From: harry on 18 Dec 2006 08:57 "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 |