There isn’t evidence for gravitational waves, let alone big claims – Nature

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 30, 2014

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to “BICEP2: Why it matters if those gravitational waves were just dust,” Nature, now informs us: “No evidence for or against gravitational waves” – Two analyses say they are too weak to be significant:

The astronomers who this spring announced that they had evidence of primordial gravitational waves jumped the gun because they did not take into proper account a confounding effect of galactic dust, two new analyses suggest. Although further observations may yet find the signal to emerge from the noise, independent experts now say they no longer believe that the original data constituted significant evidence.

Well, there’s a multiverse that just won’t fly. A chicken will fly first. In fact, a chicken will fly first class.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology). Why they can’t just give all this multiverse nonsense a rest. By now, we should all wonder.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

No, it is not ad hominem! He is in fact a Darwinist! Though it may come off as derogatory on UD, the name is in fact a proper name for the position that he defends so dogmatically! In fact I could have called him a Neo-Darwinist, and still have been within my rights, since he defends the modern synthesis and that is the proper name for that position. He, on the other hand, called me an IDiot which is certainly a derogatory term meant to attack the man and not the argument. But most importantly, I attacked the main issue of his position in saying that he had no empirical basis. Which is certainly focusing on the argument and not on the man, whereas he refuses to honestly engage the argument and attacked the man instead! William Lane Craig and the Meaning of Ad Hominem Attacks - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVGuUsL2PMbornagain77_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

BA77 [OT] Christ was accused of doing things He didn't do, but He took those false accusations quietly, even though He had the power to wipe out His accusers with just a single word. We want to imitate Him, not His accusers. We want to be like Him, not like His accusers. Those who possess the stronger arguments must be the most magnanimous. If we are in Christ, then we have the strongest argument of all. However, that argument only persuades those whom God chose to be persuaded. We don't know who they are. Only God knows. But we want to reflect Christ's love for the lost. Whatever we do or say, we treat others with respect, because God loves them as much as He loves us. Constantly I have to remind myself that I was lost, but now I'm found. Was blind, but now I see. By God's grace. Please, note that I don't consider myself a YEC or OEC or ID proponent. I'm simply a sinner who has been forgiven by God's amazing grace, through my saving faith in Christ's redemptive death and His resurrection. There's nothing I have done or could do that qualifies me for God's forgiveness. Piotr and you are better persons than I am. This salvation thing is really mysterious. But I believe it's true. Whoever genuinely believes it, gets saved too. God's love is totally underserved. You may want to carefully read again 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 and 1 Peter 3:8-17 and think about it. Rev 22:21Dionisio_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

BA77
#5 Piotr, since you are a Darwinist, I don’t think you have a clue

#8 Piotr, ad hominem does not negate your gross empirical deficiency in substantiating your Darwinian claims!
Isn't #5 an ad hominem argument? Is it right to accuse someone of doing something we also do?Dionisio_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Piotr @4, It's all a bunch of baseless speculations and biased interpretations. IOW, voodoo science. BTW, did you know that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime by definition? This little known truth always take Einstein's worshippers by surprise, especially physicists. Try explaining to a student how gravity can curve something that is not only motionless, it cannot exist for this very reason.Mapou_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Piotr, ad hominem does not negate your gross empirical deficiency in substantiating your Darwinian claims!bornagain77_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

BA77, since you are an IDiot, the only thing you can do in a discussion is go off on a tangent, as in the post above.Piotr_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

If someone calls them "gravity waves" (like I did in my post), you know they are clueless. Hey, at least I know I'm clueless.ppolish_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Piotr, since you are a Darwinist, I don't think you have a clue as to what good empirical evidence really is since you have ZERO empirical evidence for Darwinism, yet you dogmatically defend it as if you did! The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.htmlbornagain77_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Mapou: Actually, there is very good empirical evidence of gravitational waves: the orbital decay of binary pulsars (due to the emission of gravitational energy). Its disoverers, Hulse and Taylor, were awarded a Nobel Prize 21 years ago, and I don't think anyone has questioned their explanation since, or proposed a preferable one. What BICEP2 allegedly detected was not gravitational waves as such, but a particular pattern produced by gravitational waves generated during cosmic inflation.Piotr_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

The only reason for gravitational waves is that Einstein was staunchly against the idea of nonlocal interactions, i.e., "spooky actions at a distance" as he called them. He insisted that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, including gravity and EM waves. We all know Einstein was wrong about the spookiness of quantum physics but the political Einstein movement is as powerful as it will ever be. Only a Kuhnian revolution can bring it down. Won't be long now. Prediction: The whole gravitational waves hypothesis is no more valid than the flat earth hypothesis.Mapou_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

"All we are is dust in the wind" Kansasanthropic_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

The behind the scenes politics & backbiting over who will get to take credit for the discovery of gravity waves is fun to watch. There are competing teams from Harvard and Princeton and others all searching. Is it a slam dunk that the observational evidence is 100% dust? Nope, don't know that for sure either.ppolish_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply