Posted on 06/02/2014 10:34:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
Researchers said in March that they had found a faint twisting pattern in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the Big Bang’s afterglow, using a South Pole-based radio telescope called BICEP2. This pattern, they said, was evidence for primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of space-time generated in the early Universe (see 'Telescope captures view of gravitational waves'). The announcement caused a sensation because it seemed to confirm the theory of cosmic inflation, which holds that the cosmos mushroomed in size during the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
However two independent analyses now suggest that those twisting patterns in the CMB polarization could just as easily be accounted for by dust in the Milky Way Galaxy
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Well, there was a singluarity.
But the big bang, if it happened, is God's creation. Something from nothing.
>>We’ve seen with global warming the political influence on science. And the willingness of too many scientists to get on board and promote global warming without criticallly examining the data.<<
Sadly, yes. Science will follow the money, especially when it is impossible to gauge the results (unlike, say Cold Fusion, which has to demonstrably work).
AGW is a very very new field of study and defies any and all scientific fundamentals — it meets exactly zero of the criteria of a Scientific Theory.
The tiny but growing AGW corner of “science” is like the tiny corner of business that is made up of government-subsidized “green” businesses.
I assure you AGW is an embarrassment to real scientists everywhere, especially since it gets thrown in the face of those who do pursue real science.
>>But the big bang, if it happened, is God’s creation. Something from nothing.<<
Absolutely.
This is where science meets theology.
The Big Bang theory says the universe expanded from a single point. Have they ever located where in the universe that is? Seems like they should be able to figure that out.
The scientific community too often doesn't investigate new ideas before disputing them. They are quick to ridicule new ideas without even attempting to scientifically prove them false.
And the dogma and "just so" stories that comes out of evolutionist camps is another major embarrassment to real scientists.
Something comes from something.
In the beginning was the Word.
Nothing comes from nothing.
Anything has to come from something. That is the problem that scientists now face. I was taught in grammar school science that nothing comes from nothing. Now scientists are saying everything came from nothing. The “big bang” and Jesus Christ came from the same “something”.
I've always thought that what we call the Big Bang would be a most excellent mechanism for God to use to initiate a self supporting system of creation and renewal. "Let there be light" and with a word...all matter we can see was released from the tips of His fingers.
That too.
When one looks at the massive structures of galaxies that Hubble has provided, I do not understand how people can believe this all cane from a singularity.
I believe the the Big Bang was other the hand of God, or a portal from another dimension. I know of no physics that can explan how all the matter in the known univrese can be compressed to the head of a pin.
Could be. If massive amounts of matter is compressed in an ever shrinking mass, we get a black hole. If this mechanism were multiplied a trillion fold, or more, would such a mass be able to rip a hole through the fabric of space/time? Perhaps. And what was on the other side? Was there anything on the other side? Or was this simply a conduit for Him to create where we now live?
>>And the dogma and “just so” stories that comes out of evolutionist camps is another major embarrassment to real scientists.<<
If you can scientifically refute evolution, you will be the first to ever do so.
I can nail AGW using the Scientific Method with my little finger (scientific alternative addresses all know facts — the Earth has undergone broad climate changes which include changes of No2 since its birth).
If you have a physical scientific (not theological/philosophical) alternative that explains the billions of data points that cross multiple disciplines (physics/geology/cosmology/archaeology) let’s see it. The world will be your oyster.
>>Anything has to come from something. That is the problem that scientists now face. I was taught in grammar school science that nothing comes from nothing. <<
You were taught quantum physics in grammar school? Wow. They just taught me the basics. You must have had one heck of a science program. Did you study monopoles at recess?
>>Now scientists are saying everything came from nothing. The “big bang” and Jesus Christ came from the same “something”.<<
Please provide a link where that comparison is made in any scientific journal.
I’m surprised the muzzies haven’t claimed the big bang for themselves by why of the pedophile Mohamed.
Many have refuted macroevolution but the scientific consensus just shrugs and says okay maybe we were wrong on that individual point but the theory must still be true. The list of evolutionist claims that have been proved false is extremely long. Thus evolution is not falsifiable. Evolution is a belief system. It's dogma.
9 scientific facts that prove the theory of evolution is false
Excellent point. The world has been looking for gravitational waves since at least the mid-50's. Robert Forward (Hughes Research Labs) built one of those big aluminum cylinder detectors that he housed in the UCLA Engineering building in that time-frame. Others may have preceded him.
That's a long time to look with ZERO results. If we have a theory of gravitational waves then we should have some idea of the magnitude of the phenomenon. If so then the requirements for detection should also be calculable. I'm no expert but your thought that maybe Einstein was wrong is sounding more and more like Occam's best guess.
>>Many have refuted macroevolution but the scientific consensus just shrugs and says okay maybe we were wrong on that individual point but the theory must still be true. The list of evolutionist claims that have been proved false is extremely long. Thus evolution is not falsifiable. Evolution is a belief system. It’s dogma.<<
Links?
To reputable scientific sources.
And, if you can, provide scientific refutation. Not just “it has been refuted.”
Please provide specific scientific links that refute TToE.
But I will make it easier for you — provide a specific alternate Scientific Theory that explains the data. (hehe, you thought your straw man would just wander through the debris?)
Put up or shut up.
I forgot to thank you for that hilarious link of strawmen and so many other logical fallacies.
I had to check several times to see if it wasn’t The Onion.
The entire parody is disabled with one word: stochasticism.
But thanks for playing.
Your prize is development of things like cells that lock rather than change viruses, thus ending the ability to EVOLVE.
Or you can just die from your ignorance: your choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
