Pin It
Thanks, will do

On Jul 4, 2015, at 3:41 PM, nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

If you check out some of the references in the Neilsen, Guffanti, Sarkar (NGS) paper, you will find 
that their claim is not new (see NGS refs 13, 19). For instance Jun-Jie Wei and Xue-Feng Wu 
located at Purple Mountain Observatory in mainland China make
exactly the same claim using a different supernova data set (SLS)
Wei & Wu's SLS data set contains 252 SNs and the NGS data set (JLA) contains 740 supernovas.
 
 
What these and several other papers seem to be saying is that both the data and the corrections 
to the data seem to depend on the model you assume. If you calculate both Dark-Matter Universe (DMU)
and Hubble Constant expansion Universe (HCEU), you can fit them BOTH to the facts.
However the more facts you add the more you have to fudge the DMU predictions. Astonishing that you can fit 
the same data with radically different assumptions.
 
However, as the various authors point out, given a theory with one free parameter (HCEU) and a theory 
with 6 free parameters (DMU), the theory with fewest free parameters is favored
 
Occam's Razor rules.
 
It would be interesting to see what the response of Perlmutter et al is to these recent publications that seem 
to cast their prize-winning work into serious doubt.
 
I don't like to jump to conclusions until the other side has had its say. So far I have not seen any criticism of these 
recent results. Please alert me, Jack, if you see a publication by Perlmutter and his dark energy colleagues that 
claims to blow Wei, Wu and Sarkar out of the water.
 
Absolutely. If they are right it blows my future de Sitter horizon hologram Seth Lloyd computer AI conjecture right out of the water. I. J. Good’s GOD(D) is DEAD if they are right. ;-) There is no VALIS in that case.
 
On Jul 4, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I have not looked at the full paper in detail can you say more about that?
My gut says they are right what do you think?

On Saturday, July 4, 2015, nick herbert <
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
Not merely better statistics
but the discovery of a new subclass of supernova
is driving this revolutionary claim.