Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 16:45 none wrote: > Tom Robert's error analysis had only to do with the math. That does not > change. Miller saw nothing, Not quite. Miller himself "saw" a signal, which we now know to be bogus. And we now know how and why he was fooled. His actual data display no significant variation with orientation, and using his model for "absolute velocity" I obtain an upper limit (90% confidence) of 6 km/s. By the way, the "motion" that Cahill claims is more than 50 sigma outside the bound from Miller's data -- that is ENORMOUSLY refuted, and by an experiment that Cahill thinks "supports" his notions. > No amount of handwaving is going to change > that. Yes. Tom Roberts
From: Yuancur on 14 Apr 2008 20:21 On Apr 14, 9:08 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote in news:5eed2753-a602-4df8-a89b- > > "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. > That is a *different* statement. My statement (in Logical form) is:e. A => Not B C => B therefore Not B => Not C Therefor A => Not C Good Logic. My statement (in Physical form) is : If A is True and A implies Not B and B is known (observationally) to be True, then the observation is false. Atrocious Physics, since observations are disregarded in order to save a model that doesn't fit them. Love, Jenny
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Apr 2008 20:42 On Apr 14, 9:41 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: [...] The question I have to ask is what are you getting out of shilling for Cahill if you are not Cahill in disguise?
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 21:03 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:43:17 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >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). > You are assuming though, that the variance indicates the magnitude of a measurement errors. But if the signal exhibits natural fluctuations, then the variance could be caused not be measurement errors, but by signal fluctuations. >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: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 21:24
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:48:14 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >Surfer wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:01:36 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote: >> >> 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. > I think I am being sensible. Tom Roberts did not have access to Miller's equipment and its not clear if he had access to Miller's best data. > >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... I did not say it was "perfect evidence". I wrote: "The theory suggests that the phenomenon fluctuates and is very difficult to detect. 21 of the 22 support that aspect of the theory." |