@ paddoboy: Your resort to semantics won't help you in this instance, paddoboy. My use of the word proof/prove was in the ordinary "evidentiary proof" context; as in evidence that the claims are "true" as claimed; and not merely yet-to-be-confirmed-as-true and valid" claims. You tried to sound clever by mouthing others' distinction made between maths theorem 'proofs' and physical hypotheses 'confirmations'. But that distinction is not what applies in the context I used it. Bad luck; but good try, paddoboy. I already pointed out what the claims were; and I already pointed out that the 'evidence' is not as you/they claim or believe if the lack which I also pointed out is significant enough to make those claims premature and scientifically unsound unless and until that lack is remedied properly and exhaustively as I described. I don't have to do any such thing,paddoboy. Don't you understand? It is the scientific method that demands proper quantification etc of what I pointed to which is real and extreme effect that has not been properly quantified. It's up to the claimants to show where they have done what I described before they opted for the pre-preferred grav-waves interpretations and conclusions; which latter are not 'evidence' for anything until they do as I suggested. There you go again, ignoring the scientific method and concentrating on person rather than the substantive science issue irrespective of 'person' provenance. And your use now, of my earlier 'Hamster on Wheel' description of your repetitive person/irrelevance etc posting seems a little too late to be of use to you here, paddoboy. But thanks anyway; they do say that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". But never mind, no harm done, paddoboy, as I am not susceptible to flattery; since letting blandishments affect one's objectivity would go against the scientific method, and also against my own personal code when dealing with scientific and problem solving matters. Better luck next time. Best.