Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: Eric Gisse on 16 Dec 2006 00:52 Surfer wrote: > 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 ? There does not exist an experimental falsification of either special or general relativity.
From: Surfer on 16 Dec 2006 01:31 On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:42:00 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc(a)aol.com> wrote: > >"Surfer" <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message > >> 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. > Not after six months, as diurnal temperature variations would then have shifted 180 degrees relative to sideral time. So if the signal remained in phase with sideral time (which Cahill claims is the case for his experiment) then it could not be due to diurnal temperature variations. Some Russian researchers (led by Shnoll) have discovered that the pattern of emission of alpha particles from plutonium 239 is anisotropic. There is a paper here. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-11.PDF According to references in the above, they have also published in a other journals. Eg. Shnoll S.E.,Pozharski E.V.,Zenchenko T.A.,Kolombet V.A., Zvereva I.M.and Konradov A.A. Fine structure of distributions in measurements of different processes as affected by geophysical and cosmophysical factors. Phys.and Chem. Earth A:Solid Earth and Geod.,1999,v.24(8),711 �714. Shnoll S.E. Discrete distribution patterns:arithmetic and cosmophysical origins of their macroscopic fluctuations. Biophysics ,2001,v.46(5),733 �741. They don't suggest a mechanism. Cahill has suggested that motion relative to space might cause such effects. Or alternatively, the mechanism that causes these "Shnoll effects" might also cause an illusion of motion relative to space, when people do Cahill type experiments. Regards, Surfer
From: karandash2000 on 16 Dec 2006 02:05 Surfer wrote: > Some Russian researchers (led by Shnoll) have discovered that the > pattern of emission of alpha particles from plutonium 239 is > anisotropic. There is a paper here. > > http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-11.PDF > Ha,ha, ha another one from your sucker friend Dmitri rabounski from "Regress in Physics". He publishes any antirelativistic garbage, Reg. Besides, you fucked up the theory in your paper, you don't know how to compute light speed in moving media. If you knew, you would have known that your "experiment" would have predicted a nul result NO MATTER what medium you are using : gas, water, solids.
From: Surfer on 16 Dec 2006 06:57 On 15 Dec 2006 23:05:18 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Surfer wrote: > >> Some Russian researchers (led by Shnoll) have discovered that the >> pattern of emission of alpha particles from plutonium 239 is >> anisotropic. There is a paper here. >> >> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-11.PDF >> > >Ha,ha, ha another one from your sucker friend Dmitri rabounski from >"Regress in Physics". He publishes any antirelativistic garbage, Reg. > In what way is the above paper by Shnoll et. al. antirelativistic? It doesn't mention relativity. Furthermore, related papers are available in other journals. Eg. Shnoll S.E.,Pozharski E.V.,Zenchenko T.A.,Kolombet V.A., Zvereva I.M.and Konradov A.A. Fine structure of distributions in measurements of different processes as affected by geophysical and cosmophysical factors. Phys.and Chem. Earth A:Solid Earth and Geod.,1999,v.24(8),711 �714. Shnoll S.E. Discrete distribution patterns:arithmetic and cosmophysical origins of their macroscopic fluctuations. Biophysics ,2001,v.46(5),733 �741. How do you explain that? Are we supposed to believe that all the editors are suckers?
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 16 Dec 2006 08:36
In article <o3u6o21vbev93ajhuc96bhp68qj66p6o32(a)4ax.com>, Surfer <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > 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 ? Do you deny the great successes they have had explained observations? -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |