"The LIGO-VIRGO collaboration is reporting the 21 May, 2019, event (catalogued as GW190521) in two scholarly papers.
One is in the journal Physical Review Letters and describes the discovery. The second can be found in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, and discusses the signal's physical properties and scientific implications.
GW190521 is one of over 50 gravitational wave triggers presently being investigated at the laser laboratories.
The pace of research has increased rapidly since the collaboration made its first, Nobel-Prize-winning detection of gravitational waves in 2015."

With all due respect, I will put a bit more weight into a Nobel-Prize winning collaboration's hypothesis than your curmudgeonly opinion. Or, maybe you would like to post the scholarly papers you've published on the subject to support yours?

@Amzungu Those “scholarly papers” have impressive-looking names. I have studied the science. Have you? When I haven’t studied the science, I follow the trail of money.

Are they vanity presses? Who pays how much to publish in them? Who pays how much to read them?

The Standard Model, the Big Bang, is slowly running out of taxpayer money. Former employees are marketing their abilities or knowledge in other ways.

In my first career I wrote for computer manufacturers. In retirement, I wrote on law and some of my stuff is in academic libraries.

@Amzungu BTW, do a search on Nobel Committee bias.

@yvilletom "In my first career I wrote for computer manufacturers. In retirement, I wrote on law and some of my stuff is in academic libraries."
So my conclusion is that you have nothing academicl to offer on this subject outside of trying to minimize the accomplishment of a Nobel prize. Thanks for the insight. It's clear through your multiple responses on other posts that you have no respect for research, discovery or potential understanding of the Cosmos, which makes me wonder why you're in this group at all, other than to set yourself out as smarter than everyone else, though I simply find you to be merely crass.

@Amzungu Your post is still scifi.

@desertastronomer “Sticks and stones ....” Your name calling reveals your weakness.

@Amzungu Sticks and stones ....” Your name calling reveals your weakness.

@yvilletom I didn't call you any names. I said I find you to be crass. Crass is an adjective, not a noun. Now maybe if I'd have said you were an ass your logic would apply, but I didn't, and so it doesn't.

@desertastronomer, @Amzungu

There’s hope for you two; you agree that you don’t enjoy weakness.

Do a search on “closeup photographs of comets”

Do they look like dusty iceballs? Or snowy dustballs?

Of course not. Yet that’s what the Standard Model folk, those who want you to believe their Big Bang story, want you to believe.

Congrats. You’ve made a start away from the kind of nonsense religions want you to believe.

@yvilletom So, ye of infinite wisdom, do tell us all your alternate theory in opposition to the corrupt Big Bang pushers? Are you a debunked Steady State believer or a plasma-cosmology cultists? Or have you come up with your own new concept. Curious minds would like to know.

@Amzungu Curious minds, when they are ready, will fill themselves. They won’t always insist that science fiction is science.

@Amzungu Hm-mm, maybe they wiil always insist that science fiction is science and make distinctions without differences.

@yvilletom Hm-hmm, and still others will always remain content to simply make fictitious statements demeaning others intelligence to allow themselves to sustain that coveted notion of superiority rather than making an actual scientific statement.

@Amzungu Period.