Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

As I read them, your links say what I was expecting, namely that conservation of energy can be "violated" for very brief time intervals and thus that any energy transfer is just borrowed and then given back, to maintain conservation of energy at macro scales and times. This would not, on its own, account for any long term energy removal from astronomical objects.

However, from a bit of further reading I see that the proposed effect is indeed supposed to be a mechanism whereby real photons are created from the interaction of rotating magnetic fields (I think) with the vacuum fluctuations. So that addresses Daecon's and my issue: kinetic energy is converted into radiation by this process - if it occurs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mind you another thought springs to mind. This idea raises the issue of what the rotation is considered to be relative to, doesn't it? After all, the vacuum is not an aether, representing a coordinate system that is at rest in an absolute sense!

(There, that should bring the nutters out of the woodwork!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is amusing to see the calm consideration being given to the idea of vacuum-energy slowing NS rotation, while my own recent consideration (that the observed slowing in Hulse-Taylor type NS binary orbital dynamics could be actually due to their respective hugely strong Magnetic fields interacting via E-M friction/viscosity effects which produce system energy loss in the form of photonic radiation) was hysterically howled down without any real physical scientific counter argument presented against it.

Maybe now some will realize that I was pointing out real Magnetic Interaction phenomena that can produce such energy losses in Binary NS etc systems; which implies that such losses explain observed Hulse-Taylor type 'orbital decay' rates; which in turn implies that the hypothetical gravitational waves of the sort claimed to have been 'detected' by aLIGO may not exist at all let alone 'explain' the Hulse-Taylor observations.

This would mean that all the gravitational wave interpretations, models and hypotheses (initially formulated and posited as 'explanations' solely based on such interpretations etc of Hulse-Taylor type observations) may be flawed to begin with; and hence all subsequent interpretations and experimental assumptions and interpretations and modeling and analysis etc may also be therefore flawed if they do not take into account the photonic radiation energy loss explanation due to strong interacting magnetic fields between the bodies in any extreme E-M field feature dynamics in binaries orbiting each other at great speeds and in close proximity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Virtual particles explain why the electron's charge isn't infinite. The Feynman diagram above shows two electrons scattering off each other.
Classically there is no limit to how close they can be, and the closer they are, the more charge (i.e. potential) there is between them.

Virtual particles screen the electron's "bare" charge, so no infinite potentials during scattering.

 

No, no, no, you have it all arse up!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From memory no one ever said that magnetic fields would not contribute, rather you were inferring that they contributed all, and disgarding gravitational waves...remember?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure the experts took all contingencies into consideration, including magnetic fields, and arrived at the gravitational waves decision as the main cause, that aligned with all the evidence available, which of course you were not a party to.

I would actually research your own decision rather then that of the professional experts for the reasons I have already stated.
You see my friend, you and I are just like the cocky on the biscuit tin...we aint in it.
My advice to you is first study up on all aspects of the discipline you are trying to invalidate, on a science forum no less,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and then start again at square one and have your views peer reviewed.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3930.pdf

1974: the discovery of the first binary pulsar:

Abstract:
The 1974 discovery, by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, of the first binary pulsar PSR B1913+16, opened up new possibilities for the study of relativistic gravity. PSR B1913+16, as well as several other binary pulsars, provided direct observational proofs that gravity propagates at the velocity of light and has a quadrupolar structure. Binary pulsars also provided accurate tests of the strong-field regime of relativistic gravity. General Relativity has passed all the binary pulsar tests with flying colors. The discovery of binary pulsars had also very important consequences for astrophysics: accurate measurement of neutron star masses, improved understanding of the possible evolution scenarios for the coevolution of binary stars, proof of the existence of binary neutron stars emitting gravitational waves for hundreds of millions of years, before coalescing in catastrophic events radiating intense gravitational-wave signals, and probably leading also to important emissions of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. This article reviews the history of the discovery of the first binary pulsar, and describes both its immediate impact, and its longer-term effect on theoretical and experimental studies of relativistic gravity.

 

Yes, as I have said time and time and time again, to those that wish to invalidate gravitational waves, and by extention GR, all contingencies would/have and are considered. Afterall these are the experts, and certainly not just some Tom, Dick or Harry that inhabits a 2 bob science forum.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0611/0611398.pdf

Binary and recycled pulsars: 30 years after observational discovery:

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Magnetic fields and periods of radio pulsars 3. Binary X-ray pulsars 4. Theoretical prediction. Unavoidable formation of binary recycled radio pulsars 5. Magnetic field decay during accretion 6. Evolutionary formation schemes 7. Binary radio pulsars in globular clusters. The formation of single recycled pulsars 8. Relativistic effects in compact neutron star binaries 8.1 Observed relativistic effects 8.2 Relativistic effects in the Hulse ± Taylor pulsar 9. Two pulsars in a binary system: the most compact neutron star binary as the best laboratory for testing GR 9.1 Pulse arrival time in the binary pulsar 9.2 Results of data analysis [71] 9.3 Further prospects 9.4 The past and future of pulsars in a binary system 10. Binary neutron star coalescences: gravitational wave and gamma-ray bursts 10.1 Galactic binary neutron star coalescence rate and gravitational-wave pulse registration 10.2 Binary neutron star coalescences and gamma-ray bursts 11. Conclusion



Abstract.
Binary radio pulsars, first discovered by Hulse and Taylor in 1974 [1], are a unique tool for experimentally testing general relativity (GR), whose validity has been confirmed with a precision unavailable in laboratory experiments. In particular, indirect evidence of the existence of gravitational waves has been obtained. Radio pulsars in binary systems (which have come to be known as recycled) have completed the accretion stage, during which neutron star spins reach millisecond periods and their magnetic fields decay 2 to 4 orders of magnitude more weakly than ordinary radio pulsars. Among about a hundred known recycled pulsars, many have turned out to be single neutron stars. The high concentration of single recycled pulsars in globular clusters suggests that close stellar encounters are highly instrumental in the loss of the companion. A system of one recycled pulsar and one `normal' one discovered in 2004 is the most compact among binaries containing recycled pulsars [2]. Together with the presence of two pulsars in one system, this suggests new prospects for further essential improvements in testing GR. This paper considers theoretical predictions of binary pulsars, their evolutionary formation, and mechanisms by which their companions may be lost. The use of recycled pulsars in testing GR is discussed and their possible relation to the most intriguing objects in the universe Ð cosmic gamma-ray bursts Ð is examined.

 

paddoboy:

Before proceeding to the paper itself, I would like to make clear that I concur with Einstein insight that gravity is an effect due to a mass-energy concentration ‘conditioning’ the surrounding space such that it is biased (some call it ‘curved’ or ‘deformed’ etc) in such a way that other energy-mass features are caused to deviate from the usual inertial path motions and caused to ‘fall’ along null geodesics tending towards, and/or going past, and/or actually converging on, the more dominant energy-mass concentration.

However, I do not concur with using the GR “space-time” maths because it results in absurd results at the limit, and only is useful so far as it is informed by actual empirical and physical constraints as to its effects in real situations; which is why I (like Q-reeus and others) have had reservations about extrapolating the GR maths to supposedly support the quadrupolar GR Gravitational 'waves' hypothesized by those designing the aLIGO etc experiments (basically, I only am comfortable wih the normal less-than-lightspeed propagation of the gravitational-well effects ‘attached’ to the gravitating body as it moves through space and its gravitational ‘tidal front’ effects ‘wave along’ with that body but does not ‘detach’ from it).

I hope, paddoboy, I have made clear that I DO support GR...but only up to a point and not beyond its relevance and tenability of spacetime/maths terms and extrapolations. I trust you now better understand where I am coming from. Thanks.

Thank you paddoboy for again trying to find papers where astronomers have actually considered the magnetic field interactions between the two NSs in the Hulse-Taylor and other such extreme and compact object binaries in close mutual proximity.

Unfortunately, just like your previous linked papers, the above also failed to provide what was required.

If you will read your referenced paper carefully, you will see that the only magnetic aspects treated and studied were those affecting the individual spins of the respective pulsars. The NS spins and Magnetic fields/strengths etc were considered only in the context of mass exchanges between the two bodies (in form of magnetized stellar material ‘wind’ and other mass/plasma accretion processes; which affects the NS spins; and also when theorizing what was happening when the spin-orbit momentum-coupling stages were in flux and the mass-transfers were the causes/connection etc).

As you can see for yourself, paddoboy, just like all the relevant papers I have read on the matter (including the one above), at no stage was the magnetic interaction between the NS fields of the two NSs ever properly studies and quantified etc with a view to identifying its braking potential both in the NS spins and the binary orbital period!

Basically, the above (and all previous papers I have read) treated the mass-transfer and gravitational considerations affecting individual NS spin-orbital momentum effects, but have not actually treated the actual magnetic field interaction effects BETWEEN the two NSs in the context of the orbital decay rate effects from friction/braking due to interaction between the two NS magnetic fields.

That is because all the confirmation biased approaches to studying and obsering and interpreting such systems has been directed at Mass-Transfers and Gravitational Wave Hypothesis/Modeling ‘confirmation’ via the maths which is formulated and assumes the observed phenomena is due to mass-transfer effects and gravitational waves in the first consideration. Which makes the whole exercise circuitous in that the observations are interpreted via a model and the maths is based on that model and its consequential interpretations, and so the GWs as 'main cause' for orbital period decay rate is ‘confirmed’ because the treatment was based on the a-priori GR GWs maths based interpretation, modeling and assumptions involved.

Thanks anyway paddoboy for your time and trouble searching for papers that I too have not found yet either (after years of reading on the Hulse-Taylor etc ‘findings’); which will set my mind at rest only if the magnetic interaction between the NSs was actually considered therein, as I have described must be done if the Hulse-Taylor etc GR GW 'cause' is to be treated as the 'main cause' of observed orbital period decay.

Thankyou again, paddoboy; for your kind efforts to help me find what I seek in the relevant science literature. I do appreciate your hard work and time consuming papers/links searching very much, especially when actually relevant or close to it. Really.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What you are comfortable with and what you are not comfortable with, with all respect, matters SFA, to put it as blunt as possible.
This is a science forum in case you have forgotten and changes nothing within academia, but you are welcome to your thoughts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me make it clear again:
Gr stands as unchallenged at this time and has stood all tests thrown at it.
If that changes in the future, then so be it. More work and more exciting times for our real scientists.
My opinion though [just as irrelevant as yours] is that it will maintain its position as the prime theory of gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, that's your unsupported opinion and baseless as well in that you have nothing to back up what you are inferring.
As the final paper shows, all contingencies were taken into account, and gravitational radiation is the prime instigator for which both our friends were given the Noble prize for physics.

With respect, I do not believe you have read any of the papers, based on the "noise"you have continually made when I supply papers and links invalidating all you claim.
Secondly, I do not believe you are qualified to professionally review any scientific paper, as you have been asked for your expertise and credentials many many times, and like other alternative hypothesis pushers, you simply ignore.
This forum and myself, take the claims in your posts, with a grain of salt.

You're welcome to all your thoughts and takes in your posts, but in reality, you need to consider your position as to where and who you are.
Nothing wrong in thinking, but when you claim that some standard cosmology is wrong, this forum expects a reference, citation, or reputable link to support your case.
So far this has never been forthcoming in any of your hypothetical take on 21st century cosmology.

I'm sure you do, but you need to consider all I have said.
The Hulse Taylor Binary system was the first strong evidence for gravitational radiation, for which the Nobel prize was awarded.
Since then in recent times, gravitational waves, have been confirmed twice through aLIGO.
That's the present state of the ball game at this time, and I'm really sorry that it upsets your own apple cart...really I am.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

paddoboy:

With all due respect in return, paddoboy, I have just pointed out that they didn't consider let alone quantify the magnetic field interaction between the NS fields. You (and any moderator) can confirm what I just pointed out. Just read the paper carefully, and see that the situation is exactly as I describe: They considered and studied everything but the extreme magnetic fields of the two pulsars interacting with each others fields in close proximity conditions involved.

Please don't just keep repeating your belief that they have considered it. I just pointed out that they haven't considered it. What more can I do except point it out as I have done and ask you to confirm it for yourself that what I just pointed out is so? Maybe you are too emotionally attached to your own beliefs and opinions that you will not even read and consider fairly what has been pointed out to you. If so, then nothing I point out for you will make any difference until you hear it from one of your preferred 'respectable sources'. Let us hope that some such will come along and explain it to you. Or better yet, they may have some paper link which actually does show they took the magnetic field interaction between the two NS magnetic fields into account! That would settle the matter nicely, and I would no longer have to spend time looking for more information either way on this aspect. Thanks anyway for the papers/links to date (pity they just state what I already read/know about the NS binary case). Best.

 

And I have pointed out that you are not qualified to professionally review any paper and to tell me what is or what is not in it.
And of course you again ignore my request to support what you are claiming with a reference or link.
You also did this with your DM nonsense in another thread: Requests by myself and others to support your hypothesis were continually ignored.
So, on that score, how can anyone be sure that you are not just driven by some agenda.
The paper certainly supports the concept that magnetic fields were considered, but even if that wasn't the case, do you really believe that cosmology is being run by idiots?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course magnetic fields were considered...100%!

Sorry ol buddy, I'll keep repeating the truth as long as you keep claiming that which is total bunkum.

I wouldn't really go into any emotional aspect of myself my friend, considering the down right emotional display by yourself a couple of weeks ago, which by the way, I did not report as I felt sorry for you.
As others tried to explain to you in the DM thread re the necessity of DM which you were unable to comprehend or accept, I would certainly welcome comment from reputable members re what you yourself needs educating on.
Me? What I claim, saw the Physics Nobel prize awarded for plus I have supported it with many papers: Again, please think before you post, and realise that ignoring relevant claims of mine, does not make them go away.

The many papers that are published on this matter, the research that has been done, the consideration of all contingencies, and the matching of the maths involved support 100% the fact that the Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system, was the first real sold evidence of gravitational waves, for which the Nobel prize was given.
Please my friend, and with respect, and for the reasons I have stated, stop your unsupported claims re this scenario: It really reflects on the credibility of the claims in your lengthy posts, and members reading them, and seeing how you continually fail to support anything you say on the matter, would not be wrong in believing in that lack of credibility.
That was amply illustrated in the DM scenario you so enthusiastically denied any need for, yet when asked by three members including myself, for a reference to support your stance, you were unable to comply, did not want to comply, or was making things up.

 

As per the scientific method expletive deleted, the onus is on you to support adequately the anti mainstream nonsense you propose:
That can be done with a reputable link or citation.
Or a scientific paper that has undergone professional peer review to support your hypothesis.

 

Not withstanding the fact that the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system was mathematically equivelant with GR inspired gravitational waves, and the many papers supporting that finding accompanied by a Nobel, in ed's first post, [red highlight by me] no where in the relevant chapter of the paper was "spin" mentioned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The second statement was just straight out a total misinterpretation, as he has so often expressed in his posts.
from the paper:
It was noted in Ref. [11] that ``neutron star magnetic fields screened by intensive accretion can percolate outwards after the accretion has stopped.'' In this picture, the neutron star magnetic field value should increase with time, which can increase the rotational energy loss rate E_ with time, in contrast to the usual decrease E_ with time. By writing the field growth as B Oÿk, we obtain E_ O4ÿ2k in accordance with Eqn (1), and for k > 2, the rotational energy losses increase as the pulsar rotation decelerates. Another characteristic of the pulsar parameters is the braking index n ˆ O O=O_ (for the above relation, n ˆ 3 ÿ 2k). If observations yield n < 3, this may be due to the neutron star magnetic field increase with time [45]
ch 5:
Clearly magnetic fields were considered, and clearly they were considered in relation to Pulsar rotation.
Just as clearly and just as obviously, the same professionals did not deem magnetic fields as anywhere near the value to explain that which was explained by gravitational radiation and the generally accepted evidence of gravitational radiation and the Nobel prize.

Clearly ed, it seems you have again bitten off more than you can chew.

 

paddoboy:

That, and all the other NS magnetic field related passages in your linked paper, only treat/consider the individual NS magnetic field strengths and respective effects due to gravitational/mass-transfer factors.

At no stage do any of those passages involve treatment/consideration of the mutual magnetic field interactions between the two NS's fields.

Do you understand the difference, paddoboy?

Do you understand what you are reading in your own referenced papers?

If you do, can you please point out where they actually consider what I have referred to (and please don't again just repost passages that have nothing to do with what I am talking about...which you would realize is the case above if you actually understood what you just quoted above).

No one would be more grateful than I if you or anyone could provide me with the link to a paper which actually treats and considers and quantifies etc the mutual interaction of both NSs extreme magnetic fields in the context of braking potential for their respective spins and their combined binary orbital period decay rate!

If you do come across such a paper (the above paper and your earlier linked papers all lack that particular consideration etc), I would be thrilled and thank you profusely, paddoboy. But so far no such paper has come to my attention.

And please stop that! I am as qualified as any English Speaking scientist to read and understand and parse the meanings and contents of the papers you have linked so far, paddoboy; so please try not to keep making personal remarks about my motives or competency etc; or insinuating that I am claiming something when I am actually just scientifically and logically pointing out a particular lack in the Hulse-Taylor etc papers as per my observation to you about the magnetic field interactions BETWEEN the two NSs.

Thanks anyway, paddoboy. Best.

 

I'm insinuating nothing.....I'm stating facts.
[1] The Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system, was our first real evidence of gravitational radiation.
[2] That has been peer reviewed now for 25 years and stands as is, not withstanding your unsupported claims to the contrary.
[3] You have given no citation, link, or reference supporting your unsuported claims.
[4] You do this constantly, in this thread and others such as denial of DM all again without any citation, references, or links supporting your unsupported stance, despite being asked by more than myself.
[5] Since it is you that is railing against mainstream accepted theories, the onus is on you to support your stance with more than just the usual rhetoric.
[6] You decline questions re your "supposed"qualifications continually.
[7] This is the science section and not open for alternative hypotheticals.
[8]The paper/s I have linked to, also support the fact that magnetic fields were taken into consideration and dismissed as being the cause of what was put down as gravitational waves.
[9]Even if they had not discussed magnetic fields, it in no way invalidates the gravitational wave verdict.
[10]If you had anything, anything at all of any substance, invalidating the Hulse Taylor observation, it would be big news and worthy of plenty of discussion by professionals in proper situations, not on remote science forums.

Please ed take the time to answer the relevant points as listed....Try and cease your lengthy rhetoric that is just a continuing repeat of what you are known for and in opposition against mainstream cosmology, without at least some form of citation, link, or reference.
Otherwise you are in the wrong section, and should be in alternative/s to say the least.

 

paddoboy:

What alternative hypotheticals? I just pointed out that the papers did not treat and consider the mutual interactions between the two NS's' magnetic fields insofar as the braking potential for spin and binary orbital period braking/decay rate effects.

Until that has been properly considered and quantified, then all claims that gravitational waves are the main cause for orbital period decay rate is still open to challenge as a scientific question not yet investigated properly.

And from the start I said that known science has extreme magnetic fields associated with NSs. That was never in question.

My point was that the mutual interactions/braking effect between the two NSs' magnetic fields have not been investigated; simply because, like you, everyone has just assumed gravitational waves explained it all, while actually not investigating the braking potential of the mutual interaction between the binary NS fields.

According to you the science is settled and the Nobels awarded.

But I just pointed out where something may have been missed in the rush to confirm GR maths/claims re gravitational waves. Which makes all your above itemized assertions just your own personal and biased opinionated beliefs that the science was all correct all along. But that is not scientific at all; at least not until you or anyone can actually link to a paper which actually took what I pointed out into account. Thanks. Best.

 

You need to realise ed, that cosmologists/scientists in general are not as you are trying to paint them: They are not dishonest, they are not stupid: They did discuss and consider magnetic fields as obvious from my link:

You also should be aware that while over throwing any incumbent theory is not easy, it most certainly will never be done by an unprofessional, unqualified member of any science forum.
The professional/s would be delighted and are delighted any any scientific result, positive or negative: It always means more research.
Professionals are at this moment doing all they can to try and find fault with GR and most other scientific theories such as DM: It as I said, will open the door/s to further research, further knowledge, and better theories.
Those are the facts my friend, not the often repeated fallacy by trolls and cranks that science and scientists are recalcitrant or unmovable from the norm. That is shown every day, by those same professionals doing research, that the cranks and trolls like to cynically and dishonestly portray.
I personally post many articles of science and scientists progressing and discovering and researching and modifying existing theories.....
So please stop trying to paint me as some unreasonable ignorant incompetant person that objects to scrutiny of scientific theories. I'm not. I simply ask for relevant citations and links to support your claims/insinuations.

Your right to question scientific theories is not in question. Your right to your own facts are in question. It is totally unreasonable of you to pursue this line of thought, particularly in line with the paper/s that I have supplied, and which you unreasonably reject and even more importantly, in light of the fact that you are still unable to come up with any citation, link or reference supporting your claim/insinuation

 

A wrong assumption: They certainly did consider magnetic fields and the hypothetical you seem to be pushing.

They have been properly considered and you so far have failed to show that they have not been properly considered over a period of around 25 years or so.

Magnetic fields are a fact, no one ha said anything different.
But their contribution to the experiment in question was not sufficient to explain what gravitational radiation has.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So scientists over the last 25 years are Idiots? or are you claiming they are dishonest? Please see my previous post.
Plus of course since you are the only person that has seen this anomaly, why not do the proper thing, follow the scientific method and get your "thoughts"peer reviewed?

Please dont put words in my mouth. No theory is settled. But by the same token if you have the knowledge and evidence that it is wrong, then do as I have suggested.
On your second point, yes the Nobel prize was awarded, 1993.

What you believe, and what you believe may have been missed is all hypothetical.
The unscientific facts are [1] the paper/s did discuss the magnetic fields as I have shown, and [2] the onus is on you to support your thoughts, hypotheticals with citations and/or links of some sort.
You have failed to do that as you failed in other discussions such as DM.

 

paddoboy:

Please don't put words in my mouth. Thankyou. They may have made mistakes, just as scientists have been known to do before now. The rest is your words, not mine. Please don't do that again. OK? Thanks.

And I told you from the start, that magnetic fields were known to exist around NSs. That was known to astronomers etc. And I already said they did consider magnetic fields associated with the individual NSs, and the gravitational and mass-transfer effects on magnetic field of each NS. Just as the paper outlined. No argument there. I already knew all that.

But my totally different point was that the papers never dealt with/quantified etc the MUTUAL interaction as such BETWEEN the TWO Neutron Stars' magnetic fields with the view to understanding what braking effect that may have for the binary orbital period decay rate observed in Hulse-Taylor etc cases.

Do you understand that DIFFERENT but important point now that you know your linked papers do not cover that aspect as I point out?

Unless you or anyone can cover that aspect scientifically, then your opinions and beliefs (and maybe the relevant Nobels) are open to scientific question; just as I have pointed out scientifically so far and which has not yet been satisfactorily answered scientifically in the relevant scientific literature on Hulse-Taylor etc interpretations and claims....as I pointed out even with respect to your linked papers.

So unless you have any further relevant and to the point counter argument and information, my observation and point stands as already made; making no claims, but only pointing out something yet to be properly investigated scientifically.

Anyway, if you have no further responses other than repeating your misunderstandings and opinions and beliefs in the inerrancy of the relevant scientists in this case, then maybe it's time to call it a day between us on this matter, paddoboy?

If so, then thanks anyway for your attention and hard work to date, paddoboy. Best.

 

Putting words in your mouth?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pot, kettle, black!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But they did discuss the mutual effects of magnetic fields between the two Pulsars and came to a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Gravitational waves!
And again as much as you want to ignore the scientific method, the onus is on you to supply a citation or link to support your hypothetical...otherwise it remains just that...an unsupported hypothetical by a member of a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Your observations and point stand on a science forum without any expert professional peer review.
The fact remains that the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system was our first real evidence of gravitational waves, which of course has been much further validated with the two aLIGO results.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't have misunderstandings on this issue or that of DM.
They both stand as accepted mainstream theory due to the weight of overwhelming evidence supporting each.
Since you are unable to support in any way your hypothetical "story" on either issue, perhaps the misunderstanding is yours.

No hard work at all... Just plain old investigative research of reputable scientific articles and papers that are easily found. You should do it to support your own cause in fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!