I’ve finally finished the project.
When looking into the most recent papers, it seems there’s a general consistency in the data between values of H0. I was really expecting a lot of variation in this, but this seems to have settled down over the past few years, and there’s general agreement on a value of around 71 or 72.
Yet this only works with the data from Gravitational Lensing if we model the mass of the galaxy in line with the observed light of the galaxy. This sounds ok, but is in direct conflict with dark matter theories – where we believe 90% of a galaxy’s mass must lie outside the visible disc, in a large near-spherical halo. If they take dark matter into account, the GL figures are all ~10% too low – and there’s too much agreement between other methods (WMAP, Chandra, HST Key Project) to allow that.
So really, GL is offering information on dark matter rather than on the Hubble Constant, which is quite a surprise. Hopefully the report has made that clear.
I’ve had a week off work to finish up, and it’s been a long time since I’ve been able to work on the project, so it’s been a busy week! I’ve had to catch up on stuff I already knew, and I know the report isn’t as polished as I would have liked. But it should hit all the targets.
iGoogle replaced Google as my homepage.
Great! Knowledge at my fingertips.
But Chrome seems to be missing a “home” button. And the default homepage is quite a handy starting point. So will I use iGoogle any more?
75%. Awesome 🙂 I was a lot happier with this years TMA03 than the previous years, even though I rewrote quite a lot at the last minute to focus on being a literary review, rather than an overview of the subject.
Review of feedback from TMA03:
Abstract – good, but I need to explain more to non-astronomy people. This should be fine, but of course it’s hard to do that when all you’re reading is hardcore science papers 🙂
Contents – good.
Introduction – good, but omitted discussion of the objectives of the paper.
Literature review – good. “In the final ECA report be sure to keep the ‘critical’ aspects of your analysis (‘critical’ in the sense of comparing/contrasting different results and theories, discussing any contested ideas or controversial issues, evaluating different perspectives/proposals etc.) to the fore.”
All in all, a good result from TMA03. I need to do more research to find more contentious issues, so I can focus the review section a bit more. That should be easy to do – previously I was ignoring these to try to get a better picture of the established consensus.
Obviously, I’m focused on the gravitational lensing aspects of this, so this is where more research comes in.
Pretty much the ultimate test for any JS engine is this website. The stars above are pretty hardcore (there’s a lot of them, and the code isn’t optimized). Google Chrome is impressively fast (but so is Safari), but the rendering of the stars looks a bit odd. Are there PNG/opacity problems perhaps?
It is quick though. Another good test of the browser is my Easter card. http://www.kufluk.com/easter/
I’ve added a larger number of bunnies than usual, and the JS is fine! Sadly, the animated GIFs are causing trouble though. 🙁