"We present the result of searches for gravitational waves from 200 pulsars using data from the first observing run of the Advanced LIGO detectors. We find no significant evidence for a gravitational-wave signal from any of these pulsars, but we are able to set the most constraining upper limits yet on their gravitational-wave amplitudes and ellipticities."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07709v2.pdf
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/blog/gravitational-waves-or-the-elephant-in-room/
The paper you cite is looking at pulsars which are single stars so would only emit GW if they are not rotationally symmetrical, as it says they use a triaxial model. Due to their high spin rate, they should be an ellipsoid, "flattened" at the poles, which would not emit waves. However if there were bulges around the equator, the symmetry would be broken and waves could be emitted at a very low level. This paper finds none and that places a limit on the size of any radial variations around the equator. It says nothing about the speed of gravitational waves.
The detection of GW150914 saw a delay of 6.9ms in the arrival times between the two sites (which are 10ms apart at the speed of light) hence the maximum speed would be 1.45c if the source by chance was exactly on the line joining the sites. If the speed of GW is equal to the speed of light as GR predicts, the source is roughly 43.6 degrees off that line which, for a randomly located source, is very credible.
An accurate measurement of the speed needs either a third detector site or a source that gives an associated optical signal to confirm the location. Without that, we can only get an upper limit.
AS: Gravity is instantaneous .. Gravity is a non-propagating force ..
The LIGO detection of gravitational waves propagating at close to the speed of light proves both those claims to be incorrect.
Do some of you want to return to times before the final formulation of Electrodynamics by James Clerk Maxwell and re-introduce instantaneous forces? What is the purpose of such rather poorly motivated speculations?
I think in the name of good science it is good to ask any questions that challenge established consensus.
I do not believe that the question of finie or not finite gravitational force change propagation is adequately explained.
There are some questions left to answer in electric field as well:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233399034_Measuring_Propagation_Speed_of_Coulomb_Fields.
Article Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields
It is NOT good science to question results that have stood the test of time and proven to be correct and useful. Actually, to question things that have been understood for ages is a waste of time and an expression of ignorance! Who wants to question theorems of planar euclidean geometry or Coulomb's force law? What is the purpose of replacing a theory where causes have propagation speeds not exceeding the speed of light by a poorly founded theory that treats gravity as "instantaneous" (whatever may be meant by this)?
If you have a theory that reproduces all successful predictions (i.e., those that are in agreement with experimental data) of the General Theory of Relativity (GR) and has a similar level of internal logical coherence, but makes some predictions that differ from those of GR you should certainly publish it in an accessible form. Just text without mathematical formulae and intelligible argumentation and a lack of precision in describing the new predictions of the theory may, however, damage your cause. -- I suppose we will see what the outcome will be. Permit me to be skeptical, for the time being.