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.
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.
