REVIEW 1 cited by
$H_0$ Tension: Response to Riess et al arXiv:1810.03526
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
Riess et al (2018c) have claimed there exist seven problems in the analyses presented by Shanks et al (2018) where we argue that there is enough uncertainty in Cepheid distances and local peculiar velocity fields to explain the current tension in $H_0$. Here, we take each of the Riess et al (2018c) points in turn and suggest that either they do not apply or that the necessary caveats are already made by Shanks et al (2018). We conclude that the main point to be inferred from our analyses still stands which is that previous claims by Riess et al (2018b) that Gaia parallaxes confirm their Cepheid scale are, at best, premature in advance of further improvements in the Gaia astrometric solution.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Local Hole revisited: evidence for bulk motions and self-consistent outflow
The Local Hole underdensity appears self-consistent with galaxy peculiar velocities from the z(m) Hubble diagram and may explain a 2-3% local boost to H0, though supernova data disagree.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.