Strange

By whom? Certainly not by me. And so this is not objective (and they are not opposites). So women are animals, are they?

I don't believe freedom is an objective property: what evidence do you have for this? Determinism is not necessarily repeatable, regular, etc. Look up chaos theory or, for a specific example, the double pendulum. And what does "violence" have to do with it? This appears to contradict the first statement of (1). I gave up at this point. It appears to be a series of baseless and contradictory opinions that have little to do with objectivity or ethics.

If they can change, then they are not absolute truths. Some philosophers would argue that we don't exist, or at least we cannot know if we exist. (See also solipsism.) And, according to you, they must be right because philosophy is always correct. I understand you perfectly. I am just trying to explain why you are wrong. Descartes. But many people have pointed out the flaws in this argument.

Apparently, an atomic force microscope: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists-van-der-waals-individual.html

Absolutely. Asking is good. Telling people that they are doing it all wrong? Not so good.

Then maybe you shouldn't be lecturing everyone about them.

I took it to mean the reverse: there were waves only when it was under tension. I guess a loose string is too damped to propagate.

VIRGO is running: http://ligo.org/news/index.php#triplelock

Because forming a black hole is not about density. To put it simply, it requires a concentration of mass at one place. The universe has always had an even distribution of mass throughout the entire universe.

Although, it is worth noting that the Schwarzschild metric is an idealisation based on an eternal, unchanging spherical mass. So, based on that model it could be there forever. But, obviously, the thought experiment is unrealistic for multiple reasons.

I'm not sure that the current detections have told us anything we didn't know; the signals look just as expected. No one ever says that in science.

My point was that everyone might agree it is a coconut (of that species) until someone else comes along and points out that they are wrong, that in fact it is not a coconut but a different fruit altogether. Suddenly your "absolute truth" is not so absolute. This is rather like the "black swan" effect. Everyone might think that all swans are white because they have only ever seen white swans. So their absolute truth is that "all swans are white". And then one day a black swan comes along. Suddenly, their absolute truth turns out to be false. (Like that one about all fish living in water.)

Nope. Things that are impossible still can't happen in an infinite universe.

Why would such a pattern falsify your theory? If anything it would be consistent with your theory; which is the best you can hope for. Note that, as well as gravitational wave sources, the LIGO team uses templates corresponding to thunderstorms, traffic, earthquakes (maybe), animals, etc. to eliminate those sources. These things would also be very unlikely to produce the same signal at both detectors. They also inject "fake" black hole signals into the detector (without telling the rest of the team, I think) to check that they are correctly rejected. The idea of detecting signals by matching against a known signal is well established in many other areas such as cellphones and GPS. For example, if the only radio signal around were from a GPS satellite, it would still look like random noise. It is only the fact that we can compare (correlate) the signal with a predefined pseudo-random pattern that allows us to find and extract the data. You really should read some of the background to understand how and why they are confident they can detect gravitational waves, how they identify and eliminate sources of error, etc. They already do that with two and will soon be doing it with three, when VIRGO comes on line. In future there will be more, including space-based ones.

They say "exactly at" while you say "just this side". Very different things.

This idea comes up pretty regularly on the forum. I suppose that there could be a duplicate of you somewhere (or there was a little while ago, or will be in the near future). But I don't see how that could be called an "afterlife". Doppelgänger might be a better word. But as it is an unfalsifiable idea, it doesn't seem to have any value or interest, rather like solipsism or Last Thursday-ism. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Solipsism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

I'm not sure it is possible to have a finite amount of matter in an infinite universe - given that (in current models) the us inverse , and always has been, completely full of matter.

The gravitational field is everywhere and, therefore, so are the virtual particles (if the field is quantised). It is not the movement of the field that causes gravity (that sounds like it would be gravitational waves) but the "strength" (curvature). I don't know if gravitons could have different energy levels. But, like other fundamental particles they would have zero size.

Relevant to what?

I did warn you that "space flowing" was an analogy and that it maybe only applied in one specific case. Also, I would never have said gravitons don't exist. There is no evidence that they do and no evidence that they don't. Indeed. It definitely should no be thought of as "rotation". It is just (intrinsic) angular momentum. This is a very misleading description (I don't blame you, it is a common pop-sci description). Gravitons (if they exist) mediate gravity as "virtual particles". "The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Good point.

A very poorly written article (some sentences are not even grammatical). Black holes do not explode. What they are referring to is a black hole becoming "active"; i.e. when a large amount of matter falls towards a black hole it is heated and a large amount of it is blow away, often as polar jets.

There are various theories along these lines. The most famous being string theory. There are others (I will mention preons just because it is the work of the wonderfully named Sundance Osland Bilson-Thompson). However, as far as I know, none of these say that the distance between things is made of anything. It is just distance. Why do you say that? Any evidence for that? Why would something you have just made up be part of standard physics. It is angular momentum. So not vibration.

How much do you pay?

That software gets very bad reviews. (I have edited the name out, as I suspect this post is a crappy attempt at spam. Why would anyone put a smiley on a post about their computer being hijacked?) You might want to look at Malwarebytes or Emsisoft.