Relativity, an eather theory?
Henry Haapalainen
Einstein would live now, he would correct his mistakes in relativity
theories. Falling space theory is in debt of gratitude to Einstein and is
trying to make the necessary corrections.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraphs A6 - A12
A6
The only way out of the impasse and forwards is to demonstrate that, in
certain respects, relativity theory is incorrect. We must go back to the
beginning, the Michelson-Morley experiment at the start of the 20th century.
Prior to the experiment, it was generally believed that the Earth and other
celestial bodies move in the ether of space, and that the "ether wind"
caused by the movement could be measured from the surface of the Earth.
Though such a wind would have no effect on particles, it should be visible
as changes in the speed of light. Light should travel faster with the wind
than against or across it. The experiment was carried out using a local
source of light and an arrangement of mirrors, the light being diverted from
its direction of travel and its speed being measured in two directions at
right angles to each other. The result of the experiment was surprising - no
change in the speed of the light was observed. Therefore the ether does not
exist!
A7
If there is no ether, it means that the MM experiment could be carried out
on any celestial body and would always produce the same result. A body's own
motion in space with no ether is relative and is irrelevant in itself. But
Einstein made the further assumption that the speed of light is also in
general independent of the state of motion of the observer.
A8
Observations have shown that the universe appears to be expanding at nearly
the speed of light, i.e. that celestial bodies move relative to each other
at great speeds. But conditions on different celestial bodies are
independent of speed. Conclusions concerning the motion of one's own or
other celestial bodies can only be made on the basis of the red or blue
shift in the light emitted by other celestial bodies. But the examples in
relativity theory deal with travel in space as if one observer could move
while the other remains stationary. Generally, one moves at nearly the speed
of light while the other remains stationary. In practice, Einstein did not
fully understand the significance of the non-existence of ether.
A9
In relativity theory, the terms railway station and the surface of the Earth
are used to depict the stationary observer, while the one leaving the
station or the surface of the Earth is considered to be in motion. But in
ether-free space all movements are relative, and relativity theory does not
speak the truth. Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to
demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a
stationary observer. But in ether-free space the observers only move apart
or towards each other. The situation is always symmetrical, and this fact
can only be denied through a mathematical lie.
A10
Relativity theory assumes the speed of light to be independent of the state
of motion of an object. This is impossible, for it is precisely from changes
in the speed of light that velocities and directions of movement can be
measured. Changes in velocity appear as red or blue shifts. Consider, for
example, airport radar measuring aeroplanes' movements, directions, and
speeds. Can anyone really believe that the radar signal always hits each
aircraft at the same speed, irrespective of the aircraft's own speed?
A11
In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like weight and
distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research result.
Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that there should
be a mass of evidence - but there is none. There are only misunderstandings
of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of acceleration), and
misunderstandings of what objective research demands. In many cases,
attempts have been made to use the theory to prove itself.
A12
Despite the defects and errors of relativity theory it must be said that
there will never be another genius like Albert Einstein. The curvature of
space and the relation of mass to energy are magnificent discoveries,
besides many others. Perhaps relativity theory's greatest fault lies in
being too good. It has successfully stopped the development of theoretical
physics for decades.
Henry Haapalainen
Bill Hobba
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dk8v9q$3q8$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Wrong - no ether was detected - it did not prove it did not exist as the
validity of theories like LET readily demonstrates.
>
> A7
> If there is no ether, it means that the MM experiment could be carried out
> on any celestial body and would always produce the same result. A body's
> own
> motion in space with no ether is relative and is irrelevant in itself. But
> Einstein made the further assumption that the speed of light is also in
> general independent of the state of motion of the observer.
Yes he did - but based on applying the POR to Maxwell's equations so he had
very strong theoretical and experimental support for it.
>
> A8
> Observations have shown that the universe appears to be expanding at
> nearly
> the speed of light, i.e. that celestial bodies move relative to each other
> at great speeds. But conditions on different celestial bodies are
> independent of speed. Conclusions concerning the motion of one's own or
> other celestial bodies can only be made on the basis of the red or blue
> shift in the light emitted by other celestial bodies. But the examples in
> relativity theory deal with travel in space as if one observer could move
> while the other remains stationary. Generally, one moves at nearly the
> speed
> of light while the other remains stationary. In practice, Einstein did not
> fully understand the significance of the non-existence of ether.
It might be wise to actually back up controversial statements with a
reasoned argument rather than simply asserting it. (1)
>
> A9
> In relativity theory, the terms railway station and the surface of the
> Earth
> are used to depict the stationary observer, while the one leaving the
> station or the surface of the Earth is considered to be in motion. But in
> ether-free space all movements are relative, and relativity theory does
> not
> speak the truth.
(1).
> Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to
> demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a
> stationary observer. But in ether-free space the observers only move apart
> or towards each other. The situation is always symmetrical, and this fact
> can only be denied through a mathematical lie.
All it indicates is your inability to understand what countless others do.
>
> A10
> Relativity theory assumes the speed of light to be independent of the
> state
> of motion of an object. This is impossible, for it is precisely from
> changes
> in the speed of light that velocities and directions of movement can be
> measured.
Since experiment shows otherwise the above is obvious nonsense.
> Changes in velocity appear as red or blue shifts. Consider, for
> example, airport radar measuring aeroplanes' movements, directions, and
> speeds. Can anyone really believe that the radar signal always hits each
> aircraft at the same speed, irrespective of the aircraft's own speed?
Learn the difference between closing velocity and measured velocity.
>
> A11
> In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like weight
> and
> distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research result.
Wrong - direct experiments with aircraft demonstrate it is true. Soon we
will have clocks so accurate driving them around in cars will demonstrate
it.
> Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that there should
> be a mass of evidence - but there is none.
There is - but you are for some reason unable to understand it and think
this inability counts as a problem for relativity - it does not.
Bill
Harry
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dk8v9q$3q8$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Einstein would live now, he would correct his mistakes in relativity
> theories. Falling space theory is in debt of gratitude to Einstein and is
> trying to make the necessary corrections.
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraphs A6 - A12
>
> A6
I commented on these things before together with evidence that disproves
your theory:
Message-ID: 1123542674....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
but you refused to pay me your prize money because you don't understand it.
I won't try again.
Harald
PD
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> Einstein was ahead of his time, but his disciples of today are not. If
> Einstein would live now, he would correct his mistakes in relativity
> theories. Falling space theory is in debt of gratitude to Einstein and is
> trying to make the necessary corrections.
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ paragraphs A6 - A12
>
> A6
> The only way out of the impasse and forwards is to demonstrate that, in
> certain respects, relativity theory is incorrect. We must go back to the
> beginning, the Michelson-Morley experiment at the start of the 20th century.
> Prior to the experiment, it was generally believed that the Earth and other
> celestial bodies move in the ether of space, and that the "ether wind"
> caused by the movement could be measured from the surface of the Earth.
> Though such a wind would have no effect on particles, it should be visible
> as changes in the speed of light. Light should travel faster with the wind
> than against or across it. The experiment was carried out using a local
> source of light and an arrangement of mirrors, the light being diverted from
> its direction of travel and its speed being measured in two directions at
> right angles to each other. The result of the experiment was surprising - no
> change in the speed of the light was observed. Therefore the ether does not
> exist!
A6A. In fact, to show that relativity theory is incorrect would require
not only that the MMX experiment does not support relativity, but that
every experiment since that date that has tested relativity has also
failed to support relativity.
A6B. Note that in the above (or in the below) there is no evidence
whatsoever that relativity is NOT supported by the MMX (or any other
experiment).
>
> A7
> If there is no ether, it means that the MM experiment could be carried out
> on any celestial body and would always produce the same result. A body's own
> motion in space with no ether is relative and is irrelevant in itself. But
> Einstein made the further assumption that the speed of light is also in
> general independent of the state of motion of the observer.
>
> A8
> Observations have shown that the universe appears to be expanding at nearly
> the speed of light, i.e. that celestial bodies move relative to each other
> at great speeds. But conditions on different celestial bodies are
> independent of speed. Conclusions concerning the motion of one's own or
> other celestial bodies can only be made on the basis of the red or blue
> shift in the light emitted by other celestial bodies. But the examples in
> relativity theory deal with travel in space as if one observer could move
> while the other remains stationary.
A8A. That is incorrect. The examples in relativity theory say that one
observer is stationary *in a chosen reference frame*, and the other
observer is in motion in the same reference frame. Another reference
frame can be chosen where the roles are reversed, or where both
observers are in motion with respect to that reference frame, without
-- and this is important -- changing *anything* about what's going on
with the two observers.
> Generally, one moves at nearly the speed
> of light while the other remains stationary. In practice, Einstein did not
> fully understand the significance of the non-existence of ether.
A8B. That is an unsupported assertion.
>
> A9
> In relativity theory, the terms railway station and the surface of the Earth
> are used to depict the stationary observer, while the one leaving the
> station or the surface of the Earth is considered to be in motion. But in
> ether-free space all movements are relative, and relativity theory does not
> speak the truth. Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to
> demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a
> stationary observer. But in ether-free space the observers only move apart
> or towards each other. The situation is always symmetrical, and this fact
> can only be denied through a mathematical lie.
A9A. That is also incorrect. The red or blue shift tells us the
*component* of the motion along the line between the source and the
observer. It does not tell us that the motion of the source is in that
direction. Indeed, we measure the redshift and blue-shift of orbiting
companions which we *know* are traveling in a circle and not on a
straight line.
>
> A10
> Relativity theory assumes the speed of light to be independent of the state
> of motion of an object. This is impossible, for it is precisely from changes
> in the speed of light that velocities and directions of movement can be
> measured. Changes in velocity appear as red or blue shifts. Consider, for
> example, airport radar measuring aeroplanes' movements, directions, and
> speeds. Can anyone really believe that the radar signal always hits each
> aircraft at the same speed, irrespective of the aircraft's own speed?
A10A. The red shift and blue shifts are *not* indications of the speed
of light. In fact, if one measures the red-shifted frequency and the
red-shifted wavelength and multiply them, the product is *always* a
constant value c. It is therefore experimentally and directly verified
that the red shift or blue shift is precisely *not* due to a change in
light speed.
A10B. Yes, indeed, anyone can believe (and form a completely consistent
understanding) that light travels at the same speed according to any
observer, regardless of the aircraft's speed. This does not mean, by
the way, that any observer will measure the closing speed to be c.
>
> A11
> In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like weight and
> distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research result.
> Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that there should
> be a mass of evidence - but there is none. There are only misunderstandings
> of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of acceleration), and
> misunderstandings of what objective research demands. In many cases,
> attempts have been made to use the theory to prove itself.
A11A. Apparently the author believes that atomic clocks carried up in
airplanes is the only experimental evidence we have of time dilation,
and is unaware of the enormous wealth of other results that also
indicate time dilation. In fact, some experiments that are designed to
measure something else completely different *rely* on time dilation to
occur, and they would not work properly if this time dilation did not
occur. The fact that they *do* work properly, as given by independent
evidence not related to relativity, says that this reliance is properly
placed.
>
> A12
> Despite the defects and errors of relativity theory it must be said that
> there will never be another genius like Albert Einstein. The curvature of
> space and the relation of mass to energy are magnificent discoveries,
> besides many others. Perhaps relativity theory's greatest fault lies in
> being too good. It has successfully stopped the development of theoretical
> physics for decades.
>
A12A. To which I would argue that the author is blind to the vast
theoretical growth that has happened since Einstein made his seminal
contributions, many of which have already found application in the
devices that the author uses in his daily life.
PD
Peter
<kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>We must go back to the beginning, the Michelson-Morley
>experiment at the start of the 20th century.
>
I recently read an interesting reanalysis of this experiment.
From:
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of
Absolute Motion
Reginald T. Cahill
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 confrmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
I was also intrigued by the following. It will be interesting to see
if this new theory is confirmed or refuted by Gravity Probe B !!!
From:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510218
Dynamical 3-Space and the Generalised Schrodinger Equation
Equivalence Principle and Vorticity Effects
Reginald T. Cahill
The new dynamical ‘quantum foam’ theory of 3-space is described at the
classical level by a velocity field. This has been repeatedly detected
and for which the dynamical equations are now established. These
equations predict 3-space ‘gravitational wave’ effects, and these have
been observed, and the 1991 De-Witte data is analysed to reveal the
fractal structure of these ‘gravitational waves’. This velocity field
describes the differential motion of 3-space, and the various
equations of physics must be generalised to incorporate this 3-space
dynamics. Here a new generalised Schrodinger equation is given and
analysed. It is shown that from this equation the equivalence
principle may be derived as a quantum effect, and that as well this
generalised Schrodinger equation determines the effects of vorticity
of the 3-space flow, or ‘frame-dragging’, on matter, and which is
being studied by the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite gyroscope
experiment.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message news:h6phm15uvuhu1r87n...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 01:55:22 +0200, "Henry Haapalainen"
> <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >
> >We must go back to the beginning, the Michelson-Morley
> >experiment at the start of the 20th century.
> >
>
> I recently read an interesting reanalysis of this experiment.
>
> From:
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of
> Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
[snip]
You recently said exactly the same on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d3e7fc31964bb73
Is there any reason why you are now using another name
and another fake email address to say the same as before?
I will give the same reply as before, but I will use the same
name as before.
ahem,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has
| turned the scientific world on its ear by claiming he has
| found science's Holy Grail - the fabled Theory of
| Everything."
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics...
| "A new paradigm for the modelling of reality is
| currently being developed called Process Physics.
| In Process Physics we start from the premise that
| the limits to logic, which are implied by Gödel's
| incompleteness theorems, mean that any attempt to
| model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure.
| Instead of formal systems we use a process system,
| which uses the notions of self-referential noise and
| self-organised criticality to create a new type of
| information-theoretic system that is realising both the
| current formal physical modelling of reality but is also
| exhibiting features such as the direction of time, the
| present moment effect and quantum state entanglement
| (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality),
| as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity
| and Quantum Mechanics. In particular a theory of
| Quantum Gravity has already emerged.
|
| In short, rather than the static 4-dimensional modelling
| of present day (non-process) physics, Process Physics is
| providing a dynamic model where space and matter are
| seen to emerge from a fundamentally random but self-
| organising system. The key insight is that to adequately
| model reality we must move on from the traditional non-
| process syntactical information modelling to a process
| semantic information modelling; such information is
| `internally meaningful'. "
Dirk Vdm
Peter
Hi Henry,
From your web site
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
I found,
B1
If gravity is not a force, and if the basic state of space is
free-fall motion, only one conclusion is possible: space itself is in
free-fall motion. Objects fall without any force attracting them. When
space falls, they fall with it. And in such falling motion the
relative acceleration of space should be the same as in Newton's law
of gravity, i.e. inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
But an explanation can also be found as to why this is so.
This is a very logical idea.
However, if space is a substance falling into astronomical bodies, and
astronomical bodies are simultaneously moving through space, the
mathematics for the motion of space relative these bodies is going to
be complicated.
Nevertheless, a physicist has been working on such a theory.
This theory explains some gravitational anomalies that cannot be
accounted for by either Newtons Law or General Relativity.
That would seem to be points in its favor. It also predicts results
for the Gravity Probe B experiment which differ from the predictions
by General Relativity so we will be able to see if Gravity Probe B
confirms one theory or the other.
Here are links to some papers.
Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS14.pdf
Published: Apeiron, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 53-111(2004).
Abstract: The new Process Physics provides a new explanation of space
as a quantum foam system in which gravity is an inhomogeneous flow of
the quantum foam into matter. An analysis of various experiments
demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed
experimentally by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Jaseja et
al, Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland
DeWitte data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which
manifests as gravity. The in-flow also manifests turbulence and the
experimental data confirms this as well, which amounts to the
observation of a gravitational wave phenomena. The Einstein
assumptions leading to the Special and General Theory of Relativity
are shown to be falsified by the extensive experimental data. Contrary
to the Einstein assumptions absolute motion is consistent with
relativistic effects, which are caused by actual dynamical effects of
absolute motion through the quantum foam, so that it is Lorentzian
relativity that is seen to be essentially correct.
Gravity as Quantum Foam In-Flow
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS15.pdf
Published: Apeiron, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 1-52(2004).
Abstract: The new information-theoretic Process Physics provides an
explanation of space as a quantum foam system in which gravity is an
inhomogeneous flow of the quantum foam into matter. The older
Newtonian and General Relativity theories for gravity are analysed. It
is shown that Newtonian gravity may be written in the form of an
in-flow. General Relativity is also analysed as an in-flow, for those
cases where it has been tested. An analysis of various experimental
data demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been
observed by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Jaseja et al,
Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland DeWitte
data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as
gravity. The experimental data suggests that the in-flow is turbulent,
which amounts to the observation of a gravitational wave phenomena. A
new in-flow theory of gravity is proposed which passes all the tests
that General Relativity was claimed to have passed, but as well the
new theory suggests that the so-called spiral galaxy rotation-velocity
anomaly may be explained without the need of `dark matter'. Various
other gravitational anomalies also appear to be explainable. Newtonian
gravity appears to be strictly valid only outside of spherically
symmetric matter systems.
The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407133
Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-05.PDF
More at:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Tom Roberts
> I recently read an interesting reanalysis of [the MMX].
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of
> Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
>
> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
> rotation-induced fringe shifts
An important error in that statement negates his entire argument. It
should read "... saw no SIGNIFICANT rotation-induced fringe shifts".
In fact, the data reported by Michelson and Morley show rather large
differences between values that should be the same; differences that are
much larger than the visible variation betweem points in the average of
those multiple measurements. If one draws errorbars on their data, the
errorbars are several times larger than the variations. That is, the
variations are not significant.
The same thing happens for Miller's data. But enough of his data have
survived to show the actual origin of his "signal": aliasing of his
systematic error into what he considers "signal". Basically he was
looking for "sinusoid-like" signals, and his analysis technique
guarantees that his systematic error will look just like the type of
signal he was seeking. In particular, two runs with quite small
systematic error also show no "signal", and for a sample of ~60 of his
runs, the size of his "signal" correlates well with a measure of his
systematic error. And the 1-turn "signals" behave like noise, not like a
real signal.
Cahill, and others who revere these old experiments, have fooled
themselves because they do not understand error analysis. These
experiments are fully consistent with SR, and display no significant
signal of "absolute motion" (or somesuch).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Haapalainen
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> kirjoitti viestissä
news:gt0im11rqtamr3mof...@4ax.com...
> Reply to "Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi>
>
> Hi Henry,
>
> From your web site
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> I found,
>
> B1
> If gravity is not a force, and if the basic state of space is
> free-fall motion, only one conclusion is possible: space itself is in
> free-fall motion. Objects fall without any force attracting them. When
> space falls, they fall with it. And in such falling motion the
> relative acceleration of space should be the same as in Newton's law
> of gravity, i.e. inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
> But an explanation can also be found as to why this is so.
>
>
> This is a very logical idea.
>
> However, if space is a substance falling into astronomical bodies, and
> astronomical bodies are simultaneously moving through space, the
> mathematics for the motion of space relative these bodies is going to
> be complicated.
Yes, I agree. But the mathematics would not be so complicated as in
relativity. A new idea is that there are two separate factors in celestial
mechanics: gravity (non-force) and tidal force (force). The tidal force is a
deviation from free-fall motion. But In most cases Newton's equations work
just fine. HH
> Nevertheless, a physicist has been working on such a theory.
>
> This theory explains some gravitational anomalies that cannot be
> accounted for by either Newtons Law or General Relativity.
> That would seem to be points in its favor. It also predicts results
> for the Gravity Probe B experiment which differ from the predictions
> by General Relativity so we will be able to see if Gravity Probe B
> confirms one theory or the other.
>
> Here are links to some papers.
Thanks for the links. HH
Peter
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Is there any reason why you are now using another name
>and another fake email address to say the same as before?
>
Sorry if this caused confusion.
In view of such things as spam and identity theft I thought changing
identifiers once in a while might be a good thing.
Regards,
Peter
Eric Gisse
The only reason it is a "good thing" for you is because it takes people
awhile to notice it is the same idiot with a different name.
Harry
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130940729.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> A6A. In fact, to show that relativity theory is incorrect would require
> not only that the MMX experiment does not support relativity, but that
> every experiment since that date that has tested relativity has also
> failed to support relativity.
You put science on its head, except if in your words Newtonian theory is
"correct"! Usually we state that a theory is proven to be incorrect when
there is one single repeatable experiment that disproves its claimed
validity. Theories such as Newton's that have a lot of experimental support,
have proved to be useful (and are still useful) for certain applications.
Harald
Harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dkb2fg$r...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> Peter wrote:
> > I recently read an interesting reanalysis of [the MMX].
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
> > The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of
> > Absolute Motion
> > Reginald T. Cahill
> >
> > Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> > experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
> > rotation-induced fringe shifts
>
> An important error in that statement negates his entire argument. It
> should read "... saw no SIGNIFICANT rotation-induced fringe shifts".
Tom, I'm afraid that his phrase is correct: many physics textbooks are lousy
on this point, and assert all kinds of crap.
> In fact, the data reported by Michelson and Morley show rather large
> differences between values that should be the same; differences that are
> much larger than the visible variation betweem points in the average of
> those multiple measurements. If one draws errorbars on their data, the
> errorbars are several times larger than the variations. That is, the
> variations are not significant.
>
> The same thing happens for Miller's data. But enough of his data have
> survived to show the actual origin of his "signal": aliasing of his
> systematic error into what he considers "signal". Basically he was
> looking for "sinusoid-like" signals, and his analysis technique
> guarantees that his systematic error will look just like the type of
> signal he was seeking. In particular, two runs with quite small
> systematic error also show no "signal", and for a sample of ~60 of his
> runs, the size of his "signal" correlates well with a measure of his
> systematic error. And the 1-turn "signals" behave like noise, not like a
> real signal. Cahill, and others who revere these old experiments, have
fooled
> themselves because they do not understand error analysis. These
> experiments are fully consistent with SR, and display no significant
> signal of "absolute motion" (or somesuch).
Your analysis differs from that of Allais, who is renowned for his
statistical skills (for example "Généralisation du Test de Shuster au Cas de
Séries Temporelles Autocorrélées dans l' Hypothèse d'un Processus de
Perturbations Aléatoires d'un Système Stable"). I find it hard to judge who
of you is right about this point, but I find your claim that Allais "doesn't
understand error analysis" amazing!
Anyway, not long ago a lot of original Miller data has resurfaced, and there
might be someone doing statistical analysis on that right now.
oriel36
Always the same error whether it is Newton or the relativistic freaks.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
All solar time means is that the pre-Copernican astronomers derived the
equable 24 hour day from the natural unequal day thereby setting the
pace of hour ,minute and second through a daily noon correction known
as the Equation of Time
The Copernican astronomers adapted the principles for the equable 24
hour day and applied it to the newly discovered principle of constant
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in
total.The association between the pace of a clock and axial rotation
remains valid to this day and every single day of your life.
To cut a long story short,the 17th century cataloguers and particularly
Flamsteed took shortcuts in order to tie rotation to the celestial
sphere which later morphed by Newtonain disciples into inertial space.
It is a bright shining lie and certainly the MMX is an extreme symptom
of a ridiculous manipulation in getting the Earth to spin through 360
degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
On this incredible error,the whole edifice is perched and it needs the
sluightest push to send these guys into agonies .
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:dkb2fg$r...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
>>experiments are fully consistent with SR, and display no significant
>>signal of "absolute motion" (or somesuch).
>
> Your analysis differs from that of Allais, who is renowned for his
> statistical skills (for example "Généralisation du Test de Shuster au Cas de
> Séries Temporelles Autocorrélées dans l' Hypothèse d'un Processus de
> Perturbations Aléatoires d'un Système Stable"). I find it hard to judge who
> of you is right about this point, but I find your claim that Allais "doesn't
> understand error analysis" amazing!
I had not known of Allais. Google found
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm
which has some recent papers by him claiming essentially that Miller's
results are valid and not null.
He is wrong. And I can prove it. Miller's data have large errorbars and
are consistent with a null result.
Thank you for this. I am preparing a paper on Miller's results, and
recent publications like this will strengthen my ability to get it
published (it's not merely an ancient discussion). I already know about
Cahill and his references.
I do not know whether Allais understands error analysis, but any claim
that Miller's data are significantly non-null is just plain wrong.
> Anyway, not long ago a lot of original Miller data has resurfaced, and there
> might be someone doing statistical analysis on that right now.
Yes. I am doing so. It is QUITE CLEAR that:
* his systematic error is ENORMOUS compared to his "signal" for
most of his runs; two runs have a very small systematic error
and no signal
* the size of his systematic error is well correlated with the size
of his "signal" for many different runs, and for individual turns
within runs
* there is a clear and obvious way for his systematic error to
masquerade as his "signal" -- his analysis method FORCES his
systematic error to look "sinusoidal with period 1/2 turn"
with an amplitude much smaller that the systematic error itself
(this is basic Fourier analysis)
I can show all this unambiguously using modern DSP and data analysis
techniques. Note his systematic error can be cleanly and unambiguously
separated from any possible real signal.
The subset of Miller's data for which the systematic error is small is
fully consistent with a null result, and shows no signal at all. The
majority of his data with a large systematic error are also consistent
with a null result when the errorbars corresponding to the systematic
error are included.
Miller had no way to know about modern DSP techniques and error analysis
(e.g. not a single plot in the volume his paper appeared in has
errorbars; of course today that would not be tolerated). Modern authors
have no excuse for ignorance of these basic techniques.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Haapalainen
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> kirjoitti viestissä
news:4369d85f$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Newton's equations are used to all practical works in science. NASA uses
them, not the equations of relativity. Newton's mistake was the idea, that
gravity is an attraction force between masses. Relativity corrected that,
but its own faults are not less severe.
Henry Haapalainen
Harry
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:4369d85f$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130940729.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > SNIP
> >
> > > A6A. In fact, to show that relativity theory is incorrect would
require
> > > not only that the MMX experiment does not support relativity, but that
> > > every experiment since that date that has tested relativity has also
> > > failed to support relativity.
> >
> > You put science on its head, except if in your words Newtonian theory is
> > "correct"! Usually we state that a theory is proven to be incorrect when
> > there is one single repeatable experiment that disproves its claimed
> > validity. Theories such as Newton's that have a lot of experimental
> support,
> > have proved to be useful (and are still useful) for certain
applications.
> >
> > Harald
>
> Newton's equations are used to all practical works in science.
Yes, that's what I wrote: they are still useful.
> NASA uses them, not the equations of relativity.
For sure you're mistaken.
Harald
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:dkb2fg$r...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> >>[about miller and MMX] These
> >>experiments are fully consistent with SR, and display no significant
> >>signal of "absolute motion" (or somesuch).
> >
> > Your analysis differs from that of Allais, who is renowned for his
> > statistical skills (for example "Généralisation du Test de Shuster au
Cas de
> > Séries Temporelles Autocorrélées dans l' Hypothèse d'un Processus de
> > Perturbations Aléatoires d'un Système Stable"). I find it hard to judge
who
> > of you is right about this point, but I find your claim that Allais
"doesn't
> > understand error analysis" amazing!
>
> I had not known of Allais. Google found
> http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm
> which has some recent papers by him claiming essentially that Miller's
> results are valid and not null.
>
> He is wrong. And I can prove it. Miller's data have large errorbars and
> are consistent with a null result.
I know, and I also have his papers that state that they have large errorbars
but he claims to have proved that they are inconsistent with a null result.
I have superficially looked at both your arguments but I didn't reach a
conclusion from looking at those. Maybe I'm too lazy; in any case, with a
lot of noise, if one wants to see something one will see something, and if
one wants to see nothing one will see nothing. Difficult to be objective.
> Thank you for this. I am preparing a paper on Miller's results, and
> recent publications like this will strengthen my ability to get it
> published (it's not merely an ancient discussion). I already know about
> Cahill and his references.
>
> I do not know whether Allais understands error analysis, but any claim
> that Miller's data are significantly non-null is just plain wrong.
>
> > Anyway, not long ago a lot of original Miller data has resurfaced, and
there
> > might be someone doing statistical analysis on that right now.
>
> Yes. I am doing so.
Great! From who did you get the data?
> It is QUITE CLEAR that:
> * his systematic error is ENORMOUS compared to his "signal" for
> most of his runs; two runs have a very small systematic error
> and no signal
> * the size of his systematic error is well correlated with the size
> of his "signal" for many different runs, and for individual turns
> within runs
> * there is a clear and obvious way for his systematic error to
> masquerade as his "signal" -- his analysis method FORCES his
> systematic error to look "sinusoidal with period 1/2 turn"
> with an amplitude much smaller that the systematic error itself
> (this is basic Fourier analysis)
> I can show all this unambiguously using modern DSP and data analysis
> techniques. Note his systematic error can be cleanly and unambiguously
> separated from any possible real signal.
>
> The subset of Miller's data for which the systematic error is small is
> fully consistent with a null result, and shows no signal at all. The
> majority of his data with a large systematic error are also consistent
> with a null result when the errorbars corresponding to the systematic
> error are included.
>
> Miller had no way to know about modern DSP techniques and error analysis
> (e.g. not a single plot in the volume his paper appeared in has
> errorbars; of course today that would not be tolerated). Modern authors
> have no excuse for ignorance of these basic techniques.
I look forward to see your paper!
Note that just like you, Allais didn't follow the analysis of Miller. In
order to provide a conclusive argument, your paper should show that the very
good correlation that Allais found between the published Miller data and
diurnal variations (in sideral time of course), is either erroneous or can
be explained by ... (maybe something related to GRT?).
Best regards,
Harald
Harry
claiming!
See below.
"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131046643....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thus, you claim that the earth rotates a full circle in 24h00 min?
Then how do you explain that in that time, gyroscopes and "the stars" turn
more than 360 degrees?
Harald
PD
Newton's equations are an excellent approximation to the truth.
Therefore, in cases where the approximation is sufficient, they are
used. In cases where the approximation is not sufficient, they are not
used. Their convenience does not make them fundamentally correct, any
more than the convenience of F=mg for the force of gravity near the
surface of the Earth makes that equation fundamentally correct.
PD
Tom Roberts
> [...]
> I look forward to see your paper!
> Note that just like you, Allais didn't follow the analysis of Miller.
Yes. Absolutely necessary, as Miller's analysis is fatally flawed: his
systematic error is NOT linear, and CANNOT be subtracted away as he
assumes. But with a digital computer the flaws can be avoided by simply
performing a 320-point digital Fourier transform (unlike many
applications of DFTs, "windowing" is not an issue for a manifestly
periodic signal like this).
> In
> order to provide a conclusive argument, your paper should show that the very
> good correlation that Allais found between the published Miller data and
> diurnal variations (in sideral time of course), is either erroneous or can
> be explained by ...
Hmmm. I have not yet begun to look at Allais' papers.
> (maybe something related to GRT?).
Almost surely not. We'll see.... But a quick glance at his papers
indicated no errorbars were plotted, which is the kiss of death here --
certainly one can come up with a best fit to the data, and a specific
"direction of motion", but if the errorbars are so large that any
"direction of motion" fits the data equally well, as does a perfectly
flat line with no "direction" whatsoever, then one has no SIGNIFICANT
conclusion. In some of Miller's plots, the errorbars are larger than the
paper(!).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
oriel36
I never considered the transition of the noon Equation of Time
principle of the pre-Copernican equable 24 hour day to the Copernican
principle of independent axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24
hours/360 degrees in total to be especially difficult and refuse to
believe that people would continue to build on faulty foundations based
on wishful thinking.
The Earth's rotation sets the pace for a clock hour,minute and
second.Against this pace,up to and including the calendrial sidereal
average for when a star returns to the same position, all other motions
can be compared.A star returns to the same position in 23 hours 56 min
04 sec of a 24 hour day but it is crazy to astronomically justify
axial rotation to a star as being the value for axial rotation of the
Earth .
The noon Equation of Time correction is basically similar to a
calendrical leap correction for in the pre-Copernican era it was the
bridge between the observed noon of a naturally unequal length of day
and the equable 24 hour day.The early heliocentrists simply adapted
the principle to axial rotation and remarked that clocks would provide
a good keeper of terrestial longitude based on the old Equation of Time
principles.
Only with Flamsteed did the whole thing go pear shaped for the already
existing principles for constant axial rotation already existed in
principle,as axial rotation and orbital motions are compound motions
when using the Sun as a reference it cannot be any other way.
I dislike having to descend to elementary level among men but the
justification for the sidereal value or rotation to inertial space in
Newtonian terms is shockingly simpleminded and in utter disregard for
the axial and orbital motions and orientation of the Earth and their
relationship over the course of an annual orbit.
The value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec does not and never has proved that
the Earth's rotation is constant nor can it provide the basis for
astronomical modelling.If you are not delighted at how the
heliocentrists adapted the structure of the 24 hour day and applied it
to Copernican heliocentricity then obviously you accept the erroneous
justification by Flamsteed.
I said it before,this huge error requires a commission just as all
great wrongdoing has to be dealt with openly and with candor.