
C'mon mods, seems like a perfectly reasonable comment to me.
- Larger mirror than HST so more sensitivity (can see fainter stars and galaxies), and better angular resolution (diffraction limit).
- Infrared optimized. Because of thermal backgrounds, infrared is best done from space. (HST has some IR capability though)
... so this article is not really journalism, but rather marketing.
Exactly what I was thinking!
Mod parent up please.
What an incoherent rant. Perhaps you should lay off the vino before posting to slashdot.
NAS is not the same.
For example, when I am on the plane, my laptop has no access to the NAS (did I mention that I forgot to rsync before I left). With Dropbox, it syncs seamlessly, and so always has the most recent copy. And then it syncs up automatically when I get back online.
Another me too
( I hardly need the extra referral bonus space now but hey, it doesn't hurt either
According to the article "the astronomers determined that the galaxy UGC 3789 is 160 million light-years from Earth". This translates to 49 Mpc. According to NED, the velocity (in the Cosmic Microwave Background frame) is 3385 km/s.
Therefore this measurement of the Hubble parameter is then 3385/49 = 69 km/s/Mpc.
(Unfortunately the article does not quote an uncertainty on the 49 Mpc measurement. Because of peculiar velocities, I would estimate that there is at least a 300 km/s uncertainty on the 3385 km/s velocity. )
MoND does a good job of explaining rotation curves of spiral galaxies, but that's about it. It fails on the scales of clusters of galaxies, as even its proponents acknowledge. Nor does it make useful predictions for the growth of large-scale structure.
I have no idea what you mean when you say it explains the same things as the "String Hypothesis."
The observed redshift (4.5 in this case) and the Friedmann equation.
In these matters the only certainty is that there is nothing certain. -- Pliny the Elder