Silvertooth simple question
Harry
from it:
When an EM wave hits a moving mirror, the reflected wave will have a higher
frequency than the incoming one (Doppler), and the standing wave pattern
will contain an envelope signal due to the superposition of two waves with
slightly different wavelength. Right?
But that does not seem to lead to an identical reality with what happens in
case of a stationary mirror, as then there will be no envelope signal. How
can that be compatible with SRT?
Harald
Tom Roberts
I haven't a clue how you got that from any of Silvertooth's
experiments. He never measures frequency, and he never uses mirrors
with significant motion wrt his lab (merely different orientations, and
tiny vibrations).
Note that his analysis of his experiment is completely wrong, and the
theory he attempts to apply actually predicts a null result for his
experiment. His mistake is that he applies the theory to only part of
the light path (last two mirrors to detector), and the effect he
computes is EXACTLY canceled by the portion of the light path he omits
(laser to last two mirrors).
In addition to his errors in applying theory to expeirment, it looks to
me like Silvertooth also made serious errors in experimental technique.
In particular, he permits enormous feedback into his lasers, and that
easily accounts for his observations. Second, he uses multimode lasers
and the beating among their modes could also produce signals similar to
his. Without direct access to his rather unique apparatus, I cannot
tell how these two potential effects affect his results. Note the he
himself says results are quite "finicky" and he could not always
reproduce them HIMSELF.
Conclusion: Silvertooth's experiments are not useful, except perhaps in
a discussion of how NOT to do experimental physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:b7kmi3$7...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
Sorry, there clearly was a misunderstanding.
I have read your analysis and that of Aspden, and I agree with both of you
that Silvertooth's explanation doesn't seem right. Therefore I don't discuss
that.
With "moving" I meant inertial movement of the mirror relative to the
reference system (ether's frame for LET, observer's frame for SRT).
What I understood from this experiment was, that Silvertooth claimed that
there is a physical difference between a standing wave in a moving system
and a standing wave in a system in rest. If there isn't, there CAN be
nothing to detect.
My question is irrelevant for the way he claimed to have detected such a
signal. The question is if the physical reality of a standing wave produced
by a mirror for these two cases is like I outlined above, and if yes, then
how can SRT deal with it.
BTW, it's a mystery to me how you think to "easily account for" a signal
that is independent of a set-up by noise signals that come from the set-up.
Harald
Harold Ensle
Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3e9e59a8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[.....]
> BTW, it's a mystery to me how you think to "easily account for" a signal
> that is independent of a set-up by noise signals that come from the
set-up.
>
> Harald
>
>
Excellent question......and that is the problem. If there is a systematic
error
which is diurnally dependent, then the *error* is detecting the ether.
This is why I consider Roberts' explanations as complete propaganda.
Why he continues with such misrepresentation is a mystery.
H.Ellis Ensle
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b7qk38$nio$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Surely then you will have no problem debunking the following articles
by Tom Roberts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37B3A9C0...@lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37C83872...@lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37A34830...@lucent.com
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Qm8oa.52398$t_2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Hey Dirk,
Why'd you pick an old, 1999 thread with participation with only one
commenter? Why not Tom's thread of 2000? Just because it has a LOT of
comment by various people? Take your pick of debunking.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl559803135d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=39F71617.3E97D185%40lucent.com
Or how about an older one?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2431367479d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=37ADB1A6.21988D9C%40lucent.com
On a general note, are you desirous of hearing a debunking of Tom's "Entire
Class" papers (done by many)? Or just as they apply to Silvertooth?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:va3439d...@corp.supernews.com...
I picked the first 3 articles that turned up in a google search.
I read them, enjoyed them a bit, then lost interest, and did
not even bother to look at the comments. Another non-issue.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Sure you did, Dirk. The fact that Tom's continued repetition of his mantra
has been debunked many times is a non-issue. Just like Harold pointed out.
Instead of addressing Harold's issue, you attempted to divert into a side
claim about Tom's attempts at mathematical relevancy. You "just happened"
to pick short threads where Tom faced either no counters or one poster.
Avoiding any with serious discussion. It's pure coincidence.
Of course if it had been pure coincidence you had no need to carefully snip
the references to the many times that Tom has been blown out of the water.
;)
{replacing unnoted snip}
=============================
Just because it has a LOT of
comment by various people? Take your pick of debunking.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl559803135d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=39F71617.3E97D185%40lucent.com
Or how about an older one?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2431367479d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=37ADB1A6.21988D9C%40lucent.com
On a general note, are you desirous of hearing a debunking of Tom's "Entire
Class" papers (done by many)? Or just as they apply to Silvertooth?
=============================
And could you please answer the question?
Tom Roberts
> Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:3e9e59a8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> [.....]
>>BTW, it's a mystery to me how you think to "easily account for" a signal
>>that is independent of a set-up by noise signals that come from the
> set-up.
I have no idea where that came from. Silvertooth's experiments have
serious instrumentation problems that have never been addressed. They
completely invalidate any conclusion that he "measured the velocity of
the earth relative to the ether", because the beating of the different
modes of his lasers can mimic the "signal" he claims to sometimes see,
as can the response of a laser to feedback.
In fact, feedback seems to me to be a BETTER explanation
than the others, because like Silvertooth's reported
results it is quite finicky. Certainly a real cosmic
effect should not be finicky. Clearly there is some
instability in Silvertooth's equipment, and that means
it cannot give reliable results.
Dirk Van de moortel posted some links to old articles in which I
discussed Silvertooth's experiment at length. Contrary to what
greywolf42 claims, nobody has made any significant arguments against
what I said back then.
This one:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37C83872...@lucent.com
succinctly explains how any VIABLE ether theory predicts a null result
for Silvertooth's experiment (viable means not already refuted by
existing experiments).
> Excellent question......and that is the problem. If there is a systematic
> error
> which is diurnally dependent, then the *error* is detecting the ether.
Silvertooth's "results" are like:
Well, sometimes when I perform this experiment I obtain
results which I can interpret as indicating an anisotropy in
the 1-way speed of light, as long as I apply this particular
theory over a portion of my apparatus to only some of the
repetitions I have made.
Any resemblance between that and science is non-existent.
Neither Harold Ensle, greywolf42, nor Harry have said anything about
this at all. At most all they have done is dissembled and tried to
confuse the issue.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:va3fkve...@corp.supernews.com...
So you are telling me that I am lying.
How sweet.
Dirk Vdm
[BTW, you must have noticed by now that with morons,
idiots, ether addicts, cranks, crackpots and impostors,
I tend to snip at their first error or lie. I might have a
quick look at what follows, but I never comment on it ]
Harold Ensle
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> > Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:3e9e59a8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > [.....]
> > Excellent question......and that is the problem. If there is a
systematic
> > error
> > which is diurnally dependent, then the *error* is detecting the ether.
>
> Silvertooth's "results" are like:
>
> Well, sometimes when I perform this experiment I obtain
> results which I can interpret as indicating an anisotropy in
> the 1-way speed of light, as long as I apply this particular
> theory over a portion of my apparatus to only some of the
> repetitions I have made.
>
> Any resemblance between that and science is non-existent.
Where did you get the sentence? Is it a quote or did you just
make it up?
The reason I ask is because the last time we discussed this
you stated in relation to my above point as follows:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2000-11-19 11:35:23 PST
Harold Ensle wrote:
> The tracking of the effect over the period of a day should be
> sufficient
Perhaps. But by _BOTH_ Silvertooth's papers and Angel Garcia's anecdotal
description, THEY DID NOT DO THAT.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////
(Emphasis is Roberts')
But when I finally obtained the paper I found that you had simply lied.
They in fact did observe, quite easily and apparently more than once,
a diurnal dependence as they state in:
E.W.Silvertooth&C.K.Whitney,Phys.Essays 5,82 (1992)
"The magnitude D of the displacement x required
for phase reversal described varies with the
diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
half-way points in between."
So according to this, Harald's question is completely justified.
How can _any_ type of systematic error account for this observation?
> Neither Harold Ensle, greywolf42, nor Harry have said anything about
> this at all. At most all they have done is dissembled and tried to
> confuse the issue.
How are _we_ confusing the issue??? The question is very simple.
It is you who have churned out detail upon detail of possible or
probable experimental errors, none of which can account for the
actual observations, and yet you continue to claim that they do.
So _who_ is trying to confuse the issue?
Furthermore I have one more question. I have nothing against
you Mr. Roberts, but seriously, why have you lied about this
experiment? It doesn't make any sense to do so.
Is your zeal for SR so overwelming that experimental
evidence which is "threatening" must be suppressed?
H.Ellis Ensle
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:3e9e59a8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>[.....]
>
>> BTW, it's a mystery to me how you think to "easily account for" a
>> signal that is independent of a set-up by noise signals that come
>> from the set-up.
>>
>> Harald
>>
> Excellent question......and that is the problem. If there is a
> systematic error which is diurnally dependent, then the *error*
> is detecting the ether.
Yeah, I'd like to see how the so-called problems identified by
Roberts can produce a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation that
has a direction associated to it... :)
If someone has an answer, and can clearly an unabigiously show how
the diurnal pattern with direction can result I'll be very glad to
say 'I stand corrected'. But, in this case, "I'm from Missouri,
show me!"
Here's the bottom line with Roberts so-called analysis,
"Silvertooth's publication of a positive result
is puzzling, given that there is no reasonable
theory which predicts a positive result. ..."
Can we say, 'wishful thinking'. In his mind, theory alway trumps
observation.
But, let's go to his reference (3). In that reference article we
find,
"Note that several of those environmental
conditions can easily induce a directional
variation in results; some could also induce
diurnal variations as well. Given that only
a handful of measurements were made, any
such variations could easily be interpreted
as "evidence" of an ether. So could the
basic problem of moving some random distance
between chaotically-spaced maxima and
assuming it is a multiple of the wavelength.
Silvertooth seems unaware of _ANY_ of these
problems, and his paucity of measurements
precludes examining any of them -- much less
eliminating them as a cause of his effect."
We note here specifically the comment,
"Note that several of those environmental
conditions can easily induce a directional
variation in results; some could also induce
diurnal variations as well. ..."
He neither expounds upon, or identifies, ANY such 'conditions',
or, specifically how these can in the specific environment
of Silvertooth's lab and arrangement, can cause a diurnal
variations, not to mention one with a generalized direction.
Now to the conclusions of Roberts in this paper,
"Interferometers can strongly interact with
lasers, and one must be extremely careful to
avoid feedback into the laser. Failure to
avoid such feedback can cause completely
unexpected results. Silvertooth's experiment
is clearly subject to this by deliberate
design. The chaotic nature of the signal in
his interferometer completely negates his
claims to measure the distance his table has
moved, and thus his claims of detecting an
ether.
In a related context, James "The Amazing"
Randi said "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." That applies here. It
is quite extraordinary to claim an
"Experimental detection of the ether". The
presence of large and unacknowledged
instrumentation effects in his apparatus
makes Silvertooth's experiment completely
unreliable and unbelievable."
The last paragraph is a classic Freudian slip, it reveals the
bottom line, namely Roberts is grasping at anything to deny the
possible validity of these results. Why, because his bias
won't allow him to entertain even the possiblity that they
might be real. No details given for 'environmental factors',
no explanation that even begins to answer the key issue, namely
the clear diurnal pattern reported. His identified problems
cannot cause this. If they can, I'd love to see the explanation
of (specifically) how.
> This is why I consider Roberts' explanations as complete propaganda.
Given what's be offered so far, a very good conclusion...
> Why he continues with such misrepresentation is a mystery.
Answer, his bias won't allow him to entertain even the possiblity
that they might or could be real results...
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b7sn4l$g0v$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
...
> How are _we_ confusing the issue??? The question is very simple.
> It is you who have churned out detail upon detail of possible or
> probable experimental errors, none of which can account for the
> actual observations, and yet you continue to claim that they do.
They more than account for the lack of observations, however. An
observation is useless if you don't know what your equipment is doing,
especially if it does not behave the same way each time.
URL:http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/germanium-7-3.htm
l
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b7so7n$88$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <b7qk38$nio$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
> Yeah, I'd like to see how the so-called problems identified by
> Roberts can produce a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation that
> has a direction associated to it... :)
Is it on the surface of the Earth? You know the Earth's surface has a
"lobe" that follows the Moon around, about 2 meters high... plays hell
with precision (laser) alignments. Happens once a day, too.
What did the experimental setup look like... physically how big was it?
David A. Smith
pst...@ix.netcom.com
>Dear pstowe:
>
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:b7so7n$88$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <b7qk38$nio$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>....
>> Yeah, I'd like to see how the so-called problems identified by
>> Roberts can produce a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation that
>> has a direction associated to it... :)
>
> Is it on the surface of the Earth? You know the Earth's surface
> has a "lobe" that follows the Moon around, about 2 meters high...
> plays hell with precision (laser) alignments. Happens once a day,
> too.
Didn't know this, you got my interest (fair IS fair). A couple of
questions,
1. Where can on find details on this
2. Does this result in a smooth 24 hour sinusoidal pattern?
> What did the experimental setup look like... physically how big was it?
I can't find a website that says now. Perhaps other out there have a
reference.
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b7spjb$cpq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <yCloa.3129$kj.2967@fed1read05>,
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear pstowe:
> >
> ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:b7so7n$88$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> In article <b7qk38$nio$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >....
> >> Yeah, I'd like to see how the so-called problems identified by
> >> Roberts can produce a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation that
> >> has a direction associated to it... :)
> >
> > Is it on the surface of the Earth? You know the Earth's surface
> > has a "lobe" that follows the Moon around, about 2 meters high...
> > plays hell with precision (laser) alignments. Happens once a day,
> > too.
>
> Didn't know this, you got my interest (fair IS fair). A couple of
> questions,
>
> 1. Where can on find details on this
I ran across it doing research on a Foucault pendulum. 165 hits (or 7000)
is more than I want to sift through now, for something they dropped in
passing nearly a year ago. May not be important... see below.
> 2. Does this result in a smooth 24 hour sinusoidal pattern?
Not sure about "smooth sinusoidal", certainly periodic 24.85 hour. The
oscillation of the Earth around the Earth-Moon barycenter would be "smooth
28 days sinusoidal".
URL:http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles3.html
A look at the actual data should be able to pull out nearly an hour's
variation from 24, if this is the cause.
> > What did the experimental setup look like... physically how big was it?
>
> I can't find a website that says now. Perhaps other out there have a
> reference.
May not be important, if it is a small apparatus The fact that it was 24
hour periodic, would leave out the tides, since they run on a ~12 hour
schedule.
David A. Smith
greywolf42
Yep. The Bilge school of cowardice. Snip the evidence and post an insult.
Very professional. :)
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:b7seue$a...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>
>>Well, sometimes when I perform this experiment I obtain
>>results which I can interpret as indicating an anisotropy in
>>the 1-way speed of light, as long as I apply this particular
>>theory over a portion of my apparatus to only some of the
>>repetitions I have made.
>>
>>Any resemblance between that and science is non-existent.
>
> Where did you get the sentence? Is it a quote or did you just
> make it up?
I wrote all of that. It is a not unreasonable description of
Silvertooth's experimental method and his "analysis". Amplified, to be
sure, but not wrong. He himself has said his apparatus is finicky (which
means he must ignore some repetitions of his measurements), and the
application of the theory he espouses (eq. 8 in Silvertooth&Whitney) is
indeed applied incorrectly as I stated above.
> But when I finally obtained the paper I found that you had simply lied.
> They in fact did observe, quite easily and apparently more than once,
> a diurnal dependence as they state in:
> E.W.Silvertooth&C.K.Whitney,Phys.Essays 5,82 (1992)
>
> "The magnitude D of the displacement x required
> for phase reversal described varies with the
> diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
> displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
> with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
> half-way points in between."
So why did they omit the obvious graph of D vs time over several 24-hour
periods???? They report only a single data point (eq. 1b).
I guess I was remembering his reporting of data, and not his English
descriptions.
> So according to this, Harald's question is completely justified.
> How can _any_ type of systematic error account for this observation?
With one simple and extremely likely assumption, it's easy. Let me
assume their oscilloscope (or preamplifier) is ac coupled. This means
they would be unable to distinguish a modulated wave (with nonzero dc
offset) from a real interference pattern (with 0 dc offset). As
discussed in
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37A34830...@lucent.com
the maxima and minima of his detectors are chaotic (Silvertooth has
never learned that moving the mirror is NOT the same as moving the
detector, when a laser is the light source). He did NOT observe the
detector output as he moved his table by large amounts (dozens if not
hundreds of wavelengths) while searching for D, and simply stumbled on
points where his preconceived notions happened to be present in the
chaotic "signal". The signal, of course, is NOT the standing wave he
thinks is present, but is the beating of the various modes of his laser
(see that article referenced above).
This has the desirable property that it also explains the finickyness of
his apparatus (see the EXTREME temperature dependence mentioned in that
old article referenced above -- he requires geometrical stability
~1/1000 wavelength, which is essentially hopeless here [c.f. LIGO where
they do achieve such stability], and he also requires stability of the
laser that is hundreds of times more stringent than real lasers exhibit).
Oh yes, how does this generate a "diurnal" variation? Via experimenter's
bias -- he was specifically searching a chaotic signal for positions
which matched his preconceived notions. That's a clear and obvious
recipe for experimenter's bias.
I repeat what I have said before: I have no idea whether or not the
above description acutally holds. Silvertooth's reporting of his
experimental technique and results is far too haphazard to permit such
knowledge.and THAT is the trouble -- "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof {James 'The Amazing" Randi]". Silvertooth's "proof"
is full of holes.
> Furthermore I have one more question. I have nothing against
> you Mr. Roberts, but seriously, why have you lied about this
> experiment? It doesn't make any sense to do so.
I have never lied. It's just that you are utterly unable to read
anything I write, as demonstrated many times in this newsgroup.
> Is your zeal for SR so overwelming that experimental
> evidence which is "threatening" must be suppressed?
If you had been paying attention over the past few years, you would know
that I have been MUCH more open about alternative theories to SR than
any other knowledgable person around here, and have analyzed quite a few
of them. But I do insist that they make sense, and that they agree with
the ENTIRE record of reproducible experiments. And when surprising
results are claimed (like Silvertooth's), I insist that they not be
subject to instrumentation errors -- his CLEARLY are, and are therefore
irrelevant to the discussion of SCIENTIFIC theories. As I have said many
times around here, I would welcome a COMPETENT repetition of his
observations.
Paul Stowe said:
> Yeah, I'd like to see how the so-called problems identified by
> Roberts can produce a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation that
> has a direction associated to it...
Silvertooth never displayed such a "variation", and if you think about
it you should realize that "a 24 hour sinusodial systematic variation"
is highly unlikely for such an experiment -- 3-d geometry applies. Such
variation would require that the unique direction lie in the plane
perpendicular to the earth's axis, which is unlikely (I assume his
apparatus is oriented E-W; if not then sinusoidal variation is
impossible). 3-d geometry is NOT plane geometry.
In that paragraph I assumed some sort of theta
dependence, in which theta is the angle between some
definitive line of the apparatus and an assumed unique
direction in space. Note, however, that Silvertooth's
apparatus has no obvious such line. Note also that any
viable theory of light propagation predicts a null result,
EVEN ONES WITH SUCH theta DEPENDENCE, so the asumptions of
that paragraph are highly suspect....
> [My] bias won't allow [me] to entertain even the possiblity
> that they might or could be real results...
See above. I am "biased" in that I require an experiment to be
believable before I believe its result. Silvertooth's experiment is not
believable, for all the reasons above. As I have said so often, I would
welcome a COMPETENT repeat of his measurements.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
I was on a family visit, but they are absent on my news reader and I now
can't log-in on Google...
So I reply on the missing message that deals with my question.
Tom wrote there (apart of some another issue that has been widely discussed
before and again):
¦ Dirk Van de moortel posted some links to old articles in which I
¦ discussed Silvertooth's experiment at length. Contrary to what
¦ greywolf42 claims, nobody has made any significant arguments against
¦ what I said back then.
¦ This one:
¦ http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37C83872...@lucent.com
¦ succinctly explains how any VIABLE ether theory predicts a null result
¦ for Silvertooth's experiment (viable means not already refuted by
¦ existing experiments).
Thanks Tom, I had not seen that one.
In your posting you argued:
Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and a single
detector which measures the time delay between two signals from the
source propagating by different paths of fixed shape and size, the
detector output will be independent of the orientation of the paths
in an inertial frame. This is true for any theory of this class and
for any assumed anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.
[...]
The corollary applies to each of Silvertooth's interferometers.
In my opinion the Silvertooth experiment does not seem to intend to measure
any time delay from source to detector.
As far as I understand, this type of measurement differs from anything that
was considered in the time of Einstein.
Interesting: I'm the first one to give a reaction to your posting, and
similarly I also did not yet receive any direct answer to my question.
Harald
greywolf42
It's not just Silvertooth. Tom applies this claim of "experimenter bias"
against all experiments that he philosophically "disagrees" with. See his
discussion at bottom.
> I repeat what I have said before: I have no idea whether or not the
> above description acutally holds.
This doesn't stop Tom from repeating the claim, though.
> Silvertooth's reporting of his
> experimental technique and results is far too haphazard to permit such
> knowledge.and THAT is the trouble -- "extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary proof {James 'The Amazing" Randi]". Silvertooth's "proof"
> is full of holes.
>
>
> > Furthermore I have one more question. I have nothing against
> > you Mr. Roberts, but seriously, why have you lied about this
> > experiment? It doesn't make any sense to do so.
>
> I have never lied. It's just that you are utterly unable to read
> anything I write, as demonstrated many times in this newsgroup.
Note how Tom's endless repetitions of of groundless claims of "experimenter
bias" are the result of "your" inability to read. ;)
> > Is your zeal for SR so overwelming that experimental
> > evidence which is "threatening" must be suppressed?
>
> If you had been paying attention over the past few years, you would know
> that I have been MUCH more open about alternative theories to SR than
> any other knowledgable person around here, and have analyzed quite a few
> of them. But I do insist that they make sense, and that they agree with
> the ENTIRE record of reproducible experiments.
Here we see Tom's litmus test. All "alternative" theories to SR must, in
fact, BE SR. Any experiment that does not meet SR is not *viable.* If you
look at Tom's papers, he claims some 5 of 7 experiments are the result of
"bias." And so "corrects" the results to match SR. Preserving his
worldview.
> And when surprising
> results are claimed (like Silvertooth's), I insist that they not be
> subject to instrumentation errors -- his CLEARLY are, and are therefore
> irrelevant to the discussion of SCIENTIFIC theories. As I have said many
> times around here, I would welcome a COMPETENT repetition of his
> observations.
Tom, of course, believes "comptent" means consistent with SR. (Note:
Improper results are the results of incompetent experimenters.)
{snip}
> > [My] bias won't allow [me] to entertain even the possiblity
> > that they might or could be real results...
>
> See above. I am "biased" in that I require an experiment to be
> believable before I believe its result. Silvertooth's experiment is not
> believable, for all the reasons above. As I have said so often, I would
> welcome a COMPETENT repeat of his measurements.
Mr. Roberts is an honest man. He really doesn't believe that his
"amplifications" are lies. Tom's filter is mathematical theory.
Experiments that violate his worldview are not "believable." Tom's "viable"
theories therefore don't have problems with experiment.
Harold Ensle
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:b7seue$a...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >>Silvertooth's "results" are like:
> >>
> >>Well, sometimes when I perform this experiment I obtain
> >>results which I can interpret as indicating an anisotropy in
> >>the 1-way speed of light, as long as I apply this particular
> >>theory over a portion of my apparatus to only some of the
> >>repetitions I have made.
> >>
> >>Any resemblance between that and science is non-existent.
> >
> > Where did you get the sentence? Is it a quote or did you just
> > make it up?
>
> I wrote all of that. It is a not unreasonable description of
> Silvertooth's experimental method and his "analysis".
There was nothing in the published paper like this, so perhaps you
should provide a reference.
> Amplified, to be
> sure,
Oh.......I get it.
>but not wrong. He himself has said his apparatus is finicky (which
> means he must ignore some repetitions of his measurements), and the
> application of the theory he espouses (eq. 8 in Silvertooth&Whitney) is
> indeed applied incorrectly as I stated above.
The magnitude is not the issue here, so his analysis is
irrelevant in this case.
> > But when I finally obtained the paper I found that you had simply lied.
> > They in fact did observe, quite easily and apparently more than once,
> > a diurnal dependence as they state in:
> > E.W.Silvertooth&C.K.Whitney,Phys.Essays 5,82 (1992)
> >
> > "The magnitude D of the displacement x required
> > for phase reversal described varies with the
> > diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
> > displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
> > with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
> > half-way points in between."
>
> So why did they omit the obvious graph of D vs time over several 24-hour
> periods???? They report only a single data point (eq. 1b).
Poor choice by the authors, but it still contradicts your claims.
Your only out is that they are lying.
It is quite humorous. Even when I point it out to you, reference
and all, you still deny it.
> I guess I was remembering his reporting of data, and not his English
> descriptions.
Did you ever even read the paper? I doubt it.
> > So according to this, Harald's question is completely justified.
> > How can _any_ type of systematic error account for this observation?
>
> With one simple and extremely likely assumption, it's easy. Let me
> assume their oscilloscope (or preamplifier) is ac coupled. This means
> they would be unable to distinguish a modulated wave (with nonzero dc
> offset) from a real interference pattern (with 0 dc offset). As
> discussed in
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=37A34830...@lucent.com
> the maxima and minima of his detectors are chaotic (Silvertooth has
> never learned that moving the mirror is NOT the same as moving the
> detector, when a laser is the light source). He did NOT observe the
> detector output as he moved his table by large amounts (dozens if not
> hundreds of wavelengths) while searching for D, and simply stumbled on
> points where his preconceived notions happened to be present in the
> chaotic "signal". The signal, of course, is NOT the standing wave he
> thinks is present, but is the beating of the various modes of his laser
> (see that article referenced above).
>
> This has the desirable property that it also explains the finickyness of
Why do you say that it is finicky? It does not appear to be when you
read the description of their results. They did not describe any
difficulties
in determining the minimums and the maximums (which were unmeasurably
large). This was a huge effect, which cannot be waved away by claims
of psychological bias.
> his apparatus (see the EXTREME temperature dependence mentioned in that
> old article referenced above -- he requires geometrical stability
> ~1/1000 wavelength, which is essentially hopeless here [c.f. LIGO where
> they do achieve such stability], and he also requires stability of the
> laser that is hundreds of times more stringent than real lasers exhibit).
>
> Oh yes, how does this generate a "diurnal" variation? Via experimenter's
> bias -- he was specifically searching a chaotic signal for positions
> which matched his preconceived notions. That's a clear and obvious
> recipe for experimenter's bias.
This is absurd. The effect was huge. You cannot explain the diurnal
variation by experimenter's bias. All your discussion of various
possible experimental errors fail to address this point. Thus all
your discussion was irrelevant and a distraction as your one REAL
argument is simply experimenter's bias. But your one REAL
argument just doesn't work.
Actually, I am not claiming that you should accept the experiment
as fact. I am just stating that your analysis of the experiment sucks,
for the simple reason that you focus on all the wrong issues.
Furthermore I have never seen your above paragraph in any of
your previous comments on the experiment. This is probably the
result of your *documented* belief that they did measure over
a period of a day. However.......suddenly you have come up
with an "answer" to this unbelieved set of measurements.
> I repeat what I have said before: I have no idea whether or not the
> above description acutally holds.
So what does this mean? You just made it up?
>Silvertooth's reporting of his
> experimental technique and results is far too haphazard to permit such
> knowledge.
His paper I referenced above is not haphazard.
>and THAT is the trouble -- "extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary proof {James 'The Amazing" Randi]". Silvertooth's "proof"
> is full of holes.
>
>
> > Furthermore I have one more question. I have nothing against
> > you Mr. Roberts, but seriously, why have you lied about this
> > experiment? It doesn't make any sense to do so.
>
> I have never lied.
You claimed that they did not take readings over a period of a day.
I gave your exact quote. But the paper clearly stated that they did.
So if that is not lying, it is at least ignorant.
Which is it? You deny both , so while before it could have
just been dismissed as your failure to read the paper,
NOW you _really_ are lying.
>It's just that you are utterly unable to read
> anything I write, as demonstrated many times in this newsgroup.
I can read what you write quite well, though it is rarely
worth the trouble, since it is usually propaganda.
You made a mistake, but you are too arrogant to admit it.
Thus you respond by insulting me. It is actually a typical
reaction, though I had hoped that you could be above this
type of conditioned response.
>
> > Is your zeal for SR so overwelming that experimental
> > evidence which is "threatening" must be suppressed?
>
> If you had been paying attention over the past few years, you would know
> that I have been MUCH more open about alternative theories to SR than
> any other knowledgable person around here,
Wrong. I have paid very close attention. That is why I realize that
you only pretend to be open about alternative theories. The truth
is you are about as faithful as they come.
[............]
H.Ellis Ensle
Tom Roberts
> In your posting [Tom Roberts] argued:
>
> Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and a single
> detector which measures the time delay between two signals from the
> source propagating by different paths of fixed shape and size, the
> detector output will be independent of the orientation of the paths
> in an inertial frame. This is true for any theory of this class and
> for any assumed anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.
>
> [...]
> The corollary applies to each of Silvertooth's interferometers.
>
> In my opinion the Silvertooth experiment does not seem to intend to measure
> any time delay from source to detector.
It measures the DIFFERENCE in the time delay from the single source
over the two propagation paths. His experiment meets the criteria of
this corollary. His phototube responds to the (time-averaged) phase
difference of the two light rays which traverse it, and that is
equivalent to measuring the time delay between two signals. The two
signals can be considered to be the instant when the light ray has 0
phase, and a phase detector like his simply measures the time
difference between the two (expressed as an analog intensity
corresponding to the product of the two beam intensities times the
cosine of their phase [time] difference; one must hold the laser
intensity fixed [which is essentially impossible when there is feedback
into the laser, as in Silvertooth's experiment [that's just one of
several problems with his experiment]).
> As far as I understand, this type of measurement differs from anything that
> was considered in the time of Einstein.
While Silvertooth combined two interferometers in a novel way, his
phase detector is not really very different from others, it's just that
its unique construction permits counter-traveling rays to interfere on
its photocathode (instead of two co-traveling rays for most
phototubes). Of course nobody had phototubes in 1905....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > In your posting [Tom Roberts] argued:
> >
> > Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and a single
> > detector which measures the time delay between two signals from the
> > source propagating by different paths of fixed shape and size, the
> > detector output will be independent of the orientation of the paths
> > in an inertial frame. This is true for any theory of this class and
> > for any assumed anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.
> >
> > [...]
> > The corollary applies to each of Silvertooth's interferometers.
> >
> > In my opinion the Silvertooth experiment does not seem to intend to
measure
> > any time delay from source to detector.
>
> It measures the DIFFERENCE in the time delay from the single source
> over the two propagation paths. His experiment meets the criteria of
> this corollary. His phototube responds to the (time-averaged) phase
> difference of the two light rays which traverse it, and that is
> equivalent to measuring the time delay between two signals.
I am quite sure that you are mistaken there. The envelope signal is *not*
caused by any difference in time delays but by the difference in
wavelengths. That makes your calculation irrelevant
> The two
> signals can be considered to be the instant when the light ray has 0
> phase, and a phase detector like his simply measures the time
> difference between the two (expressed as an analog intensity
> corresponding to the product of the two beam intensities times the
> cosine of their phase [time] difference; one must hold the laser
> intensity fixed [which is essentially impossible when there is feedback
> into the laser, as in Silvertooth's experiment [that's just one of
> several problems with his experiment]).
Yes he did have problems, and most past discussions focussed on that. This
thread is about something else.
But you still didn't give a direct answer to my question, and instead you
snipped away my reminder of the reason for this thread.
To me that indicates that you did not find a flaw in the argument I
presented.
Harald
Harry
I now came to the conclusion that in this case there *is* no envelope signal
to be expected of the kind I had in mind.
I mistakenly thought that over a certain distance the amplitude would be
less, but after re-examination I see that no large minima are to be
expected, as Tom also explained in the past (I had overlooked that
explanation -thanks Tom!).
Obviously, without such a signal, I also do not see how there could be
anything to detect.
Harald
Tom Roberts
> [...] Tom applies this claim of "experimenter bias"
> against all experiments that he philosophically "disagrees" with.
That's another example of what I mean when I say you (and others around
here) are unable to read what I write. I do not do as you claim. I apply
the claim of experimenter's bias to experiments which are clearly
subject to experimenter's bias, and to no others. It is not my fault that:
1) many of the experiments greywolf42 wishes were true are
subject to it.
2) experimenters before at least 1960 or so were not aware of the
pernicious and insidious effects of experimenter's bias, in spite
of their earnest efforts to avoid any bias in their observations.
Amateurs like Silvertooth and greywolf42 seem unaware of it still.
3) technology before 1980 or so often required humans in the
data acquisition, because computers and their interfaces were not
available.
My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it; this is an objective aspect
of experiments. greywolf42 seems to have no notion of objectivity and
its relationship to science.
To be clear, an experiment is subject to experimenter's bias when:
1) a human plays an essential role in data acqisition
2) the human is aware of what constitutes a "signal"
3) the human is also aware of the conditions of the experiment which
affect the "signal" (e.g. orientation of the apparatus wrt the
fixed stars)
4) the human makes essential judgements that affect the data. In most
cases (Esclangon, Miller, ...) this is rounding measurements that
are then over-averaged to obtain a "signal" smaller than the
round-offs; for Silvertooth this is in the search for regions of
the table position meeting his preconceived idea of what "ought
to be present", while he makes a non-exhaustive search.
For instance, the MMX does not suffer from this, because they did not
over-average their observations (like Miller did); their reported
error-bars are appropriate for their instrument. Miller's "signal" is
smaller than his instrument's resolution, and is really a "measurement"
of how his human observers rounded-off their observations. Ditto for
Esclangon. Silvertooth is both doing a non-exhaustive search for
preconceived patterns, and is also excluding observations for which his
apparatus did not cooperate with his preconceived notions, so he has it
TWICE.
> [...]
> Here we see Tom's litmus test. All "alternative" theories to SR must, in
> fact, BE SR. Any experiment that does not meet SR is not *viable.*
Again you display your inability to actually read what I write. Whenever
I have applied the word "viable" to theories, I have ALWAYS explained
what I meant (as I have said probably hundreds of times around here,
"viable" as I use it in this sense means "not already refuted by
existing experiments").
I cannot help it if:
a) SR remains a viable theory, within its domain of applicability,
in spite of greywolf42's wish it were wrong.
b) theories greywolf42 wishes were true are either not viable or
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR
c) the experimental record is diverse enough to refute essentially
all theories in SR's domain that are not experimentally
indistinguishable from SR.
The "essentially" in that last point is there to leave
open the possibility that someone will someday propose a
theory that "lives in the error bars" of existing
experiments, but is in principle distinguishable from SR.
This is VERY difficult, because of the tiny error-bars and
the diversity and scope of the experimental record.
To date nobody has presented such a theory, and Ensle, Seto,
McCarthy, greywolf42, and that crowd have made no attempt
to do so. They seem unaware of the necessity.... They also
seem almost completely unaware of the experimental record....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:b8bro3$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
[snip]
A gem titled "Experimenter Bias"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalGems.html#Bias
Makes it easy to refer to :-)
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> I am quite sure that you are mistaken there. The envelope signal is *not*
> caused by any difference in time delays but by the difference in
> wavelengths. That makes your calculation irrelevant
Then you need to learn how his phototubes work. My "calculation" applies
to Silvertooth's phototubes, because their photocathode is thin compared
to any wavelength involved. When a pair of light rays propagated from a
single source is applied to the photocathode, the phototube response is
related to their intensities and to the time-average of their phase
difference. Phase difference is equivalent to time-delay difference,
here. Wavelength has nothing to do with it.
> But you still didn't give a direct answer to my question, and instead you
> snipped away my reminder of the reason for this thread.
> To me that indicates that you did not find a flaw in the argument I
> presented.
Do you mean this:
> When an EM wave hits a moving mirror, the reflected wave will have a higher
> frequency than the incoming one (Doppler), and the standing wave pattern
> will contain an envelope signal due to the superposition of two waves with
> slightly different wavelength. Right?
>
> But that does not seem to lead to an identical reality with what happens in
> case of a stationary mirror, as then there will be no envelope signal. How
> can that be compatible with SRT?
Then first: observed from an inertial frame, the incident wave and the
wave reflected from a moving mirror do NOT generate a standing wave. So
your whole "argument" is founded on a counterfactual assumption.
Yes, in that case the reflected wave has a different wavelength from the
incident wave. It also has a different frequency (all observations made
from that inertial frame). The decomposition of the superposition of the
two counter-traveling components of a standing wave into a carrier wave
and an envelope depends upon trigonometric identities that require the
components to have the same frequency. So that decomposition fails for
the incident and reflected wave from a moving mirror.
As I said before, this is all unrelated to Silvertooth's expeirments, as
he measures only interference patterns, never wavelength or frequency.
Nor does he have moving mirrors (except for his "nutation").
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harold Ensle
[................]
> The "essentially" in that last point is there to leave
> open the possibility that someone will someday propose a
> theory that "lives in the error bars" of existing
> experiments, but is in principle distinguishable from SR.
> This is VERY difficult, because of the tiny error-bars and
> the diversity and scope of the experimental record.
> To date nobody has presented such a theory, and Ensle, Seto,
> McCarthy, greywolf42, and that crowd have made no attempt
> to do so. They seem unaware of the necessity.... They also
> seem almost completely unaware of the experimental record....
In my case this statement is entirely incorrect. On
Jan 25, 1986 when I came to the realization that SR was
impossible, my first task was to determine exactly what the
experimental record was, so that I would know exactly
what the experimental limitations were for any possible
substitution for the impossible theory of relativity.
This, of course, did not mean the SR interpretations of the
experiments, but merely the raw observations. Most do not
realize how intertwined the theory and the observation has
become....to the point where many fail to recognize the
difference.
Certain papers were particularly useful such as Newman's
collection in 1978 (which I came to by a much later paper
by Archer who basically "repeated" Newman's work).
This took about a year, but it was well worth the effort, as
it is obviously essential knowledge. But this was completed in
1987 and since I have been posting here, I have never once
neglected or contradicted any single experimental result. Yet
despite this, Roberts, in his "well trained" observation has
somehow come to the conclusion that I am ignorant of the
experimental record.
Furthermore, he claims above that:
"To date nobody has presented such a theory, and Ensle, Seto,
McCarthy, greywolf42, and that crowd have made no attempt
to do so."
He seems to think that if he is unaware of it, it hasn't happened.
I know for a fact that I have made the attempt and have, in fact,
recently made it available on the internet. I do not think Roberts
has seen it, but it certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist (except
perhaps in Roberts' own mind).
Greywolf42 claims that Roberts is being honest, but I am having
a hard time believing it.
H.Ellis Ensle
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:b8d7s9$2uu$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:b8bro3$d...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>
> [................]
>
> > The "essentially" in that last point is there to leave
> > open the possibility that someone will someday propose a
> > theory that "lives in the error bars" of existing
> > experiments, but is in principle distinguishable from SR.
> > This is VERY difficult, because of the tiny error-bars and
> > the diversity and scope of the experimental record.
> > To date nobody has presented such a theory, and Ensle, Seto,
> > McCarthy, greywolf42, and that crowd have made no attempt
> > to do so. They seem unaware of the necessity.... They also
> > seem almost completely unaware of the experimental record....
>
> In my case this statement is entirely incorrect. On
> Jan 25, 1986 when I came to the realization that SR was
> impossible,
because an observer "cannot apply the Lorentz transformation
to himself"?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CannotApply.html
or because you see the travelling twin "as instantly noticing
the change"?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Instantly.html
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > [...] Tom applies this claim of "experimenter bias"
> > against all experiments that he philosophically "disagrees" with.
>
> That's another example of what I mean when I say you (and others around
> here) are unable to read what I write. I do not do as you claim.
Unfortunately, you do it all the time. See:
news:3B5E45A5...@avenew.com
> I apply
> the claim of experimenter's bias to experiments which are clearly
> subject to experimenter's bias, and to no others. It is not my fault that:
> 1) many of the experiments greywolf42 wishes were true are
> subject to it.
Pure kindergarten.
> 2) experimenters before at least 1960 or so were not aware of the
> pernicious and insidious effects of experimenter's bias, in spite
> of their earnest efforts to avoid any bias in their observations.
LOL! Ever hear of N-rays? Perhaps you are referring to Eddington and
Principe/Sobral?
> Amateurs like Silvertooth and greywolf42 seem unaware of it still.
Amateurs like Einstein, when he developed SR? Ad hominem combined with the
special plead.
> 3) technology before 1980 or so often required humans in the
> data acquisition, because computers and their interfaces were not
> available.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Computers are not needed to avoid including humans in data aquisition (i.e.
geiger counter, tape drives, etc). Computers make data "correction" so much
easier. Then again, there's the modern computer "calculation of
background." Computers do only what humans tell them to do (GIGO).
> My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it; this is an objective aspect
> of experiments. greywolf42 seems to have no notion of objectivity and
> its relationship to science.
LOL!
> To be clear, an experiment is subject to experimenter's bias when:
> 1) a human plays an essential role in data acqisition
> 2) the human is aware of what constitutes a "signal"
> 3) the human is also aware of the conditions of the experiment which
> affect the "signal" (e.g. orientation of the apparatus wrt the
> fixed stars)
> 4) the human makes essential judgements that affect the data.
Excellent!!!!! Tom has produced a useful list of determining when
experimenter bias can exist. (Tom is not stupid, just blinded by his
religion.) Let's examine his list:
1)
In the case of N-Rays, the human eye was considered "essential," because no
other detector was available. If -- on the other hand -- one is counting
flashes of light (i.e. Rutherford), clicks on a counter (Curie), etc. Then
the human is not "essential." Just a recording device. Should a human
write down "5" when he saw/heard "10", that is dishonesty. And would be
caught by repetition by others.
2) and 3) are about the same thing. The tendency to fudge analog devices
into giving "digital" data. Again, this tendency would be negated by
repetition by others.
4) Is the easiest. Data cooking is an old science. Babbage wrote a
treatise on the various methods used in the 1700s (putting the lie to Tom's
claim that this wasn't understood prior to the 1960's) [when GR was
declared holy].
What's missing from Tom's list? There is one glaring error. The *desire* on
the part of the experimenter to get the "right" answer according to some
theory!
> In most cases
> (Esclangon, Miller, ...) this is rounding measurements that
> are then over-averaged to obtain a "signal" smaller than the
> round-offs; for Silvertooth this is in the search for regions of
> the table position meeting his preconceived idea of what "ought
> to be present", while he makes a non-exhaustive search.
>
> For instance, the MMX does not suffer from this, because they did not
> over-average their observations (like Miller did); their reported
> error-bars are appropriate for their instrument.
The MMX had all four strikes against it (from Tom's list). The MMX is
identical to Miller's efforts. Yet Tom declares that the MMX does not have
any *experimenter bias* solely because of Miller's averaging technique.
However, IF Miller's averaging technique is invalid, that is a flaw in the
experimental logic or statistics -- not a demonstration of "experimenter
bias."
> Miller's "signal" is
> smaller than his instrument's resolution, and is really a "measurement"
> of how his human observers rounded-off their observations. Ditto for
> Esclangon.
However, these conclusions are arbitrary. Tom is not an authority for the
theoretical resolution of Miller's experiments (there were many). Should
Tom provide an actual analysis (rather than proof by assertion), it should
be considered.
> Silvertooth is both doing a non-exhaustive search for
> preconceived patterns, and is also excluding observations for which his
> apparatus did not cooperate with his preconceived notions, so he has it
> TWICE.
However, Tom has no way of knowing if Silvertooth actually did what Tom just
described. Tom believes that Silvertooth did this solely to *invalidate*
the experiment that disagrees with Tom's pet theory. Of course the simple
thing to do would be to repeat the experiment.
Oh, but I forgot! "Modern" science has no time or need for experimental
replication.
>
> > [...]
> > Here we see Tom's litmus test. All "alternative" theories to SR must,
in
> > fact, BE SR. Any experiment that does not meet SR is not *viable.*
>
> Again you display your inability to actually read what I write. Whenever
> I have applied the word "viable" to theories, I have ALWAYS explained
> what I meant (as I have said probably hundreds of times around here,
> "viable" as I use it in this sense means "not already refuted by
> existing experiments").
Yes, you have stated this hundreds of times. And it still isn't true. From
your magnum opus on the subject: (from news:3B5E45A5...@avenew.com)
=======================
Another significant shortcoming is that you constantly reference "viable"
aether theories (20 times in 3 posts) as those "not refuted by experiment."
You've listed MMX, Brillet-Hall, Cialeda, Silvertooth, Kantor,
Krisher, and Torr-Kolen. However, of the the seven experiments, for the
last five you "prove" that the observed non-null results really are
"impossible", by use of "gedanken experiments" and "lemmas."
=======================
So, as of August 2001, your criterion was NOT *experimenter bias*, it was
that the results were *impossible* according to your personal theory
(apparently SR). You actually modified the results of five of the
experiments, and described what they *should have been.*
Only on the basis of your theoretical recreation of 5 of 7 experiments did
you claim "viable" experiments. Now -- as that position has become
untenable -- you back off and invent observer bias. Forgive me if I'm
skeptical. And I'm sorry if I'm behind the times and missed the exact date
that you switched arguments.
But if those five experiments really are truly flawed due to experimenter
bias (as you now claim),
then they have no standing whatsoever. Leaving you with only MMX and
Brillet-Hall to support your case. And -- as MMX cannot distinguish between
ANY matter-contraction theories -- your claim disappears almost completely.
> I cannot help it if:
> a) SR remains a viable theory, within its domain of applicability,
> in spite of greywolf42's wish it were wrong.
SR is not a "theory." It is a mathematical tautology. See, for example
news:3B5E45A5...@avenew.com
==================
Tom:
> As I have said rather often around here, the ONE-WAY speed of light is
> determined by one's choice of clock synchronization. "True" does
> not apply to any statement about the ONE-WAY speed of light without
> ALSO mentioning a clock synchronization procedure. In SR, the ONE-WAY
> speed of light is indeed isotropically c in every inertial frame,
> because SR explicitly uses Einstein's synchronization procedure. But
> in the other theories in the class I discuss that is not so, and the
> ONE-WAY speed of light is not isotropic except in the ether frame
> (except for LET).
>
> And golly gee, if you look in the articles I referenced, you
> will see that the basic difference among the theories of this
> class is in the way they synchronize clocks in moving frames.
==================
Since your criterion is that all theories must use SR mantra of e-synch,
then you have required SR.
> b) theories greywolf42 wishes were true are either not viable or
> are experimentally indistinguishable from SR
Of course, if your criterion is that all theories must use SR mantra of
e-synch, then you have required SR.
> c) the experimental record is diverse enough to refute essentially
> all theories in SR's domain that are not experimentally
> indistinguishable from SR.
But if your claim *really* is that experimenter bias interfered with all
those other experiments, then you don't HAVE a diverse experimental record.
:) Your claims are mutually exclusive.
> The "essentially" in that last point is there to leave
> open the possibility that someone will someday propose a
> theory that "lives in the error bars" of existing
> experiments, but is in principle distinguishable from SR.
> This is VERY difficult, because of the tiny error-bars and
> the diversity and scope of the experimental record.
LOL! MMX and (your interpretation of) Brillet Hall is not a diverse scope
of experiment! Please make up your mind! Are the experiments flawed by
experimenter bias, or are they valid? If they're not valid (your claim at
the beginning) then you don't have a diverse scope of experiment.
> To date nobody has presented such a theory, and Ensle, Seto,
> McCarthy, greywolf42, and that crowd have made no attempt
> to do so. They seem unaware of the necessity.... They also
> seem almost completely unaware of the experimental record....
It's so hard to keep up with your interpretations of the experimental
record. Since you *define* acceptable experiments as that which use your
religious mantra for redefining time and space to ensure that the
measurements match SR, there is no possible other answer. But by assumption
and convention. Not according to reality.
The rest of us don't use your catechism. Thus, we make no attempt to please
you. For your "requirement" is a "necessity" only to you. Closing your
eyes and ears to other approaches doesn't change the universe.
Harry
This is mostly a matter of semantics. However, as I indicated
elsewhere, my analysis was wrong indeed.
> As I said before, this is all unrelated to Silvertooth's expeirments, as
> he measures only interference patterns, never wavelength or frequency.
> Nor does he have moving mirrors (except for his "nutation").
That was another misunderstanding, the mirrors are moving relative to
the light's reference frame ("that inertial frame") . Anyway, I agree
with your analysis that in vacuum the time averaged signal should be
the same everywhere using standard theory.
Meanwhile I have spotted a similar experiment by De Witte, and his
theory. He claimed that also according to him Silvertooth would have
measured a real signal. As yet I don't understand his theory, and in
particular, which set-ups would yield a nul result and which not. The
only thing I grasped is that standard theory fails to account for the
fact that the breakings index (= effective velocity) changes with
frequency. I tried to send him a mail but it bounced.
I also saw that you (Tom Roberts) had planned to give your analyis on
that, but to my regret I have not been able to find it.
Harald
Tom Roberts
> Meanwhile I have spotted a similar experiment by De Witte, and his
> theory. He claimed that also according to him Silvertooth would have
> measured a real signal.
You need to tap into the REAL physics literature, and stop slumming on
the internet (:-)).
DeWitte was a regular around here for a while. Remarkably, he is even
more incompetent than Silvertooth (:-(). His theory is a member of the
equivalence class of theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, and it predicts a null result for both Silvertooth's experiment
and his own (all of them). But his incompetence prevents him from
realizing this....
Note "his" theory has been articulated many times in
the literature. It's origins are muddled. But it clearly
is experimentally indistinguishable from SR and it has an
intrinsically-unobservable ether.
> As yet I don't understand his theory, and in
> particular, which set-ups would yield a nul result and which not.
That theory, like every member of that equivalence class, predicts a
null result for any exepriment meeting the conditions of the corollary I
mentioned earlier.
> The
> only thing I grasped is that standard theory fails to account for the
> fact that the breakings index (= effective velocity) changes with
> frequency. I tried to send him a mail but it bounced.
> I also saw that you (Tom Roberts) had planned to give your analyis on
> that, but to my regret I have not been able to find it.
I have posted several articles on DeWitte's experiment, and its many
failings, on this newsgroup. Look a couple of years ago.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > Meanwhile I have spotted a similar experiment by De Witte, and his
> > theory. He claimed that also according to him Silvertooth would have
> > measured a real signal.
>
> You need to tap into the REAL physics literature, and stop slumming on
> the internet (:-)).
"Real" physics literature is a little like religious literature, while
internet is like the jungle. Nothing is perfect.
I am now going through the Feynman lectures as I never read them -they are
great, like I expected.
> DeWitte was a regular around here for a while. Remarkably, he is even
> more incompetent than Silvertooth (:-(). His theory is a member of the
> equivalence class of theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR, and it predicts a null result for both Silvertooth's experiment
> and his own (all of them). But his incompetence prevents him from
> realizing this....
>
> Note "his" theory has been articulated many times in
> the literature. It's origins are muddled. But it clearly
> is experimentally indistinguishable from SR and it has an
> intrinsically-unobservable ether.
Happy to hear that that is clear to you. What I hinted on, from
http://www.ping.be/~pin30390/fizeau.htm
I got the impression that he uses a different equation for moving
dielectrics that he claims to also be in agreement with experiment.
I may be wrong and it only looks different; on the other hand, if my
impression is right then his theory certainly differs from that of Lorentz.
SNIP
Regards,
Harald