Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy
Surfer
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Abstract:
We apply the new dynamics of 3-space to cosmology by deriving a Hubble
expansion solution. This dynamics involves two constants G and alpha -
the fine structure constant. This solution gives an excellent
parameter free fit to the recent supernova data without the need for
`dark energy' or `dark matter'. The data and theory together imply an
older age for the universe of some 18Gyrs. Various problems such as
fine tuning, the event horizon problem etc are now resolved. A brief
review discusses the origin of the 3-space dynamics and how that
dynamics explained the bore anomaly, spiral galaxy flat rotation
speeds, the masses of black holes in spherical galaxies, gravitational
light bending and lensing, all without invoking `dark matter' or `dark
energy'. These developments imply that a new understanding of the
universe is now available.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
> and End of Dark Energy
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Interesting ratio on self referencing in the bibliography Reg.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
Surfer
<phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <8hn9535dndef6bh0h...@4ax.com>,
> Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
>> Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
>> and End of Dark Energy
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
>
>
>Interesting ratio on self referencing in the bibliography Reg.
I am not "Reg". But if you would like to write to him his contact
details are here:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
-- Surfer
Phineas T Puddleduck
Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
Sure Reg
Where's the error bars?
Eric Gisse
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Sam Wormley
Reginald T Cahill doesn't even understand General Relativity. Give us
a break!
According to Cahill, fringe shifts have been observed in six
experiments that are consistent with absolute motion of the earth
through space.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/CahillMM.pdf
Also
http://www.google.com/search?q=cahill+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Sam Wormley
> Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
> and End of Dark Energy
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
>
> Abstract:
> We apply the new dynamics of 3-space to cosmology by deriving a Hubble
> expansion solution. This dynamics involves two constants G and alpha -
> the fine structure constant. This solution gives an excellent
> parameter free fit to the recent supernova data without the need for
> `dark energy' or `dark matter'. The data and theory together imply an
> older age for the universe of some 18Gyrs.
Actually there are four independent measurements that give roughly
the same age for the universe.
o supernovae data (14.3 billion years)
o Sloan Digital Sky Survey (13.8 billion years)
o Hubble expansion data 72 km/sec/Mpc (13.6 billion years)
o CMB data 71 +/- 4 km/sec/Mpc (13.7 billion years)
Koobee Wublee
> Actually there are four independent measurements that give roughly
> the same age for the universe.
>
> o supernovae data (14.3 billion years)
> o Sloan Digital Sky Survey (13.8 billion years)
> o Hubble expansion data 72 km/sec/Mpc (13.6 billion years)
> o CMB data 71 +/- 4 km/sec/Mpc (13.7 billion years)
Please think logically first before posting such nonsense. For
example,
The Hubble constant changes over time according to the type Ia
supernova data for ancient explosions dated back several billions of
years ago. Thus, your point #1 is contradicting with point #3
already.
Sam Wormley
The Hubble constant hasn't varied very much as is borne out in the
supernovae data. Look it up Koobee Wublee!
Surfer
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
Sam Wormley
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
Surfer
<phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Where's the error bars?
>
In Fig. 5, Fig. 7 & Fig 8.
Eric Gisse
> On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
> >on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
>
> Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
Does that mean you can't answer the question without shooting yourself
in the foot?
Eric Gisse
Really? The Hubble constant changes over time?
Do you have a literature reference for this latest contrarian
viewpoint?
Jeff…Relf
The 4-D ( ever Euclidean, Minkowskian ) volume of the known Universe
accrues with cosmic time ( like interest on a checking account ),
" q = -1 " and " w = -1 ".
( q is the Deceleration Parameter, w is the Equation of State )
Eric Gisse
> The Hubble constant varies with cosmic time, Sam.
>
> The 4-D ( ever Euclidean, Minkowskian ) volume of the known Universe
The large scale universe is neither Minkowski or Euclidean, fuckwit.
Jeff…Relf
WMAP's 2006 data, the best data to date,
says the known Universe has always been flat, Euclidean,
with ( at cosmic scales ) no center of gravity anywhere.
That's a Minkowskian spacetime, 4-D flat,
in the rest frame of the C.M.B., at every point in cosmic time.
The 4-D volume accrues ( like interest on a checking account )
over cosmic time ( i.e. the fifth spatial dimension, entropy ).
Eric Gisse
> As always, Gisse, you're talking out your ass.
>
> WMAP's 2006 data, the best data to date,
> says the known Universe has always been flat, Euclidean,
> with ( at cosmic scales ) no center of gravity anywhere.
No, stupid. That is not what WMAP data supports.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf
>
> That's a Minkowskian spacetime, 4-D flat,
> in the rest frame of the C.M.B., at every point in cosmic time.
No, stupid. Euclidean spacetime is not Minkowski spacetime.
You are so stupid you don't even know the difference despite posting
bullshit on this newsgroup for years now.
>
> The 4-D volume accrues ( like interest on a checking account )
> over cosmic time ( i.e. the fifth spatial dimension, entropy ).
More idiotic bullshit from someone who has never once read a paper or
book about physics.
Jeff…Relf
never a rational argument.
I'm not convinced you've ever cracked a textbook.
Eric Gisse
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/3549/pic0021th2.jpg
The idiot coder thinks a physics student never opened a textbook.
That's a good one, fucknozzle.
Surfer
wrote:
So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Eg. Back in December, Dawkins and Luiten from the University of
Western Australia wrote about an experiment they intended to do:
"We note also that this experiment provides a rigorous test of the
controversial claims of Cahill [5]. At this time we have constructed
the experimental apparatus and will soon take long-term data to search
for such effects. Our results will be reported at the time of the
congress." (Australian Institute of Physics 17th Congress in Brisbane,
Australia, in December 2006)
http://www.aipc2006.com/abstract/470.htm
But when they appeared at the congress, they reported that beat
frequency shifts, the analogue of fringe shifts, were detected as the
earth rotated, which seemed to support Cahill's claims rather than
refute them.
Following a discussion of Tom Roberts paper:
An Explanation of Dayton Miller's Anomalous "Ether Drift" Result
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
Tom Roberts wrote:
===========================
For Miller's data using my new analysis, the errorbars are large
enough to include the predictions of ALL of the following theories:
1) SR
2) Miller's model, with any direction and speed up to 6 km/s
(90% confidence)
3) Cahill's theory, with any direction and speed up to at least
1,000 km/s (perhaps too small)
The other experiments that I have looked at (e.g. the MMX) are
similar, and in particular do NOT exclude SR.
========================
That implies that neither Cahill nor SR have been proven wrong yet.
Concerning the Gravity Probe B geodetic result, Cahill's theory of
gravity made the same predictions as GR, so both were confirmed.
For frame dragging, Cahill predicted different results to GR, but we
are still waiting for that result.
So I believe his theories are still in the running.
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
-- Surfer
Dono
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Surfer wrote:
> >> On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
> >>> on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
>
> >> Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
> >>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
>
> > So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
> > he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
>
> So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Sure he has been proven wrong, in this forum, several times. It was
explained to you that Cahill has no clue in calculating the
relativistic speed of light in a moving medium. He bases his paper on
some elementary calculation errors. Combined with the huge error bars
on the Dayton Miller experiment you get the explanation of Cahill's
"predictions".
Now combine the above with the fact that Cahill publishes his works
only in fringe journals.....
Surfer
>On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Surfer wrote:
>> >> On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> >>> [...]
>>
>> >>> Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
>> >>> on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
>>
>> >> Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
>> >>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
>>
>> > So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
>> > he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
>>
>> So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
>
>Sure he has been proven wrong, in this forum, several times.
>
He was not proven wrong. When proof was asked for it wasn't provided.
-- Surfer
Dono
You mean you don't understand it? This is quite clear.
Eric Gisse
>
> It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
> gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
> Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?
Oh wait, you don't know about those...
>
> -- Surfer
Surfer
>On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>>
>> It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
>> gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
>> Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
>
>Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
>matter in weak lensing results?
>
They are Cahill's theories, but I look at arxiv regularly so usually
spot when he posts a new paper.
There is a recent find on Dark Matter here:
Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter 05.15.07
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water.
The ring's discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark
matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the
invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds
together galaxy clusters. Such clusters would fly apart if they relied
only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers
don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a
type of elementary particle that pervades the universe."
====
There is an explanation based on GR here.
Discovery of a Ringlike Dark Matter Structure in the Core of the
Galaxy Cluster Cl 0024+17
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171
(Submitted on 15 May 2007)
"We present a comprehensive mass reconstruction of the rich galaxy
cluster Cl 0024+17 at z~0.4 from ACS data, unifying both strong and
weak-lensing constraints. The weak-lensing signal from a dense
distribution of background galaxies (~120 per square arcmin) across
the cluster enables the derivation of a high-resolution parameter-free
mass map...."
There is an alternative explanation by Cahill here.
Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2846
(Submitted on 20 May 2007)
"NASA has claimed the discovery of a `Ring of Dark Matter' in the
galaxy cluster CL 0024+17, see Jee M.J. et al. arXiv:0705.2171, based
upon gravitational lensing data. Here we show that the lensing can be
given an alternative explanation that does not involve `dark matter'.
This explanation comes from the new dynamics of 3-space. This dynamics
involves two constant G and alpha - the fine structure constant. This
dynamics has explained the bore hole anomaly, spiral galaxy flat
rotation speeds, the masses of black holes in spherical galaxies,
gravitational light bending and lensing, all without invoking `dark
matter', and also the supernova redshift data without the need for
`dark energy'.
I don't know which explanation will ultimately turn out to be true but
I find them both interesting.
If GR is correct, we have an interesting new form of matter--perhaps a
new type of elementary particle.
If Cahill's theory is correct we have an interesting new theory.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On 24 May 2007 13:24:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
> >> gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
> >> Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
>
> >Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
> >matter in weak lensing results?
>
> They are Cahill's theories, but I look at arxiv regularly so usually
> spot when he posts a new paper.
...and why are you always shilling for Cahill's theories when nobody
else will?
[...]
Phineas T Puddleduck
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
He'd make a fine saucerhead.
Surfer
>
>...and why are you always shilling for Cahill's theories when nobody
>else will?
>
You just asked:
"Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?"
By way of answer I provided three links:
Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter 05.15.07
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
Discovery of a Ringlike Dark Matter Structure in the Core of the
Galaxy Cluster Cl 0024+17
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171
Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2846
So yes indeed, Cahill's theories can account for dark matter in weak
lensing results.
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer? If you aren't Cahill,
who are you?
>
> -- Surfer
greysky
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179999327.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
That's not very many books, Gisse. If I were to take a picture of my
bookshelves (note plural), I would need 10- 15 of those pictures the size
you posted.
Greysky
Phineas T Puddleduck
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sounds like an extension of male envy there GS. Stick to your imaginary radio
Sam Wormley
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/3549/pic0021th2.jpg
>>
>> The idiot coder thinks a physics student never opened a textbook.
>> That's a good one, fucknozzle.
>>
>
> That's not very many books, Gisse. If I were to take a picture of my
> bookshelves (note plural), I would need 10- 15 of those pictures the size
> you posted.
>
> Greysky
>
>
That's pretty funny, Greysky. There is a lot of meat in those books!
Real Analysis, Gravitation, Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics, Quantum
Mechanics. Eat your heart out, Greysky!
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
And also forgetting the access to University text's as well ;-)
hanson
news:nEC5i.71142$n_.22833@attbi_s21...
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/3549/pic0021th2.jpg
>>> The idiot coder thinks a physics student never opened a textbook.
>>> That's a good one, fucknozzle.
>>>
>> That's not very many books, Gisse. If I were to take a picture of my
>> bookshelves (note plural), I would need 10- 15 of those pictures the size
>> you posted.
>> Greysky
ahahaha... Come on, Greysky!.. Give the kid a break! He is a poor
student.. and loud... just like you were once... ahahaha... That shelf
is a lot of money for him. To boot, Eric said in one of his posts that
he posts to exercise what he has learned...
That is a good gag and this MO is not uncommon.
It's not always successful though, like in 62 year old uncle Al's case
who advertises his book learning with great fury and he hopes that it
will bring him kilogram sized Diamonds of gem quality, a universal
cockroach repellent and the overthrow of Einstein... but in reality all
that his book worming citations have bought him was a 1989
VW Golf which he is forced to drive for another eleven yeas... ahaha..
>
[Sam]
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Try reading them, and then you won't be talking about FTL radios or
shit like that.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's not very many books, Gisse. If I were to take a picture of my
> > bookshelves (note plural), I would need 10- 15 of those pictures the size
> > you posted.
> >
> > Greysky
>
> Try reading them, and then you won't be talking about FTL radios or
> shit like that.
And how many of them are Hoagland et al.?
Surfer
>On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>>
>> Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
>
>...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
>despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
>
That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
not the same as a classical ether.
>
>Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer?
>
All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
cutting edge research.
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
`Dark Matter Ring'?
-- Surfer
hanson
news:1180126609.9...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 6:37 am, "greysky" <grey...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1179999327.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > On May 24, 2:07 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>> >> All anyone ever sees from you ( Gisse ) is pervasive trolling,
>> >> never a rational argument.
>> >> I'm not convinced you've ever cracked a textbook.
>>
>> >http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/3549/pic0021th2.jpg
>> > The idiot coder Jeff Relf thinks a physics student never opened
>> > a textbook. That's a good one, fucknozzle.
>>
>> That's not very many books, Gisse. If I were to take a picture of my
>> bookshelves (note plural), I would need 10- 15 of those pictures
>> the size you posted.
>> Greysky
>
> Try reading them, and then you won't be talking about FTL radios or
> shit like that.
>
ahahaha... Eric, you don't have to call'em fucknozzle and shit when
they crank you. Losers like uncle Al, a chem B.Sc, do that, who
scour the literature fields and brag what about what they have read,
but end up, like him, at the ripe age of 62, with a 1989 Volkswagen
Golf and are forced to drive it for an other eleven years (by his own
admission) ... ahahaha..
Further more.. of course there is no mention of, nor a case for FTL
in your current textbooks. The heuristic establishment paradigm
commands orthodoxy... ... which lead to your future, should you
pursue the hope for a PhD. That title & honor that will bestowed
upon you when your advisors do realize that YOU are or have
begun to question established doctrine, justifiably/with justification...
Good luck to you, Eric
Eric Gisse
> On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
>
> >...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
> >despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
>
> That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
> not the same as a classical ether.
Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
"detected" ether?
>
>
>
> >Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer?
>
> All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
> cutting edge research.
Yet nobody else seems to think so. Why is that?
>
> Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
> `Dark Matter Ring'?
...dark matter?
>
> -- Surfer
Phineas T Puddleduck
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
> > `Dark Matter Ring'?
>
> ...dark matter?
The Homer Theory. It is in fact a giant cosmic dark matter donut.
What? Its as believable as his theory...
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:8sue5314vm2bfetqi...@4ax.com...
...
> Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative
> explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'?
Unlit Normal Matter. There is a paucity of aged galactic objects
where they allocated the presence of "Dark Matter". Take a look
at the unmodified image to see what I mean. Dark Matter cannot
occlude light... only normal matter can do this.
David A. Smith
Surfer
>On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
>>
>> >...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
>> >despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
>>
>> That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
>> not the same as a classical ether.
>
>Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
>"detected" ether?
>
His experiments don't have anything to do with ether.
The following are extracts from:
"A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
Gravitational Waves Detected"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
"In Michelson’s era the idea was that v was the speed of light
relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
proven to be wrong."
"A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
symmetry - this is explained. All eight experiments and theory show
that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887. These
developments completely change fundamental physics and our
understanding of reality."
-- Surfer
Surfer
Yes, I can see what you mean.
Its an amazing photo.
-- Surfer
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Surfer" <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:iqdf53ds7t6q6360j...@4ax.com...
Yes, it is. I thank all the folks that brought us Hubble, and I
hope the James Webb 'scope brings as much fascination...
David A. Smith
Surfer
>On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
>> cutting edge research.
>
>Yet nobody else seems to think so. Why is that?
>
I think most physicists prefer to stick with well established
theories.
Cahill is trying to replace Newtonian gravity and SR/GR. That is just
too radical.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On 25 May 2007 18:03:57 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >> On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
> >> cutting edge research.
>
> >Yet nobody else seems to think so. Why is that?
>
> I think most physicists prefer to stick with well established
> theories.
>
> Cahill is trying to replace Newtonian gravity and SR/GR. That is just
> too radical.
So it has nothing to do with his proven history of misrepresenting
experimental evidence, and his history of writing junk theories?
>
> -- Surfer
Dono
> On 25 May 2007 18:03:57 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >> On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >> Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
>
> >> >...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
> >> >despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
>
> >> That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
> >> not the same as a classical ether.
>
> >Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
> >"detected" ether?
>
> His experiments don't have anything to do with ether.
>
> The following are extracts from:
> "A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
> Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
>
> "In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
> relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
> proven to be wrong."
>
> "A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
> light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
> symmetry - this is explained.
Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
obtain anisotropical light speed.
> All eight experiments and theory show
> that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
> effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
> through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
> These
> developments completely change fundamental physics and our
> understanding of reality."
>
> -- Surfer
Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
Surfer
If that is what you want to believe its up to you.
Eric Gisse
I "want" to believe Cahill produces shit no more than I "want" stuff
to fall when I drop it. That is reality, and that is all there is to
it.
Surfer
>On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> The following are extracts from:
>> "A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
>> Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
>>
>> "In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
>> relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
>> proven to be wrong."
>>
>> "A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
>> light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
>> symmetry - this is explained.
>
>Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
>assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
>Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
>obtain anisotropical light speed.
>
I think its a matter of degree. The anisotropy in the measured speed
of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
speed of light in media, not in vacuum. It seems to me its sufficient
to allow Cahill to draw interesting conclusions, but not sufficient to
make SR less useful.
>
>> All eight experiments and theory show
>> that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
>> effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
>> through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
>
>Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
>you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
>
Tom is a voice of caution. But it seems to me this is still a grey
area, so Cahill and his opponents can both make their cases.
>> These
>> developments completely change fundamental physics and our
>> understanding of reality."
>
>Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
>speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
>
He has demonstrated that he knows the standard methods. But if
physicists always stuck to the standard methods, how could they ever
develop new physics?
-- Surfer
Dono
> On 25 May 2007 22:59:04 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> The following are extracts from:
> >> "A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
> >> Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
>
> >> "In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
> >> relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
> >> proven to be wrong."
>
> >> "A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
> >> light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
> >> symmetry - this is explained.
>
> >Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
> >assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
> >Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
> >obtain anisotropical light speed.
>
> I think its a matter of degree.
No, it isn't. Your persistence in lying, cheating and claiming
nonsense is astounding.
> The anisotropy in the measured speed
> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
use some elementary formulas of speed addition. Thus, I can dismiss
him (and you) as inept.
>It seems to me its sufficient
> to allow Cahill to draw interesting conclusions, but not sufficient > to make SR less useful.
>
Cahill's conclusions are based on elementary errors (see above), so
both of you are irrelevant.
>
>
> >> All eight experiments and theory show
> >> that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
> >> effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
> >> through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
>
> >Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
> >you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
>
> Tom is a voice of caution. But it seems to me this is still a grey
> area, so Cahill and his opponents can both make their cases.
>
Cahill has no case. He can't calculate elementary stuff.
> >> These
> >> developments completely change fundamental physics and our
> >> understanding of reality."
>
> >Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
> >speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
>
> He has demonstrated that he knows the standard methods. But if
> physicists always stuck to the standard methods, how could they ever
> develop new physics?
>
> -- Surfer
By not cheating and by not making gross mistakes.
Eric Gisse
>
>
>
> >On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> The following are extracts from:
> >> "A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
> >> Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
>
> >> "In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
> >> relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
> >> proven to be wrong."
>
> >> "A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
> >> light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
> >> symmetry - this is explained.
>
> >Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
> >assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
> >Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
> >obtain anisotropical light speed.
>
> I think its a matter of degree. The anisotropy in the measured speed
> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
> speed of light in media, not in vacuum. It seems to me its sufficient
> to allow Cahill to draw interesting conclusions, but not sufficient to
> make SR less useful.
*snort*
The only reason he can 'detect' anything in media is because of
thermal effects. Tell me, has he even considered thermal control yet,
or does he still reject it out of hand?
>
>
>
> >> All eight experiments and theory show
> >> that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
> >> effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
> >> through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
>
> >Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
> >you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
>
> Tom is a voice of caution. But it seems to me this is still a grey
> area, so Cahill and his opponents can both make their cases.
Yea - it seems _to you_ to be such, but people with actual
understanding seem to think differently.
>
> >> These
> >> developments completely change fundamental physics and our
> >> understanding of reality."
>
> >Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
> >speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
>
> He has demonstrated that he knows the standard methods. But if
> physicists always stuck to the standard methods, how could they ever
> develop new physics?
The HELL he has!
Cahill has _NO_ understanding of the "standard methods". He is
completely ignorant of all aspects of error analysis, and is mystified
at the concept of temperature control. He also needs, in the words of
Tom Roberts, a "special plead" for 'observing' anisotropies in light
speed due to ether via a medium. Amusingly enough, his 'observed'
speeds w.r.t the ether are in the km/s range, despite many other
experiments put the bar several orders of magnitude lower.
>
> -- Surfer
Surfer
>On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
>> The anisotropy in the measured speed
>> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
>> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
>
>Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
>use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
>
I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
then you have two choices.
1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
tweaking is justified.
I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
> On 26 May 2007 17:48:16 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> The anisotropy in the measured speed
> >> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
> >> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
>
> >Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
> >use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
>
> I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
>
> But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
> then you have two choices.
>
> 1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
> 2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
> the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
> tweaking is justified.
Or 3) Do proper error analysis and notice there isn't any actual
signal.
>
> I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
The MMX is irrelevant. Subsequent experiments over the near CENTURY
AND A HALF since it was first performed have continued to show a lack
of ether.
Cahill's analyses are junk. Give it a rest - folks here know you are
either Cahill himself or one of his close associates. Also, you are
hardly fit to judge given how often you need your statements
corrected.
>
> -- Surfer
Surfer
>On May 27, 1:48 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2007 17:48:16 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> The anisotropy in the measured speed
>> >> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
>> >> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
>>
>> >Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
>> >use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
>>
>> I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
>>
>> But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
>> then you have two choices.
>>
>> 1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
>> 2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
>> the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
>> tweaking is justified.
>
>Or 3) Do proper error analysis and notice there isn't any actual
>signal.
>
>> I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
>
>The MMX is irrelevant.
>
I don't see why. Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
the MMX data.
The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576
>
>Subsequent experiments over the near CENTURY
>AND A HALF since it was first performed have continued to show a lack
>of ether.
>
That is true of vacuum experiments. But Cahill can claim eight
non-vacuum experiments as showing absolute motion.
>
>Cahill's analyses are junk.
>
His analysis of gas mode MM experiments produced remarkably consistent
results. I am not sure it could do that if it was junk.
-- Surfer
Dono
>
> >On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> The anisotropy in the measured speed
> >> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
> >> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
>
> >Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
> >use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
>
> I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
>
No, he's not. It was pointed out many times in this forum. He doesn't
know how to do it for moving refractive medium.
> But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
> then you have two choices.
>
> 1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
Cahill doesn't know the formulas and he also botched the measurements.
> 2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
> the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
> tweaking is justified.
>
Cahill doesn't know the formulas and he also botched the measurements.
> I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
>
> -- Surfer
As you can see, Cahill messed up either way.
Dono
> On 27 May 2007 03:54:10 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 1:48 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
> >> On 26 May 2007 17:48:16 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> The anisotropy in the measured speed
> >> >> of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
> >> >> speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
>
> >> >Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
> >> >use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
>
> >> I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
>
> >> But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
> >> then you have two choices.
>
> >> 1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
> >> 2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
> >> the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
> >> tweaking is justified.
>
> >Or 3) Do proper error analysis and notice there isn't any actual
> >signal.
>
> >> I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
>
> >The MMX is irrelevant.
>
> I don't see why. Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
> the MMX data.
>
>
>
> >Subsequent experiments over the near CENTURY
> >AND A HALF since it was first performed have continued to show a lack
> >of ether.
>
> That is true of vacuum experiments. But Cahill can claim eight
> non-vacuum experiments as showing absolute motion.
>
>
...because he doesn't know something as simple as howe to calculate
the speed of light in a moving refractive medium.
>
> >Cahill's analyses are junk.
>
> His analysis of gas mode MM experiments produced remarkably consistent
> results. I am not sure it could do that if it was junk.
>
> -- Surfer
cahill starts with a wrong formalism and compiunds the problem by not
taking into consideration the error bars of the experiments he
allegedly "analyses". Two fatal errors. Give it a rest .....
Tom Roberts
> Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
> the MMX data.
> The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576
They did that by IGNORING the errorbars that are inherent when averaging
data. Those errorbars greatly exceed the "signal" they claim. See
Appendix I of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 .
> But Cahill can claim eight
> non-vacuum experiments as showing absolute motion.
He, too, ignores the errorbars. See the above paper for a discussion of
Miller's results, on which his entire house of cards is built. The
errorbars shown for Miller's published results are unassailable, and
show there is no significant signal in Miller's results. This also
applies to many of the other experiments he quotes, INCLUDING HIS OWN,
and Cahill's claimed "experimental confirmation" falls.
> His analysis of gas mode MM experiments produced remarkably consistent
> results. I am not sure it could do that if it was junk.
Sure it can: when data are over-averaged one can find whatever one is
looking for in the data, just as children can find faces in clouds [#].
Finding them does NOT show they are significant, one needs an error
analysis to do that, and Cahill simply does not have a clue. Ditto for
Consoli and Costanzo, and Allais, and Munera, and all the other members
of the "there is a real signal here" cult.
[#] Mathematically, when one averages data one WILL obtain an
answer; whether or not it is significant is the question, and
that requires a detailed error analysis, which NONE of these
authors bother to do; I did.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
Nevertheless its interesting that when analysed with Cahill's formula,
similar answers were obtained from a number of gas mode MM experiments
that used different gases. That suggests (though it doesn't prove)
that in spite of the errors a real signal is present.
Another point that can be made is that absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Nevertheless its interesting that when analysed with Cahill's formula,
> similar answers were obtained from a number of gas mode MM experiments
> that used different gases. That suggests (though it doesn't prove)
> that in spite of the errors a real signal is present.
Then the real signal should survive error analysis. But it doesn't -
what does that tell you?
>
> Another point that can be made is that absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence.
There is a unicorn behind me, always. I know it is there, though I
haven't seen it no matter how fast I turn around. I asked some of my
friends, and they can't see it either. But I know it is there -
Dono
This is patently untrue. For two reasons:
1. First and foremost, Cahill's "formula" is incorrect. This was
explained to you but you choose to ignore it, a clear sign of autism.
2. The main experiments in a refractive medium (the ones ran by
Trimmer and, separately, by Shamir [1],[2]) CANNOT be explained by
Cahil's "formula". Actually the mentioned experiments CONTRADICT
Cahill's "formula" (and "theory")
I do not expect you to ever get the above, it is posted for the
benefit of the people that know and understand physics.
[1] Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
[2] Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489
(1974).
Tom Roberts
> Nevertheless its interesting that when analysed with Cahill's formula,
> similar answers were obtained from a number of gas mode MM experiments
> that used different gases. That suggests (though it doesn't prove)
> that in spite of the errors a real signal is present.
Children can find faces in clouds. That is not science. <shrug>
And Cahill simply IGNORES data that disagrees with this theory, by
stating without justification that for some magic reason only gases can
"see" this marvelous phenomenon. It is clear that EVERY ONE of the gas
experiments he quotes [#] has serious systematic errors, and the
analysis used projects that systematic error into the same frequency bin
as any signal would be in, and Cahill triumphantly calls it "a signal",
even when it is statistically insignificant. The similar experiments in
solids and in vacuum do not have such large systematic errors, because
they are predominantly related to the gas.
That is not science. <shrug>
[#] Plus his own experiment using coaxial cable.
> Another point that can be made is that absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence.
This, too, is not science. <shrug>
Probably the biggest indictment of Cahill and his theory is that he
refuses to discuss it with competent physicists, privately or publicly.
THAT MOST DEFINITELY IS NOT SCIENCE.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
>On May 28, 2:16 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> Nevertheless its interesting that when analysed with Cahill's formula,
>> similar answers were obtained from a number of gas mode MM experiments
>> that used different gases. That suggests (though it doesn't prove)
>> that in spite of the errors a real signal is present.
>
>Then the real signal should survive error analysis. But it doesn't -
>what does that tell you?
>
If a real signal is present, error analysis may tell us that the
signal is not significant, but that in itself does not destroy the
signal.
-- Surfer
Surfer
>
>1. First and foremost, Cahill's "formula" is incorrect. This was
>explained to you but you choose to ignore it, a clear sign of autism.
>
It may be incorrect relative to standard SR/LR theory.
However, Cahill is developing new theories, so I think he is entitled
to do things differently if that better suits his needs.
>2. The main experiments in a refractive medium (the ones ran by
>Trimmer and, separately, by Shamir [1],[2]) CANNOT be explained by
>Cahil's "formula". Actually the mentioned experiments CONTRADICT
>Cahill's "formula" (and "theory")
>
Cahill investigated the Shamir and Fox[1] results as shown below.
(I am not sure about the Trimmer[2] results)
Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0306196
Page 32
"The gas-mode Michelson interferometer has its sensitivity to absolute
motion effects greatly reduced by the refractive index effect, namely
the k^2 = n^2 - 1 factor in (81), and for gases with n only slightly
greater than one this factor has caused much confusion over the last
115 years. So it would be expected that passing the light beams
through a transparent solid with n ~ 1.5 rather than through a gas
would greatly increase the sensitivity. Such an Michelson
interferometer experiment was performed by Shamir and
Fox [85] in Haifa in 1969. This interferometer used light from a He-Ne
laser and used perspex rods with L = 0:26m. The experiment was
interpreted in terms of the supposed Fresnel drag effect, which has a
drag coefficient given by b = 1-1/n^2 . The light passing through the
solid was supposed to be `dragged' along in the direction of motion of
the solid with a velocity Delta V = bv additional to the usual c/n
speed. As well the Michelson geometrical path difference and the
Lorentz contraction effects were incorporated into the analysis. The
outcome was that no fringe shifts were seen on rotation of the
interferometer, and Shamir and Fox concluded that this negative result
"enhances the experimental basis of special relativity".
The Shamir-Fox experiment was unknown to us at Flinders university
when in 2002 several meters of optical fibre were used in a Michelson
interferometer experiment which also used a He-Ne laser light source.
Again because of the n^2-1 factor, and even ignoring the Fresnel drag
effect, one would have expected large fringe shifts on rotation
of the interferometer, but none were observed. As well in a repeat of
the experiment single-mode optical fibres were also used and again
with no rotation effect seen. So this experiment is consistent with
the Shamir-Fox experiment. Re-doing the analysis by including the
supposed Fresnel drag effect, as Shamir and Fox did, makes no material
difference to the expected outcome. In combination with the non-null
results from the gas-mode interferometer experiments along with the
non-interferometer experiment of DeWitte it is clear that transparent
solids behave differently to a gas when undergoing absolute motion
through the quantum foam. Indeed this in itself is a discovery of a
new phenomena.
The most likely explanation is that the physical Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect has a anisotropic effect on the refractive index of
the transparent solid, and this is such as to cause a cancellation of
any differences in travel time between the two arms on rotation
of the interferometer. In this sense a transparent solid medium shares
this outcome with the vacuum itself."
>
>I do not expect you to ever get the above, it is posted for the
>benefit of the people that know and understand physics.
>
>[1] Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
>
>[2] Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489
>(1974).
>
-- Surfer
Eric Gisse
If honest error analysis makes the "signal" go away, there was no
signal to begin with.
>
> -- Surfer
Dono
> On 28 May 2007 15:36:28 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >1. First and foremost, Cahill's "formula" is incorrect. This was
> >explained to you but you choose to ignore it, a clear sign of autism.
>
> It may be incorrect relative to standard SR/LR theory.
> However, Cahill is developing new theories, so I think he is entitled
> to do things differently if that better suits his needs.
>
No, my dear cheater. Cahill USES SR in order to write his formalism.
You are VERY familiar with "his" papers, so you should know. Problem
is, Cahill uses SR INCORRECTLY.
> >2. The main experiments in a refractive medium (the ones ran by
> >Trimmer and, separately, by Shamir [1],[2]) CANNOT be explained by
> >Cahil's "formula". Actually the mentioned experiments CONTRADICT
> >Cahill's "formula" (and "theory")
>
> Cahill investigated the Shamir and Fox[1] results as shown below.
> (I am not sure about the Trimmer[2] results)
>
> Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effectshttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0306196
Yes, this is the part where Cahill applies SR incorrectly. What is the
point of repeating your errors? Just to demonstrate how lame you are?
>
> >I do not expect you to ever get the above, it is posted for the
> >benefit of the people that know and understand physics.
>
> >[1] Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
>
> >[2] Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973);
>> [3] Trimmer et. al Phys. Rev. D9 p2489 (1974).
Dono
But there is no "real signal" , this is what was shown to you, the
"signal" in the experiments "analyzed" by Cahill "lives" within the
limits that characterize NOISE.
Are you THAT dishonest, THAT dumb or both?
Dono
>
> The most likely explanation is that the physical Fitzgerald-Lorentz
> contraction effect has a anisotropic effect on the refractive index of
> the transparent solid, and this is such as to cause a cancellation of
> any differences in travel time between the two arms on rotation
> of the interferometer. In this sense a transparent solid medium shares
> this outcome with the vacuum itself."
Why would gas behave differently from solids and from vacuum? After
all, it is just another medium. Cahill is demonstrating how lame he
can get.
Pentcho Valev
In contrast you never refuse to discuss the connection between the
variability of the speed of light:
Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered:
"Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
Minkowski spacetime)." Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) describing this
variability. Unlike Cahill, you are DEFINITELY A SCIENTIST, the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.).
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
[...]
Go away, you irritating little man.
Surfer
Error analysis doesn't make a signal go away, it merely tells us that
the signal can't be trusted.
But if a number of results derived from such signals turn out to be
very similar, then something interesting might be going on.
-- Surfer
>>
>> -- Surfer
>
Surfer
>On May 28, 8:12 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On 28 May 2007 14:21:29 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 28, 2:16 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> Nevertheless its interesting that when analysed with Cahill's formula,
>> >> similar answers were obtained from a number of gas mode MM experiments
>> >> that used different gases. That suggests (though it doesn't prove)
>> >> that in spite of the errors a real signal is present.
>>
>> >Then the real signal should survive error analysis. But it doesn't -
>> >what does that tell you?
>>
>> If a real signal is present, error analysis may tell us that the
>> signal is not significant, but that in itself does not destroy the
>> signal.
>>
>> -- Surfer
>
>
>
>But there is no "real signal"...
>
That can never be proved, just as the non-existence of
extra-terrestrials can never be proved.
-- Surfer
Surfer
I don't know but here is a tentative theory.
The properties of vacuum seem related to ZPE.
Because individual atoms in a solid are in fixed locations, some kind
of resonance may develop between the solid and the ZPE so that the
solid mimics some vacuum properties.
In constrast, the chaotic motion of individual gas molecules might not
allow such resonance. That might cause the difference.
-- Surfer
It's a Miracle
dont take the word of cops as truth and I think they do a reverse
psychology analysis but thats weak on my part and saw advertising in a
bathroom stall didnt mind it a nit but not trying to make a hole in
your pocket trying to help people.
I would look in phone book for temperature and weight for various
insuarnce companies and an obvious one would be Geicco with the
neanderthals and i didnt figure out the gecko but like some commercials
so thats related to physics and probably dont need a security clearnce
just honest questions i bet.
And of course they really cant give you a complete education on the
phone so the more intelligent you are the more they can tell you.It
wouldnt help me much not alot anyway I bet not as much as other people.
Kinetic energy anyone? I bet
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
It's a Miracle
dont take the word of cops as truth and I think they do a reverse
psychology analysis but thats weak on my part and saw advertising in a
bathroom stall didnt mind it a nit but not trying to make a hole in
your pocket trying to help people.
I would look in phone book for temperature and weight for various
insuarnce companies and an obvious one would be Geicco with the
neanderthals and i didnt figure out the gecko but like some commercials
so thats related to physics and probably dont need a security clearnce
just honest questions i bet.
--
It's a Miracle
Theres a song
i am ironmannn
It's a Miracle
gold and the silver armageddon coin and he defeats Dr doom thats great
that was a good one.
I wonder who was nova maybe me too I thought the sun ws going to explode
and met moses.That was one of my favorites and I called god Mr supernova
kinda a generic thing.
Hang up
It's a Miracle
gold and the silver armageddon coin and he defeats Dr doom thats great
that was a good one.
I wonder who was nova maybe me too I thought the sun ws going to explode
and met moses.That was one of my favorites and I called god Mr supernova
kinda a generic thing.
--
It's a Miracle
like violence
Briuce banner
I was born in the USA
Bruce springsteen
I maybe wolverine because serial killers are werewolves and I cut like a
knife and got the bone decomposition thingy but got wiped maybe get it
later got the fossil thingys
Dont remember much about X men though good movies though and I got
spider man qualities and so does Jesus thought it was him but something
happened and forgot that suggests it might be a combination
i wasnt REAL big on comics not quantity but quality and liked What if
comic books.And really dont remember anything else but had a couple
boxes worth and my step father had old superman and Im superman.Sparks
alot of creativity this stuff
He must have loved me cant wait tosee him kinda strange I thought it was
lunacy strangely I felt like its a priority to meet him again but not
worrying now eventually it will happen
It's a Miracle
like violence
Briuce banner
I was born in the USA
Bruce springsteen
I maybe wolverine because serial killers are werewolves and I cut like a
knife and got the bone decomposition thingy but got wiped maybe get it
later got the fossil thingys
Dont remember much about X men though good movies though and I got
spider man qualities and so does Jesus thought it was him but something
happened and forgot that suggests it might be a combination
i wasnt REAL big on comics not quantity but quality and liked What if
comic books.And really dont remember anything else but had a couple
boxes worth and my step father had old superman and Im superman.Sparks
alot of creativity this stuff
He must have loved me cant wait tosee him kinda strange I thought it was
lunacy strangely I felt like its a priority to meet him again but not
worrying now eventually it will happen
Hang up and I think he spoke to me with an intelligence that was changed
with a stroke supposidly he died but I dont believe it his name is JImmy
WEldon Er James Weldon a trucker and fork lift driver and dont know what
else but KNOWS every road and can corrupt math tests.Math genuis but
never saw him do science with it but dont know what paperwork he did
hauling weight around thats hard work I think and fork lift is
coordination
It's a Miracle
like violence
Briuce banner
I was born in the USA
Bruce springsteen
I maybe wolverine because serial killers are werewolves and I cut like a
knife and got the bone decomposition thingy but got wiped maybe get it
later got the fossil thingys
Dont remember much about X men though good movies though and I got
spider man qualities and so does Jesus thought it was him but something
happened and forgot that suggests it might be a combination
i wasnt REAL big on comics not quantity but quality and liked What if
comic books.And really dont remember anything else but had a couple
boxes worth and my step father had old superman and Im superman.Sparks
alot of creativity this stuff
--
It's a Miracle
the othr side in the winter storm and a tandam tractor trailer waving
down the road and I bet thats my Step father JAMES WELDOn and I bet hes
gota delivery to make
Whadya think?
Hang up
Thats the two strokes i bet thats danvcing man with weight motherfucker
can dance
HA
knocked the motherfucker out
Paybacks a bitch man
They call me yankee doodle dandy
Hang up alright YA know gota laugh sometimes and Im a mess now so Im
just trying to enjoy myself lighten the load
It's a Miracle
the othr side in the winter storm and a tandam tractor trailer waving
down the road and I bet thats my Step father JAMES WELDOn and I bet hes
gota delivery to make
Whadya think?
--
It's a Miracle
the othr side in the winter storm and a tandam tractor trailer waving
down the road and I bet thats my Step father JAMES WELDOn and I bet hes
gota delivery to make
Whadya think?
Hang up
Thats the two strokes i bet thats danvcing man with weight motherfucker
can dance
HA
knocked the motherfucker out
Paybacks a bitch man
They call me yankee doodle dandy
--
It's a Miracle
The saftey dance
Hang up Heh like one of those tongue pinny things and i slept under a
bunch of trailers and when i woke one was gone and it was like russian
roulette
It's a Miracle
The saftey dance
--
It's a Miracle
makes a bounce that cracks things and need fixing and maybe a back
breaker maybe.I think Oh yeah my portable Tv i made a sinles hinge with
straps so Shannon got that kind of like the alien peice sign.
It's a Miracle
makes a bounce that cracks things and need fixing and maybe a back
breaker maybe.I think Oh yeah my portable Tv i made a sinles hinge with
straps so Shannon got that kind of like the alien peice sign.
Hang up there
It's a Miracle
me off but protecting from anchy by redaing a paper really focused on my
Tv with the home made hinge stand GOTA be important FER SURE DUDE.Its
gota nbe explained
Cosme showed me a picture of his wife and I thought he was a little
crazy because the picture was young must mean something important if it
came from becuase he was mostly silent and just observing me.And he
pised me off mostly but it was a relief because the store was quiet.
And TWO police officers would hang out by the coffee and stare at the
gas station across the street where someone tried distaracting me to
maybe poison my gas tank and something strange was going on related to
gas and forgot what the owners workers were doing.Tampa police are
important.gota call them
hang up
It's a Miracle
me off but protecting from anchy by redaing a paper really focused on my
Tv with the home made hinge stand GOTA be important FER SURE DUDE.Its
gota nbe explained
Cosme showed me a picture of his wife and I thought he was a little
crazy because the picture was young must mean something important if it
came from becuase he was mostly silent and just observing me.And he
pised me off mostly but it was a relief because the store was quiet.
And TWO police officers would hang out by the coffee and stare at the
gas station across the street where someone tried distaracting me to
maybe poison my gas tank and something strange was going on related to
gas and forgot what the owners workers were doing.Tampa police are
important.gota call them
hang up
Another hang up
Good place to start if your afraid of mr supernatural
It's a Miracle
me off but protecting from anchy by redaing a paper really focused on my
Tv with the home made hinge stand GOTA be important FER SURE DUDE.Its
gota nbe explained
Cosme showed me a picture of his wife and I thought he was a little
crazy because the picture was young must mean something important if it
came from becuase he was mostly silent and just observing me.And he
pised me off mostly but it was a relief because the store was quiet.
And TWO police officers would hang out by the coffee and stare at the
gas station across the street where someone tried distaracting me to
maybe poison my gas tank and something strange was going on related to
gas and forgot what the owners workers were doing.Tampa police are
important.gota call them
--
It's a Miracle
is the bear so thats where I would start at Tampa police which has a
psudo station at TAMPA college for art.Read all about me at THEIR
leisure.Make demands if you need something and NO means NO but you can
haggle so they get to know you and TAmpa is fucking great youll love
them all.Lots of freinds.Ease on in
It's a Miracle
is the bear so thats where I would start at Tampa police which has a
psudo station at TAMPA college for art.Read all about me at THEIR
leisure.Make demands if you need something and NO means NO but you can
haggle so they get to know you and TAmpa is fucking great youll love
them all.Lots of freinds.Ease on in
Hang up
It's a Miracle
Moving on up
Weasey
Ha my step fathers favorite and i loved it too so ease on in.
A cop told m to go west but to go west YA GOTA be east
It's a Miracle
to be your alarm clock FER SURE I am sure I am
It's a Miracle
purpose driven life in the bible section at walmart and christian book
stores.If your a coward your MR SUPER SECURITY isnt that special? no
need for violence in the brain just dont fuck around and ignore us
OK Dude and you brave motherfuckers like Denis Murray will do fine but
your NOT MR super security your like seekers of super security.Its all
relative and we are civilized.CANT YA TELL?
It's a Miracle
around and when i was kid we would flat paper into 3d hollow cubes and a
peephole would be in the center of one side and we would draw pictures
inside and play football with paper triamngles all one dimensional
surface making geometry
GET YOUR ASS TO MARS
It's a Miracle
purpose driven life in the bible section at walmart and christian book
stores.If your a coward your MR SUPER SECURITY isnt that special? no
need for violence in the brain just dont fuck around and ignore us
OK Dude and you brave motherfuckers like Denis Murray will do fine but
your NOT MR super security your like seekers of super security.Its all
relative and we are civilized.CANT YA TELL?
Anf fuck man that scifi movie screamers that was hard scifi fucking love
it found no hidden meaning but you science guys should love hard
scifi.Philip K Dick who did blade runner.Or Do electric androids dream
of sleep anothre words I like to be home with my monkee and my dog
OH MERCY
It's a Miracle
man ask the principle