Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 13 Apr 2008 12:01 Jerry wrote: > Rather than call them "gas mode" interferometric measurements, call > them "ancient" measurements using equipment far less sensitive and > far less stable than current instrumentation, using manual means of > data collection allowing human bias, analyzed using data reduction > methods that are now known to be dangerous (averaging methods capable > of converting random fluctuations into an apparent periodic signal). Excellent description! But here's an even better one: ancient measurements now known to be consistent with zero within the actual experimental resolutions (obtained from their data via modern means). At least this applies to most of his claimed experiments, including the primary ones: Miller, Michelson and Morley, and Illingworth. > Cahill's writings are filled with highly "creative" reinterpretations > of old data. [...] Yes. But as you imply, his "creativity" is based on ignorance and invalid techniques rather than cleverness. Tom Roberts
From: Yuancur on 13 Apr 2008 12:03 On Apr 8, 11:31 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > > If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could > > he be wrong? > > As a proposition in logic, that is false: Actually, he asked a question. He wasn't making a logical proposition. > in general we can be wrong > even if we sometimes predict things that are right. Quite true. There again, this is physics, not logic. The two are only feebly connected. Asking a slightly different question: Assuming firstly that Citizen 1 invokes a model and makes a prediction which is subsequently matched by observational data. Assuming secondly that Citizen 2, invoking a different model, makes a contary prediction which is not matched by that observational data. Do we prefer the model of citizen 2, and, if so, why? Is it because he made his prediction first or some other prejudicial reason? (i.e have we prejudged the issue? Was making the observation a waste of everybody's time? Is this Science or Dogma) Love, Jenny
From: Androcles on 13 Apr 2008 12:06 "Surfer" <no(a)spam.please.net> wrote in message news:lp5404tfeosp4j0fbhrodv48ihif327g1n(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry | <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: | | | > | >Cahill and his "gas mode" interferometric measurements again? | > | >Rather than call them "gas mode" interferometric measurements, call | >them "ancient" measurements using equipment far less sensitive and | >far less stable than current instrumentation, using manual means of | >data collection allowing human bias, analyzed using data reduction | >methods that are now known to be dangerous (averaging methods capable | >of converting random fluctuations into an apparent periodic signal). | > | >Cahill's writings are filled with highly "creative" reinterpretations | >of old data. | > | >He thinks nothing of throwing away multiple experimental | >runs disagreeing with his prejudices, instead focusing on the single | >run that seems to show some sort of sinusoidal modulation (you do | >know the reference, I presume? | > | The situation is not so simple. He has been able to derive consistent | values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. | | Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Am. J. Sc. 34, 333-345, | 1887. | | Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933. | | Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927. | | Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930. | | Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964. | | Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and | Fundamental Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. | eds. Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984. | | Munera H.A., et al. in Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6664, | K1- K8, 2007, eds. Roychoudhuri C. et al. | | Cahill R.T. A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: | Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, | Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. | | Cahill R.T. Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: | Dynamical 3-Space Turbulence Detected, Progress in | Physics, 4, 63-68, 2007. | | Cahill R.T. and Stokes F. Correlated Detection of sub-mHz | Gravitational Waves by Two Optical-Fiber Interfer-ometers, | Progress in Physics, 2, 103-110, 2008. | | Regarding the mainstream vacuum mode "NULL" experiments, here is | something to bear in mind. | | Since 1983 the meter has been defined as the distance light travels in | a vacuum in exactly 1/299,792,458th of a second (17th CGPM, Resolution | 1). | | If you use this definition to define a distance of one meter in any | direction, and you measure how long it will take light to travel that | distance in a vacuum, then by definition it will always take | 1/299,792,458th of a second ! | | That will be the case irrespective of whether the speed of light | varies with direction. | | So if you attempt to measure the speed of light using such a set up, | you will always get the same value, irrespective of whether a light | speed anisotrophy exists or not. | | That is to say, the experimental setup will by its very nature, hide | any underlying light-speed anisotropy. This or an analogous flaw is | probably built into all the modern vacuum mode experiments that have | attempted and failed to detect light-speed anisotropy, so Cahill would | seem entitled to disregard them. | | If c = lambda * nu, how come this wavelength and this frequency equals zero? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standing_wave.gif
From: Jerry on 13 Apr 2008 12:38 On Apr 13, 9:56 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >[Cahill] thinks nothing of throwing away multiple experimental > >runs disagreeing with his prejudices, instead focusing on the single > >run that seems to show some sort of sinusoidal modulation (you do > >know the reference, I presume? > > The situation is not so simple. He has been able to derive consistent > values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. I found the reference that I was referring to. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf In discussing the Joos experiment, Cahill writes: The data for 22 rotations throughout the day of May 30, 1930 are shown in Fig.15, and are reproduced from Fig.11 of [15]. From that data Joos concluded, using an analysis that did not take account of the special relativistic length contraction effect, that the fringe shifts corresponded to a speed of only 1.5 km/s. However as previously noted such an analysis is completely flawed. As well the data in Fig.15 shows that for all but one of the rotations the fringe shifts were poorly recorded. Only in the one rotation, at 11 23 58, does the data actually look like the form expected. This is probably not accidental as the maximum fringe shift was expected at that time, based on the Miller direction of absolute motion, and the sensitivity of the device was ±1 thousandth of a fringe shift. 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 effect,and using the refractive index of helium. The agreement is quite remarkable. So again, contrary the Joos paper and to subsequent commentators, Joos did in fact detect a very large velocity of absolute motion. In other words, out of 22 rotations performed that day, 21 of the rotations showed nothing remotely resembling a sinusoidal signal. Cahill throws away data from these 21 rotations and focuses on the single outlier, even ignoring data from the immediately preceding and following rotations that were separated from the 11:23 rotation by only a few minutes. This is biased data analysis at its most vicious. Jerry
From: Edward Green on 13 Apr 2008 13:10
On Apr 11, 2:12 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:16:55 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green <...> > >What is a dynamical 3-space? > > Its the idea that 3 dimensional space is a physical medium that > contains dynamic processes. Though you use Forbidden Words, GR could be described in those terms -- and so could things which are not GR. > There is a description here. > > Dynamical 3-Space: A Reviewhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146 How do you treat time? You are probably going to wind up with a spacetime no matter what words you use to describe it; maybe not the spacetime of GR, but a spacetime. (Not an intentionally hostile comment. I personally enjoy trying to describe GR in those terms -- just to annoy. :-) |