51–60 of 109 posts
Side tangent: Why are most of her numbers, except dates, spelled out? Is this some convention specific to her country of origin or something?
I suppose she's referring to the things discussed in her interview with Sarkar here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxkhMe8 .
I can't claim I understand the details of what Sarkar is talking about since I dabbled in cosmology only very briefly but I at least made sure to forward the interview to my former advisor (whose name is on several hundreds of papers on cosmology and astrophysics, including those of the PLANCK collaboration and several others) and his response was along the lines of:
> I appreciate Subir Sarkar very much but I'm afraid I don't agree with barely any of his statements. He never looks at the full picture but only individual pieces and then he ends up modifying those until look prettier individually but no longer fit the rest of the cosmological model.
Side tangent: Why are most of her numbers, except dates, spelled out? Is this some convention specific to her country of origin or something?
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hubble's constant is related to all the other fundamental constants. And is not a measure of "expansion", which is one of the core ideas of the Standard Model. Relation to the cosmological principle: self-similarity not just in terms of density and homogeneity, but also macro and micro scales. H, a measure of cosmic stuff, is literally derivable from atomic stuff.
I'm not a cosmologist but... Is it possible to have both photon tiring and expansion and still measure the same numbers in experiment? Also wouldn't the arc separation of deep field stars increase detectably with expansion?
And the need for an explanation arose when Hubble saw the redshift. He and Zwicky preferred tired light over galactic recession, but the halfwit academic establishment went with galactic recession.
> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. I suppose she's referring to the things discussed in her interview with Sarkar here -> https:…
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
Side tangent: Why are most of her numbers, except dates, spelled out? Is this some convention specific to her country of origin or something?
Which numbers are you referring to? "3 billion" instead of "3,000,000,000"? That could just be efficiency of typing (not to mention, German uses , and . inversely from English: Pi is 3,1415... in German writing, while a thousand is 1.000).
> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
Knowledge discovery is secondary or tertiary to modern science. The field is full of greedy egomaniacs, leaving the honest scientists at a competitive disadvantage. It's about reputation and $$$.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see it everywhere really. Military and politicians and government orgs all do it to embarrassing lengths too
They also call things polintelcom and codenames like eschelon and prism, doesnt mean it’s great practice for us Btw ESCHELON and Five Eyes coordination existed for so long and people only woke up when Snowden revealed prism