![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Early-type Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence
for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903 The authors statement: 'We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details of the dark energy.' Such a statement is revolutionary on its face. Is this going to bend the arc of cosmological science? Richard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Richard D.
Saam" writes:=20 Early-type Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903 =20 The authors statement: 'We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details of the dark energy.' =20 Such a statement is revolutionary on its face. No. One ALWAYS has to take systematic bias into account when analysing=20 data. Perhaps they have found something new. If it holds up, then it=20 has to be taken into account. Is this going to bend the arc of cosmological science? By itself, no. There seems to be a widespread misconception that the=20 ONLY evidence for a positive cosmological constant or (a stronger claim)=20 an accelerating universe is the supernova data. The concordance model=20 is called the concordance model because many different lines of evidence=20 point to the same values of the cosmological parameters. The=20 accelerating universe is still there even completely ignoring the=20 supernova data. These days, JUST THE CMB tells us that the universe is=20 accelerating. So, if this effect affects the conclusions from the=20 supernova data so much that an accelerating universe is ruled out (as=20 the hype surrounding this paper sometimes implies), then one has to=20 explain why essentially ALL THE OTHER COSMOLOGICAL TESTS ARE WRONG. Not=20 only that, they are all wrong but just happen to give the same result. Note that the quote above is=20 We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details of the=20 dark energy.' DETAILS. Of course it has to be taken into account. Whether it would=20 lead to a conclusion incompatible with other tests is a different=20 question. Even if it does, the interpretation is probably not that=20 there is not a cosmological constant. See also my reply to Alex (and, indeed, the post and all the comments) at=20 https://telescoper.wordpress.com/202...ution-in-type= -1a-supernovae/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Universe Luminosity Function and CBR energy density evolution? | No Name | Research | 6 | December 20th 16 04:33 PM |
CDM Cosmology (was formation of dwarf galaxies in CDM cosmology) | Nicolaas Vroom | Research | 3 | February 2nd 10 11:53 PM |
EVOLUTION BOOK BURNING EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS -- Unmitigated Crap Turns to Ashes -- Evolution Goes Belly Up | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 6 | May 13th 06 02:26 AM |
Supernova Cosmology Project | W. Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 21st 06 02:33 PM |
EXKLUSIV IN BERLIN -- Little Woman (14 cm or 5.5 in.) - Petrified Human Remains - Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - Evolution Nonsense | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 8th 05 11:27 AM |