>>16839310
>Supernova standard candles ARE WRONG
That's certainly a strong and significant claim. Isn't this going to basically change most of our understanding of large scale structures and even basic mappings of the universe? It's been the primary way to measure distance

>>16839414
I imagine this finding will be ignored and it will be full steam ahead with the old theories, maybe with some new made up untestable ideas to make the new findings go away. That seems to be what usually happens

Cosmology is a fraud and a waste of time. You can't extrapolate to light years with measurements made within a few kilometers

>>16839430
I can and I will. You can't stop me.

>>16839310
if you accept the notion of infinite time, it follows that the universe is either exactly balanced between expansion and contraction, or see-saws eternally between one and the other
st. Bayes teaches us that if the one-and-done explosion universe theory was right, the probability that we would be having this conversation as Boltzmann brains in the post heat death soup is infinitely near to 1, while the probability of us existing in the interesting part of universal history with baryonic matter and all that is infinitely close to zero

>>16840272
We are having this conversation, therefore the probability of us having this conversation is 1
You can't apply probabilistic rules to one-off events, especially one-off events that have already happened. The anthropic principle wins, and the law of large numbers kneels

>>16840289
but this is not a one-off
a significant number of retards just like us have been having this sort of conversation for a significant amount of time