Well, I'm certainly not seeing an effort to meet my challenge. But it's all right-- alternative ideas are as important for science as nonviable experiments are for evolution. It's not always pretty for the nonviable organism, however, but science is much more forgiving.

From the website of COSMOS magazine:

As long as they don't treat it with ciprofloxacin, I guess it's all right.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

Hi folks,
Could the old saying, computer programmers always say, have anything to do with this result (garbage in results in garbage out) ?
in other words are they missing a key component for the data they have input in the Program simulations?
Im not exactly inferring that its garbage bieng used as data, but more of a missing piece of Info or a possible Incorrect theory? maybe simply caused by Illusion in our observations, that lead to such a statement? or is it really inadequate Processing Power? or just a bad Algorithym some where?
Im just pondering which is wrong our computers or is it our input Parameters are missing something important?
Dennis

It could be any of those, you're right. But the article flat out says that the computers are not powerful enough, which means that simplifications have to be used to get results. The simplifications "threw the baby out with the bathwater" seems the most likely explanation, but that doesn't mean some other simplification might not work fine. A lot of physics is in finding the right simplifications.

VanderL has the correct view on this, IMHO.

Which is basically the same thing the Jim Peebles and Mike Disney have said about Carlos Frenk's galaxy collision/merger simulation for galaxy formation!

And for my 2 cents...they just keep adjusting parameters (knobs) until they get the simulation they are trying to construct.
And when they get what they are looking for...Eureka, we found the answer and when they don't...you get the above...The Big Bang can't be wrong, it must be that they don't have the right parameters, etc.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

The issue is not, nor ever has been, is the Big Bang right. That is simply not science. The issue in science, in this and all things, is: is there any model that does better than the Big Bang model? The answer to that is a resounding no, and until there is, all this "the Big Bang is just an orthodoxy" baloney is just sour grapes.

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...