Einstein's predictions mean rare 'gravitational lasers' could exist throughout the universe, new paper claims

[admin]

A new study combining two of Albert Einstein's famous predictions suggests that ripples in space-time can combine into 'gravitational lasers', firing out of black holes in random directions across the cosmos.

Einstein's predictions mean rare 'gravitational lasers' could exist throughout the universe, new paper claims : Read more

 

[Daemonnice]

What a load of pseudo scientific crap.
Spacetime ether(Einstein called it an ether) is a undetactable hypothetical medium according to none other than Einstein. Somehow it has evolved into a mechanism for gravity, something Einstein did not intend, which to this day is still believed to be the fundamental force of the cosmos. This is because cosmologists do not follow the scientific process, in particular, that involving the failure to predict.
If P then Q, if not Q then not P: basically says if your model does not predict what is observed, then your model is refuted.
When Rubin observed not enough mass in galaxies, a shortfall of 65% according to the model of gravity as the fundamental force, this should have been accepted as a refutation, instead they did what all propnents of pseudo science do and invented a hypothetical dark matter which they have yet to fulfill the burden of proof on.
Since Rubin's observation, to anyone that follows the scientific process, refutes gravity as the fundamental force of the cosmos, then Einstein's general theory of relativity is irrelevant, and there is no gravitational lensing, no black holes, no neutron stars and the claims made in this article a load of pseudo science.

 

[bolide]

Your natural language description of the logic is not quite correct. "If P then Q, if not Q then not P" is perfectly valid. But that doesn't mean "if your model does not predict what is observed, then your model is refuted."

What you can say there is that “what your model predicts is not observed.” It makes a difference. And as that is the correct statement of the case, it leaves open the possibility that what was observed was caused by something else, which does not damage the model in question. That is what leaves the logical opening for supposing some other cause, such as dark matter.

Aside from that, I’ve never heard it said that gravity is “the fundamental force of the cosmos.” One of the fundamental forces, sure, and subject to question because it does not mesh with the other set of fundamental forces, those of quantum mechanics.

In any case, gravity, including Einsteinian gravity, is far, far too well confirmed to be discarded because of one kind of discrepant observation. We didn’t discard gravity because of the problem with quantum mechanics (nor vice versa), and we’re not going to do it for spinning galaxies.