Merging black holes have been part of GR for as long as black holes have been known about. The problem was that simulating such a collision is extremely computer intensive due to the highly non-linear nature of the Einstein Field Equations. It was only recently that new numerical methods were developed which allowed for detailed simulations of black hole collisions and the resulting space-time distortions.

Lofty statement. Very impressive. Please provide your supporting evidence/reference material. How long have black holes been 'known about'? It would seem you have access to material unavailable to 'laymen'.

Saying "Black holes will merge" is not an insightful prediction. Any two gravitationally interacting objects will be drawn towards one another. If you have a viable model of gravity then you should be able toaccuratelymodel the trajectories the black holes move along as they spiral into one another. You can't.

Newton described a 'viable' model of gravity, which was refined through GR. Are you suggesting that I am required to create a NEW model? Ludicrous. Are you a teenager, or something? Just 5 years ago even suggesting that black holes would actually merge would get you ridiculed by 'learned people' such as yourself.

If your work weren't nonsense you'd need to send it only to a journal and they'd review it and then publish it. Your spamming of physicists inboxes does not put your work in a good light.

Rude. Lol. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Thankfully it is not universally held. Respected journals won't even read material from laymen, let alone publish. Get real. This leaves few options for reaching the scientists. I really don't care how you perceive my actions.

I delete all unsolicited email I get from people trying to push their work via email rather than a journal.

It would appear ( happily ) that most scientists have a little more curiosity than you.

You have no model. A model should model something. You can't provide any working model of any phenomenon.

My model refines the standard BBM. Maybe you should read both of them again.

It makes no quantified testable predictions, how can it be falsified if you aren't making any predictions.

The model can be falsified through observational evidence. The model can be falsified by conflicting with known math, and/or physics. And I do make predictions. Read it again.

So? The Bible is read millions (or billions) of times a day, doesn't make it right.

No, it doesn't. However, I am describing a physical process. Not a metaphysical one. If there is an error in my reasoning, or if I have incorrectly interpreted the evidence, it is a simple matter to point out these flaws.

Then you can derive the following things :

1. The precession of Mercury's orbit about the Sun.

2. The time differences experienced by GPS navigation systems due to the motion and position of the satellite.

I am not a mathematician. I don't have to be one to comprehend the concepts of gravity, precession, or a variety of other observed phenomena.

Both are little more than homework questions for anyone studying general relativity.

My aren't we feeling superior today ....

String theory reproduces the results of general relativity with only the assumptions of special relativity. It is therefore superior to your work.

I just finished a quick review of recent publications which this site will not allow me to link as of yet. But I think you can find them by using the titles.

New Insights Into Open String Theory

String Theory and the Unification of Forces

M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings

Problems with string theory

Physical Reality Of String Theory Shown In Quantum-critical

In its near 40-year history, string theory has ...

Just one exerpt .... from Physicsworld.com

Why can’t string theory predict anything?

String theory replaces a microscopic world-view based on point-like

elementary particles with one based on 1D strings. Compared with the

particle view, however, strings have got physicists virtually no further

forward in explaining what they see when they actually probe nature at

small scales using machines like the LHC. This may not be surprising given

that strings are 10^20 times smaller than particles such as protons and

neutrons. But why is it so hard to turn stringy ideas into hard predictions?

The theoretical framework of the particle world-view is quantum field

theory (QFT), which describes particle interactions as being due to the

exchange of a field quantum (photons, for example, mediate the

electromagnetic force). For some deep reason, a type of QFT called a

gauge theory describes the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions

extraordinarily well, and has done for nearly 35 years via the Standard

Model of particle physics. Because QFT allows particles to appear from

“nothing” via quantum fluctuations of the underlying fields, the vacuum is

not really empty space at all. The starting point for calculating physical

quantities in both field theory and string theory, since string theory is

rooted in the same quantum-mechanical principles as QFT, is therefore to

write down the appropriate “Lagrangian” and understand the vacuum.

In the Standard Model, this is reasonably straightforward, since the

Lagrangian is fixed once you know the particles and ensure that the

interactions between these particles respect gauge symmetry (which in the

case of electrodynamics, for example, makes the values of measured

quantities independent of the intrinsic phase of the electron wavefunction).

As for the vacuum, in order to give particles their masses theorists invoke a

scalar field called the Higgs field that has a non-zero value in the vacuum.

Once you have got the Lagrangian, you can then derive a set of Feynman

rules or diagrams that allow you to calculate things. The simplest diagram

you can draw corresponds to the classical limit of the theory (i.e. where

there are no quantum fluctuations) and yields a probability amplitude for a

particular physical process, for example an electron scattering off another

electron. By then adding the contributions from increasingly complex

diagrams (using perturbation theory), QFT allows you to refine the

calculations of this probability – to a precision of 10 decimal places in the

case of quantum electrodynamics.

The stringy world-view turns these 1D diagrams into 2D diagrams, since

the space–time history of a string traces out a 2D surface rather than a

line. This is great for incorporating gravity, which the Standard Model

ignores, because gravitational interactions of point-like particles lead to

infinities in the calculations. The problem is that theorists do not know

what the Lagrangian is in string theory. Instead, researchers have five sets

of possible Feynman rules, each of which approximates the physics

described by a different Lagrangian (i.e. a different formulation of string

theory). The upside is that the five different string theories are linked by

dualities that suggests string theory has a unique underlying structure

(called M-theory); so it does not matter too much which one you work with.

The downside is that the five “backgrounds”, as string theorists call them,

live in 10D space–time.

If we lived in a 10D world, then it would just be a case of finding an

experiment to verify which of the five backgrounds fits best. But when you

curl up six of the dimensions on a Calabi–Yau manifold in an attempt to

describe the four dimensions of the real world, you produce a slightly

different background with its own set of Feynman diagrams. Indeed, the

number of 4D Lagrangians you can get is about 10^500, each of which

corresponds to a different way of compactifying the 6D manifold, choosing

fluxes and choosing branes (i.e. “non-perturbative” effects that are

extremely difficult to calculate). Since each result corresponds to a

different universe, you really need to study all 10^500 in order to find out

whether or not string theory describes the real world (unlike in QFT, where if

you see something in nature you do not like, then you can add a new

particle or field into the Lagrangian). The punch-line of this string theory

“landscape”, however, is that it is the only explanation physicists can offer

for the cosmological constant – a property of the vacuum that was

discovered in 1998 and which QFT gets wrong by a factor at least 10^60.

Very difficult reading for a man of my limited cognitive abilities. But I think I understand it to some small degree. My model relies solely on GR, and our current observations. Strings are still 'magic'. As Witten himself has described M-theory. Sorry.