Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 00:05 Surfer wrote: > I think this concordance is evidence that his analysis of the > experiments was essentially correct. Nope. His analysis of Miller, Michelson-Morley, Illingworth, and Joos are CLEARLY wrong. He completely ignores errorbars and an invalid analysis technique used by the first 3 original authors (probably also by Joos, but I have not looked at his paper). If he had any understanding of experimental physics, he would put errorbars on those values you think are in "concordance". His "analysis" is hopelessly naive, and violates the norms of experimental physics today. A more careful analysis of the first 3 experiments above gives values and errorbars completely inconsistent with his claims. Tom Roberts
From: none on 14 Apr 2008 00:25 Surfer wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Apr 13, 9:56 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> [Cahill] thinks nothing of throwing away multiple experimental >>>> runs disagreeing with his prejudices, instead focusing on the single >>>> run that seems to show some sort of sinusoidal modulation (you do >>>> know the reference, I presume? >>> The situation is not so simple. He has been able to derive consistent >>> values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. >> I found the reference that I was referring to. >> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf >> >> In discussing the Joos experiment, Cahill writes: >> The data for 22 rotations throughout the day of May 30, 1930 >> are shown in Fig.15, and are reproduced from Fig.11 of [15]. >> From that data Joos concluded, using an analysis that did not >> take account of the special relativistic length contraction >> effect, that the fringe shifts corresponded to a speed of only >> 1.5 km/s. However as previously noted such an analysis is >> completely flawed. As well the data in Fig.15 shows that for >> all but one of the rotations the fringe shifts were poorly >> recorded. Only in the one rotation, at 11 23 58, does the data >> actually look like the form expected. This is probably not >> accidental as the maximum fringe shift was expected at that >> time, based on the Miller direction of absolute motion, and >> the sensitivity of the device was �1 thousandth of a fringe >> shift. In Fig.16 that one rotation data are compared with the >> form expected for Jena on May 30 using the Miller speed and >> direction together with the new refractive index effect,and >> using the refractive index of helium. The agreement is quite >> remarkable. So again, contrary the Joos paper and to >> subsequent commentators, Joos did in fact detect a very large >> velocity of absolute motion. >> >> In other words, out of 22 rotations performed that day, 21 of the >> rotations showed nothing remotely resembling a sinusoidal signal. >> Cahill throws away data from these 21 rotations and focuses on >> the single outlier, even ignoring data from the immediately >> preceding and following rotations that were separated from the >> 11:23 rotation by only a few minutes. >> >> This is biased data analysis at its most vicious. >> > You have a point. However, if police found 22 finger prints at a crime > scene of which 21 were smudged and one was clear, would you accuse > them of "biased data analysis at the most vicious" if they used the > clear one to identify a suspect? > This is a joke and does not apply. If you take the same measurement 22 times, it better gives a consistent result 22 times. To pick one out of 22 is called fraud. > In some cases I think its valid to distinguish between data of "the > form expected" and data not of "the form expected". > This is true if you are trying to cheat so that your conclustion is supported when the data does not support it. This is fraud. > Of course such a single item of data is only a clue. It wouldn't prove > anything in isolation. > > The fact that 21 of 22 disagree with the theory gives pretty good evidence the theory is wrong. > > >
From: none on 14 Apr 2008 00:30 Surfer wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> The VERY PURPOSE of the experiment was to determine, "What is the >> form to be expected?" >> > That may have been the purpose of the original experimenters. But if > Cahill knew the form to be expected, I don't see why that would be > relevant to him. > >> Cahill's highly selective use of one single revolution of data, >> throwing out twenty-one revolutions that disagree with his >> prejudices, is an atrocity. >> > I think it depends to what use he put the data. If he just used it to > bolster his argument, that would seem harmless. > If you cherry pick the data that would seem to support you and ignore the data that does not, this is called fraud. I do not consider fraud harmless. > On the other hand, if Cahill selected data and didn't know the > difference between good data and bad data, he would not have been able > to calculate a useful value for 3-space velocity. > So "good" data is data that agrees with his prejudice and "bad" data is data that cannot be forced into that. That is dishonest. > But in the same paper you refer to, he wrote (Page 74): > > "Note that the above corrected Miller projected absolute speed > of approximately vp =415km/s is completely consistent with > the corrected projected absolute speed of some 330km/s from > the Michelson-Morley experiment,though neither Michelson nor > Miller were able to apply this correction." > Miller had a signal consistent with 0 km/s which Cahill ignores because he then has nothing to say because his theory is wrong. > That was back in January 2004. > > Now lets skip forward to April 2008 and compare the above value of > 415km/s with the values in Table 1 and Figure 3 in the just released: > > Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed > Anisotropy > Cahill R.T. > http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > We see that all anomalies except one are resolved with speeds of > 420km/s. The exception requires a speed of 450km/s but the dynamical > 3-space theory predicts fluctuations of velocity, so that is not > unreasonable. > > I think this concordance is evidence that his analysis of the > experiments was essentially correct. > So misusing data, and hoping no one notices is what you call "essentially correct"? Since when is wrong to be taken as "essentially correct"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
From: none on 14 Apr 2008 00:32 Edward Green wrote: > On Apr 13, 5:06 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > >> The test theory may allow the possiblity of light speed anisotropy. >> But an additional problem for experimenters is that interatomic >> spacing is controlled by the speed of light. If the speed of light >> varies, interatomic spacing will vary in proportion. > > Which is way local lightspeed anisotropy will probably be invisible > locally. This is a joke. interatomic spacing has nothing to do with the measurement. Measurements in vacuum are the same as in air. > >> So if experimenters attempt to use normal equipment to directly detect >> variations of speed of light in a vacuum, they should always get a >> null result, because their equipment will expand and contract in >> proportion. >> >> But here is my hypothesis (not necessarily correct) about detection of >> lightspeed anisotropy by analysing spacecraft earth flyby doppler >> radar results. >> >> The speeds of the spacecraft are not controlled by any kind of >> equipment with interatomic spacing, but rather by the laws of >> Newtonian dynamics. > > What's needed is a careful detailed analysis, rather than broad > strokes. See the last 100 years of detailed analysis.
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 08:46
Surfer wrote: > [ahill] has been able to derive consistent > values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. > > Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Am. J. Sc. 34, 333-345, > 1887. But the variations in their data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933. But the variations in his data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927. But the variations in his data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930. (I have not looked at this in detail. I strongly doubt it supports his claim.) > Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964. But the variations in their data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and > Fundamental Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. > eds. Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984. But the variations in their data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Munera H.A., et al. in Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6664, > K1- K8, 2007, eds. Roychoudhuri C. et al. But the variations in their data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from it is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Cahill R.T. A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: > Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, > Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. But the variations in his data are not significant, so any "3-space velocity" derived from them is likewise not significantly different from zero. > Cahill R.T. Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: > Dynamical 3-Space Turbulence Detected, Progress in > Physics, 4, 63-68, 2007. (I have not looked at this in detail.) > Cahill R.T. and Stokes F. Correlated Detection of sub-mHz > Gravitational Waves by Two Optical-Fiber Interfer-ometers, > Progress in Physics, 2, 103-110, 2008. (I have not looked at this in detail.) Note the complete absence of modern measurements performed by competent metrologists -- the ones that actually include an error analysis that would prevent Cahill from making statistically insignificant conclusions and claiming they are "real". > Regarding the mainstream vacuum mode "NULL" experiments, here is > something to bear in mind. > Since 1983 the meter has been defined as the distance light travels in > a vacuum in exactly 1/299,792,458th of a second (17th CGPM, Resolution > 1). Not a SINGLE ONE of them used this definition of the meter, so this is completely irrelevant. Indeed, it was those measurements that ESTABLISHED the need for a redefinition, BEFORE 1983. You really should learn how to read a calendar. Bottom line: all of Cahill's claims, AND YOURS, are due to ignorance of basic experimental technique, and/or simple, stupid errors like misreading a calendar. Tom Roberts |