bullshit. Typical whining irrelevant reasons why modern physics is fucked up. Crank bullshit based on his personal delusions. Trying to say the scientists are intellectually dishonest. Crank bullshit.
You think you're pretty clever posting that link and nothing else. That's because you're a crank and you want to pollute this forum with nonsense.
Separate names with a comma.