From: wbbrdr on 15 Apr 2008 22:18 On Apr 15, 11:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > .. how could Miller's result > "support" Cahill's claims, and yet "signal fluctuations" make them > unusable???? > Its your analysis which is unusable. The signal was fine.
From: wbbrdr on 15 Apr 2008 22:31 On Apr 15, 11:38 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Surfer wrote: > > I think I am being sensible. > > You clearly don't have a clue. > > >TomRobertsdid 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. > That implies you made no attempt to distinguish good data from bad. If Miller made the distinction, which is likely since data would be better when temperatures were stable, you have probably didn't analyse the same data that Miller actually used. That makes your analysis irrelevant to his results.
From: wbbrdr on 15 Apr 2008 22:51 On Apr 15, 11:31 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Apr 13, 6:29 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > > ... 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 Millerdata, > 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 Ican average > together to yield a sine curve of the stated characteristics. If you want to understand how Cahill arrived at a velocity for dynamical 3-space, of the right value to resolve the flyby anomalies, you need to look in the above paper at section: "2.4 The Miller Interferometer Experiment: 1925-1926" Here you will see that he used the results of the Miller experiment to calculate a speed of 415 km/sec. The Joos data is only provided for interest value. To see it as anything more is silly. The fact that Miller's data gave a velocity that later resolved the flyby anomalies is a stunning vindication of Miller. =============================== PS: Tom Robert's analysis was based on a false premise. See http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 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 $B!&(Bthe variations are purely an instrumentation effect." This statement is FALSE, because measurements at Marker 1 and Marker 9 were not made simultaneously. So any real fluctuating signal would have different values at the two markers. ===============================
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 02:28 On Apr 15, 1:20 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > 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. > Miller showed the fluctuations can be averaged out so as to derive a more stable signal. However your analysis is wrong because it treats signal fluctuations as measurement error.
From: Jerry on 16 Apr 2008 08:37
On Apr 15, 9:51 pm, wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 15, 11:31 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 6:29 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > > > ... 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 Millerdata, > > 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. > > If you want to understand how Cahill arrived at a velocity for > dynamical 3-space, of the right value to resolve the flyby anomalies, > you need to look in the above paper at section: > > "2.4 The Miller Interferometer Experiment: 1925-1926" > > Here you will see that he used the results of the Miller experiment to > calculate a speed of 415 km/sec. > > The Joos data is only provided for interest value. To see it as > anything more is silly. Cahill's analysis of the Joos data illustrate his complete and total intellectual dishonesty. His analyses of the Miller, Illingworth, New Bedford, DeWitte, and Torr-Kolen experiments for the most part merely illustrate his ignorance of proper error analysis and his obsessive willingness to "see" signal where none exists. Back to my original question: 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. See a reproduction of Joos's curves in the following: http://allais.maurice.free.fr/EtudeFuerxer.pdf 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? (thinking... thinking... thinking... thinking) ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Jerry -------------------------------- P.S. Note that Joos's four-point curves each represent the average of eight readings around the circle. Data averaging was a standard procedure in these early papers which Tom Roberts has pointed out can result in the generation of an apparent periodic signal where none exists. Even so, Joos considered that his experiment produced a null result. |