beecee

Don't know if I accept that. The basic definition of a BH, is simply a mass of density, such that the escape velocity is "c"......most of the conflict is with the aspect of the EH, and information paradox, and attempting GR and quantum data together.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-magnetar-mysteries-galaxy.html Magnetar mysteries in our galaxy and beyond January 10, 2019, California Institute of Technology: In a new Caltech-led study, researchers from campus and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have analyzed pulses of radio waves coming from a magnetar—a rotating, dense, dead star with a strong magnetic field—that is located near the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy. The new research provides clues that magnetars like this one, lying in close proximity to a black hole, could perhaps be linked to the source of "fast radio bursts," or FRBs. FRBs are high-energy blasts that originate beyond our galaxy but whose exact nature is unknown. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-magnetar-mysteries-galaxy.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aade4d/meta Pulse Morphology of the Galactic Center Magnetar PSR J1745–2900: Abstract: We present results from observations of the Galactic Center magnetar, PSR J1745–2900, at 2.3 and 8.4 GHz with the NASA Deep Space Network 70 m antenna, DSS-43. We study the magnetar's radio profile shape, flux density, radio spectrum, and single pulse behavior over a ~1 year period between MJDs 57233 and 57621. In particular, the magnetar exhibits a significantly negative average spectral index of when the 8.4 GHz profile is single-peaked, which flattens considerably when the profile is double-peaked. We have carried out an analysis of single pulses at 8.4 GHz on MJD 57479 and find that giant pulses and pulses with multiple emission components are emitted during a significant number of rotations. The resulting single pulse flux density distribution is incompatible with a log-normal distribution. The typical pulse width of the components is ~1.8 ms, and the prevailing delay time between successive components is ~7.7 ms. Many of the single pulse emission components show significant frequency structure over bandwidths of ~100 MHz, which we believe is the first observation of such behavior from a radio magnetar. We report a characteristic single pulse broadening timescale of at 8.4 GHz. We find that the pulse broadening is highly variable between emission components and cannot be explained by a thin scattering screen at distances 1 kpc. We discuss possible intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms for the magnetar's emission and compare our results to other magnetars, high magnetic field pulsars, and fast radio bursts.

What is in my mind matters not, as what is in yours. I have continually spoke of mainstream academia which you continue to fail to remark on. Why? Plus my posts are not aggressive but good try anyway. Perhaps review your own, not only to me but others? Just in case you do have any doubts, or any suggestions of conspiracies or recalcitrance by mainstream, here's a piece from your own link a while back......... http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a9/meta extract: "For example, one of the primary concerns expressed in the review process is that, as a pure vector theory, with the metric constructed algebraically from the vector, the theory would have a hard time passing standard experiments, especially tests of preferred frame effects. In a controversial situation like this, especially where possible uncertainties involve the correctness, an Editorial Board would tend to reject the manuscript without review. Despite this, we decided to attempt to get the manuscript reviewed to provide the author with feedback on the work, and ultimately, taking into account the mixed reception by the reviewers, we decided that as the author had responded diligently to all of the criticisms raised, although not all reviewers were convinced of the validity of the theory, the paper should be published so that the community as a whole can consider it. This Editorial serves to explain the context in which the decision to publish was made. It also provides a preamble". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Playing the devil's advocate at this time here q-reeus, if by the slimmest of chances this is recognised as a replacement to GR, I'll suck it all in, and advocate the Physics Nobel for Svidzinsky with all my heart and soul!! But I won't hold my breath as yet. OK? You have a good day and let's both sit back, relax and let the scientific method take its course!

Well about as much usefulness of your fabricated interpretated criticisms of Koberlein's evaluation. I'll accept my "No peer review" error, but we all nkow q-reeus that literally thousands of papers every year, most peer reviewed, are never heard of again, to be lost in cyber space. I'm always puzzled though why you have never commented on the fact that his paper is being researched by many scientists in many quarters, without any fear or favour, and as erroneously denied by the author of the OP. And of course your recognition of the scientific method in that his paper, like any paper, needs to "run the gauntlet" is also unknown. These are facts. It does not nor has not invalidated GR in Koberlein's evaluation, and whether the aLIGO and VIRGO research around the world find likewise is not as yet known. So again, why can't you accept these facts, rather then making excuses?

Hya Q-reeus! Whatever conspiracy you chose to muddy the waters, is your problem...he was given a link to the relevant paper and he gave a judgement based on that paper, nothing more nothing less. And of course at least I am supporting my mathematically challenged position with that of expert opinion. That's what experts are for q-reeus! Whatever you chose to fabricate in your mind does not alter the position of GR being the overwhelmingly supported and evidenced theory of gravity that holds pride of place still. You disagreeing with that fact, and in conflict with the mainstream model, is neither here nor there, and affects nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence Again, your opinion and your take on things, not what the professional interpreted of the paper. The H/T results also supported the existence of GR gravitational waves from that observation, as well as many other modes evidencing BH's, GW's and GR. More fabricated excuses. What you say re VTG and certain features, are features that are not within our ability to observe and validate or otherwise. GR and its overwhelming predictive ability, is why it is generally the gravity theory of choice. Huh, indeed! As most know, the EH's have been a talking point for many years, particularly with regards to quantum effects. And despite sensationalistic headlines a few years ago, re BH,s, and claims Hawking supposedly saying they didn't exist, other then that quantum nature of the EH, the vast mountains of evidence point to GR BH's as evidenced,which you seem to ignore in favour of sensationalism that may or may not support the cause you seem to be pushing. So to can many forms of agenda that can affect logical thinking. If there are any mistakes, I suggest its in your interpretations for whatever reasons. Oh and yes another couple of E-Mail replies are still being waited on and will be reproduced when received, without fear nor favour. So you conduct your own E-Mail campaigns and yet question my actions E-Mailing professionals that just happen to show Svidzinky's paper in its true light. I would suggest when you conduct your own campaign, you try and contact experts other then the author of the paper and the obvious interests he has in it. Perhaps you need also as I mentioned previously, understand that despite the short comings of Svidzinky's paper, as pointed out by Koberlein, it is still being researched and evaluated by scientists all round the world, as well as aLIGO and VIRGO, and will be evaluated independently and without any recalcitrance with regards to the incumbent GR. That's how science works q-reeus, that's the scientific method q-reeus and that's the way it should be. You seem for some unknown reason, to want this accepted, after "you" who has already admitted you are not a professional, has passed judgement on it! Why? Anyway, I suggest you stay tuned, as I have more replies forthcoming, from impartial professionals, to evaluate this still hypothetical, yet to be peer reviewed paper. Evaluations I hope that you are able to learn from, as well as myself.

A 1953 classic by Vaughn Monroe: I remember marching around the Living room when this ever played, with a broom stick over my shoulder! Vaughn again...Ghost Riders in the Sky.....................

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-student-simulates-thousands-black-holes.html Student simulates thousands of black holes January 9, 2019, University of Arizona: Lia Medeiros, a doctoral student at the University of Arizona, is developing mathematical models that will allow researchers to pit Einstein's Theory of General Relativity against the most powerful monsters of nature: supermassive black holes such as Sgr A*, which lurks at the center of the Milky Way. Medeiros has developed a diagnostic tool that astronomers can use to compare upcoming observations of supermassive black holes by the Event Horizon Telescope to the predictions of mathematical models of these maelstroms of space and time. "We want to test whether black holes we observe in space behave the way we expect," says Medeiros, who will present her dissertation research (comprising three published papers and a fourth to be submitted to the Astrophysical Journal) in an oral session at the American Astronomical Society meeting. "If we detect a deviation from our expectations we may fundamentally change the way we think about black holes and gravity itself." More information: "Modeling Variability and non-Kerr Spacetime Effects in Black Hole Images," Lia Medeiros, 2019 Jan. 7, 233rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Seattle, Washington Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-student-simulates-thousands-black-holes.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0449-5 The current ability to test theories of gravity with black hole shadows: Abstract: Our Galactic Centre, Sagittarius A*, is believed to harbour a supermassive black hole, as suggested by observations tracking individual orbiting stars1,2. Upcoming submillimetre very-long baseline interferometry images of Sagittarius A* carried out by the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration (EHTC)3,4 are expected to provide critical evidence for the existence of this supermassive black hole5,6. We assess our present ability to use EHTC images to determine whether they correspond to a Kerr black hole as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity or to a black hole in alternative theories of gravity. To this end, we perform general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations and use general-relativistic radiative-transfer calculations to generate synthetic shadow images of a magnetized accretion flow onto a Kerr black hole. In addition, we perform these simulations and calculations for a dilaton black hole, which we take as a representative solution of an alternative theory of gravity. Adopting the very-long baseline interferometry configuration from the 2017 EHTC campaign, we find that it could be extremely difficult to distinguish between black holes from different theories of gravity, thus highlighting that great caution is needed when interpreting black hole images as tests of general relativity.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-evolution-black-hole-wolfs.html Astronomers observe evolution of a black hole as it wolfs down stellar material January 9, 2019, Massachusetts Institute of Technology On March 11, an instrument aboard the International Space Station detected an enormous explosion of X-ray light that grew to be six times as bright as the Crab Nebula, nearly 10,000 light years away from Earth. Scientists determined the source was a black hole caught in the midst of an outburst—an extreme phase in which a black hole can spew brilliant bursts of X-ray energy as it devours an avalanche of gas and dust from a nearby star. Now astronomers from MIT and elsewhere have detected "echoes" within this burst of X-ray emissions, that they believe could be a clue to how black holes evolve during an outburst. In a study published today in the journal Nature, the team reports evidence that as the black hole consumes enormous amounts of stellar material, its corona—the halo of highly-energized electrons that surrounds a black hole—significantly shrinks, from an initial expanse of about 100 kilometers (about the width of Massachusetts) to a mere 10 kilometers, in just over a month. The findings are the first evidence that the corona shrinks as a black hole feeds, or accretes. The results also suggest that it is the corona that drives a black hole's evolution during the most extreme phase of its outburst. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-evolution-black-hole-wolfs.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0803-x The corona contracts in a black-hole transient: Abstract: The geometry of the accretion flow around stellar-mass black holes can change on timescales of days to months1,2,3. When a black hole emerges from quiescence (that is, it ‘turns on’ after accreting material from its companion) it has a very hard (high-energy) X-ray spectrum produced by a hot corona4,5 positioned above its accretion disk, and then transitions to a soft (lower-energy) spectrum dominated by emission from the geometrically thin accretion disk, which extends to the innermost stable circular orbit6,7. Much debate persists over how this transition occurs and whether it is driven largely by a reduction in the truncation radius of the disk8,9 or by a reduction in the spatial extent of the corona10,11. Observations of X-ray reverberation lags in supermassive black-hole systems12,13 suggest that the corona is compact and that the disk extends nearly to the central black hole14,15. Observations of stellar-mass black holes, however, reveal equivalent (mass-scaled) reverberation lags that are much larger16, leading to the suggestion that the accretion disk in the hard-X-ray state of stellar-mass black holes is truncated at a few hundreds of gravitational radii from the black hole17,18. Here we report X-ray observations of the black-hole transient MAXI J1820+07019,20. We find that the reverberation time lags between the continuum-emitting corona and the irradiated accretion disk are 6 to 20 times shorter than previously seen. The timescale of the reverberation lags shortens by an order of magnitude over a period of weeks, whereas the shape of the broadened iron K emission line remains remarkably constant. This suggests a reduction in the spatial extent of the corona, rather than a change in the inner edge of the accretion disk.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-evidence-gigantic-star-explosions.html First evidence of gigantic remains from star explosions January 9, 2019, Lancaster University Astrophysicists have found the first ever evidence of gigantic remains being formed from repeated explosions on the surface of a dead star in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.5 million light years from Earth. The remains or "super-remnant" measures almost 400 light years across. For comparison, it takes just 8 minutes for light from the Sun to reach us. A white dwarf is the dead core of a star. When it is paired with a companion star in a binary system, it can potentially produce a nova explosion. If the conditions are right, the white dwarf can pull gas from its companion star and when enough material builds up on the surface of the white dwarf, it triggers a thermonuclear explosion or "nova", shining a million times brighter than our Sun and initially moving at up to 10,000 km per second. Astrophysicists including Dr. Steven Williams from Lancaster University in the UK examined the nova M31N 2008-12a in the Andromeda Galaxy, one of our nearest neighbours. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-evidence-gigantic-star-explosions.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0825-4 A recurrent nova super-remnant in the Andromeda galaxy: Abstract: The accretion of hydrogen onto a white dwarf star ignites a classical nova eruption1,2—a thermonuclear runaway in the accumulated envelope of gas, leading to luminosities up to a million times that of the Sun and a high-velocity mass ejection that produces a remnant shell (mainly consisting of insterstellar medium). Close to the upper mass limit of a white dwarf3 (1.4 solar masses), rapid accretion of hydrogen (about 10−7 solar masses per year) from a stellar companion leads to frequent eruptions on timescales of years4,5 to decades6. Such binary systems are known as recurrent novae. The ejecta of recurrent novae, initially moving at velocities of up to 10,000 kilometres per second7, must ‘sweep up’ the surrounding interstellar medium, creating cavities in space around the nova binary. No remnant larger than one parsec across from any single classical or recurrent nova eruption is known8,9,10, but thousands of successive recurrent nova eruptions should be capable of generating shells hundreds of parsecs across. Here we report that the most frequently recurring nova, M31N 2008-12a in the Andromeda galaxy (Messier 31 or NGC 224), which erupts annually11, is indeed surrounded by such a super-remnant with a projected size of at least 134 by 90 parsecs. Larger than almost all known remnants of even supernova explosions12, the existence of this shell demonstrates that the nova M31N 2008-12a has erupted with high frequency for millions of years.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-evidence-white-dwarf-stars.html Astronomers discover first direct evidence of white dwarf stars solidifying into crystals January 9, 2019, University of Warwick The first direct evidence of white dwarf stars solidifying into crystals has been discovered by astronomers at the University of Warwick, and our skies are filled with them. Observations have revealed that dead remnants of stars like our Sun, called white dwarfs, have a core of solid oxygen and carbon due to a phase transition during their lifecycle similar to water turning into ice but at much higher temperatures. This could make them potentially billions of years older than previously thought. The discovery, led by Dr. Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay from the University of Warwick's Department of Physics, has been published in Nature and is largely based on observations taken with the European Space Agency's Gaia satellite. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-evidence-white-dwarf-stars.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0791-x Core crystallization and pile-up in the cooling sequence of evolving white dwarfs: Abstract: White dwarfs are stellar embers depleted of nuclear energy sources that cool over billions of years1. These stars, which are supported by electron degeneracy pressure, reach densities of 107 grams per cubic centimetre in their cores2. It has been predicted that a first-order phase transition occurs during white-dwarf cooling, leading to the crystallization of the non-degenerate carbon and oxygen ions in the core, which releases a considerable amount of latent heat and delays the cooling process by about one billion years3. However, no direct observational evidence of this effect has been reported so far. Here we report the presence of a pile-up in the cooling sequence of evolving white dwarfs within 100 parsecs of the Sun, determined using photometry and parallax data from the Gaia satellite4. Using modelling, we infer that this pile-up arises from the release of latent heat as the cores of the white dwarfs crystallize. In addition to the release of latent heat, we find strong evidence that cooling is further slowed by the liberation of gravitational energy from element sedimentation in the crystallizing cores5,6,7. Our results describe the energy released by crystallization in strongly coupled Coulomb plasmas8,9, and the measured cooling delays could help to improve the accuracy of methods used to determine the age of stellar populations from white dwarfs10.

The rotational velocity of the earth is slowing gradually, ever so slightly due to tidal gravitational effects with the Moon.This will continue until in about 3 billion years or so [give or take] Earth will have the same side facing the Moon, just as the Moon at this time only presents one face to Earth, and a day will be equal to a lunar month and we will be tidally locked. The surface of the Earth will not lose its attraction ability via gravity, in fact at a guess I would say the escape velocity would increase slightly as centrifigal force would be absent. If though the Earth stopped rotating suddenly, anything not attached ,like us, would go flying off at a tangent at about 1000mph. Any ripping apart is just nonsense.

Thanks for that. Just received a reply via E-Mail on the Svidzinsky paper thus..... From: Brian Koberlein <brian.koberlein@gmail.com> Date: 1/9/2019 1:09:45 PM Subject: Re: General Relativity and Vector gravity Barry, If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper. The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here. The author of the paper states explicitly that the gravity wave results are consistent with the predictions of GR, and points out that his model is also consistent with the data. He does this because background independent models have been known to disagree with GR in ways we can now prove experimentally. So basically, this is a “this alternative model isn’t dead yet!” He goes on to talk about dark energy as a way to argue that maybe we should look at the model further. Again, this is pretty standard for a speculative theoretical physics paper. It’s what we do. Come up with ideas to see if they work, because someday hopefully one of them will. There are literally thousands of papers like this out there, and none of them have disproved GR so far. In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right. It also doesn’t say black holes don’t exist, but instead claims that black holes wouldn’t have an event horizon. They would have an apparent horizon, which is basically an event horizon (except for really technical differences I won’t go into). The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the reply, the claim re BH's that Brian detailed are exactly what I had in mind. I remember the sensationalist headlines a few years ago, re Hawking supposedly claiming BH's did not exist, based on similar quantum detail re the EH. from the previous reply E-Mail....."The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence

In line with the excellent information that you have been forthcoming with, do you, or can the scientists involved with these detectors know what frequency we would need to observe to indicate "ripples" from the BB itself? Also if drawing a long bow, and we assume this V4 gravity paper is all that its proponents say it is, and the vector modes are confirmed in line with the paper, how would this, could this over ride the preposterous "no BH's proposals" it also claims, taking into account that the effects on spacetime we see, that can only be explained by BH's, the observational verifications of "dying pulse trains", the 10 observations so far that just happen to align with BH collision templates, and of course the fact that when any Schwarszchild radius is reached, it gives no other choice then further total collapse, at least up to the quantum/Planck level. In other words, typical GR type BH's.

I find it far more interesting re your own negative comments on mainstream science and GR in general, and afterall this is the mainstream section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna#Other_gravitational-wave_experiments Previous searches for gravitational waves in space were conducted for short periods by planetary missions that had other primary science objectives (such as Cassini–Huygens), using microwave Doppler tracking to monitor fluctuations in the Earth-spacecraft distance. By contrast, LISA is a dedicated mission that will use laser interferometry to achieve a much higher sensitivity.[citation needed] Other gravitational wave antennas, such as LIGO, VIRGO, and GEO 600, are already in operation on Earth, but their sensitivity at low frequencies is limited by the largest practical arm lengths, by seismic noise, and by interference from nearby moving masses. Thus, LISA and ground detectors are complementary rather than competitive, much like astronomical observatories in different electromagnetic bands (e.g., ultraviolet and infrared)

The so called "continued universal negativity" that you imagine apparently is not just peculiar to this science forum. Why are you afraid of questions? Why should not any alternative hypothetical that has not been validated, not be made to run the gauntlet? Why are you opposed to let the scientific methodology take its course? Have you communicated with Svidzinsky again? In fact the facts are entirely opposite to what you imagine, here and everywhere else, as the many links including those from aLIGO continually show. His non peer reviewed paper is being researched to the very best of what current technology allows There are papers out there that hypothesise many amazing, and speculative scenarios. Nothing wrong with that per se, as that is how science progresses. Most though die natural deaths, forever lost in cyber space. And of course as we all know, due to the great successes of GR, it is also often a target for cranks and other assorted anti mainstream baseless accusations. Your actual lack of faith appears to be focused on the entire physics community in general and against many professionals. To repeat my questions....Do you doubt that this paper is being actively researched? Are you concerned that running the gauntlet may reveal some shortcomings? And of course as has been logically pointed out to you, the LISA experiment when aloft, will in many respects logically surpass our ground based detectors.

I don't let equations fool me, and my point was simply that mass/energy warps spacetime, that we recognise as gravity, and that light/EMR follows geodesics. NB: Light/EMR will also warp spacetime due to its momentum, but very insignificantly and probably immeasurable as far as I know. Of course Earth does not change the pace of time, the warpage that Earth causes in spacetime, sees time vary according to how high or low one is in it.

Yeah, somewhat. I believe swansont was trying to drum that into my big fat head earlier on.

I suppose it is a speculative answer to the apparent "fine tuning" enigma. Perhaps. What are your speculative thoughts on such possible multi steps?

Such feelings, such beauty, I believe in Angels!!

Another paper illustrating the science and research being currently undertaken... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10194.pdf A Search for Tensor, Vector, and Scalar Polarizations in the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background: 1 Mar 2018 The detection of gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo has enabled novel tests of general relativity, including direct study of the polarization of gravitational waves. While general relativity allows for only two tensor gravitational-wave polarizations, general metric theories can additionally predict two vector and two scalar polarizations. The polarization of gravitational waves is encoded in the spectral shape of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, formed by the superposition of cosmological and individuallyunresolved astrophysical sources. Using data recorded by Advanced LIGO during its first observing run, we search for a stochastic background of generically-polarized gravitational waves. We find no evidence for a background of any polarization, and place the first direct bounds on the contributions of vector and scalar polarizations to the stochastic background. Under log-uniform priors for the energy in each polarization, we limit the energy-densities of tensor, vector, and scalar modes at 95% credibility to Ω T 0 < 5.6 × 10−8 , Ω V 0 < 6.4 × 10−8 , and Ω S 0 < 1.1 × 10−7 at a reference frequency f0 = 25 Hz. Discussion: The direct measurement of gravitational-wave polarizations may open the door to powerful new tests of gravity. Such measurements largely depend only on the geometry of a gravitational wave’s strain and its direction of propagation, not on the details of any specific theory of gravity. Recently, the Advanced LIGO-Virgo observation of the binary black hole merger GW170814 has enabled the first direct study of gravitational-wave polarizations [4, 15]. While LIGO and Virgo are limited in their ability to discern the polarization of gravitational-wave transients, the future construction of additional detectors, like KAGRA [75] and LIGO-India [76], will help to break existing degeneracies and allow for increasingly precise polarization measurements. Long-duration signals offer further opportunities to study gravitational-wave polarizations. Detections of continuous sources like rotating neutron stars [44, 45] and the stochastic background [42] will offer the ability to directly measure and/or constrain gravitational-wave polarizations, even in the absence of additional detectors. In this Letter, we have conducted a search for a generically-polarized stochastic background of gravitational waves using data from Advanced LIGO’s O1 observing run. Although we find no evidence for the presence of a background (of any polarization), we have succeeded in placing the first direct upper limits (listed in Table I) on the contributions of vector and scalar modes to the stochastic background.

Yes, certainly, but either way that does not invalidate my point of the chance evolving of our universe. Not sure if that comparison is valid...we also can know nothing beyond our observable horizon in our own universe, but we also know it certainly exists. I disagree...the multi-verse speculation is not a showstopper as you say. Whereas ID certainly is as it completely short circuits any further debate. Perhaps the multi-verse scenario is infinite and eternal, although admittedly I personally cringe at that. Again maybe the speculative quantum foam is the nothing that most of us define and mean as nothing. If I had a dollar for every time I have declared what are speculative scenarios as speculative, I would be a rich man.

Exactly.....worth noting of course that BH's and EH's have been evidenced many other ways, not the least being the "Dying Pulse Train" observed effect...http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm Yes, particularly when cosmologists around the world associated with aLIGO and VIRGO, are researching this supposed claim, despite previous accusations by some of incalcitrance and stubborness with mainstream academia. I see that fact as quite illuminating.

Of course I do and always present it accurately, unless now you chose to back away from your support for Svidzinsky's paper. .No not according to the links I have given, and simply a baseless dismissal by yourself, in realizing once aloft, LISA will probably reinforce Einstein's GR model with even more validity then it rests on at this time,as the top rung of the tree. The article includes all alternative models and mentions afew by name that are more worthy then others. But as I mentioned, at least aLIGO and VIRGO are doing proper research and will in time reveal that model which best aligns with the observations, as opposed to probable faulty interpretations and weighted opinions by Svidzinsky in his paper. The main point of course is that no one of any consequence [other then Svidzinsky] is yet claiming that it is superior to GR, let alone accepted by the bulk of reputable mainstream academia.