Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 13:41 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:06:57 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >Surfer wrote: >> 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. > >If you ignore error sources in an experiment, you are able to get >values of whatever you want. Miller is not a reference to base a >new theory on. > Miller did not ignore error sources. There is nothing wrong with his results. >>>> 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. > >And I have complete confidence that I am the smartest person alive. Does >that make it true? > >> >> 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.] > >There is a big difference between precision and accuracy. You can >always add digits. You cannot add information. > >> >> 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 14:43 Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:55:06 -0500, Tom Roberts >> 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). >> > You are entitled to that point of view but I disagree. Your errorbars > were derived by assuming that a perfect signal would have a certain > form so that the magnitude of deviations from that form could be taken > as indicating the magnitude of measurement error. You OBVIOUSLY have not read my paper. You are wrong. Completely. The errorbars reported in section II of my paper are based on the variance of the data points that Miller AVERAGED to obtain his result (40 points for each of 8 orientations, separately in each individual run). These errorbars are completely unimpeachable (they are, of course, a LOWER bound). The errorbar I report on my new analysis in section IV is derived from a fit to his systematic drift, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the errorbars associated with Miller's invalid analysis. NONE of these errorbars have any dependence whatsoever on any "form" of a "perfect signal". Those in section II are purely statistical; those in section IV are from a fit to his interferometer DRIFT, and any real signal was inherently removed due to the method used (read the paper). Just because Cahill uses notions like "form of a perfect signal", and just because Cahill completely ignores errorbars, does not mean that competent experimenters do so. You need to get out from under his veil of ignorance and actually LEARN something about how experiments are performed, TODAY. > Hence your error analysis has resulted in error bars that are far too > large for this type of signal. You OBVIOUSLY have not read my paper. The errorbar I obtain for Miller's analysis is unimpeachable, and it is what it is. The errorbar I obtain for my analysis is 6 km/s (variance from a value of 0) -- FAR smaller than Cahill's claims. > Miller who could directly investigate sources of measurement error in > his equipment, estimated probable errors as follows. > [...] Completely irrelevant. He did NOT include the variance of the data he averaged, and it GREATLY exceeds the error sources he identified. If you understood basic error analysis, you would know that independent errors add in quadrature, so when one error greatly exceeds a second, the second one is irrelevant. You really should not attempt to argue from a position of complete ignorance. And you really should read the papers you attempt to criticize. Those are also Cahill's faults, and his influence shines through you far too readily. Tom Roberts
From: none on 14 Apr 2008 14:48 Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:01:36 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: > > >> You had better look at developments in the last 70 plus years. >> >> [Surfer wrote:] >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> Miller's paper is wrong as Tom Roberts has well illustrated many times. >> > Tom Roberts' paper > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 > is interesting, but his errorbars were derived by assuming that a > perfect signal would have a certain form so that the magnitude of > deviations from that form could be taken as indicating the magnitude > of measurement error. > > However, in the dynamical 3-space view, fluctuations in dynamical > 3-space velocity can be expected to cause the signal to fluctuate even > before it is measured. Therefore although it is possible to estimate > an average form for the signal, deviations from that form are not > necessarly indicative of measurement error. > > Hence his error analysis has resulted in error bars that are far too > large for this type of signal. > > It is better to trust Miller, who could directly estimate sources of > error in his equipment. > That is a bizarre statement. You are assuming that nothing has happened in analysis in 75 years and the only real reason you like his results is that they agree with your bias. That is religion, not science. Your arguments are completely inconsistent as well. You say that NOT seeing the signal for 21 of the 22 runs is perfect evidence of the model being right since it predicts fluctuations but then you say to believe Miller who said his results were accurate to 3%. >> This means all you can say is that the values are consistent with a >> range of speeds which includes zero. >> > Only if you assume that the only possible 3-space is one that > resembles a calm and stable ether. > > If you admit the possibility of a dynamical 3-space, then Tom Roberts' > error analysis becomes inappropriate and Miller becomes credible. > > > Tom Robert's error analysis had only to do with the math. That does not change. Miller saw nothing, No amount of handwaving is going to change that.
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 15:00 Surfer wrote: > Tom Roberts' paper > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 > is interesting, but his errorbars were derived by assuming that a > perfect signal would have a certain form so that the magnitude of > deviations from that form could be taken as indicating the magnitude > of measurement error. A repeat of your ignorance. You are wrong. READ THE PAPER. [I replied in more detail in this thread.] > It is better to trust Miller, who could directly estimate sources of > error in his equipment. No! He DID NOT KNOW about all of the sources of error in his analysis. In particular, he did not include the error due to AVERAGING DATA. This error completely dominates his result, and it is large enough to make it be consistent with zero fringe shift, and therefore zero "absolute motion" (in his model); it also makes his result be consistent with the prediction of SR. > If you admit the possibility of a dynamical 3-space, then Tom Roberts' > error analysis becomes inappropriate and Miller becomes credible. Nonsense. If you assume that "dynamical 3-space" fluctuates so wildly that it caused the variance in Miller's data, then NOTHING Miller measured is relevant. Of course this also applies to Cahill's measurements. But if this were true then nothing ANYBODY ever measured is relevant to physics, either, so this notion is trivially refuted by the many successful experiments. And moreover: it is DIRECTLY refuted (using Miller's data) by my ability to obtain a consistent fit to Miller's drift in section IV (where the orientation dependence and the time dependence are separated from his data in a signal-independent manner, and the orientation dependence is shown to be consistent with zero). My error analysis in section II is valid and applicable to any use of Miller's result, because it directly applies TO WHAT HE DID. For any theory that predicts an orientation dependence in Miller's data, my error analysis and background fit in section IV are valid and applicable. Any theory that does not predict an orientation dependence in his data is completely useless. Tom Roberts
From: bz on 14 Apr 2008 10:08
Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote in news:5eed2753-a602-4df8-a89b- 3daa5785af2e(a)u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Another question for you to run from. > > "If the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, then any > observation in conflict with that proposition must be flawed." > > Do you agree with that statement or not? The correct statement is A repeatable observation, in conflict with a proposition, shows the proposition to be flawed. > > In my opinion, it's good logic, but atrocious physics. The statement, as you formulated it, was poor logic and poor physics. > -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |