3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures --1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (borrowed with gratitude from 37818's sig)
This story is from February last year. The second detection was made (for a distinct but similar event) and published in June last year. The actual detection in both cases was in 2015, and publication was in 2016, after the results had been thoroughly checked. There's a fascinating potential here for a new form of astronomy altogether. The problem is that the waves are so hard to detect that so far they are only observed for truly cataclysmic events... collision (or merge) of two black holes in orbit around one another.
In both cases, the event observed was well over a billion light years away. In the collision, a total mass of about the Sun's mass would be converted to energy in about 20 milliseconds, and the total power output was (briefly) of the order of 50 times greater than total total power output of all stars in the observable universe combined.
Saw a discussion on gravitational waves in February this year. Two things stood out - one is that, in the second run of LIGO, they saw two events that looked promising enough that they sent an alert to astronomers that would let them try to do observations in the area of the event. There's still better than even odds this was just noise, and we won't know until a full analysis of the data is done. But it reinforces what Sylas is saying - this is a new form of astronomy, and it's here to stay.
Another perspective on that came from one of the speakers (forget which one). All evidence indicates that life on earth evolved the ability to sense light over 2 billion years ago. After 2 billion years of waiting, we finally get the chance to sense something entirely new.
Yes. Einstein was not infallible; he made a number of scientific errors in his career. As would just about any scientist. This is why science works from empirical data and professional review, and not just by trusting designated individuals.
We've had some good discussion here of some of Einstein's mistakes that he made along the way in his ground breaking and generally brilliant career. Here's a thread I started some years ago which is directly relevant to this thread. Einstein, famously and incorrectly, published a paper in which he presented a "proof" that gravitational waves did not exist. Or tried to... the paper was not published until another scientist had picked up the errors; and Einstein corrected the result. It gives a fascinating insight into Einstein himself and the development of modern peer review conventions. See: Einstein and peer review.