Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: Surfer on 15 Dec 2006 23:44 On 13 Dec 2006 23:18:35 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >1. An antirelativistic crackpot: > Do you believe that SR and GR are perfect ?
From: kenseto on 16 Dec 2006 00:04 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:P_ogh.9355$hI.345(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > Eric Gisse wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> For > >> Michelson and Morley, I estimated that a 0.002 C relative change in the > >> temperature of the air in the two arms would induce a fringe shift > >> greater than the variation in their data. [...] > > > > Wow, it certainly does not take much, now does it? > > Right. To people who do not understand errorbars, finicky experiments > are "better" because it is easier to interpret them as having a "real > signal". If they would learn how to do science and _test_theories_ > rather than trying to "detect absolute motion" [Mountain man presumably > quoting Cahill], they would learn the error(bar) of their ways.... > > Two of my favorite sayings related to this: > Scientists test theories; let engineers measure things. > Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars. What assumptions and theories you are using to calculate your errorbar???? Do you assume that the leading edge of a light ray will hit the small distant target? Do you use SR to calculate your errorbar???
From: Eric Gisse on 16 Dec 2006 00:11 Surfer wrote: > 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 That doesn't answer my question.
From: karandash2000 on 16 Dec 2006 00:17 Surfer wrote: > 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 Yes, he does. But not in physics. Cahill doesn't even know the equation that gives the speed of light in moving media. This is what fucks up his papers. Every time, like clockwork. After he gets the fucked up theory he gets the faked out experimental data. It is that simple, Reg.
From: karandash2000 on 16 Dec 2006 00:19
Surfer wrote: > 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? Still trying to learn physics from this NG, Reg? Unfortunately Tom is going to be generous again and tell you what you fucked up experimentally. I told you some time ago what you fucked up in the theoretical part. |