Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: Sorcerer on 15 Dec 2006 03:47 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1166171605.058879.240750(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... [...] I've never seen an aether, have you?
From: Sue... on 15 Dec 2006 03:54 Sorcerer wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1166171605.058879.240750(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > [...] > > I've never seen an aether, have you? Not in this thread. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Der_alte_Hexenmeister X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Message-ID: <Oitgh.98868$bz5.72066(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:47:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.34.65.187 X-Complaints-To: abuse(a)blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk 1166172462 82.34.65.187 (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:47:42 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:47:42 GMT ---------- Sue...
From: Sorcerer on 15 Dec 2006 04:20 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1166172849.318240.68120(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1166171605.058879.240750(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... | > | > [...] | > | > I've never seen an aether, have you? | | Not in this thread. I saw a photon, you pointed it out to me. I was hoping you could point out an aether.
From: Surfer on 15 Dec 2006 22:00 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:36:52 GMT, "mountain man" <hobbit(a)southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote: > >The sci.physics crackpot patrol men are thick and fast this >time of year, it would appear. They seem to jump on these >threads as if their flaming livelihood depended on the ascii. > I think most readers expected the experiments by Dawkins and Luiten to prove Cahill wrong. From: http://www.aipc2006.com/abstract/470.htm "We note also that this experiment provides a rigorous test of the controversial claims of Cahill" But your announcement suggests that they not only failed to prove Cahill wrong, but may be on the way to proving him correct. Cheers Surfer
From: Eric Gisse on 15 Dec 2006 22:14
Tom Roberts wrote: [...] > This is not a "design flaw", it is merely an aspect of their design. > Yes, Cahill has a "theory" that predicts a null result for them, and a > non-null result for similar experiments with gas inside. Is Cahill like the other folks on this newsgroup with a pet theory, in that he has an agenda and he is going to advance it? It seems like he is doing his experiments with the "knowledge" of what the outcome will be. Where does his attitude come from? Did he have some past success that gave him his attitude? Does he have an education? Did his education ever cover experimental physics? [...] > Your celebration seems premature. Perhaps you should wait until they > prepare an error analysis.... Why does Cahill and crew think they are exempt from error analysis? At any rate, I'm noticing a certain pattern: Everything supports the theory! Doing something as simple as 'questioning' the data by performing an error analysis would be like admitting it is possible that he is wrong. > > > Tom Roberts |