Aca wrote:Here, Ken Ham, armed with the only book that matters, shows that its all bollocks in few short lines, so hold on to your gravitational horses



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... een-proved

Arnold Layne wrote:Jesus Christ!!

Arnold Layne wrote:

Aca wrote:Here, Ken Ham, armed with the only book that matters, shows that its all bollocks in few short lines, so hold on to your gravitational horses



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... een-proved

Jesus Christ!!

Biblical creationists know from Scripture that the universe did not begin in a big bang billions of years ago.

Sean Carroll wrote:Science is a dialogue between the free play of ideas — theorizing — and the harsh constraints of empiricism — experimental data. Theories are a lever, data are a fulcrum, and between them we can move the world.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:This new discover has allowed us to actually witness God!



...searching for a new gap to crawl into.

ElDiablo wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:This new discover has allowed us to actually witness God!



...searching for a new gap to crawl into.

I thought he'd be a bit fatter.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:This new discover has allowed us to actually witness God!



...searching for a new gap to crawl into.

I thought he'd be a bit fatter.

He's having to slim down these days. These holes are starting to get really fucking small.

Pulsar wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:Jesus Christ!!

FIFY

Pulsar wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Reeve wrote:I wonder if this will make Roger Penrose's cosmological model more testable. I seem to remember that his cyclic one was crucially dependent on gravitational waves with the predictions it made.

Ditto for Steinhardt & Turok's model.

Stephen Hawking claims victory in gravitational wave bet

Stephen Hawking has claimed victory in a bet with a fellow scientist over the discovery of primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the structure of space-time from the birth of the universe.

The Cambridge cosmologist bet Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, that gravitational waves from the first fleeting moments after the big bang would be detected.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Hawking said the discovery of gravitational waves, announced on Monday by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, disproves Turok's theory that the universe cycles endlessly from one big bang to another.

If confirmed by other groups, the discovery would count as the strongest evidence yet for cosmic inflation, a theory which says that the universe went through a period of extremely rapid expansion soon after the big bang. The theory explains why the universe looks almost the same in every direction.

"It is another confirmation of inflation," Hawking told the Today programme. "It also means I win a bet with Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, for cyclic universe theory predicts no gravitational waves from the early universe."

But Turok was not ready to concede just yet. He told the programme that the bet rested on results from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope, which last year failed to spot any signs of gravitational waves.

continues: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/stephen-hawking-gravitational-wave-bet-big-bang

Calilasseia wrote:
Er, according to the two papers by Steinhardt & Turok I presented in multiple places here, observations of gravity waves are actually a crucial test in a different manner. According to those papers, what matters is the spectrum of observed gravity waves. My understanding from those papers, is that if gravity waves were never detected, this would be a far bigger blow to the ekpyrotic model. The detection of gravity waves, according to those papers, is actually necessary in order to test the theory.

Jason Major wrote:And so, for better or worse (just kidding — it’s definitely better) this is how science works and how science is supposed to work. A claim is presented, and, regardless of how attractive its implications may be, it must stand up to any other possibilities before deemed the decisive winner. It’s not a popularity contest, it’s not a beauty contest, and it’s not up for vote. What it is up for is scrutiny, and this is just an example of scientists behaving as they should.