I think you are misunderstanding the point being made: The _only_ random chance that is part of current models is "quantum uncertainty at big bang time" and we can give upper bounds for the variations that can be explained from that. So what's really being said here is "We found a significantly larger discrepancy between Milkyway-corotating galaxies and Milkyway-counterrotating galaxies than can be explained by ~initialisation randomness"

That doesn’t make sense, they can’t be assumed to have behaved like ideal gasses, thus turbulence alone can cause significant uncertainties.

Let alone all other possibilities combined.

No it can't. Turbulence does not introduce net-angular momentum. It just (re)distributes it. And the scale on which that "mixing" can happen is limited (essentially the speed of sound is smaller than the expansion of the universe in the early universe). So on large enough scale, it (~any vector value) must be add up to ~zero (up to the initialisation uncertainties). Or one of our fundamental assumptions is wrong. And that's why this is so interesting

Can you link the proof for these claims?

I don’t see any obviously titled ones on Google Scholar, such as proving it’s impossible for turbulence to “introduce net angular momentum”.

I don't have anything more than Newton's third law for you and that its effects also hold in general relativity. The "far away parts of the universe are disconnected" is from my astrophysics courses back in university and the number of lectures to the cosmic microwave background, mostly coming from people discussing the Planck mission.

But.. no, I don't have a convenient citation for you. And at least for the "angular momentum is conserved thing", I'd be surprised if you'd find a google scholar paper, this is early GR

This comment doesn’t make sense… You can’t change your opinion into a fact just via reptition.

I don't get it, why did you ask for clarifications about why this was not expected if you're just going to be adamant it should have been expected?

Is it really your honest position that everyone has been doing cosmology wrong and you would have known better?

I didn’t ask for clarifications… I asked how it followed…

Are you sure you understood the comments completely?

It’s my honest opinion that anyone assuming away phenomena like turbulence, without credible proof, cannot be relied upon to have accurate insights.

So yes whenever I do have better insights, than by definition that’s more than 100% of the population who do not.

Right. I guess I did not understand your comment at all then. I am sorry I engaged.

Then why stick around for another reply that can only detract, or at best be neutral…?

It seems impossible for this to add to your argument.