You guys said you wanted more scientific topics.
Summary:
http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html
Paper is here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf
Obviously I don't come close on understanding a lot of the math and I don't think there are many here who do, but there is still a lot you can get out of the paper itself if you're willing to read around a bit. Particularly sections I, IV, and V.
Type 1A supernovae are supernova that for whatever reason (wikipedia says the "accretion mechanism" whatever the fuck that is) we are reasonably certain of their wavelength in absolute terms, so they make ideal benchmarks when measuring their wavelengths to look for red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1a_supernovae
The theory being based in a three sphere essentially means it has no center point, which is useful compared to other models that need to have the universe "centered" somewhere, which doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense. It makes it generally preferable to something more standard like the FLRW model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere
They also get rid of dark matter because this model is based on shifting acceleration around anyways based on the constants "evolving", the whole dark matter thing seems pretty sketchy and it hasn't exactly predicted a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Generally it is interesting if nothing else, certainly nothing revolutionary at least until it predicts something. There are lots of nutzo models that seem to come together on paper, problem is if they can't actually predict something previously unknown they aren't worth a lot. Still it seems very elegant, certainly more than the alternatives I am aware of, and it fits the current data well enough. Though I'm not sure how they explain the cosmic microwave background.
Summary:
http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html
Paper is here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf
Obviously I don't come close on understanding a lot of the math and I don't think there are many here who do, but there is still a lot you can get out of the paper itself if you're willing to read around a bit. Particularly sections I, IV, and V.
Type 1A supernovae are supernova that for whatever reason (wikipedia says the "accretion mechanism" whatever the fuck that is) we are reasonably certain of their wavelength in absolute terms, so they make ideal benchmarks when measuring their wavelengths to look for red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1a_supernovae
The theory being based in a three sphere essentially means it has no center point, which is useful compared to other models that need to have the universe "centered" somewhere, which doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense. It makes it generally preferable to something more standard like the FLRW model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere
They also get rid of dark matter because this model is based on shifting acceleration around anyways based on the constants "evolving", the whole dark matter thing seems pretty sketchy and it hasn't exactly predicted a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Generally it is interesting if nothing else, certainly nothing revolutionary at least until it predicts something. There are lots of nutzo models that seem to come together on paper, problem is if they can't actually predict something previously unknown they aren't worth a lot. Still it seems very elegant, certainly more than the alternatives I am aware of, and it fits the current data well enough. Though I'm not sure how they explain the cosmic microwave background.