In article <Y4OdneM55LfKpr_D...@giganews.com
>, "Richard D.
> The authors statement:
> 'We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered
> in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details
> of the dark energy.'
> Such a statement is revolutionary on its face.
No. One ALWAYS has to take systematic bias into account when analysing=20
data. Perhaps they have found something new. If it holds up, then it=20
has to be taken into account.
> Is this going to bend the arc of cosmological science?
By itself, no. There seems to be a widespread misconception that the=20
ONLY evidence for a positive cosmological constant or (a stronger claim)=20
an accelerating universe is the supernova data. The concordance model=20
is called the concordance model because many different lines of evidence=20
point to the same values of the cosmological parameters. The=20
accelerating universe is still there even completely ignoring the=20
supernova data. These days, JUST THE CMB tells us that the universe is=20
accelerating. So, if this effect affects the conclusions from the=20
supernova data so much that an accelerating universe is ruled out (as=20
the hype surrounding this paper sometimes implies), then one has to=20
explain why essentially ALL THE OTHER COSMOLOGICAL TESTS ARE WRONG. Not=20
only that, they are all wrong but just happen to give the same result.
Note that the quote above is=20
We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered
in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details of the=20
DETAILS. Of course it has to be taken into account. Whether it would=20
lead to a conclusion incompatible with other tests is a different=20
question. Even if it does, the interpretation is probably not that=20
there is not a cosmological constant.
See also my reply to Alex (and, indeed, the post and all the comments)