 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Question for Tom Roberts... |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| doug... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote:8781026ac7]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:32:20 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Consider an interferometer with 4 markers, with marker 1 recorded
again at the end of each row, with the operator able to discrimminate
to nearest whole unit.
Suppose the real signal is:
0 1.5 0 -1.5 0
NB: For an MM interferometer, the markers would have to be 45 degrees
apart for this scenario.
Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter larger for the first
turn so the operator records:
0 2 0 -2 0
Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter smaller for the second
turn so the operator records
0 1 0 -1 0
Now, subtract turn 2 from turn 1 and we get:
0 1 0 -1 0
In other words, two thirds of the real signal remain in this case.
No, what remains is the quantization error.
It can be labeled that way.
However the following statement in Tom Robert's paper is falsified:
In first paragraph, page 6
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
"Therefore if the data from the first turn is subtracted marker-by-marker
from the data of every turn, the result is completely independent of any
orientation dependence, and contains only systematic(time)."
Because, as one can see, the above subtraction has produced a result
that DOES DEPEND on orientation. (The dependence arises from the way
quantization error+noise affects the recording of the real signal.)
This will allow the real signal to be partially carried into Tom's
calculation of systematic error.
That is not a signal. It is noise since it is an observational
effect.
True. But because this noise is DERIVED FROM THE SIGNAL it is
orientation dependent.
[/quote:8781026ac7]
Quantization effects are not derived from the signal. In your
example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
[quote:8781026ac7]
(Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
any orientation dependence". )
But I have discovered something more significant.
Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
Here is a relevant extract:
"In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
effect..."
This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is[/quote:8781026ac7]
saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
[quote:8781026ac7]
Fig 30 shows that for six fringes in the field of view, the full
period effect is about 75% of the half period effect.
That means that for any real signal, there would be a significant
difference between the first and second halves of each turn.
Eg see the plot of a full turn in Fig. 8 in Millers paper (Fig 1 in
Tom's paper).
Unfortunately, Tom Roberts assumed that for any real signal EVERY HALF
TURN WOULD BE IDENTICAL and to simplify his analysis he subtracts the
first half turn from subsequent half turns, rather than subtracting
the first complete turn from subsequent complete turns.
[/quote:8781026ac7]
This is a good assumption on Tom's part, given how interferometers
work.
[quote:8781026ac7]
But because the Full Period Effect guaranttees that for any real
signal, the first half turn must differ significantly from the second
half turn, Tom's procedure only partially removes the real signal from
the result.
[/quote:8781026ac7]
This effect exists only in the minds of cranks.
[quote:8781026ac7]
Then when he fits his 8 sequences to a single function of time, the
fitting process will tend to restore the Full Period Effect (as in his
model that is noise not signal, so needs to be included in his model
of systematic error), but restoring the Full Period Effect will
probably also at least partially restore the first half turn that was
originally subtracted.
He could then end up with a model of systematic error that pretty well
includes the whole real signal.
No, not from what you have said.[/quote:8781026ac7]
[quote:8781026ac7]Since he writes,
"the systematic model reproduces the data exactly for all runs
with moderate or good stability."
that seems to be the case.
Needless to say, subtracting such a model of systematic error from the
data would remove the signal as well as the noise so,
"the ½-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic"
would then usually be zero, as shown in Fig. 11.
[/quote:8781026ac7]
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
and remain in denial about the facts
[quote:8781026ac7]
Surfer
[/quote:8781026ac7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:27:58 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote:56182130ec]
Quantization effects are not derived from the signal.
[/quote:56182130ec]
But the size of the effect is equal to difference between the signal
and the nearest level, so its modulated by the signal.
[quote:56182130ec]
In your example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
[/quote:56182130ec]
It seems a potential problem.
[quote:56182130ec]
(Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
any orientation dependence". )
But I have discovered something more significant.
Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
Here is a relevant extract:
"In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
effect..."
This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is
saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
Hick's theory is mathematical physics.[/quote:56182130ec]
But Miller writes in,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Bottom Page 238:
"A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
as required by the theory of Hicks."
Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
(expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
[quote:56182130ec]
Fig 30 shows that for six fringes in the field of view, the full
period effect is about 75% of the half period effect.
That means that for any real signal, there would be a significant
difference between the first and second halves of each turn.
Eg see the plot of a full turn in Fig. 8 in Millers paper (Fig 1 in
Tom's paper).
Unfortunately, Tom Roberts assumed that for any real signal EVERY HALF
TURN WOULD BE IDENTICAL and to simplify his analysis he subtracts the
first half turn from subsequent half turns, rather than subtracting
the first complete turn from subsequent complete turns.
This is a good assumption on Tom's part, given how interferometers
work.
But because the Full Period Effect guaranttees that for any real
signal, the first half turn must differ significantly from the second
half turn, Tom's procedure only partially removes the real signal from
the result.
This effect exists only in the minds of cranks.
Then when he fits his 8 sequences to a single function of time, the
fitting process will tend to restore the Full Period Effect (as in his
model that is noise not signal, so needs to be included in his model
of systematic error), but restoring the Full Period Effect will
probably also at least partially restore the first half turn that was
originally subtracted.
He could then end up with a model of systematic error that pretty well
includes the whole real signal.
No, not from what you have said.
Since he writes,
"the systematic model reproduces the data exactly for all runs
with moderate or good stability."
that seems to be the case.
Needless to say, subtracting such a model of systematic error from the
data would remove the signal as well as the noise so,
"the ½-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic"
would then usually be zero, as shown in Fig. 11.
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional[/quote:56182130ec]
to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
path.
For vacuum, n=1, so no fringe shift is seen and observations perfectly
support SR.
[quote:56182130ec]
The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
and remain in denial about the facts
[/quote:56182130ec]
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
Reginald T. Cahill
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146
suggests that following gas-mode experiments give consistent results
when analysed so as to take the (n^2 - 1) factor into account.
Light path in air
Michelson-Morley Experiment 1887
Miller Experiment 1925/26
Light path in helium
Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
Light path in helium/neon mixture
Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote:c0817db261]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:27:58 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Quantization effects are not derived from the signal.
But the size of the effect is equal to difference between the signal
and the nearest level, so its modulated by the signal.
[/quote:c0817db261]
It is a measurement error. You have to be very careful with this.
In the past we made one bit correlators which worked very well
doing averages when the signal and noise were in a very narrow
range (about equal) and completely failed when the gain was
either increased or decreased.
[quote:c0817db261]
In your example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
It seems a potential problem.
[/quote:c0817db261]
I would argue that adding a signal to show the presence of a signal
is a mistake.
[quote:c0817db261]
(Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
any orientation dependence". )
But I have discovered something more significant.
Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
Here is a relevant extract:
"In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
effect..."
This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is
saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
Hick's theory is mathematical physics.
[/quote:c0817db261]
What does it have to do with reality. You are assuming it introduces
a specific assymetry which just happens to help Miller.
[quote:c0817db261]
But Miller writes in,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Bottom Page 238:
"A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
as required by the theory of Hicks."
Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
(expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
[/quote:c0817db261]
Well, no. There is no signal in the Miller experiment.
[quote:c0817db261]
Fig 30 shows that for six fringes in the field of view, the full
period effect is about 75% of the half period effect.
That means that for any real signal, there would be a significant
difference between the first and second halves of each turn.
Eg see the plot of a full turn in Fig. 8 in Millers paper (Fig 1 in
Tom's paper).
Unfortunately, Tom Roberts assumed that for any real signal EVERY HALF
TURN WOULD BE IDENTICAL and to simplify his analysis he subtracts the
first half turn from subsequent half turns, rather than subtracting
the first complete turn from subsequent complete turns.
This is a good assumption on Tom's part, given how interferometers
work.
But because the Full Period Effect guaranttees that for any real
signal, the first half turn must differ significantly from the second
half turn, Tom's procedure only partially removes the real signal from
the result.
This effect exists only in the minds of cranks.
Then when he fits his 8 sequences to a single function of time, the
fitting process will tend to restore the Full Period Effect (as in his
model that is noise not signal, so needs to be included in his model
of systematic error), but restoring the Full Period Effect will
probably also at least partially restore the first half turn that was
originally subtracted.
He could then end up with a model of systematic error that pretty well
includes the whole real signal.
No, not from what you have said.
Since he writes,
"the systematic model reproduces the data exactly for all runs
with moderate or good stability."
that seems to be the case.
Needless to say, subtracting such a model of systematic error from the
data would remove the signal as well as the noise so,
"the ½-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic"
would then usually be zero, as shown in Fig. 11.
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional
to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
path.
[/quote:c0817db261]
You keep saying this and it is wrong by experiment. You have been
given the references many times and you ignore them because they
show you to be wrong.
[quote:c0817db261]
For vacuum, n=1, so no fringe shift is seen and observations perfectly
support SR.
And in gas and solids with n>1 also support SR. End of story.
The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
and remain in denial about the facts
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
Reginald T. Cahill
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146
suggests that following gas-mode experiments give consistent results
when analysed so as to take the (n^2 - 1) factor into account.
[/quote:c0817db261]
Yes, and Cahill is a crank. His work is wrong. This paper is even
more silly than most of his
[quote:c0817db261]
Light path in air
Michelson-Morley Experiment 1887
Miller Experiment 1925/26
Neither of these showed any signal.[/quote:c0817db261]
[quote:c0817db261]Light path in helium
Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
Light path in helium/neon mixture
Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
I have not seen these last two but Cahill just made his[/quote:c0817db261]
usual assertion without support.
Now where are the solid mode tests that showed no effect?
[quote:c0817db261]Surfer
[/quote:c0817db261] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:21:58 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote:c18daad4f4]
But Miller writes in,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Bottom Page 238:
"A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
as required by the theory of Hicks."
Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
(expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
Well, no. There is no signal in the Miller experiment.
Yet, the DFT of Miller's data in Fig 6 of Tom's paper,[/quote:c18daad4f4]
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
shows a distinct peak in the bin for a period of half a turn.
Tom claims to have proved that it is noise not signal. But if it
noise, why is it twice the amplitude of the noise in the nearby bins?
[quote:c18daad4f4]
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional
to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
path.
You keep saying this and it is wrong by experiment. You have been
given the references many times and you ignore them because they
show you to be wrong.
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the[/quote:c18daad4f4]
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote:d5990df350]On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:21:58 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
But Miller writes in,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Bottom Page 238:
"A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
as required by the theory of Hicks."
Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
(expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
Well, no. There is no signal in the Miller experiment.
Yet, the DFT of Miller's data in Fig 6 of Tom's paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
shows a distinct peak in the bin for a period of half a turn.
Tom claims to have proved that it is noise not signal. But if it
noise, why is it twice the amplitude of the noise in the nearby bins?
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional
to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
path.
You keep saying this and it is wrong by experiment. You have been
given the references many times and you ignore them because they
show you to be wrong.
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
[/quote:d5990df350]
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore since
they show him to be wrong, show that those conclusions are correct.
Cahill chooses very selective experiments to "reanalyze". He ignores
the ones that show him to be absolutely wrong by orders of magnitude.
You clearly only looked for MMX and then quit. You cannot hide from
the truth by pretending ignorance.
[quote:d5990df350]
Surfer
[/quote:d5990df350] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
Surfer wrote:
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
since they show him to be wrong,
I am not sure what you mean.[/quote]
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
since they show him to be wrong,
I am not sure what you mean.
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
[/quote]
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts, except
for the ones in a solid - with a much higher refractive index - don't work
as your theory predicts.
Except for that, yeah.
[quote]
Surfer[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Surfer wrote:
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.[/quote]
But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
mind?
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
since they show him to be wrong,
I am not sure what you mean.
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
[/quote]
No, Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
and Miller results and ignores newer experiments that show him to
be wrong. He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
of billions. When you ignore the experimental results to push
you pet theory, that is the definition of a crank.
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
[/quote]
That is an amazing, Cahill like statement. You feel that you can
ignore those experiments which show you to be wrong.
[quote]
But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
mind?
[/quote]
You have been given the list. You have no excuse for ignoring it.
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
Surfer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
since they show him to be wrong,
I am not sure what you mean.
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
No, Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
and Miller results...
So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller[/quote]
reported.
[quote]
He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
of billions.
As yet you have not informed me of a single such experiment.[/quote]
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
[/quote]
Gosh, suddenly those few poorly analyzed experiments aren't as strong of a
challenge to SR as they were yesterday...
[quote]
But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
mind?
Surfer
[/quote]
Holy shit. Seriously?
Why don't you look at the past few years of the responses to your shameless
peddling of your own nonsense on here to see? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
since they show him to be wrong,
I am not sure what you mean.
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
No, Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
and Miller results...
So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller
reported.
[/quote]
This is what we call lying on your part.
[quote]
He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
of billions.
As yet you have not informed me of a single such experiment.
[/quote]
This is what we call lying on your part.
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:41:52 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
... Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
and Miller results...
So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller
reported.
This is what we call lying on your part.
[/quote]
Here are the MMX results.
Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
449-463.
Here is Cahill's paper.
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?
Here is Miller's 1933 paper
www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
reported?
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:30:50 -0800, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Surfer wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
Gosh, suddenly those few poorly analyzed experiments aren't as strong of a
challenge to SR as they were yesterday...
Your response suggest a misunderstanding on your part.[/quote]
Cahill supports a Lorentzian interpretation of SR.
In that interpretation, the gas experiments don't challenge SR,
because the MEASURED SPEED OF LIGHT IN VACUUM is alway c, as usual.
The way in which the gas experiments detect absolute motion must be
due to some subtle and as yet not sufficiently studied effect. Eg
consider:
Precision tests with a new class of dedicated ether-drift experiments
M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
Eur.Phys.J.C55:469-475,2008
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0979
In principle, by accepting the idea of a non-zero vacuum energy, the
physical vacuum of present particle physics might represent a
preferred reference frame. By treating this quantum vacuum as a
relativistic medium, the non-zero energy-momentum flow expected in a
moving frame should effectively behave as a small thermal gradient and
could, in principle, induce a measurable anisotropy of the speed of
light in a loosely bound system as a gas. We explore the
phenomenological implications of this scenario by considering a new
class of dedicated ether-drift experiments where arbitrary gaseous
media fill the resonating optical cavities. Our predictions cover most
experimental set up and should motivate precise experimental tests of
these fundamental issues.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:25 am
|
|