Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 08:48 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:14:53 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >If you can find some INDEPENDENT reason why certain runs were "smudged", >than that's OK, but not meeting "the form expected" is not sufficient to >reject certain runs. > Process Physics predicts fluctuations in the velocity of dynamical 3-space. You can see that would be so if you look at. "The river model of black holes" Andrew J. S. Hamilton and Jason P. Lisle JILA and Dept. Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences, Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060 Here they consider a single black hole into which "space flows like a river". This is essentially the Gullstrand Painleve metric which is known to be equivalent to the Schwarzschild metric. In this case, because there is only one gravitating object, the flow of space does not vary with time. However, if one attempted to consider a universe of gravitating objects in this way, the flows to each would have to interact. My intuition tells me the smoothness of the flows would be shattered, so the fluctuations would have an unlimited spectrum of frequencies. So quite independently of Cahill, I come to the conclusion that real flows of space must be highly dynamic. Of course since the Gullstrand Painleve metric is equivalent to the Schwarzschild metric one could instead say, that the curvature of spacetime must be highly dynamic. It seems to me just a matter of preference. Returning to Cahill's rejection of certain runs, if the flow of 3-space (or curvature of spacetime) is highly dynamic, then we can expect variations of signal from run to run. That would justify rejecting runs during which the signal is too small to be useful.
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 10:56 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:30:12 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >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. > Cahill did not ignore any data. He presented all the data for readers to view. He stated though, why he thought one rotation was useful and the others were not. > >> 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... > No. Good data is data that is sooner or later found to be valid. > >Miller had a signal consistent with 0 km/s > If you read Miller's original paper you would realise that you are misinformed. From Page 218: "...A study of numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/- 2.5%. The probably error in the right ascensions and declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28, is +/- 0.5%" There is a copy of his paper here. http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf The precision of the above values may explain how Cahill's derived speed of 415km/s, is so close to the values of 420-450km/s required to correct the flyby anomalies.
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 11:11 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:25:17 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >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. > It won't if the signal is very weak. > >To pick one out of 22 is called fraud. > If he had concealed his rejection of 21 rotations that would be fraud. But he didn't. He simply gave his reasons why he thought they were invalid. Readers can make up their own minds whether to agree or not. > >> 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. > It is also true when some data is more reliable than others. > >The fact that 21 of 22 disagree with the theory gives pretty good >evidence the theory is wrong. > The theory suggests that the phenomenon fluctuates and is very difficult to detect. 21 of the 22 support that aspect of the theory.
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 11:54 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:46:06 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >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. > Nevertheless, MM were able to calculate a value which was later noted by Miller to be consistent with his own results. So I take this accusation of "not significantly different from zero" with more than a grain of salt. > >> 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. > Miller had complete confidence in his results. Here is a quote from the above paper. From Page 218: "...A study of numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/- 2.5%. The probably error in the right ascensions and declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28, is +/- 0.5%" [The above figures are remarkably precise which may explain how Cahill's derived speed of 415km/s, is so close to the values of 420-450km/s required to correct the flyby anomalies.] Regarding MM, Miller wrote (Page 237): "Attention is called to the fact that the results obtained here are not opposed to the results originally announced by Michelson and Morley in 1887; in reality they are consistent with and confirm the earlier results"
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 11:55
Surfer wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:30:12 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >> Miller had a signal consistent with 0 km/s >> > If you read Miller's original paper you would realise that you are > misinformed. Miller himself reported a non-zero result. A modern analysis of his RAW DATA shows he was mistaken. His original data are available, and a basic computation of errorbars from them shows that his result is not statistically significant (i.e. errorbars using his raw data and flawed analysis). Moreover, there is a clear explanation for why he was fooled: his analysis technique FORCED his systematic error (primarily interferometer drift) to have a sinusoidal form with a period 1/2 turn (just as any signal would have). He took enough data so that this systematic drift can be modeled quantitatively, and after subtracting it there is no "signal" left. The result of a MODERN analysis of Miller's data is 0 with an errorbar of 6 km/s: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 Regardless of Miller's errors, there is no reason TODAY to believe his non-null result. This remains true in spite of Cahill's claims. Tom Roberts |