In article <mt2.0-9617...@hydra.herts.ac.uk
>, Nicolaas Vroom
Just a couple of technical points (I might comment on the article after
I have read it). First, with the new xxxx.xxxx numbering scheme, the
category, e.g. astro-ph, is no longer needed; the number itself is a
unique identifier. Part of the reason for this change is that it allows
the category to be changed without changing the number (and indeed some
papers are in more than one category at the same time, though I believe
that there is always a main category). The standard citation scheme
then produces arXiv:1203.6269 for the reference above. Also, if one
wants a direct link, one should link to the abstract, not to the PDF.
First, perhaps not everyone wants PDF. Second, many people would like
to read the abstract before accessing the PDF or whatever, especially on
a slow connection (the abstract usually mentions how many pages, figures
etc), or perhaps just the abstract, at least initially. Third, linking
to the PDF is documented to not always work (it might work for you now,
but that does not mean it will always work for everyone). Thus, in this
Nevertheless, having just read the abstract to test the link above, let
me mention a few things:
o Since their analysis results in very non-standard results, it
seems strange that they limit their analysis to a flat universe;
what would be the result of dropping this constraint?
o One interesting thing about the Nobel-Prize--winning supernovae
results is that two teams independently got the same result.
o Other cosmological tests also converge on these values, so one has
to explain what is wrong with the supernovae data or, if the
authors actually believe their result (which the abstract hints
at), what is wrong with essentially all other cosmological tests.
o This is from "Journal of Physics: Conference Series"; although at
one can read
about the fact that the contributions have been refereed, even
this statement leaves open the question whether the standards for
proceedings are the same as for "proper" journals. While I think
that proceedings shouldn't have the same standards as "proper"
journals, if their result is true then it is important enough to
appear in a "proper" journal and might benefit (positively or
negatively) from more strict refereeing.
o "In particular we are interested in verifying if the Einstein-de
Sitter model of the expanding Universe is really to be ruled out."
This sounds like an axe begging to be ground. The Einstein-de
Sitter model has been ruled out by essentially every cosmological
test which is able to discriminate between it and, say, the
current "standard model". This strengthens my requirement in my
third point above.
Again, more after I have read the paper.