I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy.
I can. This was no innocent copy-paste of someone else’s incomplete quote. Tom sought out this article, strategically copied only the words which appear to support the story he’s telling, and excised the words that fill in the truth. That’s deliberate.
What I posted was the facts. What you want posted is the excuse commentary of l the scientist: "this is how we get better!!" Of course they are going to say something stupid like that in defense.
What the facts say is that they validated something that was entirely fake.
No, you declaring it fake have is simply you editorializing. Even if there is doubt as to the results of LIGO, and it looks like there are people that do have legitimate doubts, that is different than fake. You literally are acting the same as what you criticize. This doesn't have much to do with the fact of the matter, and indeed you have not established anything about Ligo, except that a team of Danish scientists objects to Ligo's findings.
It is also incredibly strange that you give more credence to the Danish team's criticism, which has not been peer-reviewed, than Ligo, which was by the publishing journal. There was an
in-depth rebuttal by one of the Ligo leads, not just the defensive hand-waving you have characterized. There have also been physicists who have looked at the Danish paper and said that it was
a poor analysis of the Ligo data. I think it is fair to say that your characterization of the Ligo finding is a bit extreme, but I would also agree that until they start getting more results from their 3 detector set up, gravity waves aren't as well established as the media would have us believe. Of course, I am just a layperson, and would happily be corrected by someone who knows more than me.
One thing that has been lost in all this though, is that Ligo's discovery, even if it were fake, would not invalidate GR.