Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2008 22:10 On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:00:28 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >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 just had another look. The caption under Fig 3. says: "The assumed-linear systematic drift from the data of Fig. 1. The lines are between successive Marker 1 values and the points are Marker 9. These markers are 180 degrees apart, so any real signal has the same value for every corner and every point � the variations are purely an instrumentation effect. That statement is FALSE, because any real FLUCTUATING signal would have different values at Marker 1 and Marker 9.
From: Jerry on 14 Apr 2008 22:31 On Apr 13, 6:29 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > <Cephalobus_alie...(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. > > 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. Suppose I have a theory that the "true curve" should be a sine curve half the amplitude of the one suggested by the Miller data, but 90 degrees out of phase relative to Figure 16 in Cahill's Aperion paper, i.e. exhibiting a peak where the Miller data suggests a trough: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf There are four rotations from the Joos data that I can average together to yield a sine curve of the stated characteristics. None of these curves individually look much like a sine curve, but the average of the four is remarkably convincing. If I have time this weekend, I will post my results on my web site. Meanwhile, just take my word for it. Am I justified in selecting these four runs as representing "good data" and rejecting the remaining 18 runs, because the average of these four match my theory? Would you regard me as crazy if I attempted to explain away the fact that none of these four runs, by themselves, look very sinusoidal, as being a totally expected result of fluctuations in the aether? Jerry
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 22:33 Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:43:17 -0500, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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. No. I am using the FACT that when one averages data the variance in the mean depends in a known way on the variance of the data that was averaged. This is simple, basic, mathematics -- taught to undergraduates in every physics program on the planet. The fact that neither you nor Cahill understand it is rather sad. > But if the signal exhibits natural fluctuations, > then the variance could be caused not be measurement errors, but by > signal fluctuations. READ THE PAPER. Your claims are silly and self-inconsistent: how could Miller's result "support" Cahill's claims, and yet "signal fluctuations" make them unusable???? Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 14 Apr 2008 22:38 Surfer wrote: > I think I am being sensible. You clearly don't have a clue. > Tom Roberts did not have access to > Miller's equipment and its not clear if he had access to Miller's best > data. I had access to ALL of Miller's data, but due to time constraints I was forced to sample it. I did so randomly, without regard to data content, in such a way that every epoch of his data was represented, and every interval of sidereal time was well represented. Had you actually READ MY PAPER you would have known this. Your desperation shows loud and clear in your protestations. Grow up. Learn some physics. Learn basic experimental technique. Until you do you will remain mystified, and hopelessly irrelevant to the physics community. Ditto for Cahill. Tom Roberts
From: none on 15 Apr 2008 00:04
Surfer wrote: > 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. > No you are being hopeful and biased because the data do not support your conclusions and you want it to. Science is not done this way. >> 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." > > I hope you realize how silly that statement sounds. Again, if ALL of the observations showed nothing, then you would consider that proof that you are right. You have moved from science to religion and no amount of truth will change your mind. |