> RTFA

Please don't be rude like that here. It breaks the HN guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment would be fine without that bit, and better still if it stated briefly what the detector does measure.

Fine, but I find comments like "I don't really grasp what's going on, but I can show it's crap using high school logic" to be extremely low-quality, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Understood, but please post comments that make the thread better rather than worse. It sounds like you know a lot and are thus in a position to do so.

I read the article. I am in the habit of calling periodic changes in dimension "resonance." I consider it rather consistent with the use of "wave" in the discussion and hence a handy way of describing what the instruments measured rather than what the theory suggests as the first cause.

Resonance is quite a bad term if that's what you use it for. Resonance would require some amount of positive feedback. Vibration or oscillation would be a much better terms for simple periodic changes.

It's consistent with vibration caused by a wave which is why it seemed appropriate to me in this context...even if I think the claim of waves is an over-reach, I am not being deliberately argumentative.

The instruments are intentionally constructed to be as insensitive as possible to earth motion.

Implicit in the detection claim is that the signal does not originate from earth motion.