Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Darwin123 on 16 Apr 2008 19:26 On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse > > If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how >could he be wrong? Several ways. Here is a partial list. 1) If his predictions are based on a theory that has logically inconsistent assumptions, then he is wrong no matter how closely they predictions fit the data. He made a logical error. 2) If the theory used to make the predictions makes other predictions that are experimentally proved incorrect, than he is wrong no matter how closely the predictions fit the data. He hypothesized an incorrect theory. 3) If he used the experimental results to determine the parameters that are used to make the experimental predictions, then he is wrong no matter how closely the predictions fit the data. He used circular logic. 4) If he made a numerical mistake in calculations used to make the predictions, the he is wrong no matter how closely the predictions fit the data. He made a numerical error. 5) If the experimenters made an error so that their experimental results do not fit the preconditions of the theory, then he is still wrong no matter how closely the predictions fit the data. This is the experimenters (not his) error.
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 21:00 On Apr 17, 5:50 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > 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 > I don't see that suggestion as criticism of Miller. If the apparatus was thought to be sensitive to temperature fluctuations, it would seem valid to disregard data on days of rapid temperature change. > >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. > You appear to be right about that. Also at the end of the first section on page 220 I found, "These experiments proved that under the conditions of actual observation, the periodic displacements could not possibly be produced by temperature effects."
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 21:03 wbbrdr(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 17, 5:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>> This is using MILLER's model, >> 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. You, like "surfer" and Cahill", are being self-incnsistent. If this "doesn't show anything at all", that applies to ALL of Miller's results, including the ones you claim "that 70+ years ago Miller did indeed measure the absolute velocity of the earth and that his data was sound." -- remember Cahill used Miller's RESULTS, not his raw data as I did. In any case, you have said nothing whatsoever that affects the conclusion that Miller's data have no significant orientation dependence, and thus cannot possibly measure "absolute motion". Yes, Miller himself saw patterns in statistically-insignificant fluctuations, and Cahill believed him. After all, children can find faces in clouds -- are they real? -- humans are very good at finding patterns, and it is well known they can easily find patterns in random data that simply are not actually present. Bottom line: the patterns Miller found are not real, they are INSIGNIFICANT. And any conclusion based on them is likewise INSIGNIFICANT. Yes, some other model that has huge "fluctuations" is not refuted by my analysis. But such a theory cannot be refuted by ANY experiment, and thus is not science. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Apr 2008 21:04 Dono wrote: > Surfer, > Why did you change your posting name? :-) > Tom is easier to fool on these things :-) I am not fooled, I simply choose to ignore it. Tom Roberts
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 21:09
On Apr 17, 6:01 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: > >> 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 > by misinterpreting signal fluctuations as measurement errors. So your errorbar is completely invalid. ===================== In: 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 ・瘢雹the 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. ====================== |