by xparadigm on 9/1/18, 4:59 PM with 20 comments
by dagss on 9/1/18, 6:59 PM
Penrose & Gurzadyan committed this travesty:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706
...and the entire CMB analysis community quickly rushed to point out the numerous basic errors done in the statistical analysis.
E.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L2...
Gurzadyan & Penrose wrote the kind of paper that should never have passed basic peer review. And even when "everyone" pointed out Gurzadyan does not have a clue about data analysis they still stuck to it.
I have no idea about this paper and if Penrose has found a better data analyst to collaborate with this time. Just be aware that while Penrose may be brilliant about the things he knows something about, his name on a data analysis paper is not any guarantee about the data analysis being sound.
Edit: Another less polite and clearer exposition of Gurzadyan's "methods" https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2012/02/aa17344-...
by mikhailfranco on 9/1/18, 5:47 PM
However, if subsequently verified by others - wow - instant Nobel Prize for Sir Roger.
by fernly on 9/1/18, 6:09 PM
by perl4ever on 9/1/18, 7:36 PM
by novalis78 on 9/1/18, 6:10 PM
by bfoks on 9/1/18, 10:48 PM
by sabujp on 9/1/18, 6:55 PM
by ionwake on 9/1/18, 6:28 PM