Michael Mozina wrote:
This is a perfect example of the obligatory personal attack BS that you folks have become famous for. It's the kind of crap that you constantly resort to in order to elevate your cognitive dissonance.
Your post is preposterous.
No, your denial of your bad behaviors is preposterous, along with the behaviors themselves. Anyone who dares to question your dogma is subject to personal attack. That's the preposterous aspect of this whole conversation to date.
More than half of your rant is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the time to coalescence of compact binaries is longer for systems of less mass. The other less than half of your rant has no sensible content and makes no reasonable points.
Reasonable to whom? The guy claiming that 95 percent of the universe is made of invisible magic stuff? Please.
The fact is that your refusal to accept the rather basic fact that falls directly out of a theory you claim to "support", that compact binary coalescence time is an inverse square function of system mass makes you look like the sort of whining schoolboy who refuses to accept the basic classical result that orbital period of planets goes as 3/2 power of distance from the sun.
That might actually have merit were able to demonstrate how your model handles charges of black holes and such, but your links don't even seem to deal with that possibility, so my criticism still stands. It's apparently a very "simplfied' model that makes a lot of 'assumptions' about the process. Having perused the links a bit, I'd say that's certainly the case.
How can you possibly claim to "support" GR when you refuse to understand its most basic results, such as the rate of gravitational energy radiated by compact binaries?
I can't really say I've spent a whole lot of time studying the gravitational wave emission aspects. I've simply taken them for granted to this point, but alas it's not a part of GR that I've spent a lot of time on yet, particularly how they model the merger processes.
No one outside this forum really cares whether people round here accept or reject GR, as their acceptance or rejection is not based on an understanding of the subject and is therefore worthless.
Considering the fact that your beliefs are based on percent 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance and about 5 percent "pseudoscience", it's not clear that you folks understand your own cosmology model very well either, so your criticism is both hypocritical and irrelevant.
I told you exactly how the complexities are dealt with using the Einstein quadrupole formula and the post-Newtonian formalism, approaches which you had never even heard of before I schooled you on their existence, and approaches which you steadfastly refuse to learn about (even if you had the capability of doing so). I even gave you links to start learning about the subject.
But your links didn't address my question related to the charge of the object or anything or the sort. In fact they seemed to simply *assume* that the charge of the objects was irrelevant or non-existent. Why?
I have already told you that the complexities are dealt with in the PN formalism. I'm afraid you'll have to learn the maths and then learn the methods.
Cop out. Where *exactly* in either paper did they address the charge of the objects. If you won't be specific as to even where such calculations are presented and dealt with, I'm going to have to assume you're just making this up as you go.
But I'll give you another starting link - see for example Tessmer and Schaeffer, Eccentric Motion of Spinning Compact Binaries, arxiv 1406.0358, which generalises the PN formalism through Hamilton-Jacobi theory and cites many papers on the subject. Are you seriously expecting me to reproduce in words in a forum post the mathematical theory of gravitational radiation?
What I'm looking for is something *specific*, including a page number and formula where complexities like charge are even dealt with. You don't seem to be capable of doing that.
I wonder whether you realise how absurd your refusal to accept this basic result appears to anyone with the slightest real knowledge of GR.
Yawn. Do you realize how absurd it looks to simply ignore the complexities of the process and attack anyone who points it out?
You have been pontificating about the detection of gravitational waves for years but you have never bothered to learn how GR actually predicts the loss of energy by gravitational radiation from compact binaries which is the foundational theory of the entire field. You don't have to learn it, but rejecting its basic results just makes you look silly. You would be more self-consistent if you rejected GR altogether for whatever reason you choose.
If you had actually read my paper, you should have notice that I focused on the failures of their *methodology* and their overt biases, not the validity of GR theory, not the mathematical models they used, not the concept of massive objects, or the concept of them merging. My paper had *nothing* to do with complaining about GR or their merger models in the first place! Oy Vey.