Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 15 Apr 2008 00:20 Surfer wrote: > 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. This is using MILLER's model, in which "absolute motion" induces an orientation dependence in the fringe position -- the _SIGNAL_ does not "fluctuate". But of course the interferometer itself does -- the variations (= "fluctuations") in the data are of no cosmic significance at all. Your "theory of fluctuations" is completely useless, as such a "fluctuating signal" cannot be recognized in any way -- there's no way to distinguish it from random noise. For such a theory, Miller's experiment is completely irrelevant -- so why does Cahill claim it "supports" his theory? Ditto for all other experiments. Your claims and his are self-inconsistent. Tom Roberts
From: Jerry on 15 Apr 2008 14:05 On Apr 14, 9:31 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. Whoops! Forgot to mention. Reproductions of the individual Joos curves can be found here: http://allais.maurice.free.fr/EtudeFuerxer.pdf If you want Georg Joos's full paper and are willing to spend $29.95, you can buy it here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1930AnP...399..385J > 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: bz on 15 Apr 2008 16:38 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote in news:a44c17ff-beba-433f-a9d8- bf964ddc92bf(a)l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > 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. We agree that it is NOT good science to discard observations just because they disagree with a particular theory, no matter how well established that theory is. However, observations that are is violent disagreement with established theories should be tested by repeating the experiment. There could be a nobel prize hiding in the data or a mistake. The question is which. -- 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
From: Florian on 15 Apr 2008 19:20 Eric Gisse <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? I doubt it. Cahill is at Adelaide, and Surfer posts from Queensland. -- Florian "Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
From: wbbrdr on 15 Apr 2008 22:14
On Apr 15, 1:20 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Surfer wrote: > > 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. > > This is using MILLER's model, > Miller's model is wrong. That means your analysis is based on a false premise. |