Gravitational waves not spotted after all?

Spread the love

Now people are wondering whether it’s true that the big bang gravitational waves find proved stuff like the multiverse:

The news that ripples in space-time, called gravitational waves, had been spotted stunned the physics community earlier this year. This week, rumours began swirling that the scientists who reported the find have now admitted to making a mistake. The team missed a key detail in its analysis of galactic dust, the rumours suggest, making it more likely that the signal came from a source other than gravitational waves.

But the team’s response to this claim is unequivocal: “We’ve done no such thing,” says principal investigator John Kovac at Harvard University. The validity of the discovery won’t be known until another group either supports or opposes their finding, which could happen later this year.

Our Rob Sheldon had done some wondering in advance of all this. Sheldon’s view is that, using Occam’s razor, dust should have been the first hypothesis.The logic of the multiverse explains why it ended up being the last. Like,the last shall be firsta nd the first shall be totally out to lunch, so …

7 Replies to “Gravitational waves not spotted after all?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Gravitational waves assume that changes in gravity propagate through space at the speed of light. Without such waves, Einstein’s general theory of gravity would be squarely falsified.

    The truth is that, if gravity were not instantaneous, Newtonian gravity would never work and planetary systems would be unstable. And yet, as we all know, Newtonian gravity is extremely accurate. Even though Newton hypothesized that gravity could be due to some sort of flux emanating from massive bodies, his theory had to assume instantaneous gravity because the equations would not work otherwise. This tells us that gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon and that all radiation-based gravity theories are nonsense, including Newton’s own flux theory.

    This stuff is so simple, it should have been part of mainstream physics centuries ago but the Einsteinian inquisition would have none of it. Heretics were and are skewered at the stake. Let us not forget that Einstein is the man who insisted that God does not play dice with the universe and publicly came out against what he considered to be “spooky action at a distance.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of cluelessness that floats around in the physics community.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:


    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Newly loaded Dr. Meyer video:

    Where do Complex Biological Systems Come From? A Debate, pt. 1: Stephen Meyer Presents – video


    Chrome Fusion? Ian Juby with Jeffrey Tomkins – video

  4. 4
    VunderGuy says:

    Why were people saying this proved a level two multiverse rather than a level one multiverse?

    In fact, why assume that a level one multiverse is infinite? Isn’t it more likely that our universe is just larger than the observable portion?

  5. 5
    VunderGuy says:


    Why think that gravity doesn’t move at the speed of light?

  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    It sounds like a case of being too eager to prove a point. The lure of fame is great. Even if it stands, it doesn’t prove the multiverse at all, as previously discussed, but many people will interpret it that way I’m afraid.

    Here is another take on it: </cite?

  7. 7

Leave a Reply