Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 16:40 wbbrdr(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. Yes, of course. That's why I included a modern analysis in my paper. But this DOES show that any reference to Miller's original conclusions is likewise wrong. that of course includes Cahill's references to it. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 16:50 wbbrdr(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 15, 11:38 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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 you are going to criticize my paper and/or its techniques, you at least owe me the courtesy to READ THE PAPER. You quite clearly have not done so. When you read it, you will read in Section IV precisely how I distinguish good runs from bad in Miller's data. And you will see a plot that includes ALL of the data runs I analyzed, good and bad. Unlike Cahill's silliness, I identified ~15% of the runs as bad, (not 95%), and I used criteria INDEPENDENT of any "signal" or preconceived notion of what a real "signal" ought to look like. My criteria are based on the rapidity of interferometer drift that cannot possibly be any real signal. What I was discussing above is the fact that unlike Cahill I did NOT pre-select runs based on their content, I sampled runs in a manner intended to ensure that a) the method of sampling did not bias the result, and b) all of Miller's data were represented. > 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. If you are going to criticize Miller's technique or paper you at least owe him the courtesy to READ HIS PAPER. When you do so you will learn that Miller included each and every one of his runs in his analysis. > That makes your analysis irrelevant to his results. Your conclusion is wrong. Read both papers to see why. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 16:52 wbbrdr(a)gmail.com wrote: > The fact that Miller's data gave a velocity that later resolved the > flyby anomalies is a stunning vindication of Miller. Nonsense. It is merely an indication that when one uses arbitrary techniques and ignores basic facts about experimental physics, one can conclude ANYTHING. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 17:01 wbbrdr(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. No. Miller THOUGHT he did so, but a more careful analysis of his data shows he was mistaken. > However your analysis is wrong because it treats signal fluctuations > as measurement error. You must READ MY PAPER. I derived an errorbar from the same data Miller averaged, and for every run I analyzed, the errorbars on the individual points are larger than the variation in the points themselves. See my paper for plots, but basically if one plots the "sinewave signal" with peak-to-peak amplitude 5 cm, then the errorbars on the points are greater than 10 cm for EVERY run, and for some runs are greater than 30 cm. that is, the variations he saw are not statistically significant, using his analysis technique. Note that each point in his plot is an average of 40 readings, so this is not plagued by any dearth of data. Bottom line: it does not matter whether the turn-by-turn variations in Miller's data are "measurement error" or "signal fluctuations", there is no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT variation with orientation in his data. That means his original conclusions are WRONG -- his original analysis method is fully consistent with zero, or any "absolute velocity" less than about 60 km/s, in any direction. This means that any conclusion based on his result is likewise consistent with zero, including Cahill's (it's just that Cahill does not understand error analysis). A modern analysis, which quantitatively models his interferometer drift, gives a value of 0, with an upper bound of 6 km/s (90% confidence). Tom Roberts
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 17:56
On Apr 16, 9:37 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. > From a scientific point of view the interesting thing is his re- analysis ot the Miller data in June 2003. That allowed him to derive the speed of 415km/s, that five years later proved to be so close to the speeds of 420-450km/s required to reconcile the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies. That means that 70+ years ago Miller did indeed measure the absolute velocity of the earth and that his data was sound. Your comments about the Joos data are quite irrelevant and fall into the realm of ad hominem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem |