Strange

Also, as fewer people die from other things that might have killed them in the past (malnutrition, heart disease, smallpox, minor infections, etc) they live longer and are more likely to get cancer.

There are ways of analysing waveforms to answer this sort of question; such as Fourier transforms. As such, there is not a single frequency but an infinite number of frequencies. Which is why I said that doing this was a waste of time. However, if there had been that large a discrepancy between theory and measurement then it would have been highlighted in the results. But, of course, any distortions of space-time that would have caused a Shapiro delay for passing light have already been included in the modelling of the gravitational waves.

I don't think there is an easy answer to the question. The waveforms close to the binary (and even more so inside the orbit) would be extremely complex. Different components of the gravitational waves fall off at different rates so we see relatively simple.

And quiet, hopefully. (Just kidding) Sounds a little reminiscent of Brans-Dicke theory (but that is way over my head)

This is a good introduction: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ No, that isn't what was said at all. The Shapiro time delay is a consequence of GR. That is why you can't solve the equations and then add in an extra delay.

There is no separate Shapiro delay. There can't be. It is impossible.

There is no separate Shapiro delay. The changes in space-time geometry that would cause a delay to passing light waves are [part of] what generates gravitational waves. They are 4D waves (see the other thread about using an array of clocks to detect gravitational waves). They cause alternate compression and expansion in the x, y and (I think) t axes, and no effect (I think) in the z axis.

How does some range of delays to electromagnetic radiation relate to the creation of gravitational waves? And how does that equate to gravitational waves (a) being radiated in all directions and (b) shrinking and stretching objects in orthogonal directions (i.e. having a particular polarization) and ( c) increasing in frequency? You are effectively making an analogy equivalent to one BH alternately eclipsing and being eclipsed by the other. But that is inaccurate and doesn't tell us anything about the nature of gravitational waves.

But you haven't shown that your explanation corresponds to reality. I don't see how such an explanation is useful. Especially when the effect you are invoking to explain it seems less intuitive than the "ripples in the fabric of space-time" used in the popular press. If you just want a descriptive analogy, then you might as well talk about two fish swimming in circles on the surface of a pond.

I remember when Horizon used to be a pretty decent documentary series. Nowadays it seems to be filled with swirling camera shots, dramatic music, meaningful pauses, about half of one side of A4 of portentous words, and almost no science. It's a shame.

I haven't seen your calculations that confirm that you produce identical inspiral and ringdown waveforms as the full solution. Which post was that in?

And the difference is that the pulsar signal is produced independently of the state of the system (i.e. it is local to the pulsar; and not due to general relativistic effects of the binary system). The emitted signal can then be affected by the gravitational effects (changing space-time curvature) of the black hole as it passes by. On the other hand, the gravitational waves from a pair of black holes are a general relativistic effect caused by the massive changes to space-time in the system (not produced as pulses from each black hole separately, for example). As such, any calculation of the generation of these waves will take into account the entire effects of changing curvature of space-time (this includes any effects that you might be able to separate out in different circumstances, such as Shapiro delay). Trying to say that these waves would be affected by Shapiro delay is bit like looking at sound waves and then asking how they are affected by the changing air pressure caused by the sound - they are the changing air pressure.

They are affected very slightly by passing through matter. Just not much.

<cough> numerical methods <cough> supercomputer <cough> You are looking for simple answers where there are none.

But the simulations that calculate the gravitational waves are complete solutions to the Einstein Field Equations. Any effects that could be attributed to time dilation, Shapiro delay, gravitational lensing, or anything else are already included. You can't pick one effect and ask for it to be included. It is a bit like asking to special relativistic time dilation to be taken into account in GPS satellites "because you have only used general relativity".

Absolutely not true. They both came up with the idea at the same time (as often happens). Darwin gave Wallace full credit when he presented his paper to the Royal Society (I think Wallace was still off in the Far East).

The angle of observation was not what you claim. The references that you have previously provided show that we were looking "down" at the orbital plane, not sideways on. The characteristics of the signal were exactly that predicted by GR - this would include any delays or distortions to the waveform caused by the self-interaction of the gravitational waves with the local curvature of space time - these non-linear effects are one reason why these things are to hard to model and require hours of supercomputer time.

You have mentioned using Excel before. This looks like an example where it could be useful. Have a column for angle, a column for each distance and then a column for the corresponding force from each body. And finally, a column for the vector sum of the two forces. Then plot a graph of the forces against angle and see what it shows.

Two examples in 400 years?

I have never heard of such a thing. From the crackpot index "10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I'm not sure why. It could be phrased as, "I want to study the relationship, if any, between scores on standardised tests and factors such as ..." which doesn't seem too contentious.

At the risk of being boring, I will just say again: thousands of hours of supercomputer time. Firstly, I suspect that when they were that far apart, the gravitational waves would have been undetectable. Secondly, the line of sight was not "side on".

There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell, so 46 DNA molecules. This page has some more detail: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/StevenChen.shtml "The total length of DNA present in one adult human is ... 2.0 × 1013 meters ... the equivalent of nearly 70 trips from the earth to the sun and back." From that previous link: "On the average, a single human chromosome consists of DNA molecule that is about 2 inches long." From: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/158858/ " The width of a single DNA molecule is approximately 22 to 26 Angstroms" (lets say 25 to keep it simple) Let's guess a water slide is 1 metre wide (for simplicity) then typing 2 inches * 1 metre / 25 Angstroms into Google gives 20,320 km. (What a great mix of units! So, just for the hell of it: 101,010.101 furlongs)

Well, you could ask, but I doubt it. But why wouldn't you reveal it, anyway?

That is because you are not falling. You are constantly being pushed up by the wings providing lift. That is pretty close. Now imagine the roller coaster is going so fast it comes off the tracks at the top and goes flying off, falling to Earth. But luckily, because the Earth is round, the ground falls away beneath it and so you never crash, You just keep falling....