Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 21:38 On Apr 17, 7:15 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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? :-) My news server went down, so I am having to read and post via gmail. It required a different logon name.
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 21:59 On Apr 17, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Bottom line: the patterns Miller found are not real, they are > INSIGNIFICANT. > Owing to the false premise in your paper you haven't proved that. In my opinion Miller's method of analysis was general enough to cope with a fluctuating signal. So it would work even if that was not necessarily what he had in mind. If you want to prove this possiblity wrong, you have to repeat your analysis without the false premise. ===================== 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. ======================
From: Dono on 16 Apr 2008 22:39 On Apr 16, 6:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 Good :-)
From: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 23:35 On Apr 17, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > wbb...(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: wbbrdr on 16 Apr 2008 23:53
On Apr 17, 10:03 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > .... 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. > Suppose we look at an FFT of the raw data of such a signal. if the signal has an orientation dependence, then the bin with a period of 1/2 turn should stand out. On the other hand, if the signal has no orientation dependence, or does not exist, then there should be nothing special about the bin with a period of 1/2 turn. So such a theory can be refuted by experiment. |