Dear Albertito:

On Mar 6, 12:10*pm, Albertito wrote:
On 6 mar, 18:58, dlzc wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:21 am, Albertito wrote:
...
I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.

You'd lose the former. *I think you'd win on
the latter.

Ok, I'd win on the latter. Correct.

No, *I* think you'd win on the latter. I don't have a problem an
infinite "speed of gravity".

Uhmm, but I have understood that the existence
of black holes is inexorable linked to the
existence of gravitational waves!

No. Newton describes black holes also. The only difference is the
mass required.

It is required that black holes could emit
gravitational waves. That means I would
win on the former, too :-)

Nope. "Could emit" =/= "must emit".

If gravitational waves are unphysical, then
black holes must be unphysical, too.

Gravitational waves may or may not be "physical". If they propagate
at infinite speed, they cannot be detected by LIGO... one particular
instrument, one particular model. Pulsars do seem to be losing
angular momentum, and GR provides a mechanism to transfer that
momentum (allowing for conservation of momentum).

Seriously, your misunderstandings alone are no challenge to
Relativity. And I suspect you don't care.

David A. Smith