Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 8, 2014 #1 Share Posted January 8, 2014 BOSS Measures the Universe to One-Percent Accuracy The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey makes the most precise calibration yet of the universe’s “standard ruler” Today the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) Collaboration announced that BOSS has measured the scale of the universe to an accuracy of one percent. This and future measures at this precision are the key to determining the nature of dark energy.“One-percent accuracy in the scale of the universe is the most precise such measurement ever made,” says BOSS’s principal investigator, David Schlegel, a member of the Physics Division of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Read more... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted January 8, 2014 #2 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Yes, I am sure this is what they want us to believe. However, I don't. We doulbe our science knowledge every two to three years. I think it highly presumptuous to think that there is certainty anywhere in modern-day science. But then modern science has become very dogmatic, just like religion. Mainstream science is most certain of it's own dogmas. Edited January 8, 2014 by regeneratia 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyboy52 Posted January 8, 2014 #3 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Science changes so often as new discoveries and new telescopes that can see further than ever before come around every so often. Around 1900 era the U.S. patent office decreed that everything that can be patented has been so. Such presumptiveness still exists.The only thing we know about the future is that it will change beyond what we know and understand now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 8, 2014 #4 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) As usual, a postulate, based on a hypothesis, based on Non - verifiable assumptions... and as always, there is no possibility of determining this experimentally. Baryons - Anti Baryons are posited without ANY measurable, quantifiable, evidence. ALL is qualitative. So... IMO, this is pure hogwash - there is no measurement, that is reliable , to estimate the scalar dimensions of the Universe that we inhabit. 1% accuracy? Dont make me laugh!! ...and therefore, cannot be used to prove the existence of Dark Energy / Matter. Edited January 8, 2014 by keithisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted January 8, 2014 #5 Share Posted January 8, 2014 After reading quickly through the article, it struck me that it would have been nice if they had actually said what the measurement was... (unless I missed it)... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaitSith Posted January 8, 2014 #6 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If the universe has set measurements... what's after that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 8, 2014 #7 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) After reading quickly through the article, it struck me that it would have been nice if they had actually said what the measurement was... (unless I missed it)... You are, of course , correct - no scaling has been released in terms of the Universe. They are not capable of really doing this because the premise of Red Shift (IMO) is not a reliable measure. Edited January 8, 2014 by keithisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted January 8, 2014 #8 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Another thing that struck me... (and I hope I'm not remembering this out of context or anything) They have now measured the universe with a +/- 1% accuracy... yet one of them stated (in the article) that the data supports an "infinite" universe... if it's truly Infinite... how can they measure it?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 8, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted January 8, 2014 After reading quickly through the article, it struck me that it would have been nice if they had actually said what the measurement was... (unless I missed it)... The results are given in the arXiv paper, the abstract of which is linked to at the end of the article (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4877). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 8, 2014 #10 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The results are given in the arXiv paper, the abstract of which is linked to at the end of the article (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4877). and here you have it (from the article): "Our measurements of the distance scale are in good agreement with previous BAO measurements and with the predictions from cosmic microwave background data for a spatially flat cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant." Totally circular argument based on a Constant (not stated), and a Dark Matter model without verifieable parameters... Junk Science to support an asumption!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugly1 Posted January 9, 2014 #11 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I just don't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted January 10, 2014 #12 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Science changes so often as new discoveries and new telescopes that can see further than ever before come around every so often. Around 1900 era the U.S. patent office decreed that everything that can be patented has been so. Such presumptiveness still exists.The only thing we know about the future is that it will change beyond what we know and understand now. They have even found that scientists are going to have to rework the laws of thermodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted January 13, 2014 #13 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I have to agree that these conclusions are presumptive. I appreciate they have arrived at a conclusion of a flat-space topology by taking a sample size of the observable universe, or a significant swathe of that (13Gpc3), but this does not mean that space-time is actually flat. For all we know this sample may only be a minute fraction of the actual universe. Again, I appreciate we can only state conclusions based on what we can observe, but we should ensure to couch the language of those conclusions to accommodate that so as not to appear presumptive. There is a trend in modern science to make conclusions more 'absolute' than they perhaps should be, and maybe this is down to the influence money has in performing science. Edited January 13, 2014 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now