>>13612906Lol. More links from wikipedia after you bitched about it.
Shamir's claims are nonsense, you can see that from his results. The basis of the paper is that he uses two different imaging surveys of large fractions of the sky (SDSS and Panstarrs), and assigns them via an algorithm to clockwise and counter-clockwise. The problem is he doesn't read his own statistics.
He claims to detect some significance anisotropies in the spin distributions, the problem is his two surveys give different results. Look at his "detection" of the dipole, compare figs 5 and 10. Note that he changes the Panstarrs to hide the fact that the Panstarrs result is much less significant. He claims to find a significant detection in SDSS at 4.3 sigma. If you look in Panstarrs the significance is much lower, 1.9 sigma and the alignment on the sky is different. <2 sigma is nothing in actual science, but he keeps on trucking. The funny thing is Panstarrs is a bigger better survey covering more of the sky, and yet his result went away. If you do a much more experiments and your result disappears it was probably never real to begin with. He also claims to detect a quadrupole moment, and it's the same shit again. <2 sigma in Panstarrs, not detected.
If you just read the results it's quite clear his claims are bullshit. The author is a crank who has written many papers about exactly the same thing, always single author. The guy isn't even a cosmologist, he's a computer scientists. He does not explain why people looking at the same test with the same data found nothing in the past.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3247But of course you didn't read the paper. You read the wikipeida blurb, saw that it fit your "desired narrative" and cherrypicked it. One of us actually read this nonsense, and it wasn't you.
