Strange

And, I assume (at the risk of confusing things further) this is an example of gravity waves.

You also used synapses instead of synopsis. Expansion/red-shift/Hubble's law has nothing to do with infinities or singularities. They are observations about the universe we see now. Dark energy also has nothing to do with infinities or singularities. It is an observation about how the rate of expansion changed a few billion years ago. By getting hung up on irrelevant (and probably non-existent) infinities, you are just confusing things and wasting more of your time. In the same way the the theory of biological evolution is independent of how life arose, so the big bang model of cosmological evolution is independent of how the universe started (if it did). Our current physics seems to work pretty well for the pressures and temperatures going back to a few picoseconds after the (notional) zero time. The fact that you either don't understand or can't believe this is not really very interesting. This is all just plain wrong. You clearly still know almost nothing about the subject.

Plus professional makeup, lighting, photography, ....

There are plenty of examples of people (scientists and non-scientists) noticing such a thing and then taking a rigorous approach to studying it further and then drawing it to the attention of others to investigate. One of the nicest examples is the Mpemba Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect)

I think that, in regards to this question (and probably the other thread about gravitational waves) we can assume we are dealing with an idealised situation of two black holes with no significant amount of external material. (Unless Rob disagrees.)

I didn't say that. I doubt that there are any singularities in reality. They are irrelevant to the matter under discussion, anyway. We are dealing with things a long time after that. The CMB (which your model cannot explain) arose 380,000 years after any notional singularity. So all the data we have is from then and later.

I think she was modelled on Veronica Lake (if anyone wants to test the hypothesis).

I have had some serious problems with patent examiners in the past, but he seems to be really on the ball.

There a quite a few other ideas for the early universe. For example: "big bounce" (the universe collapsed and then rebounded) and ekpyrotic cyclic universe "eternal inflation" (several variations) some recent attempts to combine quantum theory and GR suggest an infinitely old universe I'm sure there are others - those are just the ones that I can think of right now. The wikipedia page seems to cover the ideas I have heard of. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others, though.

These, and their relationship, are very well understood. And Mordred understands them very well. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to project your ignorance on to other people. Conceptually, maybe. But I would not describe it as simple. It is incomprehensibly complex, if you ask me. I couldn't see anything relevant in your long incoherent ramble on atomic weights.

As far as I know (which isn't much) the event horizon is invariant (i.e. it doesn't change with your relative velocity). (... although that may not be true for observers in free fall towards it ...)

We are trying to help you.

It doesn't start at a singularity because everyone acknowledges that our theories do not apply before you get to that point. The model starts with a hot dense state NOT a singularity.

I have no idea. I have always assumed it is at the peak amplitude, but I have no reason for that. You may be right. On the other hand, the equation you are using won't work for the last stages of infall. I imagine that means for most of the available signal. Fig 5 appears to show the frequencies at each phase. (I haven't read this in any detail, though.)

Just to be clear (again) that is NOT because you challenged the currently accepted model. Many scientists do that, as they should. Models exist to be challenged and tested. If there was any strongly worded disagreement it is because your "challenge" consists of your dislike for the theory and nothing else. You think you have some alternative explanation for [some of] the red shift but you are unable to quantify it and demonstrate that it is plausible. You have no explanation for any of the other evidence behind the current model.

Inside (or maybe at) the event horizon. If we knew any more than that it would violate the "no hair" theorem. Yes, because I have watched simulations of the merger of black holes. Why would the speed change its shape?

The singularities are irrelevant. We cannot know what they are doing (if they exist). We can only know what happens at the event horizon. But, yes, as I said the shape changes.

.... thinking .... thunk The equation you are using is for two bodies orbiting one another in circular orbits. It does not apply when black holes are in the process of merging. This paper describes a better approximation for the inspiral phase: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf This has to take into account things like mass ratio, black holes spins, orientation of those spins, etc. And then they say: Overview here: http://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/#parameter-estimation That paper also answers this question:

The black hole is tiny. I'm not sure it could even be resolved by Hubble. The main reason we can't see a lot of the galaxy is because there is a lot of light and a lot of dust.

I assume because you are using an approximation. These tend to get less accurate at the extremes.

As soon as they touch the event horizon will become the size of the combined radii, so there will be one black hole, not two orbiting. (In reality it is more complex as they merge before then.)

Maybe. But that doesn't tell us anything about the nature (or existence) of any external reality. Which was all I was saying.

If you watch simulations of black hole mergers, you will see that the event horizons stretch out to each other as they approach. If that didn't happen and the two event horizons just touched then the total mass would already be within the Schwarzschild radius of the combined mass (as rs is proportional to mass, you can demonstrate this with a simple drawing).

Quite. 36+29=65, not 91.

So rather than saying that your idea replaces expansion, it now just creates small anomalies. Is that right? And nothing to do with dark energy? (It still isn't clear whether you know what dark energy is or not.) It seems unlikely it could ever be tested. For one thing, black holes are tiny and form a minute amount of the mass of galaxies, so their effect will be tiny. And at the distances where we observe significant red-shift we are unlikely to be able to observe any black holes.