4 ms·

> The same solo author (a computer scientist) has made many similar claims based on a variety of datasets. Often coming to completely contradictory conclusions.

by nabla9 2y ago

> The same solo author (a computer scientist) has made many similar claims based on a variety of datasets. Often coming to completely contradictory conclusions. Some of these claims have been followed up by astronomers, who found errors in his analysis and poor statistical tests. His claims have been discussed in this sub before. Independent studied have found no significant evidence of anisotropy. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/534/2/1553/7762193 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/534/2/1553/7762193 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907..123I/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907..123I/abstra... https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3928H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3928H/abstra... >Take his claims about JWST as an example. In 2024 he wrote a paper about some early data, claiming to find more galaxies rotating with the Milky Way. He claimed based on a sample of just 34 galaxies that the signal was significant. Now he has looked at a wider dataset of the same area, which should allow him to verify his analysis. But it shows exactly the opposite, more anti. So he writes a paper saying this new result is definitely significant but doesn't reflect on the fact he has written two papers which contradict each other. He has failed to reproduce his own result. The take away is that his results are not as significant as he claims. He's also looking at a tiny area, and nearby galaxies can have correlated spins. He doesn't take this into account either. There are multiple JWST fields in different directions he could examine in different directions to test his claims, there are two JADES fields, but he only publishes one. >I do wish the MNRAS editors would take measures to stop publishing low quality claims like this without more robust review. If you look at the text, it’s largely repeating results from his old papers. There’s very little discussion of the new results. source: https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1ja9i53/the_distribution_of_galaxy_rotation_in_jwst/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1ja9i53/the_dist...

iainmerrick 2y ago
Thank you. That's a shame, it was a cool-sounding story, just unlikely enough to sound plausible.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Clockwise? To which observer?
  - jfengel 2y ago
    It's arbitrary, but that's fine. The important part would be any asymmetry. The Big Bang implies that there shouldn't be one.
    - joe_the_user 2y ago
      Just to be clear, it's not fine at all in any "this is a fine physical theory". A statistically unlikely arrangement of cosmic objects relative to earth only - earth in particular, violates not just the properties of the big bang but "the cosmological principle" and common sense. It's a garbage theory, a headline that makes a math person just have a "how stupid do they expect the average person to be" reaction.
      - thrdbndndn 2y ago
        ?? he's saying "it's fine" if it's defined as "clockwise" arbitrarily.
      - iainmerrick 2y ago
        No, I don't think you have this right. There was no physical theory claimed, just a very surprising observation (though of course it turns out to be bogus). If it were true it would require an incredible explanation, but that's not at all the same as just proposing an outlandish theory with no motivation. If you take the approach you describe, I think you'd have incorrectly dismissed the observation that distant continents look as if they could fit together like jigsaw pieces, as it implied the impossible theory of continental drift. Isn't that just the same sort of outlandish, clearly ridiculous observation as "there's an asymmetry in the way galaxies rotate"? Except of course that one observation is correct, and the other isn't. You can falsify it just by checking the observation, rather than dismissing it out of hand as impossible. Edit to add: maybe a better comparison would be to the violation of parity conservation in the weak force, as proposed by Yang and Lee, although I just learned from wikipedia that the actual experiment was performed by Wu. If you think that isn't a valid analogy, I'd be really interested to learn why.
twothreeone 2y ago
Wow and not even 24 hours after Trump takes aim at the Smithsonian. *) The article is from March 17.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?
  - twothreeone 2y ago
    If I was an editor at the Smithsonian, I'd be worried about peddling bogus theories for clicks at a time my employer is under scrutiny from the government. Apparently, they are not worried though, which astonishes me, hence my comment.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Out of all of the things, this government is scrutinizing, factual, accuracy, and quality of reasoning don’t seem to be of particular importance.
      - jfengel 2y ago
        No, but having people call you out would make you feel even more vulnerable than you already are.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
antonvs 2y ago
The author is also a proponent of tired light theory, which has been thoroughly refuted.
- pal9000i 2y ago
  I was prepared to be mindblown. He lost all credibility to me

by nabla9 2y ago

iainmerrick 2y ago

Thank you. That's a shame, it was a cool-sounding story, just unlikely enough to sound plausible.

datavirtue 2y ago
Clockwise? To which observer?
- jfengel 2y ago
  It's arbitrary, but that's fine. The important part would be any asymmetry. The Big Bang implies that there shouldn't be one.
  - joe_the_user 2y ago
    Just to be clear, it's not fine at all in any "this is a fine physical theory". A statistically unlikely arrangement of cosmic objects relative to earth only - earth in particular, violates not just the properties of the big bang but "the cosmological principle" and common sense. It's a garbage theory, a headline that makes a math person just have a "how stupid do they expect the average person to be" reaction.
    - thrdbndndn 2y ago
      ?? he's saying "it's fine" if it's defined as "clockwise" arbitrarily.
    - iainmerrick 2y ago
      No, I don't think you have this right. There was no physical theory claimed, just a very surprising observation (though of course it turns out to be bogus). If it were true it would require an incredible explanation, but that's not at all the same as just proposing an outlandish theory with no motivation. If you take the approach you describe, I think you'd have incorrectly dismissed the observation that distant continents look as if they could fit together like jigsaw pieces, as it implied the impossible theory of continental drift. Isn't that just the same sort of outlandish, clearly ridiculous observation as "there's an asymmetry in the way galaxies rotate"? Except of course that one observation is correct, and the other isn't. You can falsify it just by checking the observation, rather than dismissing it out of hand as impossible. Edit to add: maybe a better comparison would be to the violation of parity conservation in the weak force, as proposed by Yang and Lee, although I just learned from wikipedia that the actual experiment was performed by Wu. If you think that isn't a valid analogy, I'd be really interested to learn why.

twothreeone 2y ago

Wow and not even 24 hours after Trump takes aim at the Smithsonian. *) The article is from March 17.

khazhoux 2y ago
Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?
- twothreeone 2y ago
  If I was an editor at the Smithsonian, I'd be worried about peddling bogus theories for clicks at a time my employer is under scrutiny from the government. Apparently, they are not worried though, which astonishes me, hence my comment.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Out of all of the things, this government is scrutinizing, factual, accuracy, and quality of reasoning don’t seem to be of particular importance.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      No, but having people call you out would make you feel even more vulnerable than you already are.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

antonvs 2y ago

The author is also a proponent of tired light theory, which has been thoroughly refuted.

pal9000i 2y ago
I was prepared to be mindblown. He lost all credibility to me