Re: Claims of MMX non-null results [was Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion ...]
- From: "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 06:10:08 +1000
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007, Tom Roberts wrote:
But one does need to understand what "consistent with" means, and one must compute errorbars for those experiments, as that was not common back in those days.
It's not common enough these days either, what with the occasional mis-applications of statistics making it even into PRL. Thankfully, a minority, but it should be non-existent.
Back then, there was more excuse; statistics as we know it today was in its infancy. Physics is older than statistics, and the Holy Grail of experimental physics is to have results so clear that we don't need no steenkin' statistics.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Conservation of angular momentum
- Next by Date: Re: heat emitting body; insulation calculation - how to do it?
- Previous by thread: Re: hbar=h*(2*alpha)
- Next by thread: Re: Claims of MMX non-null results [was Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion ...]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
