Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 15 Dec 2006 22:15 In article <1166238888.223798.16750(a)j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Some people daren't even consider they are wrong. Look at some of our favourite kooks ;-) -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Surfer on 15 Dec 2006 23:09 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:48:11 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Cahill performed a recent measurement using coax, but could not be >bothered to measure his systematic errors, or even monitor the >temperature. > I think a key indicator is that the signal varied with sideral time. What kind of errors could cause that? Schnoll also detected Regards, Surfer
From: Surfer on 15 Dec 2006 23:14 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:48:11 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Cahill performed a recent measurement using coax, but could not be >bothered to measure his systematic errors, or even monitor the >temperature. > I think a key indicator is that the signal varied with sideral time. What kind of errors could cause that?
From: Surfer on 15 Dec 2006 23:34 On 15 Dec 2006 19:14:48 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Does he have an education? > See: http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/ http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 15 Dec 2006 23:42
Dear Surfer: "Surfer" <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message news:62s6o21oaq7gj2aj3bkoct83n8sc573d61(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:48:11 -0600, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>Cahill performed a recent measurement using coax, >>but could not be bothered to measure his systematic >>errors, or even monitor the temperature. > > I think a key indicator is that the signal varied with > sideral time. > > What kind of errors could cause that? Diurnal temperature variations would be really close to this. If he didn't bother to measure temperature *at all*, then his data is adjacent to useless. > Schnoll also detected Detected what? Peer reviewed? Did this researcher note temperature, or do we have yet another "cowboy"? David A. Smith |