Question for Tom Roberts...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Question for Tom Roberts...

Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Question for Tom Roberts...

Author

Message

doug...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:22 pm

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:41:52 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

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.

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?
[/quote]
He claims there is an unambiguous signal. This is wrong from both
the data and newer experiments which have far better resolution.
Cahill is either trying to be misleading or is intentionally
lying.

[quote]
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?

Miller had no signal in his data. That also is shown by more recent[/quote]
experiments.

I notice that you snipped the part where you were lying about not
having received a list of experiments where Cahill's theory is
shown to be badly wrong. That is continuing dishonesty on your
part.

[quote]
Surfer

[/quote]

Surfer...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:48 pm

Guest

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:22:57 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

[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?

He claims there is an unambiguous signal.

Quotes please.[/quote]

In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?

[quote]
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?

Miller had no signal in his data.

[/quote]
Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:

<Start extract>

Probable error

A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.

<End extract>

So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.

Surfer

doug...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:48 pm

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:22:57 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

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?

He claims there is an unambiguous signal.

Quotes please.
[/quote]
Have you even looked at the abstract of the paper or the first
page of the paper?
[quote]
In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?
[/quote]
He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.
[quote]

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?

Miller had no signal in his data.

Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:

Start extract

Probable error

A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.

End extract

So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.
[/quote]
Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.
It is Cahill that is lying. Note the made up data in figure 4.

I notice that you again snipped the part where you lie about
not having seen the list of experiments which verify that there
was no signal in MMX or Miller. Cahill lies by omission in ignoring
all of those. You have been shown them. You are saying they do
not exist. That is a lie.

[quote]

Surfer

[/quote]

doug...

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:49 pm

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:30:50 -0800, eric gisse
jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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.
[/quote]
And, Cahill ignores all the experiments which show him to be wrong.
That is why he continues to be a crank.

[quote]
Surfer

[/quote]

Surfer...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:09 pm

Guest

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:48:54 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

[quote]

Surfer wrote:

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

snip

In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?

He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.

That is your opinion.[/quote]

But the question I asked was,

"In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"

You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
you havn't done.)

[quote]

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?

Miller had no signal in his data.

Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:

Start extract

Probable error

A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.

End extract

So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.

Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.

Again that is your opinion.[/quote]

But my original question was:
[quote]
In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
reported?

[/quote]
You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from papers by Miller and
Cahill, which you havn't done)

Surfer

doug...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:32 pm

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:48:54 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

Surfer wrote:

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

snip

In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?

He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.

That is your opinion.

But the question I asked was,

"In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"

You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
you havn't done.)
[/quote]
Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
do is rewrite history.

You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
that show Cahill to be wrong. Why is that?

[quote]

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?

Miller had no signal in his data.

Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:

Start extract

Probable error

A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.

End extract

So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.

Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.

Again that is your opinion.
[/quote]
No, the experiments which show sensitivity much greater than
that of Miller say my answer is correct.

[quote]
But my original question was:

In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
reported?

You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from papers by Miller and
Cahill, which you havn't done)

Cahill shows a plot purporting to be a sidereal curve of Miller's[/quote]
signal. Since we know from experiments that there is no signal
and proper error analysis shows that there is no signal, this
is misrepresenting what Miller showed.

[quote]
[/quote]
Again, why are you hiding from the experiments which show Cahill
to be wrong? Those have been provided for you many times.

[quote]Surfer

[/quote]

eric gisse...

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:53 pm

Guest

Surfer...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:07 am

Guest

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:06 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

snip

But the question I asked was,

"In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"

You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
you havn't done.)

Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
do is rewrite history.

[/quote]
I think its more correct to say that in the past the data was assumed
to be noise. But re-analysis of the data reveals a more interesting
story.

Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:

<Start extract>

Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post
relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this
experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.

<End extract>

Regarding the plots, I don't see the problem to which you refer.

Eg. The caption under Figure 2 is as follows:

<Start extract>

Figure 2: Shows all the Michelson-Morley 1887 data after removal of
the temperature induced fringe drifts. The data for each 360
degree full turn (the average of 6 individual turns) is
divided into the 1st and 2nd 180 degree parts and plotted one above
the other. The dotted curve shows a best fit to the data using (5),
while the full curves show the expected forms using the Miller
direction for v and the location and times of the Michelson-Morley
observations.
While the amplitudes are in agreement in general with the Miller based
predictions, the phase varies somewhat. This may be related to the
Hick’s effect [4] when, necessarily, the mirrors are not orthogonal.
We see that this data corresponds to a speed in excess of 300km/s, and
not the 8km/s reported in [1], which was based on using Newtonian
physics to calibrate the interferometer.

<End extract>

[quote]
You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
that show Cahill to be wrong.

Why is that?

You don't provide references so I don't take your claims seriously.[/quote]

Surfer

doug...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:25 am

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:06 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

snip

But the question I asked was,

"In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"

You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
you havn't done.)

Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
do is rewrite history.

I think its more correct to say that in the past the data was assumed
to be noise. But re-analysis of the data reveals a more interesting
story.
[/quote]
The correct statement is that in the past the data was determined
to cover the values including zero and that later experiments with
higher precision have verified that. Cahill's "reanalysis" is
just fraud in that light.
[quote]
Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:

Start extract

Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth.
[/quote]
It was rejected since the error bars were consistent with zero.

A 2002 post
[quote]relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s.
[/quote]
This is the fanciful delusions of cahill in operation.

So this
[quote]experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
[/quote]
And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
Cahill is completely wrong.
[quote]
End extract

Regarding the plots, I don't see the problem to which you refer.

Eg. The caption under Figure 2 is as follows:

Start extract

Figure 2: Shows all the Michelson-Morley 1887 data after removal of
the temperature induced fringe drifts. The data for each 360
degree full turn (the average of 6 individual turns) is
divided into the 1st and 2nd 180 degree parts and plotted one above
the other. The dotted curve shows a best fit to the data using (5),
while the full curves show the expected forms using the Miller
direction for v and the location and times of the Michelson-Morley
observations.
While the amplitudes are in agreement in general with the Miller based
predictions, the phase varies somewhat. This may be related to the
Hick’s effect [4] when, necessarily, the mirrors are not orthogonal.
We see that this data corresponds to a speed in excess of 300km/s, and
not the 8km/s reported in [1], which was based on using Newtonian
physics to calibrate the interferometer.

End extract

You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
that show Cahill to be wrong.

Why is that?

You don't provide references so I don't take your claims seriously.
[/quote]
You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
appear to be uninterested in the truth.

[quote]

Surfer

[/quote]

Surfer...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:53 am

Guest

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:25:21 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

[quote]

Surfer wrote:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

[/quote]
<snip>

[quote]
Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:

Start extract

Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth.

It was rejected since the error bars were consistent with zero.

You are wrong I am afraid. Michelson and Morley didn't calculate error[/quote]
bars. So on this particular point Cahill is correct.

[quote]A 2002 post
relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s.

This is the fanciful delusions of cahill in operation.

Its just a logical consequence of the analysis.[/quote]

[quote]So this
experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.

And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
Cahill is completely wrong.

You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
appear to be uninterested in the truth.

I remember seeing a link to:[/quote]

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.

So when you claim that some experiments prove Cahill wrong, which
specific experiments do you mean?

Surfer

doug...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:23 am

Guest

Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:25:21 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

Surfer wrote:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

snip

Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:

Start extract

Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth.

It was rejected since the error bars were consistent with zero.

You are wrong I am afraid. Michelson and Morley didn't calculate error
bars. So on this particular point Cahill is correct.

A 2002 post

relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s.

This is the fanciful delusions of cahill in operation.

Its just a logical consequence of the analysis.

Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved[/quote]
the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
totally at odds with Cahll's delusions. Of course he has to pretend
those experiments do not exist or he has nothing to push.

I also thought his claim of seeing gravity waves was a real hoot.

[quote]
So this

experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.

And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
Cahill is completely wrong.

You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
appear to be uninterested in the truth.

I remember seeing a link to:

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.
[/quote]
Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
show him wrong.
[quote]
So when you claim that some experiments prove Cahill wrong, which
specific experiments do you mean?
[/quote]
Actually look at the experiments.
[quote]

Surfer

[/quote]

Surfer...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:11 am

Guest

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:23:43 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

[quote]
Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved
the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
totally at odds with Cahll's delusions.

So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments[/quote]
are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
give null results, as they do.

<snip>

[quote]
I remember seeing a link to:

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.

Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
show him wrong.

Just looking isn't sufficient.[/quote]

The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.

To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
Cahills method, taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
measurements were made.

Eg. There can be no absolute motion induced fringe shifts when the
motion is perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer.

Surfer

doug...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:31 am

Guest

Surfer wrote:

[quote]On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:23:43 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved
the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
totally at odds with Cahll's delusions.

So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
give null results, as they do.

Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer[/quote]
which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect and it
shows nothing. Therefore Cahill is wrong. Cahill is also ignoring
the gas mode experiments. How many of the experiments did you
actually read to see if they were vaccuum or not?

[quote]snip

I remember seeing a link to:

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.

Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
show him wrong.

Just looking isn't sufficient.

The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
[/quote]
Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
experiments, not some.
[quote]
To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
Cahills method, taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
measurements were made.
[/quote]
No, the experiments need to be examined for the actual data they
produced. What cahill wants them to say has nothing to do with
it. The Hicks effect is what you make up and appeal to when
the data does not support your conclusions.
[quote]
Eg. There can be no absolute motion induced fringe shifts when the
motion is perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer.
[/quote]
Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
Miller had, calculate how much off the perpendicular the plane
needs to be and see how long a data run it would take to get
that much earth rotation.

[quote]

Surfer

[/quote]

Surfer...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:21 pm

Guest

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:31:01 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:

[quote]

Surfer wrote:

So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
give null results, as they do.

Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer
which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect...

No. His formula for light paths through gas doesn't apply when solid[/quote]
dielectrics are used.

[quote]
The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.

Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
experiments, not some.

I am looking at the table of MM experiments under[/quote]
3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

They all show fringe shifts.

[quote]
Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
Miller had....

I think you are referring to resolution when measuring fringe shifts.[/quote]

To me sensitivity would refer to the capacity for absolute motion
effects to cause fringe shifts.

Eg for vacuum MM experiments, the sensitivity would be zero.

For gas MM experiments, the sensitivity would be proportional to the
length of the light path times (n^2 - 1).

On that basis, Miller's interferometer would have had the highest
sensitivity as the light paths of all the others were shorter and had
equal or lower values for (n^2 - 1).

Surfer

Inertial...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:50 pm

Guest

"Surfer" <no at (no spam) spam.net> wrote in message
news:o1tee5lhlamjr4kc0j409c9pva8q89afot at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:31:01 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
I am looking at the table of MM experiments under
3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
They all show fringe shifts.
[/quote]
So ... you've never heard of experimental error, and error analysis and
error bars?

Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:28 am Science Forum Index