Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: karandash2000 on 17 Dec 2006 13:37 Surfer wrote: > 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 Ah, but this is fun: I skipped all the way to the fateful eq (129). Well , you obtained the same eq as Shamir for :Galilean derivation". You ARE saying it yourself: ".....for the orthogonal arm, if we ASSUME Galilean relativity...." So yes, you obtain the same result as the one Shamir used in order to JUSIFY his experiment. In other words, Galilean relativity would predict a fring shift. If you are comptent enough to write the relativistic equation for the orthogonal arm you will get a ...ZERO fringe shift. And into the wastebasket goes your grandiose paper.
From: Surfer on 17 Dec 2006 22:20 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:15:50 +1030, Surfer <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > >He could be wrong, but he has now quoted eight experiments that >support his position ! > Or rather "he has now quoted eight experiments as supporting his position." Since opinions about this differ. Regards, Surfer
From: karandash2000 on 17 Dec 2006 22:33 Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:15:50 +1030, Surfer <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > > > > >He could be wrong, but he has now quoted eight experiments that > >support his position ! > > > Or rather "he has now quoted eight experiments as supporting his > position." > > Since opinions about this differ. > > Regards, > Surfer Reg, Get a redducated in relativity. You used to know it once (before Alzheimer set in). It is embarassing to base your papers on Galilean velocity addition, this is why you are relegated to fringe journals.
From: Surfer on 17 Dec 2006 23:14 On 17 Dec 2006 19:00:44 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >3. Based on the dubious results of the experiment, Cahill decided to >ignore what theory is telling him and to declare SR incorrect. > I believe he has said that it is Lorentzian rather than Special Relativity that is correct. However I don't think Cahill "ignores" what theory is telling him. I was just looking at: Deriving the Relativity Formalism: Understanding its Successes and Failures http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611002 The last half of the abstract says: "From the generalised Dirac equation we show that the spacetime formalism is derivable, but as merely a mathematical construct whose geodesics arise from the trajectories of quantum wavepackets in the 3-space. However the metric of this spacetime is shown not to satisfy the Hilbert-Einstein equations, except in the special case of the Schwarzschild metric. Hence we demonstrate that the successes of the General Relativity formalism have been more illusory than real, that its successes are in fact quite limited, which explains why it failed to account for the bore hole anomaly, the so-called �dark matter� spiral galaxy rotation anomaly, the systematics of black hole masses and so on. It also failed in that the dynamics of the 3-space is determined by two fundamental constants, namely G and the fine structure constant alpha." I guess derivation of the "dynamics of the 3-space" would also theoretically justify Lorentzian Relativity. Regards, Surfer
From: karandash2000 on 18 Dec 2006 00:06
Surfer wrote: > On 17 Dec 2006 19:00:44 -0800, karandash2000(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > >3. Based on the dubious results of the experiment, Cahill decided to > >ignore what theory is telling him and to declare SR incorrect. > > > I believe he has said that it is Lorentzian rather than Special > Relativity that is correct. > > However I don't think Cahill "ignores" what theory is telling him. I > was just looking at: > > Deriving the Relativity Formalism: Understanding its Successes and > Failures > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611002 > > The last half of the abstract says: > > "From the generalised Dirac equation we show that the spacetime > formalism is derivable, but as merely a mathematical construct whose > geodesics arise from the trajectories of quantum wavepackets in the > 3-space. However the metric of this spacetime is shown not to satisfy > the Hilbert-Einstein equations, except in the special case of the > Schwarzschild metric. Hence we demonstrate that the successes of the > General Relativity formalism have been more illusory than real, that > its successes are in fact quite limited, which explains why it failed > to account for the bore hole anomaly, the so-called 'dark matter' > spiral galaxy rotation anomaly, the systematics of black > hole masses and so on. It also failed in that the dynamics of the > 3-space is determined by two fundamental constants, namely G and the > fine structure constant alpha." > > I guess derivation of the "dynamics of the 3-space" would also > theoretically justify Lorentzian Relativity. > > Regards, > Surfer Reg, my weasel Don't try to weasel out of this one, the discussion is about you botched "detection of absolute motion" where you "forgot" to use the proper equations of light speed in a refractive moving medium, remember. Trying a cheap diversion will not work. If you want to discuss the cheap shot at GR, we could do it later, right now stay on the subject, your fuckup of the MMX experiment. The one that no decent journal picked up, remember? |