You have not read the paper published by LIGO:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.05834.pdfThe word "redshift" is mentioned 49 times: on every page, the authors declare that their calculations are based ENTIRELY on the redshift hypothesis.
"Using the measured gamma-ray energy spectrum and the
distance to the host galaxy identified by the associated optical
transient, we compare the energetics of GRB 170817A to those
of other SGRBs at known redshifts.
Compared to the distribution of GBM detected GRBs with
measured redshift shown in Figure 4, GRB 170817A is 2 orders
of magnitude closer and 2 to 6 orders of magnitude less energetic
than other SGRBs.
We explore here whether
the gap in luminosity compared to more luminous SGRBs is a
result of the instrumental sensitivity for the detection of either
the prompt or the afterglow emission of SGRBs, or whether our
problem lies in the association of SGRBs to their host galaxies
and thus redshift.
The maximum distance we
could have detected this burst is about 80 Mpc—closer than any
other SGRB with a firmly determined redshift.
For SGRBs, the
redshift is instead usually determined from the host galaxy.
A welllocalized
(∼few arcseconds) SGRB afterglow is associated
with a galaxy within a small angular distance on the sky, using
probabilistic arguments about chance alignment, and then the
redshift of the host galaxy is measured."
This is the main reason for the ASSUMPTION made by the authors:
The gravitational and EM waves are expected to travel at the same speed.And the waves DID NOT arrive at the same time: there was a several second delay.
Moreover, there was a TIME DELAY at the source:
"As a conservative bound relative to the few second delays discussed
in Section 2.1, we assume the SGRB signal was emitted 10 s
after the GW signal." The equation used by the authors:
Δv/v
em = v
emΔt/D, where D is the assumed travel distance.
Here is the figure for D used by the authors:
This relation is less constraining for small distances, hence we conservatively use here D = 26 Mpc.
The authors simply made up the data.
So you appear to be suggesting that these waves travel at different speeds (consistent with all your links to Whittaker etc.) but have not refuted the GW170817 observation that the two wave types were observed arriving in synchronicity. No synchronicity at all.
A full delay of 10 seconds at the source.
A full 2 seconds delay at the point of observation.
Given the FE distances, some 50 km to those stars, a single second makes all the difference in the world.
Ether redshift theory:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060607031454/http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... "
A. Einstein describing the work published by W. Nernst
What Walther Nernst did was to discover a huge, humongous, catastrophic error in Hubble's calculations on the interpretation of the red shift.
"if redshifts are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"
E. Hubble
And as far as expansion is concerned, Hubble concluded with the following statement:
" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."
" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …
E. Hubble
That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.
Nernst's Interpretation
Hubble made two mistakes, as has been seen.
The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.
The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.
These mistakes did not happen by chance.
The first was almost certainly due to the influence of Tolman, the relativistic theorist whose aid was sought by Hubble to "interpret" redshifts. Despite the results of the work he did in 1936, Hubble was never able to completely shake off Tolman's influence.
His second mistake was caused in the same way by the influence of Einsteinian relativity. A logarithmic law may be deduced from a normal "classical" effect of exponential decay of energy in photons; this, however, really does postulate the existence of the "intergalactic and interstellar mean" that is "in principle" denied by Relativity.
The Picture that Won’t Go Away
"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.
The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.
Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.
Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."
A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.aspThe Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdfPublished in the Astrophysical Journal
Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences
"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."