(no subject)

[nameandnature]

A discussion on cosmology in 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.

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

All very interesting... Thanks for the links.

[talisker.livejournal.com]

Hello. Hope you don't mind, I added you as a friend. I enjoy how you express yourself and that dilbert icon is truly twisted. I love it. Also, I've been told by my girlfriend that I need to add more male LJers to my cambridge friend list :)

[nameandnature]

Hello! You're most welcome to friend me (never quite know what the etiquette of that is, hence the bit in the userinfo about how I see it).

I stole the icon, although I can't remember who I stole it from (the Firefly ones I've credited as I actually got the person's permission, but I think the Dilbert one is just a cut of an existing cartoon so I don't feel too bad about it).

Will attempt to continue to be interesting :-)

[talisker.livejournal.com]

I love dilbert. The sad part is that I've worked for those types of companies for longer than I'd care to admit :)