I am a bit skeptical of the conclusion given the methods. Here, there&#x27;s no observable phenomena independent of the test apparatus that corresponds to the proposed cause. The conclusion is circular.<p>1. Theory predicts gravitational waves when massive objects collide and that the gravitational waves would have an effect that could be measured by the experimental instruments.<p>2. The experimental instruments measure something.<p>3. This is considered proof that massive objects collided.<p>4. Therefore gravitational waves exist.<p>To reframe my skepticism, the experiment measures something. The conclusion as to what it measures, however, is unsupported by statistical inference or direct experience of a causal phenomenon.  That&#x27;s not to say that what the phenomena measured -- the earth resonating -- is uninteresting or unimportant or even inconsistent with the theory of gravitational waves.<p>Yet, I don&#x27;t find the possibility of a geophysical cause -- i.e. that the earth maintains consistent dimensions at a sub-atomic scale -- the many orders of magnitude less likely than gravitational waves necessary  to reach a conclusion. In particular, I find natural fluctuation to be more likely because the experiment acknowledges its existence.<p>For a point of comparison, consider the Perihelion precession of Mercury that provides evidence in support of general relativity. The theory was used to predict the results of an observable event. The experimenters trained their telescopes at a particular location and particular time and observed phenomena consistent with a prediction based on the theory. The same is true of the Higgs. In both cases the experiment is of the form &quot;when X, I will observe Y.&quot;<p>The reasoning here is:<p><pre><code>  If X, then Y.
  Y, therefore X.
</code></pre>
It treats an ordinary implication as mutual implication.