Strange

There have been fewer wars in the 20th and 21st centuries than any previous time in history.

How do they do that? Have they had laws passed?

But it is measured as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Mathematics

And they all involve a change in energy because of relative differences between the source and receiver.

Are you asking if Doppler red shift and gravitational red-shift are the same thing? The answer is no (as far as I know). However, as you have seen earlier, it is possible to describe cosmological red shift in terms of a series of Doppler shifts. Again: are you talking about expansion or are you talking about dark energy? (They are not the same thing.) These are not part of the big bang model. The universe may or may not be infinite, we don;t know. That has nothing to do with expansion. If it is not infinite, it is not going to become infinite. If it is infinite, then it has always been infinite.) You thinking it absurd is irrelevant.

Then it will be wrong. Of course they were.

I am very confused. I thought you said you didn't think the universe was expanding. But now you are talking about dark energy. So which is it? You agree the universe is expanding, but think you have an explanation for dark energy? You do realise that dark energy is not the cause of expansion and Hubble's law, don't you? (This seems to be a common misunderstanding.)

Stop waffling. Either tell us what your idea is or go away until you are ready.

There is no such right.

Different sources will create different patterns of waves. They have a large library of "templates" of the waves that would be generated by different types of sources (supernova, pairs of black holes, pairs of neutron stars, black hole + neutron star, etc). These are created by simulating these events. They find the best template match and then run more simulations to pin down the exact match. That way they can determine the masses of the black holes. From that they know the energy of the gravitational waves and then, by comparing that with the waves received, the distance. All the detail you could possibly want here: http://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/

You may have added another random guess. There is no model and no quantitatively testable predictions. Therefore no hypothesis.

It is a result from hundreds of hours of simulations of GR. But feel free to replace that detailed analysis with your personal guesses. Once you get a small distance away, it will effectively be a point source.

What IP rights? You will, of course, own the copyright in the text you write. But there is no protection for ideas. More confirmation that you have no interest in science.

What I am referring to is the number of times they highlight the complexity of the problem. So please don't start making wild guesses about the way you think they should behave. I don't doubt it is a good source. It has some very interesting information.

You can't because they are different things. Not even apples and oranges. More like apples and the frequency of the colour orange. Can you equate force and taste? Or curvature and hunger? What rules, exactly, are they violating? Please provide a reference to peer reviewed science to support this claim. Curvature (currently). We do not have a theory of quantum gravity. Gravitons are purely hypothetical. The self-interaction of gravity is one of the reasons that it is highly non-linear and mathematically complex. This is not a contradiction.

Can you explain why anyone should take you seriously? Nope. You need to support your idea. You keep referring to a flaw but seem unable to articulate what that flaw is. And what is "the primary assertion of Lambda-CDM"? There is no evidence of that. You have been saying that for days now. Why not actually do it?

Post #3

That is very interesting. Apart from the information on the formation of gravity waves, there is a much, much more important lesson for you to learn from that presentation. Can you guess what it is? (I have repeated it rather tediously in some of your other threads on the subject).

Reminds me of a comedy sketch I saw years ago: two characters sitting on a beach watching a ship sailing away. They comment on how it is getting smaller and smaller. And then start panicking about the fate of the passengers who are being crushed to death as the ship shrinks. What you seem to be missing is the difference between subjective appearances and reality. You can measure the distance to the moving object (and its speed) and work out how much it should appear reduced in size. If you see differences between that objective data and what you see, then you might need to worry about the fate of the passengers. As you seem to be trying to draw some sort of cosmological analogy here: we know the distance to stars, we can measure the actual velocities at those distances, and we can compare those to our models.

It is a very low bar, as it doesn't require formal peer-review. No.

Worth noting that these are unknowns but they are not challenges to the big bang model. Although answering them could lead to new physics and therefore changes to the model (which is what makes science so exciting). That is always true.

This has been covered in several threads already. The strength of the waves is not completely isotropic (they are slightly stronger in the orbital plane than in the orthogonal axis) but they travel at the speed of light and so will be spherical (once you are far enough away to ignore the slight asymmetry of the source; i.e. a few radii away).

Not if you look at the data. Presumably you think the moon landings were faked as well. Seeing this level of ignorant cynicism on a science forum is rather depressing.

Please explain why it is flawed? What is the source of the CMB in your model?