Law School Discussion

Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp

tulpen

  • ****
  • 158
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #90 on: February 04, 2006, 01:24:41 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

Finch

  • ****
  • 145
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #91 on: February 04, 2006, 01:24:46 PM »
Strange i dont even remember "reasoned dismissal" being one of the options. I put skepticism though because it seemed like he conclusively said that the new thing was wrong, only that it conflicted with a lot of other evidence and established theory, so its probably wrong.

Also, what did oyu get for adding another sentence to the end question on that passage. I put something about the scientists might have messed up the radiation frequency or soomething like that. It was recommendation for what may have caused the new faulty data.

Something about doubting the calculations of variance for those stars they were studying?

4DClaw

  • ****
  • 812
    • View Profile
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #92 on: February 04, 2006, 01:25:58 PM »
Yeah, I think it was "good measure of brightness" or some such thing. There was a weird answer that contained the word "beacon," and I didn't choose that.

Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

magnumalv

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #93 on: February 04, 2006, 01:26:14 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

oo, yes, i remember the candle one. i chose the same anser.

Finch

  • ****
  • 145
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #94 on: February 04, 2006, 01:26:27 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

Yeah, on bright candle I put sufficient measure of true brightness or whatever.

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #95 on: February 04, 2006, 01:26:48 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

I think that is what I put.

I dont remember picking an anwer about a group not being representative in the RC

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #96 on: February 04, 2006, 01:27:01 PM »
one of the hubble passage questions was a "what's the best way to end the last paragraph?" something about "big bang theory will probably be retained"...?

Fidelio

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #97 on: February 04, 2006, 01:27:08 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

agreed with the 1st one.

second one doesn't ring a bell

Nine48

Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #98 on: February 04, 2006, 01:28:07 PM »
Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

1) Candle: I chose that they were a measure of true brightness.
2) the question you're referring to was something like:  what would proponents of the big bang theory say in response to the evidence from the Ceph stars

I think that I put down that it shouldn't be completely accepted until further evidence...something like that.

4DClaw

  • ****
  • 812
    • View Profile
Re: Post Mortem - Feb 06 Reading Comp
« Reply #99 on: February 04, 2006, 01:29:00 PM »
I also put shouldn't be completely accepted until further evidence.

Thoughts on the Hubble one (in case it jars anyone's memory):

there was a question asking "what could replace a good bright candle" in reference to the scientists using those stars to measure brightness and therefore calculating Hubbel. I'm trying to remember what the answer was. Was it something like, they were a good measure of true brightness?

Also, was there an answer that said the scientists (or the author?) would likely think that the stars were not sufficient representative group to measure....?  does that ring a bell?

1) Candle: I chose that they were a measure of true brightness.
2) the question you're referring to was something like:  what would proponents of the big bang theory say in response to the evidence from the Ceph stars

I think that I put down that it shouldn't be completely accepted until further evidence...something like that.