http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Did_LIGO_detect_black_holes_or_gravastars_999.html After the first direct detection of gravitational waves that was announced last February by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and made news all over the world, Luciano Rezzolla (Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany) and Cecilia Chirenti (Federal University of ABC in Santo Andre, Brazil) set out to test whether the observed signal could have been a gravastar or not. The results were recently resented in a paper published on Physical Review D. extract: "As a theoretical physicist I'm always open to new ideas no matter how exotic; at the same time, progress in physics takes place when theories are confronted with experiments. In this case, the idea of gravastars simply does not seem to match the observations", says Professor Rezzolla.
Thanks, this is a useful paper, it settles (for me) the question if something relevant against my theory can be extracted from these observations. The relevant paper is arxiv:1602.08759. Gravastars are, of course, a different alternative to the frozen stars of my ether theory, but, on the other hand, share the similar property that there is not really a black hole, but, instead, a star with a size slightly greater than its horizon size would be. How much greater it could be would be the interesting question. One already knows, from missing visible explosions if infalling matter hits the black hole candidates, that the surface redshift has to be extremal. In this paper, what is excluded by the observation are gravastars of some compactness parameter $\mu<0.48$, which corresponds to a surface at a radius >1.04 times the Schwarzschild radius or a surface redshift factor of 25 or so. In my theory, the surface redshift for such a star-size black hole would have to be much larger. So, I conclude that the GW data are not dangerous at all for my theory. If they are really dangerous for gravastar theory is less clear. In the original proposals, the thickness of the surface (there all the matter of the gravastar lies) was of Planck scale order. It seems there are also more classical gravastar solutions with much higher thickness. The thicknesses considered in this paper $\delta/M = 0.0025$, thus, very thick in comparison with Planck length. In fact, it appears that the gravastar model they have considered is one they have proposed themselves in arxiv:0706.1513. How much it tells something about the original MM gravastars is therefore completely open. To quote them:
And of course the general consensus of BH's hasn't changed and continues to align with the evidence available. Glad you liked the paper. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Did_LIGO_detect_black_holes_or_gravastars_999.html In this case, the idea of gravastars simply does not seem to match the observations", says Professor Rezzolla.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1513v2.pdf How to tell a gravastar from a black hole: Abstract. Gravastars have been recently proposed as potential alternatives to explain the astrophysical phenomenology traditionally associated to black holes, raising the question of whether the two objects can be distinguished at all. Leaving aside the debate about the processes that would lead to the formation of a gravastar and the astronomical evidence in their support, we here address two basic questions: Is a gravastar stable against generic perturbations? If stable, can an observer distinguish it from a black hole of the same mass? To answer these questions we construct a general class of gravastars and determine the conditions they must satisfy in order to exist as equilibrium solutions of the Einstein equations. For such models we perform a systematic stability analysis against axial-perturbations, computing the real and imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies. Overall, we find that gravastars are stable to axial perturbations, but also that their quasi-normal modes differ from those of a black hole of the same mass and thus can be used to discern, beyond dispute, a gravastar from a black hole. Conclusions Although the gravastar model of Mazur and Mottola [1] represents an ingenious solution of the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry, it has also challenged one of the most cherished foundations of modern astrophysics: i.e., the existence of astrophysical black holes. Gravastars, in fact, can be constructed to be arbitrarily compact, with an external surface which is only infinitesimally larger than the horizon of a black hole with the same mass. As a result, the electromagnetic emission from the surface of a gravastar will suffer of essentially the same gravitational redshift as that of a black hole, thus making it difficult, if possible at all, to distinguish the two when only electromagnetic radiation is available. Without entering the relevant debate about the physical processes that would lead to the formation of a gravastar or the astronomical evidence in support of their existence [24], we have here considered two more fundamental questions: Is a gravastar stable against generic perturbations? If so, can an external observer distinguish it from a black hole? The short answers to these questions are that: a gravastar is stable to axial perturbations and indeed it is possible to distinguish it from a black hole if gravitational radiation is produced. To reach the first of these conclusions we have constructed a general class of gravastar models that extends the one proposed by Mazur and Mottola by replacing the infinitesimal shell of matter with one having finite size δ and variable compactness µ. These equilibrium solutions of the Einstein equations have then been analyzed when subject to axial perturbations and the eigenfrequencies of the corresponding QNMs have been computed explicitely. For all of the cases considered, the imaginary part of the eigenfrequencies has always been found to be negative, thus indicating the stability of these objects with respect to this type of perturbations. To reach the second conclusion, instead, we have shown that the QNM spectra of a gravastar and that of a black hole of the same mass differ considerably. In particular, while it is always possible to select δ and µ such that the gravastar has the same oscillation frequency as that of a black hole with the same mass, the corresponding decaying time will be different. As a result, the gravitational radiation produced by an oscillating gravastar can be used to distinguish it, beyond dispute, from a black hole of the same mass. We plan to extend our stability analysis also to polar perturbations and determine whether or not these intriguing objects possess modes of oscillation that do not have a counterpart in compact relativistic stars and may therefore hint to new solutions of the Einstein equations.
Not really: The confirmation of gravitational waves and near certainty of BH's stand as is: Another aLIGO will of course enable precision in determining exactly where those gravitational waves are originating from.
Another fact ol boy, you need three apparatus for your triangulation concept. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the third aLIGO may kill the GW! That possibility is non zero. Your claim that third aLIGO will give the precise location data presupposes that GW is a foregone conclusion. Thats not the case as on date.
While no scientific theory is a foregone conclusion, gravitational waves are at this time, as near certain as any scientific theory can be....the same of course with BH's, not withstanding your usual anti 21st century cosmological "god of the gaps" stance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And of course the third LIGO, will do exactly as I said.
