5 ms·
I seem to recall there was an article posted here recently which noted that galaxies have a preferred direction of rotation. Seems like the universe itself rota
by bostonwalker 1y ago
I seem to recall there was an article posted here recently which noted that galaxies have a preferred direction of rotation. Seems like the universe itself rotating could be a reason why?
- dkural 1y agoThat article is by a crank. People pointed out that he cherry-picked the galaxies, and no one else who looked at the data objectively saw any evidence of preference for a rotation direction.
- ziddoap 1y agoI looked around (Smithsonian, space.com, astronomy.com, etc.), but nowhere has any mention of people disputing the findings, do you have a link? Who is "people" in this case? (I was/am skeptical just because it's a single-author study with pretty spectacular results, and have been keeping an eye out for any followups, but must have missed them)
- iainmerrick 1y agoThis comment has a good summary of the debunking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43540635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43540635 It's unfortunately rare for this kind of straightforward falsification to make it into publications aimed at the general reader. "A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on," as they say.
- ziddoap 1y agoThanks. I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative than a reddit comment being copy/pasted to HN (e.g. an actual retraction, or a paper directly disputing the findings), but I'm guessing most of the community just ignored the paper due to the history of the author.
- dkural 1y agoThat comment has exactly what you're asking for: Links to papers that show there is no evidence for rotation asymmetry. The very first article linked in that Reddit comment is a scientific publication from the Royal Society with the title "No evidence for anisotropy in galaxy spin directions".
- ziddoap 1y ago>That comment has exactly what you're asking for No, it doesn't. I was hoping to read something that addressed this specific paper. All of those links are papers published before Lior Shamir's paper was published. The comment I originally replied to said "people pointed out he cherry-picked results". I thought "people" might be "scientists" and they might have pointed it out in a subsequent paper or something. Thanks though.
- Retric 1y agoThe chronology or papers isn’t important here. The cherry picking is clear from the difference in results not their timing.
- ZunarJ5 1y agoDownload the Pubpeer extension. There's often blips from someone.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mike-the-mikado 1y agoDo you mean "common" rather than "rare"?
- iainmerrick 1y agoI think "rare" is right but the way I phrased it is probably misleading, sorry. I meant the rebuttal usually doesn't get published with the same high profile as the original story.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- roarkeful 1y agoThe universe being a giant toilet in the process of flushing is delightfully Doug Adams inspired.
- ForOldHack 1y agoIt's that constant sucking sound ...