Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 17:57 On Apr 17, 5:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > wbb...(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: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 18:05 On Apr 17, 5:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > wbb...(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. > It is still based on a false premise. > > But this DOES show that any reference to Miller's original conclusions > is likewise wrong. > If its based on a false premise it doesn't show anything at all.
From: Dono on 16 Apr 2008 18:15 On Apr 15, 7:14 pm, wbb...(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. Surfer, Why did you change your posting name? :-)
From: Dono on 16 Apr 2008 18:16 On Apr 16, 3:05 pm, wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: Surfer, Why did you change your posting name? :-) Tom is easier to fool on these things :-)
From: Dono on 16 Apr 2008 18:17
On Apr 16, 2:56 pm, wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: Surfer, Why did you change your posting name? Hold it, no need to answer that |