From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article ,   
   "Robert L. Oldershaw"  writes:   
      
   > On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:43:04 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:   
   > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:21:09 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress   
   to   
   > > reply) wrote:   
   > >   
   > > QUOTE   
   > > However, they require that we are in the   
   > > centre of a large overdense region, which seems improbable on other   
   > > grounds.   
   > > END QUOTE   
   > >   
   > > This is an interesting point. A counter argument came to mind. If one   
   > > were to wager, bet, where they are in the universe then guessing one is   
   > > from the denser part of the universe would increase the odds of winning   
   > > the wager.   
   >   
   > Not "overdense"!   
   >   
   > Actually PH, like LC, appears to have misread the paper, or...   
   > Here is a quotation from the conclusions:   
      
   No, you have misunderstood John's COUNTERargument, namely that---all   
   else being equal---one is more likely to be in an overdense region of   
   the universe than in an underdense one, simply because there is more   
   matter---and thus, presumably, more life---in overdense regions.   
      
   In other words, while (and this is an old idea) living in an underdense   
   region could mean that local expansion is faster than average, perhaps   
   explaining while the "local" Hubble constant is higher than the Planck   
   value, or perhaps causing the m-z relation to suggest a cosmological   
   constant when there really is none, John's argument is that this is a   
   priori unlikely, for the same reason that a random human is more likely   
   to live in India or China than in Liechtenstein or Monaco.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)