Strange

So do you have some evidence that Newton's law of gravity is wrong? Because it has been very well tested ... You seem to prefer your own guess work to the results of evidence-based science. Why is that? (And Vmedvil is a complete crackpot who posts a lot of ignorant nonsense.)

If you read the Wikipedia page on Newton's law of gravitation you will see that gravity is proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the distance from the centre. So, if two planets have the same mass but one of them is denser then that means the volume will be smaller and the surface will be nearer the centre (smaller radius). Therefore the surface gravity will be higher (just because you are closer the centre). It is the distance that is important. The higher density just allows you to get closer. It is not the density itself that changes anything. So, if we consider a satellite in orbit above these two planets, the only thing that matters is how far the satellite is from the centre of the planet (and the mass of the planet). The density is not relevant because we are no longer considering the surface gravity.

This web site has a good overview of all the papers published at the time, with a summary of each and like to each paper: https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/

I'm not sure what you are asking. We can observe objects orbiting a black hole (this provides some of the best evidence for the existence of black holes). We cannot observe anything that falls into a black hole (passes through the event horizon) because no information can leave the black hole. No, because only a small proportion of the mass of the start is within that radius so the gravity is not sufficient to stop light escaping. To create a black hole, the entire mass of the star needs to be within the Schwarzschild radius. And, again, your "logic" is wrong. No. Which bit do you need a source for? But as you appear to know almost nothing, perhaps you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation Feel free to ask questions about any bits you don't understand.

It doesn't. However, because a black hole is smaller than a star with the same mass, you can get closer to it. And (as, of course, you know) gravity decreases as the square of the distance. But, at the same distance, the gravity will be the same. So density des not change the gravity but a higher density means that you can get closer (or, to put it another way, the surface is nearer the centre). But density itself does not change the gravity. It is only the distance from the object and its mass that are important. Only if you don't understand what you read. Oh grow up.

One of your better posts.

As it has been tested and used for hundreds of years and shown to be correct, it doesn't really matter whether it "looks" right to you or not. There is no plasma inside a microwave oven (unless things have gone very badly wrong). And buoyancy is not anti-gravity. It doesn't say anything about density being relevant to gravity. Do you really not understand the concept of an orbit? I mean, really? It still makes no difference to the gravity. Lets take an extreme example. If the sun (very low density) were to suddenly turn into a black hole (very high density) it would make no difference at all to the orbits of the planets. The gravity would be exactly the same. You can make all sorts of wild guesses and assertions, but as you have no theory and no evidence to support them, we can just ignore them in favour of the actual science. Which has been repeatedly tested and found to be correct. Because they are a very long way away. Sheesh. Correct. The orbits would be exactly the same. It depends on mass and distance only. Yes. (Apart from the mass lost in the supernova.) It is exactly the same as a star (or group of stars) with the same mass. Your "logic" (which appears to mean "common sense" and guesswork) gives the wrong answers. Science gives the right answers - we know this because the answers have been tested and are used, practically, every day. And you "logic" is, sadly, wrong. Maybe you should learn a little schoolboy physics instead of relying on guesswork (calling it "logic" doesn't;t make it any more accurate).

Density is only indirectly relevant because (Newtonian) gravity depends on mass and distance. And in GR it may be indirectly related to pressure. But density itself doesn't appear in either theory.

That is why there is no such thing. Bzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Please try again. Because it is larger than the Schwarzschild radius for that mass. And that is because everything is orbiting the centre of the galaxy. There isn't enough information to answer this. What is the mass of the black hole? How far away are you measuring the gravity? Look up "ORBIT" in an introductory physics text.

So does a piece of string. Not exactly "anti-gravity" though.

Then there is no such thing. It is falling towards the Earth. Continuously. If you move it closer, then it would orbit faster. But still be falling to the Earth at the same acceleration. The closest is when it starts to scrape the Earth! (Actually, the Roche limit defines how close it could be.) Of course. For objects in orbit around (or falling to) the Earth, simple Newtonian gravity will work. Show us the math to support this claim. Or stop making up nonsense.

Correct. (Well, strictly speaking, the mass is converted to the energy in the waves. But that probably isn't a significant distinction as you can't have waves without energy.) 1. The mass did exist. The mass of the two initial black holes was larger (by 3 solar masses) than the final black hole. 2. So no, it was not dark matter. 3. If a theory of quantum gravity is consistent with GR (and so far I see no good evidence it won't be, despite some speculative ideas like Verlinde's) then it will have exactly the same amount of dark matter. As far as I know, we don't yet have any theory of quantum gravity that is capable of doing that. (In other words, we don't have any theory of quantum gravity.)

Do you mean buoyancy? If not, what evidence do you have for this claim? This has nothing to do with antigravity. And, if anything contradicts what you say: the plasma does not have "negative weight" despite the high thermal energy. Just because a few atoms/ions gain enough kinetic energy to reach escape velocity is not evidence of antigravity (any more than a rocket is). And, as you said, in the absence of gravity, a flame doesn't go up. It is the presence of gravity, and buoyancy, that causes a flame to go up. Not antigravity. Yes, gravitational waves exist. Yes possibly they can interact with plasmas. But that is not what you said. You said " gravity and anti-gravity forces are a result of interaction between gravitational waves." Which is not true. Gravity is a static field. It exists in the absence of gravitational waves. (And anti-gravity doesn't exist.) Maybe. But not the cause of gravity.

So throwing a ball in the air, for example? Or hot air balloons? What force is making the plasma move away from the source of gravity? It won't do that by itself (see the Sun for example). The "anti-gravity" created by a flame is just buoyancy: the hotter, less dense material will be pushed up by the cooler, denser air around it. There is no science that says that. The rest of this post is nonsense. You seem to be jumping to some odd conclusions, apparently based on a lack of knowledge of basic physics. Note that this is just an analogy (and not a very good one). It is not how gravity works.

Neither did I. So it is a bit surreal to bring him in now. Still nothing to do with the luminiferous aether. If you want call space-time "ether" you are of course free to do that. It doesn't change anything. But it will probably confuse people.

Einstein is talking about space-time, not the luminiferous ether. That paper is about the photoelectric effect, not relativity. (The clue is in the title.) The first paper on special relativity was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." I gave up reading at that point.

Does this help: https://lifehacker.com/5938332/how-to-run-mac-os-x-on-any-windows-pc-using-virtualbox How far have you got?

Do you have a mathematical model that shows how your "concept" matches reality? It only opposes gravity in the same sense that the floor or a piece of string does. Nothing to do with "antigravity".

Gosh. CERN vs some random guy who posts nonsense on the Internet. Tough call. After some thought, I think I will go with CERN.

And yet it is: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/hansen.html

As long as the resulting combination is colour neutral (colour + anti-colour in the case of pions) it doesn't mater. You are also ignoring the role (and colour) of gluons and the fact that quarks can change colour.

Most of it was radiated before the merger. Exactly. Yes it was. The mass of the final black hole was smaller than the sum of the initial black holes (by 3 solar masses). The energy had to come from somewhere. It was not kinetic energy, it was gravitational wave energy.

But that doesn't give you anything much more than a dictionary, does it? If you want your program to understand all the complex associations with the word "eat" (eating crow, eating your own dog food, you are what you eat, have your cake and eat it, etc.) then it needs to have more than just a simple definition.

Well, I suppose all sources. After all, children don't learn the meanings of words by reading encyclopaedias! They pick up the meaning of "eat" from the many different contexts they see it in. A story where someone sits down to eat dinner. Their grandma telling them to come and eat breakfast. And being told "eat this". They have the advantage of being in the physical world and so being able to associated objects and activities with the words, but it should work anyway.

It is. As described by the Big Bang theory. But you are missing the point. The Big Bang describes the entire universe expanding and becoming less dense. A black hole describes a small amount of matter within space become compact. These are very different things. I'm not sure what you mean by "what happened". It is in the energy of the gravitational waves. As the black holes orbit, they distort the space-time around and between them, this causes the waves, which carry away the energy. No. Because GR is a classical theory and so gravitons and quantum fluctuations are not involved.