Strange

It would be different, because the stars would not get anywhere near as close to each other before merging. The gravitational waves would therefore be weaker and lower frequency. If you read the paper, you will see that is one of the reasons they know this was a pair of black holes and not neutron stars, for example. You can't shift the burden of proof: it is your claim that they are important; you need to show that is the case. Because it is your claim, therefore you need to support it. And all that is "disregarded" is a another assertion that you refuse to support. This data is readily available. If it is important to your hypothesis, you should already have it.

Nothing is accelerating in the classical sense (as in a force being applied). The scale factor is increasing. It rather negates my argument that it can be interpreted as a Doppler effect. But, again: no one treats it as Doppler. (Even though that paper shows it is possible.) Where is that definition? Your premise is wrong because red-shift is not caused by Doppler. And that is a major problem. Hubble's law was the first evidence that supported the (pre-existing) theory. If they say it is due to Doppler then they are simplifying to the point of being wrong. If you think the universe is not expanding then your biggest problem is the CMB. (You can tackle details like red shift later.) That is what killed Hoyle's attempts at a steady state theory. He was a brilliant scientist; if he can't make the idea work, why do you think you can? What you believe is irrelevant. No one cares what your personal beliefs are when it comes to science. Show us the math or the evidence to support your view. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Why would you even bother when there is no evidence supporting your "religion" and lots of evidence opposing it? What is the point?

Perhaps because you were hijacking the thread? (As you are this one.)

Have you made a start at this? How far have you got? What specific problems have you encountered? Are your problems with the algorithm, choosing appropriate data structures, C syntax, standard libraries, or ... ? Or are you just expecting someone else to do the work for you (and then you get the prize)? That would be lazy and dishonest, so I hope it is not the case.

Words have many meanings and can be ambiguous. They mean different things to different people. Meanings change over time. Your statement is, ironically, effectively meaningless.

What evidence do you have for this redshift that is not accounted for? It has nothing to do with Doppler effect. If you think that, you do NOT understand. You need to learn a little bit about the theory before criticising it. You seem to have missed it before: it is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. OK? That is not relevant. (Especially as you clearly have approximately zero knowledge.) This thread is pointless until you learn something about the big bang model. Oh, by the way, I'm not sure if you are aware of this: It is NOT Doppler. Then you heard wrong. They are a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. That's a bit embarrassing! Maybe I need to change my statement to "it is not simply Doppler (although with some effort it can be explained that way)." It is not as snappy though... But, schmengle, that paper points out that the red-shift is nearly always treated as a gravitational effect due to GR. And, even though you can interpret it as Doppler no one does.

(1) Yes. For example, a quantum event (atomic decay) causes the audible clicks from a Geiger counter. (2) No. The only thing that changes is that the state of a particle goes from undetermined to unknown. (The superposition collapses, as swansont puts it.)

Then why do you think it is a plausible hypothesis? The only issue identified is that you don't understand the physics involved. As far as I know, gravity has always existed. No one does. If you think the Lambda-CDM (big bang) model is plausible (and it is because it is supported by a large amount of evidence) then it is impossible for you to reject cosoological red shift - it is a consequence of the big bang model. Not quite. At the time, it was assumed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. So he added a fudge factor to prevent the universe either expanding or contracting as it would naturally do. (He later described this as his greatest mistake.) Just as an aside, Newton had earlier proved that the universe had to be infinite, based on his law of gravitation, but Einstein realised that it didn't have to be. You should. It was the final piece of evidence that destroyed steady state models. Your "issue" seems to be that you don't understand the reason for the red shift (for example, you keep mentioning gravity and the Doppler effect neither of which are relevant).

Perhaps the reason that gravitational red-shift has been dismissed is because it cannot produce the effects we observe. But feel free to provide some evidence: 1. Please show your calculations that this produces the observed red-shift. 2. Please explain how this resolves Olber's paradox. 3. Please explain why the universe is not expanding, as predicted by General Relativity. 4. Please explain how this is responsible for the spectrum and temperature of the CMB. 5. Please explain how this can produce the observed proportions of hydrogen and helium. After tackling the easy ones, we can get on to some of the more difficult problems.

They are not the only two. As you have been told repeatedly that is not true, why do you continue to lie about it? There are more than 2. Cosmological red shift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect. It is a consequence of GR, the basis of the big bang theory. It is closer in comcept to gravitational red shift. No it isn't. So the "flaw" is that you don't understand the theory or the multiple lines of evidence supporting it. And so you make up lies. That is not good science.

The main ones are the CMB and the proportions of hydrogen and helium. There are others, but they are a bit subtler and harder to explain. Although the red-shift was the first confirmation, it is not the strongest. Any alternative theory has to explain all the evidence, not just the red shift. There are other possible causes. Quite a bit earlier, in fact. But more importantly, his theory also predicts cosmological shift. And that is what is consistent with the observed red shift. No he didn't. And no it wouldn't. Hubble's law is purely an observation. He had no theory to explain it. Many other ideas were tried (for example, "tired light"). In the end, the only one that worked was cosmological red-shift based on Einstein's work. And only one of those matched all the evidence. Sounding reasonable or not is totally irrelevant. It is not gaining momentum. And there is not only one form of evidence. And there are not only two possible explanations. Which explanation is ignored? Is there a reason it is ignored? Why are being so vague?

The Hubble constant is based on observational evidence. However, the general nature of the law was predicted a few years before that. Can you be a bit more specific. What is "the other explanation"? How has it been "proven"? (BTW, science never proves things.) Can you explain why you think it is flawed? What is the flaw you see in the big bang model? Having an alternative theory make predictions that are then shown to be incorrect is also part of science. Having a theory make predictions and then confirm those predictions by observation is a standard part of science. That is why the big bang model is accepted and, so far, all alternatives have failed. What is wrong with that reasoning?

The temperature and nature (blackbody spectrum) of the CMB was predicted long before it was detected (by accident). There is no other model that explains the CMB (and all of the other evidence). That is why this was the last nail in the coffin of the steady state theory. Other evidence includes Hubble's law and the primordial proportions of hydrogen and helium (both also predicted by the model before they were observed). Which piece of evidence is that, and what are the two explanations? Can you provide some references?

There are some interesting parallels with the discovery of Neptune: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

OK. That makes sense. Sort of. I find it hard to think of believing in a deity as not being a religion. But I guess you mean that "religion" has to include the rituals and other behaviours that go with an organised religion, and not just the belief bit. That is an interesting perspective.

So you are not going to support any of your claims? (As expected.) 1. Please provide some evidence that dark matter and dark energy are postulates of GR. 2. Please show, quantitatively, that the presence of dark matter and/or dark energy has a measurable effect on the gravitational waves produced by a pair of orbiting black holes.

Dark matter and dark energy are NOT included in the postulates of GR (they weren't even known of at the time.) But perhaps you could provide some evidence for this claim? (I assume not, as you never do.) However, none of this addresses (or is even relevant to) the question asked: Please show, quantitatively, that the presence of dark matter and/or dark energy has a measurable effect on the gravitational waves produced by a pair of orbiting black holes.

So you admit it isn't explained by your Shapiro delay idea? In which case, we come back to what the point is of a model that doesn't reflect reality? Perhaps you mean something different by "significant" than I do. Let me rephrase the question: Please show, quantitatively, that the presence of dark matter and/or dark energy has a measurable effect on the gravitational waves produced by a pair of orbiting black holes.

There are already some impressive advances in this area: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14047670 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_engineering

It seems to be answered in the bit of swansont's post you quote. No information can travel faster than the speed of light, so the changes to the mass would propagate at that speed. You haven't shown that this will cause "gravitational pull" to fluctuate (you have merely asserted that it will). Nor have you shown, quantitatively, that this effect will correspond to what is observed. For example, why would the black holes get closer to one another (and the orbits increase in speed)? "Not sufficient" is not the same as not present. If you think that the presence of dark matter and/or dark energy is significant, please show the calculations to support it.

Ooops. Let's all pretend I never said it...

And the amplitude decreases linearly with distance, not an inverse square law.

Terrible as these things are, they are not new. Either in our lifetimes, nor in history. Mike, you are at least as old as me and so you must have lived through bombings and killings by various Irish groups, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof gang, Red Army Faction, various People's Liberation Fronts (and Fronts for the Liberation of various Peoples) and so on and so on. Sadly these things have always, and will always, happen. There is nothing to indicate that things are worse now, or that we are approaching Armegeddon.

There is an old joke that every piece of software has at least one redundant line of code and at least one bug, therefore all programs can be reduced to a single line that doesn't work.

If you plot a graph of GDP per capita against population, there doesn't seem to be any clear relationship. And if you look at how India and China's populations have increased with no change in GDB per capita it seems to confirm that: http://www.gapminder.org/tools/bubbles#_state_time_value=1808;&marker_axis%2F_y_which=gdp%2F_p%2F_cap%2F_const%2F_ppp2011%2F_dollar&domainMin:300&domainMax:140000&zoomedMin:300&zoomedMax:140000&scaleType=log;&axis%2F_x_which=population&domainMin:14000&domainMax:1400000000&zoomedMin:14000&zoomedMax:1400000000&scaleType=linear;&size_which=gdp%2F_p%2F_cap%2F_const%2F_ppp2011%2F_dollar&scaleType=log And why is this in Speculations?