Scientific precision and consistency

I have started doing my own analysis of data and this plot of the published values of H0 ( Hubble constant ) says to me that there is no real consistent theory behind the conclusions. If a graph of G ( the gravitational constant ) looked like this, I would say the people were on something.

It seems to me that the field of cosmology is characterized by wild speculation. Looks like results from a group of people who are constantly confused or using different calculators.

If this were an open source library, I would call it unusable it its current form. I wish it were really simple to solve, but it won't be. There are too many variables and a dependency on mathematical models which are untestable.

I used gnuplot to generate this and it is really sloppy, but I wanted to at least get a general visual idea of the ambiguity. One thing that can't be seen here is the incorporation of "Dark Matter" in the calculations. I think I will make another plot with the published statements of the number of stars in the universe and the extent of it, rather than h0 . It starts at 0 since it was assumed that the lights were the camp fires of the gods.

I have seen some rays of hope and it seems to me that it will resolve completely and consistently. The biggest problem is the availability of every opinion, but less foundational data. There are many ways in which the data can yield answers and one interesting thought was the time to space variation in line shift to distance. Now that one is definitely a TSP , but some reasonably aimed Monte Carlo could possibly give a new data point to make the whole picture more coherent in its interpretation. I doubt it is more complex than a 7 dimensional Rubik's cube and so it is possible to align all the dimensions of possibility eventually. I have traveled the range of possible complexities and though it is fairly convolved, it does have a clear under structure. I can't predict precisely what would happen when two neutron stars collide, and perhaps that is part of the problem. It isn't reasonable to assume that the splash of a drop will be the same twice. Generally yes, specifically no. So what is the point of speculating about things which cannot be predicted?

The graph looks a little like emergent behavior of geese.

The new telescope JWST is supposed to look back in time so far that it see the original formation of galaxies. I would really be interested in the first and farthest images from that. It will either be an indication that I am wrong in believing that the universe is infinite or another indicator that something more is going on in the universe for others. I can imagine the back pedaling now. We made a .00001 calculation err and it bloomed into a universe 1 trillion light years across. I can't say for certain that it is closed or open, it is beyond observation and computation. It requires a look to determine the result. I would be gracious and say that I was just wrong, but others have invested their reputation and position in something that I feel is purely guesswork. I don't accept the Big Bang Theory because it seems to grow out of a concession to creationism. JWST will launch in 2014 and here is the wiki page.


Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen