Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Measure the Hubble Constant (aka Freedman et al. (2000)).
From the Introduction (section 1):For our purposes, the Mould et al. (2000a) paper is (very likely) worth reading; but let's start with §2 and §3, a summary of the method and determination of Cepheid distances. After that, we could consider the van Leeuwen et al (2007) paper as it relates to Cepheid distances, before moving on to §4 and §5 (where Freedman et al. apply a nearby flow field correction and "compare the value of H0 obtained locally with that determined at greater distances").
Then we could take a look at the secondary methods (§6 and §7, plus Mould et al. (2000a), van Leeuwen et al (2007) again, and some of the other papers mentioned in the OP). If we're still on track after that, or perhaps in conjunction, §8 should become highly pertinent ("The remaining sources of uncertainty in the extragalactic distance scale and determination of H0").
OK?
|
Any discussion relevant to the topic of this thread is fine with me. My primary point is that this general belief that the value of the Hubble Constant has been largely finalized (at a value of ~70) by the HKP final results is incorrect. It is still possible that the value of H0 could be into the 80's - even if the HKP cepheid calibration was unchanged by newer results such as that of van Leeuwen. In fact the van Leeuwen study only increases the possibility that H0 is actually in the 90's.
So anything you want to comment on is fine. I pointed to a few items of interest in the OP.
__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."
~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982
|