Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g LOL! We don't get to pick and choose our data, in science. It's
g quite funny to keep hearing that a 'newer' paper will allow us to
g ignore prior papers that are irritatingly at odds with popular
g theory. The correct approach is to evaluate the differences in the
g approach of the papers, to see which is right.

At the risk of stating the obvious to other readers in this newsgroup,
greywolf's last statement is implicit in the references to newer
papers.

LOL! It's not 'implicit.' You assumption is that 'newer' papers must be
more correct than 'older' papers.

To take just two examples that have appeared in the newsgroup
recently:

* The Galactic center: The IR observations have made enormous
progress over the past 5 years or so by using adaptive optics and
related techniques. I gather that subarcsecond imaging in the GC is
now nearly routine (if the weather cooperates of course! . Thus,
which observation of stars is more likely to be constraining for a
model: One at 2 arcsecond resolution or one at 0.2 arcsecond
resolution?

A complete strawman. Precision in resolution isn't the issue. Ignoring
contradictory data is the issue.

* Globular cluster ages: Globular cluster ages are determined from
stellar models and an HR diagram. A crucial aspect of this
determination is the distance to the globular cluster as it affects
our estimates of stellar luminosities. Recent Hipparcos distance
determinations, which are much higher in accuracy and precision than
previous estimates, have shown that globular clusters were a bit
more distant than thought.

It's not the higher precision, per se, that caused the change. The reason
for the change in globular cluster distances with Hipparcos was that
parallaxes for low-mettalicity halo stars were determined for the first
time.

In turn, that means the stars in them
are brighter and therefore younger. Thus, newer globular cluster
ages are more reliable because they are based on better distance
estimates (and I think improved stellar models as well).

It is because they are based on measurements, instead of just theory. The
low-metallicity simulations 'should' change to meet these new requirements
(I don't know if they've shifted, yet.)

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas