←back to thread

352 points instagraham | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
nabla9 ◴[] No.43540635[source]
> 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://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907..123I/abstra...

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_dist...

replies(3): >>43540755 #>>43540799 #>>43541197 #
1. twothreeone ◴[] No.43540799[source]
Wow and not even 24 hours after Trump takes aim at the Smithsonian.

*) The article is from March 17.

replies(1): >>43541144 #
2. khazhoux ◴[] No.43541144[source]
Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?
replies(1): >>43541644 #
3. twothreeone ◴[] No.43541644[source]
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.
replies(2): >>43541742 #>>43546824 #
4. brookst ◴[] No.43541742{3}[source]
Out of all of the things, this government is scrutinizing, factual, accuracy, and quality of reasoning don’t seem to be of particular importance.
replies(1): >>43542297 #
5. jfengel ◴[] No.43542297{4}[source]
No, but having people call you out would make you feel even more vulnerable than you already are.
6. ◴[] No.43546824{3}[source]