Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:28:13 UTC No. 16199710

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:38:36 UTC No. 16199736

>>16199708
>no single basedencist noticed there's a problem with the data for nearly 30 years
they knew but ignored it because without deliberately inventing a problem you can't sell the solution.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:50:21 UTC No. 16199757

>>16199710
Wait so Supernovae dom’t exist?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 22:03:35 UTC No. 16199777

>>16199757
They do, but supposedly there's a problem with the data in the study (studies) about them. What I don't really understand is why no subsequential studies revealed the problem, they only made hubble tension worse. How is the science done? Have been sciencist repacking old data into new studies without any verification? Mind blowing.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 23:13:17 UTC No. 16199872

>>16199777
Why wasn't this brought up here before this pop-soientista got it out? Guess this proves that the only atronomyfags here are conformal.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:27:47 UTC No. 16201000

>>16199872
Apparently she learned it from someone else who talks about the issue.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:29:49 UTC No. 16201003

>>16201000
Subir Sarkar

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:27:49 UTC No. 16201153

>>16201003
>Subir Sarkar
lol wtf is this. do physicists really?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:32:50 UTC No. 16201157

>>16201153
Pajeet negroid only capable of analysing research instead of actually doing it.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:24:07 UTC No. 16201226

>>16199708
There was a high school teacher who analyzed the data a while back using his own methodology and came up with 84 km/s/Mpc. Turns out when your methods are honest you get almost exactly 1/4c^2.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 19:36:23 UTC No. 16201239

>>16201226
Uh, your units are kinda fucked up there.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:25:03 UTC No. 16201444

>>16201239
If that bothers you I recommend you don't read any of Maxwell's original papers (who am I kidding, you're not going to anyway)

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:48:52 UTC No. 16201596

>>16201226
anon, would you just believe any old retard on the internet if they disagreed with established science? high school teachers are not particularly good authorities on cosmology, and 84 km/s/Mpc is WAY off.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:18:28 UTC No. 16201634

>>16201596
>blindly appeals to authority
You can believe whatever you want, kid. Thinking is hard, I get it.

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:52:41 UTC No. 16201664

>>16201153
>>16201157
Based. We need people who know they aren't creative geniuses, but who are still smart enough to actually do the work, to just knuckle down and replicate/analyze/review/summarize things, because that's actually useful and valuable work that enhances the quality of science and academia. The last thing we need is more "creative idiots" writing junk papers that claim to advance something but which are just spinning wheels and mashing together combinations of things.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:13:10 UTC No. 16201682

>>16201664
Not how it works. What must be done is people should be doing relevant work so there is actual motivation for replication. But that won't happen, because it is fraudulent paper mill activity fleecing government grants from taxpayers. This is the same fraud as found with any bureaucratic enterprise.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:28:24 UTC No. 16201706

>scientists lied for fame and fortune
Why would they do that though?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:33:11 UTC No. 16202067

>>16201634
What you're doing is specifically appealing to a LACK of authority. Genuinely stupid.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:48:34 UTC No. 16202087

>>16201157
The basedentist plagirizer fears the pajeet reviewer
Emperor is naked

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:52:12 UTC No. 16202095

>>16199872
/sci/ is too blackpilled about academia to do this work
They would have thought it useless waste of time

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 09:00:20 UTC No. 16202219

>>16199710
>>16199777
>>16199736

And naturally Sabine accepts Sarkar's claims without a second thought. Because the guy the claims against the mainstream must be legit. There have been shown to be many flaws in his anayses which laid out the criticism. It's not the case that he pointed out errors and everyone accepts things, he uses totally different methods and gets different results.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 09:03:04 UTC No. 16202223

>>16199777
>>16199872

There is tons of verification. Blind anayses, independent studies (by dozens of teams), mock data challenges. Sarkar on the other hand has done none of this. He finds different results obtained via different methods and claims everyone else is doing it wrong, despite the fact he has no deep knowledge of the topic.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 09:05:27 UTC No. 16202225

>>16201634
>>16201226

As opposed to bringing up an uncited anacote where you decide that analysis must be correct because you like the number. Numerology not science.