/sci/ - Science & Math

>Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of our solar system. These are unexplained by the Copernican principle and suggest that the solar system's alignment is special in relation to the background radiation of the universe.[6] Land and Magueijo in 2005 dubbed this alignment the "axis of evil" owing to the implications for current models of the cosmos,[7] although several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of those data and the way they have been processed.

>cosmology
not a science
"i know everything about the whole universe" is a mental illness, it has nothing to do with science. science is for people who want to learn, not for people who presume they already know everything.

>>15528189

>>15528079
Just don't think about it.
Whenever you're troubled by a disturbing existential realization, ignore it and the problem eventually goes away.

>>15528079
Yeah

i think dark flow is weirder
basically everything in the observable universe appears to be being pulled into the same direction by some unknown force

>>15529715
Despite being mentioned in pop-sci and wikipedia, dark flow is not widely accepted at all. It is literally one guy who works at NASA Goddard. All it has is a snappy name and the NASA press department. The effect he is claiming to use to detect the motion with is tiny, no other groups even claimed to see that with the same data. Other groups do not reproduce the result at all, the Planck collaboration found nothing with their much higher quality data. And in reply he did a completely different analysis with the Planck data, which he confirmed dark flow. But he didn't show he could reproduce the original result, which was the basis for motion at all. It's bullshit.

>>15529756
ok but what about the great attractor then

>>15529761
A fancy name given to a supercluster which couldn't be observed easily because it's behind the plane of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is really heading towards it, galaxies are not static. Dark flow was claimed to be much, much larger scale.

>>15529786
but the great attractor is what's at the center of the laniakea supercluster, not the supercluster itself

>>15529793
Superclusters are not rigorously defined. "Laniakea" includes the Virgo supercluster and a couple other named suoerclsters. A supercluster can be a part of a another supercluster, it depends who's definition you're using.

>>15528079
no, retard. you're not special. you're a bug and you will die a bug's death like the rest.

>>15531878
My species is not in the class Insecta, therefore I cannot be a bug. Learn science

>>15528079
Yeah

>>15528079
>being wrong is part of scientific method
>oooooooh good I'm failiiiiiiiing
>exciting to see measurements not predicted
>also praying to mommy our theories aren't wrong
Why is science man like this?

>>15528079
Uuuh yeah?

We are special because we're the only sentient life in the this galaxy

>>15528079
>black holerinos = heckin real
>dark matterino = heckin real
>dark energirino = heckin real
>grey gooerino = heckin real
>worm holerinos = heckin real
>empirical data that earth is a privileged vantage point (something that should be a prerequisite for taking the idea of empiricism seriously anyway) = reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDOWNVOTED11

>>15534628
>something that should be a prerequisite for taking the idea of empiricism seriously anyway
horseshit.

>>15534645

Logically, what relevance would any and all Empirical observations from an unprivileged vantage point have?

>>15534653
Metaphysically speaking, if your god is real, how do you explain your absolutely fucking retarded post?

>>15534664

So the answer is "none", as I said.

>>15534665
Thanks for conceding that your god isn't real.

>>15534666

The question has nothing to do with Theology.

>>15534670
Reframing your moronic, barely coherent thought as a gotcha question doesn't put the onus on anyone else to prove you wrong. You're still failing to substantiate your position post after post. :^)

>>15534680

What is there to "substantiate"? What am I "reframing"? I said that any and all Empirical observations from an unprivileged vantage point are irrelevant. Can you disagree?

>>15534708
>What is there to "substantiate"?
Your attempt to imply that empirical evidence is only """relevant""" from a """privileged""" position. I wonder how many dozens of posts a low-IQ ape like you can shit out trying to evade defending his indefensible opinions.

>>15534711

I did not imply that. I stated it. Can you disagree?

>>15534713
>I stated it
Yep, and I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. Notice how your blood pressure is rising as you realize you are stuck in this loop of low IQ evasion tactics. Time to hide this thread.

>>15534718

Logically, observations from an unprivileged vantage point cannot be Empirical. Either because observations from any other similarly unprivileged vantage point might differ, which is fundamentally unknowable from either unprivileged vantage point, since they are both unprivileged and can therefore only observe each other from their respective positions, and not from each other's positions, or because there is, indeed, a privileged vantage point whence observation can, conversely, claim to be Empirical, since it is privileged and can therefore observe any and all unprivileged vantage points from positions that neither are privy to, because they are unprivileged, and therefore cannot observe the genuine Universality that the privileged position is privy to, and can therefore make valid Empirical observations.

>>15534741
>observations from any other similarly unprivileged vantage point might differ,
So?

>which is fundamentally unknowable
And?

>>15534747

Therefore, the observation is only valid insofar as the unprivileged vantage point is concerned, i.e. it has no Empirical value, only Subjective value.

>>15534756
>Therefore, the observation is only valid insofar as the unprivileged vantage point is concerned
Proof? Simply spouting your mentally disabled nonsequitur over and over again doesn't make it any more valid.

>>15534741
But why are you assuming every observation depends on the observer? For example all observers will measure the same speed of light.
And data always has empirical value, that's just absurd. Even if there is huge sample variance.

>>15534767

You cannot directly experience an other's experience. This is axiomatic. It is you who has to prove otherwise. Can you?

>>15534772
You're even more retarded than he his in that you are incapable of grasping hypotheticals or engage in abstract thought. How many jabs?

>>15534772

What else would observation depend on?

>>15534773
>You cannot directly experience an other's experience
So? Are you even able to form coherent thoughts? Do you even have a concept of other minds, or do you expect everyone else to telepathically follow your mental spaghetti?

>>15534779

What does this have to with Empiricism?

>>15534780
You're definitely drugged. You can't follow a basic conversation. Come back when your synthetic weed wears down and you can explain your "logic" and reflect on your own thought process.

>>15534777
That's not an answer for why it should be depend on the observer. You're pretending to be very logical but your argument rests on this great big assumption.
And you completely ignored the second point. You've literally don't understand empiricism.

>>15534786

It just does, okay? Do you disagree?

>>15534791
>It just does, okay?
Why don't you submit this important proof to a philosophy journal.

>>15534810
>Why don't you submit this important proof to a philosophy journal.

My rebuttal of empiricism has been published in multiple high profile philosophy journals.

>>15534811
Cite the DOI then.

>>15534848

As a proponent of valid logical reasoning, I refuse to do so as it would count as an appeal to authority fallacy.

>>15534852
>multiple high profile
You already made the appeal to authority.

>>15534653
the fuck do you even mean by 'privileged'? retard

>>15534861

Nope, I was merely responding to your attempt to question my credentials. You will never be a real philosopher, kid. You don't know how to debate logically.

>>15534783

"Theory of mind" is, at most, Rationalism. I myself would simply describe it "imagination". Absolutely nothing to do with Empiricism, regardless.

Help a retard out, is this pic a representation of the axis? Because from what I can tell it's not really aligned
What's the angle difference between the CBM feature and the solar system's plane? Somehow none of the sites I've seen ever mention it
It really sounds like a coincidence to be fair. You also have to take into account the other planes this axis could have been aligned with but didn't, such as earth's equator, the magnetic poles, the moon's orbit, the galactic plane and such. If I had to bet I'd say it's a nothingburger

>>15534878
Still drugged. Come back in another two to three hours, when you can read and comprehend a post.

>>15534786

It is not meant to be an answer for anything, it is a question. What would observation depend on if not an observer?

>>15534882
>admits to being a retard
>pretends to be asking a question
>immediately regurgitates the sanctioned normie opinion
What did retard mean by this?

>>15534883

At least try to botch together a defense of Cope/r/nicus...

>>15534895
You are clearly literally drugged. I'm still waiting for you to shit out, if only by pure coincidence, a response that actually addresses whatever you are replying to, or elaborates on your previous brain farts, but it's not happening.

>>15528079

Spacetime is a mental construction, a priori, from our minds. Reality is actually fundamentally mental.

>>15534898

There has not been a single coherent refutation of my thesis (>>15534741).

>>15534901
>>>/x/

>>15534906
Low-IQ word salad full of nonsequiturs. Now, you can insist that your nonsequiturs have some actual reasoning behind them, but you will never be able to spell it out.

>>15534889
You failing to answer any of the questions asked was all that I needed, thank you!

>>15534910

You have already conceded (>>15534664). What point is there in continuing to embarrass yourself? At least defend Copernicus, just one claim. Put up or shut up.

>>15534915
Sorry about your severe mental illness, but you still haven't explained why, even in your hypothetical fantasy world where different observers make inexplicably different measurements, the measurements cease to be empirical.

>>15534741
>run-on sentence that goes on for 4 lines
>excessive use of the Oxford comma
>capitalises common nouns
Yup, low IQ pseud detected. Is English your second language, Rajeesh?

>>15534913
You shitting out your preprogrammed opinion, right after admitting to being a clueless retard, and then declaring some kind of "victory" in your imaginary reddit debate, was all that everyone else needed to know to ignore you. You played yourself, as your crew usually does.

>>15534917

They "cease to be" Empirical for the same reason that two dreamers' dreams "cease to be" Empirical: neither the observations nor the dreams have any value beyond pure Subjectivity, since neither are experienced in and of anything else. Shall I defend Copernicus myself, just for the sake of argument?

>>15534920

Long sentences, comas, and capitalization are commonplace in academic language.

>>15534923
>neither the observations nor the dreams have any value beyond pure Subjectivity
What does this word salad even mean? What does having "value" have to do with being empirical? You are mentally ill.

>>15534926

"Empirical value" as in the claim to Empiricism that a hypothesis can or cannot make. For example, the Empirical value of dreams is equal to the Empirical value of unprivileged vantage points, i.e. null.

>>15534909

Sorry you can't handle the science bud.

>>15534932
Literal schizophrenic babble. Why do observations that disagree with each other have the same """empirical value""" as dreams?

>>15534938

Because neither party, assuming they are unprivileged, can tell if the difference is in and of the observer or in and of the observed.

>>15534952
And? Notice how you've failed to connect this in any way to your statement equating them to the """empirical value""" of dreams.

>>15534953

I say that unprivileged vantage points have no Empirical value precisely because the very idea of Empiricism, of there even being anything to be observed in the first place, is thereby called into question, just as the supposed "dream world" is rightly relegated to nonexistence for no reason other than being identically suspended between the two unprivileged vantage points of the two dreamers.

>>15534963
>I say that unprivileged vantage points have no Empirical value
You said they have the same """empirical value""" as dreams and now you're going to shit out dozens of mentally ill posts trying to avoid explaining this mentally ill statement. Show that they have the same """empirical value""".

>>15534967

The same as in none, as I said (>>15534932).

>>15534967

Anyway, shall I defend Copernicus, since no one else will?

>>15534969
>The same as in none
Uh huh. That's what you said, but unfortunately for you, you were dumb enough to refute your own claim by making that comparison to dreams, which you are now desperately trying to back out of, because it's pretty obvious that you don't regard empirical measurements and dreams the same way.

>>15534976

I do regard Empirical and oneiric observations exactly the same, which is exactly what I said.

>>15534979
Your combination mental illness, retardation and jewish dishonesty are classic nu-sci.

>>15534882
It is an illustration where the axis has been greatly exaggerated. Note that the image is in Galactic coordinates, the plane of the Milky Way goes through the horizontal axis.
>You also have to take into account the other planes this axis could have been aligned with but didn't, such as earth's equator, the magnetic poles, the moon's orbit, the galactic plane and such.
Correct. A posteriori choices have a strong effect here. It happened that the quadrupole and octuple were roughly aligned with the Solar System. That is somewhat unlikely, but why these features? Because people looked at the data first. So it's not a blind statistical test. It's part of the reason it's not taken very seriously.

>>15534889
Couldn't even pretend to have an relevant original thought but you still felt obligated to respond. Sad.

>>15534981

Where did I regard them as different?

>>15534983
You lost. Further posts from you only cement the truth of >>15534981.

>>15534985

Answer the question.

>>15534986
Hope you dream you can fly tonight, conclude that the laws of your subjective reality have therefore changed and dive head first into asphalt out of the window of your NEETbunker. If there's anything 4chan is good at, it's demonstrating that not all "people" are fully human and not all "people" deserve any kind of moral consideration.

>>15534988

So the answer is "nowhere". This could have all been avoided if you had simply shut up after this reply (>>15534665).

>>15534993
>I'm a literal subhuman.
Glad we have that settled. Seeya.

>>15534995

Copernicus does not deserve this...

>>15534925
>comas are commonplace in academic language
Run-on sentences and unnecessary capitalisation are not common whatsoever. Every professor I've ever had specifically told our class to write our reports concisely and with proper grammar or we'll lose marks.

>>15535029

It's not my fault that native English speakers speak English as if it was their second language.

>>15535032
Learn to write proper English before you start throwing shade, Bhupinder

>>15534974

Very well then. As Philosophers know, Copernican Cosmology is something of an aberration. The truly privileged vantage of point of God, and the fixed (at least "Metaphysically" speaking) Universe thereby engendered—the axiomatic blueprint—are not at all abolished by the Copernican turn, quite the contrary: this truly obscene and irredeemable Ontological state, having nowhere to hide since it does truly constitute the Monad proper, instead splits itself into Dyads of multiple vantage points attempting to launder the Demiurgic privilege, to turn the Universe into an "a-verse" or "anti-verse", to sanitize the abhorrent uni-verse. The Copernican turn being an, unsurprisingly, perfect description of this maneuver. Note how the Catholic occultism of the "multi-verse", is always already inscribed in the initial uni-verse, suspended between the "a-verse" and the "anti-verse"—between the multiplicity of observers and of the, indeed, oneiric observations and/or lack thereof. The theoretical disgrace of Materialism itself, the Newtonian-"quantum" split, makes perfect sense when considering that Matter is nothing but Catholic—Copernican—occultism, the substance of the "multi-verse".

>>15535038

This IS English.

>Very well then. As Philosophers know, Copernican Cosmology is something of an aberration. The truly privileged vantage of point of God, and the fixed (at least "Metaphysically" speaking) Universe thereby engendered—the axiomatic blueprint—are not at all abolished by the Copernican turn, quite the contrary: this truly obscene and irredeemable Ontological state, having nowhere to hide since it does truly constitute the Monad proper, instead splits itself into Dyads of multiple vantage points attempting to launder the Demiurgic privilege, to turn the Universe into an "a-verse" or "anti-verse", to sanitize the abhorrent uni-verse. The Copernican turn being an, unsurprisingly, perfect description of this maneuver. Note how the Catholic occultism of the "multi-verse", is always already inscribed in the initial uni-verse, suspended between the "a-verse" and the "anti-verse"—between the multiplicity of observers and of the, indeed, oneiric observations and/or lack thereof. The theoretical disgrace of Materialism itself, the Newtonian-"quantum" split, makes perfect sense when considering that Matter is nothing but Catholic—Copernican—occultism, the substance of the "multi-verse".

>>15534773
Hey guys OP here, just wanna say this isn't me and can we talk about the Axis of Evil observations

>>15535039
>the Catholic occultism of the "multi-verse"
Schizo moment.