Gravity wave events have different intensities, and different directions of propagation. We've increased the number of facilities to eliminate the directional part of the problem. That mostly leaves the intensity part of the equation. We're at a point where we should randomly be detecting events once a month or so, and for around the last decade we were at the point where events were expected yearly. Perhaps the equipment is even more sensitive than when I last checked. Either way, we've run machines a long time, expecting to see something, and there has been absolutely no positive readings. Gravitational waves are very close to being observationally eliminated as a theory. It would be a HUGE blow to some aspects of general relativity, specifically the belief that gravity is limited by the speed of light. Without gravity waves, its really REALLY hard to justify mathematically how gravity could be anything but instantaneous action.
Yeah, that's not even close to true. There are a lot of reasons we haven't directly detected gravitational waves, but them not existing is one of the most unlikely reasons. The idea that it's "close to being eliminated" as a theory is ridiculous.
Stop it Trebek. If you don't have evidence of X, of any way shape or form, not believing on X, is natural and logical, after all there is no evidence of it.
Can I get "Agreeing with exactly what I said but pretending like I said something you disagree with" for $500, Alex?
And if he is making a claim to absolute knowledge that gravity waves do not exist, because they have not yet been physically observed directly, then he is committing a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
If it is the case that he chooses not to believe in gravity waves until evidence sufficient to meet his burden of proof is met, then he is not making a fallacy appeal. But if he is saying that he knows for a fact gravity waves do not exist because we haven't detected them directly yet and should have, then he is making an appeal to a fallacy.
The only reason the machines wouldn't work is either A: the theory is wrong, or B: No natural events that are detectable have occurred. Do you have an alternative explanation? Almost every scientist agrees the machine should work according to theory. So do you think they just fucked up? What possible alternative explanation do you have that isn't quackery.
So basically, the first round of instruments failed so they've rebuilt it and only just started testing again at a much higher sensitivity.
And those tests have only just begun, or will begin soon.
The system has been in operation for 12 days.
Einstein, in constructing his theory, didn't even think it was possible to detect them. It wasn't until the 60s that people began to think it might be possible.
Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but the fact that Einstein felt like it may not be possible to detect them because they are so weak completely undermines your position that because we can't detect them, they don't exist.
I believe we can put this issue to rest at this point.
Those are not the only 2 possibilities and if you really believe they are then your understanding of the subject is much less than I thought.
I'm not saying GR is wrong, many parts of it appear to be very true and have been quite experimentally verified enough that doubting them is wrong. That's really just an attempt at deflection. I am talking about and only about gravity waves specifically in this situation.
