![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 26th, 2005 11:54 pmA discussion on cosmology in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god lead me to find a Slashdot story on the recent paper from Fermilab which says that the expansion of the universe may be accounted for without the need for dark energy. That in turn lead me to an excellent Scientific American article which explains the whole expansion/horizon/redshift thing very coherently. I think I knew what the authors say, but had not connected the assortment of half remembered facts into a coherent whole (come to that, I'm not sure I'd connected them into a coherent whole when I first learned them, either, although I don't think the lecturer committed any of the fallacies the article refers to). Scientific American seems consistently better than New Scientist at this sort of thing: the only reason for buying New Scientist is the back page.
challenging_god lead me to find a Slashdot story on the recent paper from Fermilab which says that the expansion of the universe may be accounted for without the need for dark energy. That in turn lead me to an excellent Scientific American article which explains the whole expansion/horizon/redshift thing very coherently. I think I knew what the authors say, but had not connected the assortment of half remembered facts into a coherent whole (come to that, I'm not sure I'd connected them into a coherent whole when I first learned them, either, although I don't think the lecturer committed any of the fallacies the article refers to). Scientific American seems consistently better than New Scientist at this sort of thing: the only reason for buying New Scientist is the back page.
