Strange

It is time. So if at 12:00 the strain is 0, then this equation tells you what it will be 1 second (or 1 nanosecond, or 1 minute) later. This is the standard equation for describing a wave travelling through space [latex]\sin(f (t-x/v))[/latex]; where f = frequency, t = time, x = position and v = velocity (of the wave). You can see how this parallels (that part of) the equation above. The frequency is changing all the time as the system evolves. So all you would have to choose some frequency. But all the other values are known, at least approximately ([latex]\theta[/latex] is probably the most uncertain). That is the orbital frequency. Which is why there is [latex]2 \omega[/latex] in the wave equation.

No, the frequency is [latex]2\omega[/latex]

Then report them to the moderators. Except atheism is a lack of belief, not a faith-based belief. I have no idea why some many people persist in this stupid idea. Would you say not playing football is a sport-based activity? I'm not sure why you (repeatedly) equate atheism and science. That is not logical. That is more likely due to an interest in science than a lack of interest in gods. I have seen people who do believe in God correcting peoples errors of science and logic. So this has nothing to do with atheism. As the first two of those are examples of emprical science, I don't understand why you attempt to demean them by claiming they are beliefs. And god only knows what you mean by "the Big Band" - the Rolling Stones, maybe. They prove no such thing. And I don't think I have seen people claim they do. Perhaps you are being oversensitive. That seems to be your standard way of characterising any alternative opinion. Why are you so desperate to think you are offending people? You aren't. Your endless repetition of the same statements, and refusal to engage in discussion is slightly disappointing on a discussion forum, but that is probably as strong as it gets. I see few insults on this forum. The moderators are quite strict about that. That is a ridiculous claim. I might even class it as gobbledegook. Well let's see. I suspect what we will see is you dismissing all responses as emotional, insulting gobbldegook. In general that is true. Science manages to describe things without requiring god or gods. If you think this is wrong, perhaps you can give an example of a scientific theory that requires god? That seems to be the case. Perhaps you could give a rational explanation as to why you think that is not the case, rather than just baseless assertions. (BTW, I skipped some of the apparently "emotional and insulting" parts of your post.)

It is how the strain changes with time.

I see no emotion in that statement. Nor "gobbledegook". Phi for All may not care about god(s) but probably cares about irrational statements and feels they should not be allowed to go unchallenged (this being a science forum and all).

You cannot simply apply that to the combination of two waves.

I found some really good sources when this came up before (on another forum, perhaps). The only one I have been able to track down again is this one: https://www.aapt.org/doorway/tgrutalks/Saulson/SaulsonTalk-Teaching%20gravitational%20waves.pdf Aha. And this one: http://stuver.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/q-if-light-is-stretchedcompressed-by-gw.html

There is no edge.

No. It would require the application of the Einstein Field Equations. I think you do get constructive and destructive interference but not in the simple way that other waves can be summed.

I do, actually. It is the only thread I am subscribed to. Partly so I know there is no point continuing to compose that killer refutation that is totally going to end the discussion permanently. Also because it has a bizare fascination, like the initial rounds of TV talent shows. But mainly so I know why people have suddenly stopped posting to a thread.

That is the question I thought was being asked. They do combine, but not in a simple way like light waves.

And I am never going to win a gold medal for lack of interested in golf. (Do they even have medals in golf? No, don't answer that. Because, you know what, I don't care.)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the interaction of waves from different sources (perhaps because I had just read something about that). I assume the interaction of the waves with a static source, such as a black hole, is also non-trivial. I would say a (statically) curved surface is a better analogy.

Because to calculate the sum of two gravitational waves requires mathematics I don't understand! But you can't just add the vectors, you would need to calculate the total effect from the equations that describe the (changing) curvature of space-time. I am told (by people who would be able to do this) that the results will not be a sum of the waveforms.

What is the point of saying that?

Most things in the real world do not have an absolute zero point. Almost everything we deal with is relative. Theories are never "true".

They are slightly less annoying than those who repeatedly come back to say exactly the same thing, as if it had never been questioned or refuted. Even after being banned.

You seem to care an awful lot.

Nonsense. The problem was simply that you hijacked another thread to do it, rather than starting your own. Not sure why you mention "scientists" here. I assume you meant anti-theists. There are religious scientists, atheistic scientists, agnostic scientists and antitheist scientists.

I don't know if it has been explored or not. If it hasn't, I would assume that is because a 30 second back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be implausible.

Neither has anything else you have said.

What you believe is irrelevant. A lot less. A few hundred million. How would you know? You have admitted you have no understanding of the math. Therefore your opinion is worthless.

1. So what. Why should it matter. 2. The charge on an electron.

People have tackled problems of this scale. You should study what they have done. Stop basing your opinions on what seems plausible or emotionally appealing. Just because you can't imagine it does not mean it can't be done.