From: harry on

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%Zphh.4373$yC5.1452(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Surfer wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:15:50 +1030, Surfer <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote:
>>> He could be wrong, but he has now quoted eight experiments that
>>> support his position !
>> Or rather "he has now quoted eight experiments as supporting his
>> position."
>> Since opinions about this differ.
>
> Since he ignores errorbars on all those experiments (admittedly the
> original experimenters did not provide them), his claims are dubious at
> best. I have looked in detail at several of them, and his claims do not
> hold up for them. I have no doubt that many if not all of the other
> experiments are similarly useless.
>
> Hint: any experiment that claims "agreement with Miller's result" is
> highly suspect, because Miller's result is now known to be completely
> bogus.
>
> Tom Roberts

In addition (and I think that Cahill actually mentions them, as indeed he
should), several other experiments seem to contradict his position. Thus you
can take your pick.

Harald