tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post2873173059678124234..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: Auger, Centaurus and VirgoJesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-26675313397391104422007-12-07T18:59:00.000+01:002007-12-07T18:59:00.000+01:00I think the "unbelievable" responses here are pret...I think the "unbelievable" responses here are pretty superficial. Since when were the events that produced these cosmic rays supposed to be non-directional? The people are making a valid objection but to me at least it is far from clear how much it would apply in this situation. The devil would be in the statistics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-50457568093046292492007-12-06T09:23:00.000+01:002007-12-06T09:23:00.000+01:00Unbelievable, I don't understand how this could ha...Unbelievable, I don't understand how this could happen if its true. Not b/c errors like this can't happen (eg a grad student hands a nonbiased data set to a prof who expects a biased set) <BR/><BR/>but more because you would think it would be immediately obvious upon inspection.<BR/><BR/>Im off to eyeball the paper now, its got me curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-33389613271162621892007-12-04T16:49:00.000+01:002007-12-04T16:49:00.000+01:00"I blame it on the string theorists, since their g..."I blame it on the string theorists, since their goofy ideas have taken over the press while still full of an almost infinite number of errors.'<BR/><BR/>Eeh.. you want to blame the string physicists for the low quality standards in other fields? Haven't you seen, for example, those phenonemological model builders? Or the recent "Lisi theory of everything" that has been dubbed fabulous by leaders of the quantum gravity scene? <BR/><BR/>The only connection to string theorists is that the former try to imitate the latter, however to no avail; but that's not at the fault of the string theorists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-69361426032226426902007-12-04T11:29:00.000+01:002007-12-04T11:29:00.000+01:00I also choked when i heard it, but that's what Tka...I also choked when i heard it, but that's what Tkachev et al. claim. The quote as it stands in the comment is ''The flux of a given source decreases as 1/r^2 with the distance r to the observer. This is not taken into account in the method of positional correlations used in Ref. [AUGER] ´´Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844247827820646813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-83373146359190750422007-12-03T20:17:00.000+01:002007-12-03T20:17:00.000+01:00There was a time when scientists sought broad revi...There was a time when scientists sought broad review by trusted associates before publishing anything. That avoided most of these publicly embarrassing errors. These days, the rush to publish is more important than reputation. It seems everyone wants to be the "Paris Hilton" of science now, where celebrity is more important than reputation. I blame it on the string theorists, since their goofy ideas have taken over the press while still full of an almost infinite number of errors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-25671132050330941052007-12-03T19:41:00.000+01:002007-12-03T19:41:00.000+01:00They did "not take into account the $$1/r^2$$ decr...They did "not take into account the $$1/r^2$$ decrease of the flux with the distance to the observer"?!?!?<BR/><BR/>I'm flabbergasted. After this, can ANY claim coming from the astro people be taken seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com