3 ms·

My source is Stacy McGaugh (the guy who wrote that page). On the same page as the original link I found this: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/BBNLCDMMOND.jpg

• acqq 8y ago
  > It looks like this doubling happened in ~2000 so it wouldnt show up in your chart. Since 2000 many new satellite measurements were done and the values improved. As I've quoted your page Planck in 2013 ultimately made the most precise CMB measurements that most conclusively fit the "dark matter" model and provably don't fit the "MOND" model. And for that proof there were no "factor 2" corrections, as you also confirm, at least since 2000. The way you wanted to believe, and how you quoted some other parts of the same document, was that that had to be done for that 2013 proof, and it obviously haven't had. BTW the nature of the measurements, especially those made decades ago, is such that when we started with some value and then later measured something only 2 times smaller or bigger (but then all repeated measurements remain closer to one another), it's still OK. It's not the absolute values that prove this or that, it's the measured shapes that match or not the very complex calculations. And that's what happened in 2013 with Planck: what was measured for more than a decade with other satellites, and finally most precisely with Planck, shows the shape that in practice can't match the MOND predictions but nicely matches what the "dark matter" model predicts.
  • nonbel 8y ago
    >"Since 2000 many new satellite measurements were done and the values improved." The point is that "suddenly" people started measuring a higher baryon density to make it fit what was required for lambda-CDM model to fit the CMB measurements. Ie, the lambda-CDM model did not pre-dict the spectrum beforehand, they had to tune it to match the data. And see how the squares and triangles start moving upwards once the blue circles appear: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/BBNLCDMMOND.jpg http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/BBNLCDMMOND.jpg Remember the oil drop experiment mentioned by Feynman in his cargo cult science talk? That is what this looks like to Mcgaugh: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm I have to say, it is very frustrating to discuss this since you seem to misunderstand every simple point being made, and before that has been corrected you have gone on to miss another point that needs to be addressed. We are not discussing this at a very deep level... Perhaps English is not your native language, but I am just letting you know. I hope no offense is taken.
    • acqq 8y ago
      > The point is that "suddenly" people started measuring a higher baryon density to make it fit what was required W...what? Do you really believe that different scientific organizations in different countries around the world financed and sent different satellites into space but misrepresented the actually measured values only to "fit" some old theoretical predictions? Really? Then there's really no point discussing anything about science with you.
      • nonbel 8y ago
        There's no point to you discussing science with scientists then. Because that is exactly what scientists are worried about. Why? Because it happens all the time.