Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 20 Apr 2008 02:29 On Apr 20, 2:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Surfer wrote: > > The location of Tom Robert's false premise: > > 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." > > > 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. > > This is MILLER'S MODEL, in which there is a definite and constant > signal. > I am not sure if that is the case. Miller considered the possiblity that ether could be entrained, or be affected by nearby physical conditions. So I am not sure if he assumed a definite and constant signal. > >This figure shows how inadequate is his approach of assuming a > linear systematic drift. > Not necessarily. The deviations from non-linearity could be due to signal fluctuations. Judging by his approach, it seems that is how Miller saw things. That carries an implication that he did not assume a definite and constant signal. > > If the signal were "fluctuating" significantly during each turn, then > Miller's approach is inadequate, > Not necessarily, because the averaging done later would smooth the fluctuations out. > >and the entire experiment must be rejected, along with all other such experiments. > That is too pessimistic. > > If it were truly "fluctuating", and not systematically drifting, then > Fig 4 would not have the SYSTEMATIC structure it has. > Wind speed fluctuates, but an analysis of wind speed will show systematic structure. Eg as a storm approaches the average speed increases, may drop during the eye of the storm and then increase again etc. I don't see why similar considerations should not apply here. > >And Fig 9 would > not have the incredibly-similar plots for each orientation. And Fig 2 > would not have such a clear large-scale drift. These data are CLEARLY > dominated by a SYSTEMATIC DRIFT and not by "fluctuations". > Dynamical 3-space is predicted to flow into all bodies including the earth, sun and moon. As they move in their orbits, the flow could be expected to fluctuate in a systematic way. Gravitational wave effects from distant sources are also predicted. So the light-speed anisotrophy should be expected to exhibit systematic drifts as well as fluctuations. The overall downward drift in Fig 2 can be accounted for by a linear temperature drift. The large deviations from linearity can be accounted for by supposing that 3-space velocity varies. Eg if the velocity vector had an overall magniture of 420 km/s roughly perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer, then a 10 degree change of direction would create a component in the plane of the interferometer of 420 * sin(10) = 72 km/s. This is more than twice the orbital speed of the earth, which is huge from the experimentor's point of view. > > The errorbar is STILL VALID, as far as computing the orientation > dependence of the AVERAGES is concerned. No matter what caused the > variations in the data points, the AVERAGES have the large errorbars > shown in Fig 5 -- there is no way to escape them. That means that the > ORIENTATION DEPENDENCE OF THE AVERAGES is not significantly different > from zero, and it is that ORIENTATION DEPENDENCE OF THE AVERAGES which > Miller used to obtain his "absolute motion" -- so his "absolute motion" > is not significantly different from zero. > > Hence Cahill's use of Miller's > result is completely unwarranted. > > > You must have made some assumption as to how to distinguish signal > > from error. > > No! No such "assumption is needed". All one needs to do is note that > Miller averaged his data, and apply the mathematical consequences of > such averaging. The errorbars are undeniable. You live in a fantasy > world, and need to learn about basic experimental technique. > Without valid premises to relate such maths to the physics, I can't see how the maths would be relevant to the physics. We may be better off to simply believe Miller.
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Apr 2008 15:35 Surfer wrote: > On Apr 20, 2:10 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> wbb...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> Error analysis that is based on a false premise can also lead to good >>> data being painted as bad. >> But not an error analysis without any such "false premise". Indeed, my >> error analysis of Miller's algorithm is without any "premise" >> whatsoever, except that mathematics applies. >> > Maths applied without any premises about physical reality, could be > divorced from reality. > However the caption under Figure 3 shows that you did make a premise. > ========================== > In: > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 > > The caption under Figure 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." > > 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. You keep making this claim. In MILLER'S MODEL it is wrong, and that section of my paper is using Miller's model. Now YOU can come up with a whole different theory, including "fluctuations", but you cannot ascribe it to Miller. The subject of my paper is Miller's experiment, not your model. But I repeat: if the "fluctuations" were so large that what I say is wrong, then YOU must reject Miller's entire result, because what I am saying DIRECTLY affects his result. > Light-speed anisotropy caused by motion through a calm and stable > medium would give rise to a non-fluctuating signal, but while its > reasonable to suppose that light does propagate through a medium, > there is NO guarantee that such a medium would be calm and stable. Sure. But MILLER'S MODEL is that it is "calm and stable". >> It is just basic statistics >> applied to the average of multiple data points, and the errorbars do not >> depend on whether the variations were due to measurement errors or due >> to "signal fluctuations" >> > I find that very hard to believe. No "belief" is required. What is required is that you STUDY the relevant math and its application to experimental physics. If the true value of "ether drift" varies so much that points taken ~30 seconds apart have no relationship, then the average value over ~15 minutes has no meaning at all! In each run Miller made 40 measurements at a given orientation modulo 180 degrees, and averaged their values. That average accurately reflects those specific data points. But he is not looking for an average of specific data points, he is looking for a value of a true phenomenon. To understand how well the average of those 40 specific points represent the true value requires a mathematical analysis of statistical fluctuations. That is well known among competent experimental physicists, and is what I used. The average value is the most accurate predictor of the true value, but it is not exact, and the expected error between the average and the true value is related to the variations in the data points being averaged, in PRECISELY the manner I said in my paper. The point is that the variations in those averages for different orientations are MUCH SMALLER than the uncertainty expected between the average value and the true value, so no SIGNIFICANT conclusion about "true absolute velocity" can be made based on the orientation dependence of those averages. That is, given these data and their averages and errorbars, the true orientation dependence is just as likely to be zero as it is to be the value Miller found, and it is just as likely to be 5 or 10 times his value, or anything in between. This is so for each and every run that I analyzed, and there's no reason not to expect it to be true for them all. This is science, and arguing from ignorance and disbelief will get you nowhere. You need to LEARN the relevant mathematics and its application to physics. I'll remark that Cahill quite clearly shares your ignorance -- not a single one of his papers discusses errorbars in a sensible manner. For most of them, a basic error analysis shows that his conclusions are not statistically significant, just as Miller's are insignificant. Bottom line: you are using "gut feelings" and "belief" in a subject where accurate, quantitative analysis techniques are taught to all undergraduates in physics. You REALLY need a basic education in physics if you are ever to understand this. > Fig 6 of your paper shows a DFT of raw data. > If the signal that Miller was measuring had no orientation dependence, > or did not exist, then there should be nothing special about bin > 40, which has a period of 1/2 turn. > However if a signal existed that DID have an orientation dependence, > then bin 40 should stand out. > The figure clearly shows that bin 40 STANDS OUT. Yes. Of course "stands out" is quite relative, as the excess in bin 40 is only ~3% of the value in the largest bin. I discuss this in the thread with subject "Surprisingly, Tom Robert's paper vindicates Miller". > Ergo, Miller measured a signal WITH an orientation dependence--and it > was a fluctuating one. The contents of bin 40 are woefully inadequate to support such a claim. First, you don't know whether the excess in bin 40 is due to a real signal or an artifact of the systematic drift that affected that specific bin. In the above-referenced thread I discuss this, and there is a clear mechanism for the systematic drift to generate just such an excess in that particular bin. Moreover, there is direct evidence that this actually did occur (bin 20 has a corresponding deficit). And you can say NOTHING WHATSOEVER about it "fluctuating" -- a single frequency bin from a single run cannot possibly show "fluctuating". You need to learn to distinguish between your personal wishes and desires and what data actually show (a failing common to Cahill, also). > Many phenomena that fluctuate in an unpredicatable manner, exhibit > regularities of behaviour if they are observed over a period of time. > For example gusts of wind are unpredictable, but that has not stopped > science developing models of weather. Such models can be falsified by > observations. Sure. But the "fluctuations" around the mean wind velocity are generally small. In Miller's run of my Fig 1, those "fluctuations" are MUCH larger than the variation in the averages. The analogy to wind direction would be that the direction and speed of the wind varied on a timescale of 2-3 seconds such that 180 degree variations in direction and 500% variations in magnitude happened frequently over 10-60 seconds. Under such circumstances, of what use is an average wind velocity averaged over 15 minutes? > I don't see why the situation should not be the same with light-speed > anisotropy. The difference is in the relative magnitudes of signal and fluctuations. > If the anisotropy fluctuates then we should make detailed > measurements to characterise the fluctuations and then build a model > to account for them. Sure. Please do so, rather than just blabbering on and on about "fluctuations" without any model whatsoever. But be sure you understand the limitations of MEASUREMENTS when the signal is fluctuating.... >> > [about rejecting Joos data] >> Just "telling" what you (he) did does not excuse ignoring 21 out of 22 >> runs. >> > You claim that Cahill "ignored" 21 out of 22 runs but his paper > clearly acknowledges the 21 runs you refer to. > Since he acknowledged them, he didn't ignore them. Nonsense. He did not use them in his analysis, and in this context that is what "ignored" means. Your linguistic nuance is irrelevant. > So unsurprisingly, there was a high rate of failure. Any "experiment" with >95% failure rate is not solid enough to convince anybody, except the true believers. True believers do not do science. As I said before, Cahill's "analysis" here is not science. >> This is MILLER'S MODEL, in which there is a definite and constant >> > signal. >> > > I am not sure if that is the case. Miller considered the possiblity > that ether could be entrained, or be affected by nearby physical > conditions. So I am not sure if he assumed a definite and constant > signal. All you need to do is READ HIS PAPER. Attempting to argue from ignorance is pointless. His entire analysis method assumes the signal is constant during a run (about 15 minutes). >> >This figure shows how inadequate is his approach of assuming a >> > linear systematic drift. >> > > Not necessarily. The deviations from non-linearity could be due to > signal fluctuations. > Judging by his approach, it seems that is how Miller saw things. That > carries an implication that he did not assume a definite and constant > signal. You CLEARLY have not read his paper. He SUBTRACTED the linear systematic drift shown in that figure (my fig. 3) -- this shows that he did indeed expect the linear plot to apply to his data. > We may be better off to simply believe Miller. Only if you want to live in fantasy land. And only if your personal wishes and desires are more important than science. Tom Roberts
From: Surfer on 21 Apr 2008 09:14 On Apr 21, 4:35 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Surfer wrote: > > However the caption under Figure 3 shows that you did make a premise. > > ========================== > > In: > >http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 > > > The caption under Figure 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." > > > 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. > > You keep making this claim. In MILLER'S MODEL it is wrong, and that > section of my paper is using Miller's model. > I am just pointing out that your error analysis in that section doesn't reflect the real situation. Miller contemplated an idealist model. Eg he noted that "under ideal conditions all the numbers in column 1 (and in column 17) should be the same integer". However he processed his data in a manner suitable for a realist model, ie for a fluctuating signal. That method of processing produced useful results. In particular, Miller modeled temperature effects as a linear drift and treated any deviations from that as signal. So he records fluctuations as part of the signal. That was realistic because he did experiments to confirm that temperature effects could be modeled that way. In contrast, your error analysis uses the idealist model, that assumes that any real signal would have the same value at Marker 1 and Marker 9. (That is a false premise as I pointed out) So your analysis uses an idealist model (and a false premise) that comes to wrong conclusions. In contrast, inspite of idealist contemplations, when it came to practice, Miller used a realist model that produced useful results. > > In each run Miller made 40 measurements at a given orientation modulo > 180 degrees, and averaged their values. That average accurately reflects > those specific data points. But he is not looking for an average of > specific data points, he is looking for a value of a true phenomenon. To > understand how well the average of those 40 specific points represent > the true value requires a mathematical analysis of statistical > fluctuations. That is well known among competent experimental > physicists, and is what I used. The average value is the most accurate > predictor of the true value, but it is not exact, and the expected error > between the average and the true value is related to the variations in > the data points being averaged, in PRECISELY the manner I said in my paper. > What you say would be true for a calm and stable medium. But looking at Section IV, I see another false premise. At the top of page 6 you write: <Start extract> data = signal(orientation) + systematic(time) The key point is that signal(orientation) is independent of time, and for each orientation (marker) it has the same value for every turn of the interferometer within a given data run Therefore if the data from the first turn is subtracted marker-by-marker from the data of every turn, the result is completely independent of any orientation dependence, and contains only systematic(time). <End extract> What is false here, is that for a fluid medium, the velocity would vary with time, so the signal would vary with both orientation and time. > > The point is that the variations in those averages for different > orientations are MUCH SMALLER than the uncertainty expected between the > average value and the true value, so no SIGNIFICANT conclusion about > "true absolute velocity" can be made based on the orientation dependence > of those averages. > That would be true if the uncertainty had been correctly calculated. But owing to the false premise mentioned above, your logic and calculations that follow would be wrong. That means nearly everything in Section IV would be wrong. To be continued...
From: Surfer on 21 Apr 2008 11:10
On Apr 21, 4:35 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: -- Continuation of earlier reply by Surfer > Surfer wrote: > > > > Fig 6 of your paper shows a DFT of raw data. > > If the signal that Miller was measuring had no orientation dependence, > > or did not exist, then there should be nothing special about bin > > 40, which has a period of 1/2 turn. > > However if a signal existed that DID have an orientation dependence, > > then bin 40 should stand out. > > The figure clearly shows that bin 40 STANDS OUT. > > Yes. Of course "stands out" is quite relative, as the excess in bin 40 > is only ~3% of the value in the largest bin. > It is not large. But another factor to consider is that the above run might not be from data used for final calculations. On Page 241 Miller wrote, "The experiments here presented have involved the taking of an enormous amount of observational material, by far the greater part of which was for the purpose of making adjustments and for preliminary trials of conditions; while only the smaller portion, which is still very large, has been used in the final calculations." If you selected runs at random, you may have obtained the run presented in your paper from the "greater part" rather than from "the smaller portion". Regarding his better data, Miller wrote: Page 212, left hand column "On some occasions the temperature conditions are so steady that no adjustment of fringes is required through several sets, which may cover an interval of an hour or more." In the run that you present in your paper, several adjustments can be seen, so it is clearly not not from the better data. > > > Many phenomena that fluctuate in an unpredicatable manner, exhibit > > regularities of behaviour if they are observed over a period of time. > > For example gusts of wind are unpredictable, but that has not stopped > > science developing models of weather. Such models can be falsified by > > observations. > > Sure. But the "fluctuations" around the mean wind velocity are generally > small. > Not during storms. > > In Miller's run of my Fig 1, those "fluctuations" are MUCH larger > than the variation in the averages. > > The analogy to wind direction would be that the direction > and speed of the wind varied on a timescale of 2-3 seconds > such that 180 degree variations in direction and 500% > variations in magnitude happened frequently over 10-60 > seconds. Under such circumstances, of what use is an > average wind velocity averaged over 15 minutes? > For a realistic comparision, I think you should consider attempts to determine average wind velocity over a period of a year. > > > I don't see why the situation should not be the same with light-speed > > anisotropy. > > The difference is in the relative magnitudes of signal and fluctuations. > For wind velocity during a year, the relative magnitudes may be as great or greater. >> > > You claim that Cahill "ignored" 21 out of 22 runs but his paper > > clearly acknowledges the 21 runs you refer to. > > Since he acknowledged them, he didn't ignore them. > > Nonsense. He did not use them in his analysis, and in this context that > is what "ignored" means. Your linguistic nuance is irrelevant. > He didn't analyse the Joos data. He merely commented on it. Eg In: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.PDF He wrote: "In Fig.16 that one rotation data are compared with the form expected for Jena on May 30 using the Miller speed and direction together with the new refractive index eï¬ect,and using the refractive index of helium.The agreement is quite re- markable." I class that as information of a type that doesn't prove anything, but that nevertheless has interest value. -- |