| Subject: Is it better to be 'slightly wrong' or 'not
even wrong'?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:35:44 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net> To: Subir Sarkar <s.sarkar@physics.ox.ac.uk> CC: dns@astro.princeton.edu, cornish@physics.montana.edu, sboughn@haverford.edu, Robert.Crittenden@port.ac.uk, n.j.t.smith@rl.ac.uk, amurphy@ph.ed.ac.uk, t.sumner@ic.ac.uk, w.g.jones@ic.ac.uk, n.spooner@sheffield.ac.uk, zenguyuno@users.sourceforge.net Dear Professor Sarkar, Regarding your efforts to refute the existence of dark matter & energy, David Spergel, who certainly knows something about the WMAP data, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Cornish.html stressed that a lot of things need to be wrong for observations of the Universe to make sense without dark energy. Your reaction: "It is better to be slightly wrong about a number of things than incorporate a parameter which is 10 followed by 123 zeroes bigger than theory predicts!" Perhaps you may be interested to see S. Boughn and R. Crittenden, A correlation between the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure in the Universe, Nature 427, 45-47 (1 January 2004), and http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Luminet.html http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Carroll.html#note I think that some people involved in this discussion are 'not even wrong'. I wonder if you could suggest some names. Regards, Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html Pritie amzanig huh? ===== Subject: Re: Is it better to be 'slightly wrong' or 'not
even wrong'?
Dear Dr. Sarkar: Thank you for your reply of Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:13:05 +0000 (GMT). I wouldn't like to comment on your assumptions, which you put against the assumptions of your colleagues, because this would be a discussion on the number of angels you can place on the head of a pin. Instead of focusing your efforts on solving the crux of the puzzle, after Feynman, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Schwarz.html#1 you are discussing assumptions based on 4 (four) per cent of the stuff in the universe. I'm afraid your approach is 'not even wrong'. If it were wrong, you would have a chance to see the dead-end, get back to the starting point, and look for another way to solve the puzzle. If you believe that I'm wrong, please do not hesitate to comply with the well-known standards: place your cards on the table, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Luminet.html See the Cornish-Spergel-Starkman team vs. Luminet-Weeks team. They too can talk, and talk, and talk, forever. Just like in parapsychology, only you use more advanced math. > you do not appear to be engaged in research yourself. I believe your assumption is wrong. > the data can be fitted even better if Iff you solve the initial puzzle. Please see Feynman above. > the significance of these detections is hardly overwhelming How many angels, then? > I am also puzzled as to why you have copied your email
to a In case you're puzzled, please see the links in my preceding email, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Sarkar.html > Concerning your proposal that ESP is possible No, it isn't. Neither ESP nor PK.
> Indeed my first reaction to receiving your message might
also Please do it ASAP. > we do not need you to create a confrontation between
us - we I don't think you create a confrontation but a friendly atmosphere for discussing the alternatives on the number of angels you can place on the head of a pin. Please don't forget to delete this email, and have a Budweiser, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Josephson.html#Bud Yours faithfully, Dimi Chakalov =========
Subject:
arXiv:0710.5307v1 [astro-ph]
|
