If you're a cosmologist, you need to rewrite your proposal. Now.
Well, 13,730 million if you have confidence in ground based data... looking through Apache Point apparently puts 40 million years on the universe.
Ok, WMAP-5 release is out, just in time for pedants on panels to quibble about everybody's cosmology related Hubble proposals using dated information.
Hence, clearly, they must be rejected in favour of observations of the local universe which are not sensitive to these parameters...
There is a stack of new, overlong, papers, which I suppose we must all eventually read and then pick one or two to actually cite.
Best of all, there is a handy-dandy summary table of the Officially Approved Parameters for Construction of Universe, release 5.0
as well as a dozen or so TLA'd models Which Will Not Do, At All.
We are at Concordance.
4.6% baryonic mass. 23.3% dark matter, mostly cold. 72.1% of No Clue.
and, we can all be grateful for the Official TLA Decryptor Table
No pretty pictures for my readers!
Get back to writing proposals, now, dammitt.
I prefer my smudgy, hard to make out bits right up against bright nearby stars instead of in the middle of nowhere. Heck, if you look long enough at a star, you get the galaxies for free :)
The Riofrio cosmology is not on the list. Neither is the no-DE Wiltshire cosmology. Why not?
Hmmmm. Your favourite choices (ISO1 and TENS) give the correct Omega(baryon) figures for the Riofrio cosmology. Are you perhaps secretly on the side of the crackpots?
I think the cosmologists are just too lazy to conduct a proper parametric study of theory models spaces...
I am however a confirmed adiabaticist, despite a good friend of mine having tried to convert me to the isocurvature heresy at a tender age
Happy Birthday Universe! Where do we celebrate? The Star Wars Bar? Yarrgh! Pass that flask of Klingon Ale this way! We'll all be seeing starstuff by midnight!!