It's Official: You're Lost In a Directionless Universe (sciencemag.org)

Reader sciencehabit writes: Ever peer into the night sky and wonder whether space is really the same in all directions or if the cosmos might be whirling about like a vast top? Now, one team of cosmologists has used the oldest radiation there is, the afterglow of the big bang, or the cosmic microwave background (CMB), to show that the universe is 'isotropic,' or the same no matter which way you look: There is no spin axis or any other special direction in space. In fact, they estimate that there is only a one-in-121,000 chance of a preferred direction -- the best evidence yet for an isotropic universe. That finding should provide some comfort for cosmologists, whose standard model of the evolution of the universe rests on an assumption of such uniformity.

Comments

Re:Speak for yourself

[Empiric]

Naturally, you could not cite, because your post was made-up nonsense not even potentially conveying meaning.

Precisely why requested, and precisely why you of course failed.

On the other sense of the question, you can cite my own posts, and when you fail that, the notion that I'm not a "decent human being" will, of course, be equally demonstrated made-up nonsense.

But in the end, none of that is even necessary. Your statements are not merely made-up, but self-contradictory. Everyone's life is "meaningless" but you're here to accuse me of an equally meaningless life? Me in particular? Impressive weight to that accusation, there.

Likewise, if there is no objective morality, all your characterizations are meaningless by definition. I'll also give those the weight your position logically demands.

If you want vetted philosophical arguments that morality is objective, there is an endless amount of that available from 2500 years of Western philosophy. It is, however, not in the domain of "science", so "peer reviewed" here, is, as you know, a disingenuous and inapplicable expectation. That fact doesn't alter the fact your subjectivist stance immediately devolves into self-contradictory nonsense, as you've thoroughly demonstrated here.

As for falsifiablity or peer-review strictly scoping "science", you can look to the failed history of Logical Positivism for thoroughly demonstrating that is impossible. By excluding strong inference from tested knowns as "science", or by setting expectations hypotheses cannot meet at the point at which they are formed, such as defining and executing tests before a hypothesis is allowed to be conceptualized in the first place, or expecting they are peer reviewed as a precondition to being proposed, you do nothing but misrepresent and damage what science actually is.

But then, given your irrational presentation so far, and that clear taint of unstated rage, I have no doubt you'd happily damage or destroy science to whatever degree necessary to shelter your personal biased feelings. As is typical for the non-thinking "science versus religion" False Dichotomy bandwagon joiners. Attack religion as you like, you can't do anything about it. Just avoid damaging science as you pursue your (self-confessedly) goalless obsession.