Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: karandash2000 on 16 Dec 2006 10:43 Surfer wrote: > > > 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. > Riiight. As such it doesn't support Cahill's claims. You used an irrelevant argument, Reg. Still trying to learn physics by posting to this NG? This is why you never got FULL professorship. An old fart who is going to retire ASSISTANT professor. Given the "earth shattering" discoveries, you may loose your position altogether as a permanent embarassment to your university .
From: Surfer on 16 Dec 2006 18:44 On 16 Dec 2006 07:43:36 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Surfer wrote: > >> > >> 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. >> > > >Riiight. As such it doesn't support Cahill's claims. > I agree. Shnoll offers no hypothesis for his observations. It is Cahill who suggested that they could be caused by the effects of "absolute motion". Shnoll is merely the innocent recipient of this supposition ! However, if a currently unknown cosmophysical phenomenon is capable of causing the effects Shnoll et. al. have observered, the same phenomena might also cause say, the refractive index of gas to vary anisotrophically. That could be an alternative explanation for anomalous gas mode interferometer experiment results.
From: schoenfeld.one on 16 Dec 2006 18:52 Tom Roberts wrote: > schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> news:P_ogh.9355$hI.345(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > >>> 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???? > > For Miller's result, see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 - it > also discusses Michelson Morley in appendix 1. > > > >> Do you assume that the leading edge of a light ray will hit the small > >> distant target? > > Miller's measurements did not involve any "leading edge" of the light > rays -- they were established and continuous during an entire run (~20 > minutes), and often/usually for several runs in a row. > > > >> Do you use SR to calculate your errorbar??? > > No. I use elementary statistics for the errorbars on Miller's original > result, and in my new analysis I use the variation of chi-squared in a > parametric fit. > > > > Roberts has been asked on other occasions to provide his calculations, > > but he never seems to do so. > > Nonsense. Just look in my paper [ref above] for all the details. Your paper goes on about Miller, not Cahill. No one (but you) is interested in Miller. The way you've deliberately misquoted the context of the thread and tried to make it seem as if you were being asked about Miller suggests you don't actually have any verifiable calculations refuting Cahill's work, only a set of ad hominem attacks. > > Tom Roberts
From: karandash2000 on 16 Dec 2006 21:07 Surfer wrote: > > However, if a currently unknown cosmophysical phenomenon is capable of > causing the effects Shnoll et. al. have observered, the same phenomena > might also cause say, the refractive index of gas to vary > anisotrophically. > > That could be an alternative explanation for anomalous gas mode > interferometer experiment results. I would have believed that hadn't I known that Cahill botched the theoretical part of his paper. This makes me believe that he proceeded by faking the analysis of his experimental data. He is THAT scummy and THAT incompetent.
From: Surfer on 17 Dec 2006 10:53
On 16 Dec 2006 18:07:57 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Surfer wrote: > >> >> However, if a currently unknown cosmophysical phenomenon is capable of >> causing the effects Shnoll et. al. have observered, the same phenomena >> might also cause say, the refractive index of gas to vary >> anisotrophically. >> >> That could be an alternative explanation for anomalous gas mode >> interferometer experiment results. > >I would have believed that hadn't I known that Cahill botched the >theoretical part of his paper. > I just had another look at: Process Physics: From information theory to quantum space and matter http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf In an earlier post you wrote: > >Let me make it easier for you: if one applies CORRECTLY the Fresnel >equations, one gets tF=0. > But on Page 102, Cahill writes of his derivation of this value: "The same expression was obtained by Shamir and Fox [85]." (expression 129 in Cahill's paper.) So I would be curious to know how Cahill's expression could be wrong if he is using the same expression as Shamir and Fox. [85] J. Shamir and R. Fox, Il Nuovo Cimenta, LXII B N.2, 258(1969). Regards, Surfer |