Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al
Ben Bean
Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
I can't *imagine* any sense whatsoever of *calculating* that MMX results are
utterly INvalid, exCEPT when there is a gas medium present in the apparatus.
That's looney, one would guess, since light requires no medium to behave
just so.
The remainder of Cahill's thesis is for TPs to interpret.
Bilge
>Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
>
>I can't *imagine* any sense whatsoever of *calculating* that MMX results are
>utterly INvalid, exCEPT when there is a gas medium present in the apparatus.
>That's looney, one would guess, since light requires no medium to behave
>just so.
Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one could perform to
prove the claim if he were interested. He uses the silly numbers of 1 and
1.001 as a comparison of indicies of refraction and notes how small the
difference is. Well, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out that
the difference will be huge if one uses an index of refraction of 2.4,
which I suggested to someone trying to peddle cahill's nonsense on this
newsgroup a while back (plug in the numbers and you'll see what I mean
about being obvious). As it turns out, one can purchase light fibers made
of some special glass which has that index of refraction, so it should be
a slam-dunk to do the experiment. So far, no word. I guess a real
experiment is not part of his plan.
Tom Roberts
> Ben Bean:
> >What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of Light and the Einstein
> >Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
He uses an invalid analysis technique that greatly amplifies the error
bar, making him conclude that a result consistent with zero is nonzero.
He needs to learn how to handle error bars correctly, and how to
properly compare a theory to an experiment.
> Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one could perform to
> prove the claim if he were interested. [...]
Already done:
Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex
(n=1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe.
They report a null result with an upper limit on Vaether of 6.64
km/sec.
So Cahill's theory is already refuted experimentally.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Thomas Wong
Cahill's reinterpretations of classic MMX experiments are worse than
misguided; they have always been intellectually dishonest. For
instance, consider this horrible mess:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf
Every single re-analysis in this older paper, whether it be of
Michelson-Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Joos, Jaseja et al., Torr and
Kolen, or DeWitte represents complete intellectual butchery. I have no
time to deal with every one of Cahill's nonsensical reinterpretations.
For the purpose of this post, let me focus on his treatment of
Michelson-Morley 1887:
Consider Cahill's Figure 3, which is a plot of micrometer readings for
Michelson and Morley's July 11 noontime run. Their readings exhibited
minor fluctuations as they rotated their apparatus. Each marker on this
figure represents 22.5 degrees of rotation, and I count 2.5 up-and-down
fluctuations as the apparatus was rotated through a complete 360
degrees.
Cahill writes, "The Michelson-Morley interferometer data clearly shows
the characteristic sinusoidal form with period 180 degrees together
with a large speed."
Cahill is being grossly dishonest in this misrepresentation of
Michelson and Morley's data. These fluctuations DO NOT show
"characteristic sinusoidal form with period 180 degrees." Instead, the
plotted fluctuations display a periodicity of 360/2.5 = 144 degrees.
In addition, Cahill presents, but does not plot, Michelson and Morley's
data from their 6 PM run of July 9. When I plot their data, I see
irregular fluctuations of similar magnitude as present in their July 11
noontime run, but with a periodicity of approximately 120 degrees, i.e.
approximately three up-and-down oscillations per 360 degree turn of
their apparatus.
Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these fluctuations
as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic error
in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure.
----
In sum: don't waste your time with Cahill.
Tom
Thomas Wong
Cahill's reinterpretations of classic MMX experiments are worse than
Thomas Wong
Cahill is aware of Shamir and Fox, and in an intellectual pinwheeling
that places him in the upper reaches of crackpottery, claims that the
null result of Shamir and Fox is the result of anisotropic refractive
index changes in transparent solids that cancel out one's ability to
detect ether drift effects.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf
Tom
Harry
"Thomas Wong" <nonfuncti...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1105870475.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
IMO yes, but one should distinguish theory from measurement data.
> Cahill is aware of Shamir and Fox, and in an intellectual pinwheeling
> that places him in the upper reaches of crackpottery, claims that the
> null result of Shamir and Fox is the result of anisotropic refractive
> index changes in transparent solids that cancel out one's ability to
> detect ether drift effects.
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf
Not so. He admitted that they had not expected that result and that they
even did a similar experiment with the same outcome. He then gave his "most
likely explanation" in an attempt to show that his theory could be correct
nevertheless. A poor explanation attempt isn't a crackpot claim, or many
scientists would be crackpots (I have seen quite a few in peer reviewed
journals). And thanks for the reference.
Harald
Thomas Wong
What is your take on Cahill's total misrepresentation of
Michelson-Morley, which I discussed on a another branch of this thread?
Tom
Harry
From what you quote you seem quite right that his comments were extremely
biased, but I didn't look into it - one year ago he was not able to explain
me his theory, and I let it go in particular because I didn't buy his poor
explanation above.
OK I'll have a quick look.
Harald
Thomas Wong
All of his other analyses are equally biased. What is your take on his
horribly biased reanalysis of Joos? He throws out every turn which
disagrees with his preconceptions, and focuses on a single outlier.
He displays complete, total intellectually dishonesty.
Tom
Harry
His remark was a little fuzzy, but I happen to have done a similar analysis
in the past, and a scientist who is doing a M&M experiment told me that he
gets a similar signal and that it's consistent with a true signal eventhough
the curves aren't sinusses. This because the signal is the result of a
rather complex galactic motion - a point that M&M seem to have neglected.
With that in mind, it looks logical that Cahill tried to point out based on
*fig.5* that the large signals were nearly sinusses, and this IMO seems not
really wrong but very upbeat - a little like Einstein's solar expedition!
Now you analysed fig.3... and so I'll have a look at that:
Point 16 = point 0 and point 17 = point 2 which should be about the same
value and therefore they should be eliminated or averaged.. Then I find
quite nearly the claimed 180 degrees period for large speed.
Thus I didn't spot anything greatly dishonest there.
> In addition, Cahill presents, but does not plot, Michelson and Morley's
> data from their 6 PM run of July 9. When I plot their data, I see
> irregular fluctuations of similar magnitude as present in their July 11
> noontime run, but with a periodicity of approximately 120 degrees, i.e.
> approximately three up-and-down oscillations per 360 degree turn of
> their apparatus.
The processed version is plotted in fig.5. Indeed it looks too noisy to tell
anything. That may be what he meant with "the cases where the data does not
have the sinusoidal form".
> Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these fluctuations
> as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic error
> in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure.
> ----
> In sum: don't waste your time with Cahill.
Cheers,
Harald
Thomas Wong
> "Thomas Wong" <nonfuncti...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1105868730....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
No. NO. ABSOLUTELY NO!!!!
Completely improper procedure! Throwing away data that you don't like!
Besides which, you are misreading the horizontal scale, which Cahill
plots in a most peculiar manner. The scale starts from 1, not 0. With
point 1, the apparatus is in the same orientation as point 17.
Even throwing away the data that you don't like, you STILL don't
achieve 180 degrees periodicity. Compare ANY two points spaced 8
markers apart:
1 versus 9
2 versus 10
3 versus 11
...
9 versus 17
> Then I find
> quite nearly the claimed 180 degrees period for large speed.
> Thus I didn't spot anything greatly dishonest there.
I have a bridge for sale...you interested?
> > In addition, Cahill presents, but does not plot, Michelson and
Morley's
> > data from their 6 PM run of July 9. When I plot their data, I see
> > irregular fluctuations of similar magnitude as present in their
July 11
> > noontime run, but with a periodicity of approximately 120 degrees,
i.e.
> > approximately three up-and-down oscillations per 360 degree turn of
> > their apparatus.
>
> The processed version is plotted in fig.5. Indeed it looks too noisy
to tell
> anything. That may be what he meant with "the cases where the data
does not
> have the sinusoidal form".
>
> > Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these
fluctuations
> > as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic
error
> > in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure.
> > ----
> > In sum: don't waste your time with Cahill.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
Tom
Harry
I didn't look into that one at all. Maybe later. It happens that people fool
themselves.
But about Michelson and Morley, the "noise" signal became more pronounced
when I averaged it more, which to me is usually indicative of a signal. But
then, it's rather difficult to interpret. Without a serious statistical
analysis according to some general standard (ideally with the help of a
statistics program), pertinent claims that it is pure noise are IMO just as
biased as pertinent claims that it's a clear signal.
BTW it's easy to declare somebody else's comments as "dishonest". For
example, while you wrote:
"Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these fluctuations
> as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic error
> in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure"
AFAIK they didn't state anything like that but they wrote:
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It is not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in these
experiments."
Cheers,
Harald
Thomas Wong
> BTW it's easy to declare somebody else's comments as "dishonest". For
> example, while you wrote:
> "Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these
fluctuations
> > as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic
error
> > in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure"
>
> AFAIK they didn't state anything like that but they wrote:
> "the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less
than
> one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
> It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
> between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It
is not
> impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea
the
> relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used
in these
> experiments."
Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift signal would
look like, and recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
necessary characteristics. What you cite was their estimate of the
largest signal that could possibly be hiding under the observed noise.
Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations as being
possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small signal, they would
have stated as such. They did not.
Tom
Harry
Averaging each pair would be the best procedure IMO..
> Besides which, you are misreading the horizontal scale, which Cahill
> plots in a most peculiar manner. The scale starts from 1, not 0. With
> point 1, the apparatus is in the same orientation as point 17.
Oops indeed, 17 = point 1. Indeed only one point overlap, sorry for the
mistake. That makes it look less good than I thought. But better than you
thought, right? Otherwise I don't know how you could "count 2.5 up-and-down
fluctuations".
> Even throwing away the data that you don't like,
Look again, that has nothing to do with not liking, we may only take an
interval of 16 points for an expected 2 periods!
If you want to criticize Cahill about intellectual honesty...
> you STILL don't
> achieve 180 degrees periodicity. Compare ANY two points spaced 8
> markers apart:
> 1 versus 9
> 2 versus 10
> 3 versus 11
> ...
> 9 versus 17
Here you compare individual points versus an estimated idealised baseline. I
am not convinced that that is a good way to analyse noisy data. I wouldn't
be surprised that if you'd do that with a real messed up sinus, you also
would have difficulty to identify it like that.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't know a standard accepted
procedure to analyse this kind of signals.
> > Then I find
> > quite nearly the claimed 180 degrees period for large speed.
> > Thus I didn't spot anything greatly dishonest there.
>
> I have a bridge for sale...you interested?
No I'm not. ;-)
Harald
Paul Stowe
wrote:
Can you show us anywhere in the literature (or statements by either
Michelson or Morley) that says this explicitly? If not, you're
simply projecting your 'beliefs' of ehat might have been...
If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
they did present the data unlike many nowadays. Now in an age of
scrounging for signals in a sea of noise as with COBE is seems
pretty damned hypocritical to complain about this. There IS a
clear and present pattern in Figure 4 that IS sinusoidal in nature.
It seems that the only issue is what is the actual cyclic period.
Paul Stowe
Thomas Wong
> > Harry wrote:
<snip>
And what constitutes an appropriate spacing between pairs? (hint: it
isn't eight markers!)
> > Besides which, you are misreading the horizontal scale, which
Cahill
> > plots in a most peculiar manner. The scale starts from 1, not 0.
With
> > point 1, the apparatus is in the same orientation as point 17.
>
> Oops indeed, 17 = point 1. Indeed only one point overlap, sorry for
the
> mistake. That makes it look less good than I thought. But better than
you
> thought, right?
Nope.
> Otherwise I don't know how you could "count 2.5 up-and-down
> fluctuations".
>
> > Even throwing away the data that you don't like,
>
> Look again, that has nothing to do with not liking, we may only take
an
> interval of 16 points for an expected 2 periods!
> If you want to criticize Cahill about intellectual honesty...
>
> > you STILL don't
> > achieve 180 degrees periodicity. Compare ANY two points spaced 8
> > markers apart:
> > 1 versus 9
> > 2 versus 10
> > 3 versus 11
> > ...
> > 9 versus 17
>
> Here you compare individual points versus an estimated idealised
baseline. I
> am not convinced that that is a good way to analyse noisy data. I
wouldn't
> be surprised that if you'd do that with a real messed up sinus, you
also
> would have difficulty to identify it like that.
In contrast to the unconvincing correspondences when comparing readings
8 markers apart, I observe a reasonably strong set of correspondences
comparing readings spaced 6.5 markers apart.
1 versus 7.5
2 versus 8.5
3 versus 9.5
...
10 versus 16.5
6.5 / 8 * 180 = 146 degrees, approximately. This is in good agreement
with my eyeball count of "2.5 up-and-down fluctuations." over 360
degrees.
> As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't know a standard accepted
> procedure to analyse this kind of signals.
Since you seem to like signal averaging, try signal averaging using
"pairs" spaced 6.5 markers apart, interpolating as necessary.
> > > Then I find
> > > quite nearly the claimed 180 degrees period for large speed.
> > > Thus I didn't spot anything greatly dishonest there.
> >
> > I have a bridge for sale...you interested?
>
> No I'm not. ;-)
>
> Harald
Tom
harry
"Thomas Wong" <nonfunctional_em...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1105978770....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Harry wrote:
> > "Thomas Wong" <nonfunctional_em...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1105970290.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tom
Tom,
- Where did you read what you stated about them?
- As they didn't even mention the fluctuations, I can't know if they
thought if elaborated analysis could uncover a true signal out of their
data or not.
I am amazed how you can be so assertive about their thoughts.
But in 1902 Hicks did an elaborated analysis and he concluded that the
signal was not negligibly small.
Harald
Thomas Wong
> Tom,
> - Where did you read what you stated about them?
To which of my statements do you object?
"Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift signal would
look like." True or False?
...
"[they] recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
necessary characteristics." True or False?
...
"What you cite was their estimate of the largest signal that could
possibly be hiding under the observed noise." True or False?
...
"Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations as being
possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small signal, they would
have stated as such." True or False?
...
"They did not." True or False?
Tom
Thomas Wong
> Since you seem to like signal averaging, try signal
> averaging using "pairs" spaced 6.5 markers apart,
> interpolating as necessary.
Harry, let me save you some work:
---------------------------------------------------
12:00hr 27.3 23.5 22.0 19.3 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.9
July 11 16.2 14.3 13.3 12.8 13.3 12.3 10.2 7.3 6.5
---------------------------------------------------
1.0) 27.3 + 0.5(18.7 + 18.9) = 46.1
1.5) 0.5(27.3 + 23.5) + 18.9 = 44.3
2.0) 23.5 + 0.5(18.9 + 16.2) = 41.05
2.5) 0.5(23.5 + 22.0) + 16.2 = 38.95
3.0) 22.0 + 0.5(16.2 + 14.3) = 37.25
3.5) 0.5(22.0 + 19.3) + 14.3 = 34.95
4.0) 19.3 + 0.5(14.3 + 13.3) = 33.1
4.5) 0.5(19.3 + 19.2) + 13.3 = 32.55
5.0) 19.2 + 0.5(13.3 + 12.8) = 32.25
5.5) 0.5(19.2 + 19.3) + 12.8 = 32.05
6.0) 19.3 + 0.5(12.8 + 13.3) = 32.35
6.5) 0.5(19.3 + 18.7) + 13.3 = 32.3
7.0) 18.7 + 0.5(13.3 + 12.3) = 31.5
7.5) 0.5(18.7 + 18.9) + 12.3 = 31.1
8.0) 18.9 + 0.5(12.3 + 10.2) = 30.15
8.5) 0.5(18.9 + 16.2) + 10.2 = 27.75
9.0) 16.2 + 0.5(10.2 + 7.3) = 24.95
9.5) 0.5(16.2 + 14.3) + 7.3 = 22.55
10.0) 14.3 + 0.5(7.3 + 6.5) = 21.2
10.5) 0.5(14.3 + 13.3) + 6.5 = 20.3
---------------------------------------------------
We have what appears to be systematic error of the
wrong period to be an actual signal.
Tom
harry
> - Where did you read what you stated about them?
[Tom wrote:]
To which of my statements do you object?
Not yet. I meant your statements that I never heard of and therefore
seem to be pulled out of thin air:
"Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these fluctuations
as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic error
in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure"
In my personal imagination, M&M didn't bother to analyse the observed
noise level fluctations but left that over to others as they went on to
consider new experiments to get a better signal. No doubt scriptwriters
can make up several other scenarios.
Harald
harry
I don't intend to do anymore of such amateuristic analyses, depending
on what you try it goes one way or another without any real conclusion,
you can find mine if you search in the archives.
In the light of Cahill's explanation of the combined motions I
interpreted his "180 degrees" as an approximative remark.
What I have seen as simulations from Hector Munera (he is doing a MMX)
is that due to the combined motion the solar system and the earth
significant deviations from the signal are to be expected, quite like
the "noise"signals of MMX.
Hey Tom, I'm at a loss what kind of "systematic error" could cause a
signal with a period that is *not* 8 markers apart. Do you have a
suggestion?
Harald
Thomas Wong
> Tom,
>
> I don't intend to do anymore of such amateuristic analyses, depending
> on what you try it goes one way or another without any real
conclusion,
> you can find mine if you search in the archives.
> In the light of Cahill's explanation of the combined motions I
> interpreted his "180 degrees" as an approximative remark.
Harry, this is an absolutely critical point! The period of the observed
signal must be statistically indistinguishable from 180 degrees, before
it can be accepted as supportive of ether drift.
> What I have seen as simulations from Hector Munera (he is doing a
MMX)
> is that due to the combined motion the solar system and the earth
> significant deviations from the signal are to be expected, quite like
> the "noise"signals of MMX.
> Hey Tom, I'm at a loss what kind of "systematic error" could cause a
> signal with a period that is *not* 8 markers apart. Do you have a
> suggestion?
Several possibilities come to mind, but none of them matter. What
matters is that the supposed signal, whatever its source, does not have
the characteristics required of an ether drift detection. Cahill's
analysis is bogus.
Tom
Bilge
> If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
> anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
> the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
> they did present the data unlike many nowadays.
Your usual strawman. Do you expect journals to include a CD box
set with the data and and the source code for the programs used
to read and analyze the data? (If it's a high energy experiment,
make that a pallet of a few thousand CD's and a possibly a set of
oracle database CD's, shipped via ground freight with a bit higher
subscription price.)
As I've told you before, if you want the data, contact the experimental
group and see if they'll provide you with a copy of it. Offer to pay for
the shipping and media needed to store it. Have you done this? My guess
is no.
Once you get the data, you can write a few programs to read and analyze
the data yourself. (Don't expect the data to be in micrsoft excel format.)
If you don't want to do that, then you are just blowing hot air. While
receiving a request for data might appear bizarre, there's a reasonable
chance that they'll just think you're weird and send you what you want.
Thomas Wong
>
> Can you show us anywhere in the literature (or statements by either
> Michelson or Morley) that says this explicitly? If not, you're
> simply projecting your 'beliefs' of ehat might have been...
To which of my statements do you object?
1) "Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift signal
would look like." True or False?
2) "[they] recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
necessary characteristics." True or False?
3) "What you cite was their estimate of the largest signal that
could possibly be hiding under the observed noise." True or False?
4) "Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations
as being possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small
signal, they would have stated as such." True or False?
5) "They did not." True or False?
> If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
> anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
> the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
> they did present the data unlike many nowadays. Now in an age of
> scrounging for signals in a sea of noise as with COBE is seems
> pretty damned hypocritical to complain about this. There IS a
> clear and present pattern in Figure 4 that IS sinusoidal in nature.
>
> It seems that the only issue is what is the actual cyclic period.
The cyclical period is on the order of 144 degrees or so, which is
totally incompatible with any interpretation in terms of ether
drift.
Tom
bryan...@yahoo.com
Bilge wrote:
> Ben Bean:
>
> Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one could
perform to
and
> 1.001 as a comparison of indicies of refraction and notes how small
the
> difference is. Well, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out
that
> the difference will be huge if one uses an index of refraction of
2.4,
> which I suggested to someone trying to peddle cahill's nonsense on
this
> newsgroup a while back (plug in the numbers and you'll see what I
mean
> about being obvious). As it turns out, one can purchase light fibers
made
> of some special glass which has that index of refraction, so it
should be
> a slam-dunk to do the experiment. So far, no word. I guess a real
> experiment is not part of his plan.
why don't you perform the experiment in your laboratory and publish a
paper to prove Cahill's lunacy? i think misleading papers like this
should be critized in the proper forum (journal, conference).
Harry
Tom, I now saw that they rotated in just 6 minutes, and from that I agree
with you that the signal should be very nearly periodic with the rotation.
Nevertheless you didn't show that noise couldn't be the cause of the
apparently slightly aperiodic signal of one turn, nor did you make it
plausible that the system could be the source of the aperiodic signal that
you concluded.
Based on that it would be illogical to favour your conclusion over that of
Cahill, Hicks, Miller, Allais and Munera.
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncupf8t....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Paul Stowe:
>
> > If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
> > anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
> > the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
> > they did present the data unlike many nowadays.
Exactly. It was excellent work.
> Your usual strawman. Do you expect journals to include a CD box
> set with the data and and the source code for the programs used
> to read and analyze the data? (If it's a high energy experiment,
> make that a pallet of a few thousand CD's and a possibly a set of
> oracle database CD's, shipped via ground freight with a bit higher
> subscription price.)
>
> As I've told you before, if you want the data, contact the experimental
> group and see if they'll provide you with a copy of it. Offer to pay for
> the shipping and media needed to store it. Have you done this? My guess
> is no.
I heard that Hefele and Keating (forgot the spelling) refused to give their
data to people who wanted to criticize their results.
Nowadays it's easy to make a reasonable amount of data available on
internet. No excuses!
On a positive note, there is word that much of Miller's data has
resurfacedered. Maybe someone is typing them in. That could be interesting.
Harald
Thomas Wong
Why do you demand that I identify the source of this spurious signal
before you will disbelieve Cahill etc?
Harry, the rotational period of this pattern is approximately 144
degrees. Whatever the source of this pattern, whether it be a
systematic error from their apparatus or their measurement procedure,
or a result of random noise, the period is totally incompatible with
ether drift. Attempting to conclude otherwise is fanciful
wish-fulfillment.
Tom
Harry
No I don't favour a conclusion. This stuff is too fuzzy for me. I prefer the
way Michelson treated it (simply not).
> Harry, the rotational period of this pattern is approximately 144
> degrees. Whatever the source of this pattern, whether it be a
> systematic error from their apparatus or their measurement procedure,
> or a result of random noise, the period is totally incompatible with
> ether drift. Attempting to conclude otherwise is fanciful
> wish-fulfillment.
I repeat: claiming that the pattern is 144 degrees and therefore can't be an
ether effect but must be a systematic error is just as much wishful
thinking. Intellectual dishonesty and scientific approach require that you
identify the more likely of two hypothesis by comparing the evidences in
favour of each. I didn't see you do that.
Harald
Thomas Wong
(sigh)
Harry, demonstrating that the rotational period of the pattern is not
180 degrees is simple. I wrote a short computer program to perform
signal averaging over 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, and 5 markers. The
averaged signal peaks at 6.5 marker separation, but almost disappears
assuming 8 marker separation.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself.
Tom
Tom Roberts
> As I've told you before, if you want the data, contact the experimental
> group and see if they'll provide you with a copy of it. Offer to pay for
> the shipping and media needed to store it. Have you done this? My guess
> receiving a request for data might appear bizarre, there's a reasonable
> chance that they'll just think you're weird and send you what you want.
It doesn't really work like that, in my experience. The experiments I
have particpated in would almost surely not respond to a request like
that, because of the inherent difficulties in understanding the data,
and the cost to us of packaging it and assisting in understanding it.
What we would consider is an offer to join the experimental
collaboration. But, of course, that would require some credentials or
references, and someone like Paul Stowe would almost surely be
considered unqualified -- why should we waste our time?
Several times I have indeed joined an experimental collaboration after
the data taking was complete. I had an interest in analyzing the data,
and they saw value in my expertise and contributions. But it is far
better to join early, and be involved in design and construction also.
But physicists tend to be pack rats, and a request several decades after
the collaboration had disbanded might succeed, if you could find someone
willing to expend the effort.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
I don't doubt it.
Harald
Koobee Wublee
> Ben Bean:
> >What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of Light and the
> >Einstein
> >Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
> >
> >are
> >utterly INvalid, exCEPT when there is a gas medium present in the
> >apparatus.
> >That's looney, one would guess, since light requires no medium to behave
> >just so.
>
> prove the claim if he were interested. He uses the silly numbers of 1 and
> 1.001 as a comparison of indicies of refraction and notes how small the
> difference is. Well, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out that
> the difference will be huge if one uses an index of refraction of 2.4,
> which I suggested to someone trying to peddle cahill's nonsense on this
> newsgroup a while back (plug in the numbers and you'll see what I mean
> about being obvious). As it turns out, one can purchase light fibers made
> of some special glass which has that index of refraction, so it should be
> a slam-dunk to do the experiment. So far, no word. I guess a real
> experiment is not part of his plan.
What Cahill did was to re-examine the mathematical approach that leads to
Special Relativity. To his credit, he noticed that by including the index
of refraction it allows a different speed of light for the observer.
Mathematically, he then went on to prove the absolute speed term can be
extracted from that. If this is the case, even conducting an experiment
with an index of refraction of 2.4 should prove beyond any reason of doubt
that the absolute speed can be detected. If not, then the mathematics that
leads down to Special Relativity has to be revised. That means Special
Relativity cannot be correct.
He did make a typo on his equation 1 by missing the index of refraction
which he corrected in the paragraph following right after equation 2.
However, there is a conceptual flaw in his concept of using the index of
refraction to allow a lower speed of light other than the observer's own
speed of light in vacuum. The lower speed of light due to index of
refraction does not contribute to time dilation. He incorrectly assumed
that it did in his calculations in both frames of references. If taken this
into account, you will find even the index of refraction plays no role in
detecting absolute motion.
Bilge
>> As I've told you before, if you want the data, contact the experimental
>> group and see if they'll provide you with a copy of it. Offer to pay for
>> the shipping and media needed to store it. Have you done this? My guess
>> is no. [...] While
>> receiving a request for data might appear bizarre, there's a reasonable
>> chance that they'll just think you're weird and send you what you want.
>
>It doesn't really work like that, in my experience. The experiments I
>have particpated in would almost surely not respond to a request like
>that, because of the inherent difficulties in understanding the data,
>and the cost to us of packaging it and assisting in understanding it.
opinion on the fact that labs retain data long after anyone has
any interest in analyzing and that I've never worked with anyone
that would have cared beyond how long it would take, when it would
get done and who would pay for it. I addition, I don't think one
has the option to refuse if the research was performed with federal
funds. The freedom of information act allows an individual to
file a request for any scientific data produced by federal funding
if the request is for other than commercial purposes, subject to
costs associated with processing and redaction of any data deemed
to be ``sensitive'' for national security reasons.
>What we would consider is an offer to join the experimental
>collaboration. But, of course, that would require some credentials or
>references, and someone like Paul Stowe would almost surely be
>considered unqualified -- why should we waste our time?
For the same reasons, I find it highly unlikely that he is serious
about wanting the actual data from an experiment. The reason doing
experimental physics is a full time job is because it's a full time
job. My guess is that what he wants is to reinterpret the analysis
and thinks that ``all of the data'' means some ``preliminary''
analysis for which every one conspired to eliminate data points
obtained from the analysis which then becomes the ``published''
analysis.
Personally, I think it would be a great idea for him to obtain the raw
data and do all of the work necessary to analyze it. He'd then have some
understanding of data anlysis and what to infer from plots in journal
articles as well as why no one really cares about any single experimental
result. I personally don't think it's possible to alter the conclusions
of an experiment unless there was subjectivity in the data set and these
days data are acquired by electronics that don't have any opinion
as to which value is ``better.''
>Several times I have indeed joined an experimental collaboration after
>the data taking was complete. I had an interest in analyzing the data,
>and they saw value in my expertise and contributions. But it is far
>better to join early, and be involved in design and construction also.
I didn't say analyzing the data would be easy, nor did I suggest that he
could expect to just tell someone how to analyze the data as per his
wishes so that someone else to do the work for him. However, the complaint
he made, was that all of the data are not available, not that his personal
belief in hidden data be substantiated (even though what he really wants
is probably different from what he said he wants.) The best way to
solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction is to have him go ask
for what he wants and have it given to him. He might actually figure out
that (1) data analysis can be tedious with little opportunity for any
personal input, (2) the degree to which any single experiment might be
considered ``definitive'' rather than anecdotal when standing alone.
He places way to much importance on a relatively insignificant number
of experiments, none of which matter, when taken alone or without the
wealth of other, less ``glamorous'' experiments. The best way to deal
with the strawman created by the complaint that the _real_ data is
unavailable, is to eliminate the complaint.
>But physicists tend to be pack rats, and a request several decades after
>the collaboration had disbanded might succeed, if you could find someone
>willing to expend the effort.
I think someone would be willing to do it, provided the person wasn't
unreasonable about the time frame and wasn't a jerk.
Bilge
[...]
>> a slam-dunk to do the experiment. So far, no word. I guess a real
>> experiment is not part of his plan.
>
>why don't you perform the experiment in your laboratory and publish a
>paper to prove Cahill's lunacy?
Apart from not having such a ``laboratory'', because I think it's a
waste of time. My goal in becoming an experimental physicist was not
to find a job which allowed me to check every nutty idea anyone ever
conceived, but to understand enough physics to distinguish between
ideas which have some basis in physics and random jargon strung together
into a fantasy. The goal is not to always be right, but to be right as
often as possible based on the supporting reasearch available. After
reading a paragraph or two of what cahill has to say, it's immediately
evident that he's trying to support a personal view using what he
perceives to be ``trendy'' in the physics world.
>i think misleading papers like this should be critized in the proper
>forum (journal, conference).
I think you give his so-called work, more credit than it deserves.
Before anyone could call it misleading and consider it to be worth
debunking at a conference or devote pages to it in a journal, someone
would have to actually be mislead.
Thomas Wong
> bryan...@yahoo.com:
> [...]
> >i think misleading papers like this should be critized in the
> >proper forum (journal, conference).
>
> I think you give his so-called work, more credit than it deserves.
> Before anyone could call it misleading and consider it to be worth
> debunking at a conference or devote pages to it in a journal,
> someone would have to actually be mislead.
Furthermore, an experiment to counter Cahill's claims might be
difficult to publish, because there is no Journal of Completely
Unnecessary Research.
Tom
Paul Stowe
wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> Can you show us anywhere in the literature (or statements by either
>> Michelson or Morley) that says this explicitly? If not, you're
>> simply projecting your 'beliefs' of ehat might have been...
>
> To which of my statements do you object?
Oh come on, you can't be that dense...
You said,
"Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed
fluctuations as being possibly indicative of a true
but unexpectedly small signal, they would have stated
as such. They did not."
To which I replied the above... The question I thought was clear
but, lets try a more simply tome. SPECFICALLY, can you point
to any passge written by either man that supports your claim?
> 1) "Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift
> signal would look like." True or False?
They certainly knew what they were looking for, yes. But that's
NOT what is being proposed now is it?
> 2) "[they] recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
> necessary characteristics." True or False?
That's the million dollar question! Now reference to literature
where either man says this, please
>3) "What you cite was their estimate of the largest signal that
> could possibly be hiding under the observed noise." True or
> False?
I cited nothing, I simply asked a couple of questions.
>4) "Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations
> as being possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small
> signal, they would have stated as such." True or False?
I don't know, I'm not going to try to be a mind reader. Thus the
question. It's that simple...
>5) "They did not." True or False?
They did the proper thing, the published their data as well as
how it related the predicted, expected results.
>> If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
>> anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
>> the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
>> they did present the data unlike many nowadays. Now in an age of
>> scrounging for signals in a sea of noise as with COBE is seems
>> pretty damned hypocritical to complain about this. There IS a
>> clear and present pattern in Figure 4 that IS sinusoidal in nature.
>>
>> It seems that the only issue is what is the actual cyclic period.
>
> The cyclical period is on the order of 144 degrees or so, which is
> totally incompatible with any interpretation in terms of ether
> drift.
What I 'see' in figure 4 is clearly a periodic pattern that is roughly
sinusoidal. That it isn't perfect is to be expected given the
crudeness of the measurements and equipment available to the
experimenters circa the 1880's... One cannot physically have a cyclic
period of 144°. What one can have is a partial cycle in a 24hr period
traversing only 144°...
By 'eyeball' the April graph shows that the 'data' graph crosses the
zero line @ ~2.5 hrs and back again @ ~16 which is roughly 13.5 hrs
apart. Thus, this should suggest that @ 29.5 hrs it would recross
the zero. That looks about right from the trend.
OTOH, the curve crosses @ ~4 and @ ~16 (12hrs) and projected again to
cross @ ~28hrs.
For September the 'data' graph crosses @ ~7.25 and again @ ~16.5 with
a period of ~9.5hrs. It again would cross ??? since it isn't as
suggestive as April.
The curve crosses @ ~6 and ~18 for a 12hr period. What I find the most
telling is the clear skew or slant in the amplitude towards the right
of the cyclic itself.
A simple scatterplot of the actual data speaks volumes.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>He did make a typo on his equation 1 by missing the index of refraction
>which he corrected in the paragraph following right after equation 2.
>However, there is a conceptual flaw in his concept of using the index of
>refraction to allow a lower speed of light other than the observer's own
>speed of light in vacuum. The lower speed of light due to index of
>refraction does not contribute to time dilation. He incorrectly assumed
>that it did in his calculations in both frames of references. If taken this
>into account, you will find even the index of refraction plays no role in
>detecting absolute motion.
I'm just going by what he wrote and using 2.4 instead of the number
he used. You can take up the absolute motion part with him.
Bilge
Harry
Are you not a bit too optimistic? Just think of the selection of what to
analysis one should do on the raw data, and which data to reject (ozone
hole!).
> >Several times I have indeed joined an experimental collaboration after
> >the data taking was complete. I had an interest in analyzing the data,
> >and they saw value in my expertise and contributions. But it is far
> >better to join early, and be involved in design and construction also.
>
> I didn't say analyzing the data would be easy, nor did I suggest that he
> could expect to just tell someone how to analyze the data as per his
> wishes so that someone else to do the work for him. However, the complaint
> he made, was that all of the data are not available, not that his personal
> belief in hidden data be substantiated (even though what he really wants
> is probably different from what he said he wants.) The best way to
> solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction is to have him go ask
> for what he wants and have it given to him. He might actually figure out
> that (1) data analysis can be tedious with little opportunity for any
> personal input, (2) the degree to which any single experiment might be
> considered ``definitive'' rather than anecdotal when standing alone.
> He places way to much importance on a relatively insignificant number
> of experiments, none of which matter, when taken alone or without the
> wealth of other, less ``glamorous'' experiments. The best way to deal
> with the strawman created by the complaint that the _real_ data is
> unavailable, is to eliminate the complaint.
True.
> >But physicists tend to be pack rats, and a request several decades after
> >the collaboration had disbanded might succeed, if you could find someone
> >willing to expend the effort.
>
> I think someone would be willing to do it, provided the person wasn't
> unreasonable about the time frame and wasn't a jerk.
A refusal to hand over data because of personal traits isn't acceptable in
science, or is it?
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:sr1su0luf8iqq4ro2...@4ax.com...
Paul, I understood him to mean that the fluctuations were much too small for
their theory. Which is certainly correct *and* irrelevant. Thus I didn't
bother to go this way.
Harald
It was in 6 minutes if I read it well, thus I came to agree with him that
Cahill's hidden signal should be 180 ° - but the same conclusion for Wong's
systematic error!
> By 'eyeball' the April graph shows that the 'data' graph crosses the
> zero line @ ~2.5 hrs and back again @ ~16 which is roughly 13.5 hrs
> apart. Thus, this should suggest that @ 29.5 hrs it would recross
> the zero. That looks about right from the trend.
>
> OTOH, the curve crosses @ ~4 and @ ~16 (12hrs) and projected again to
> cross @ ~28hrs.
>
> For September the 'data' graph crosses @ ~7.25 and again @ ~16.5 with
> a period of ~9.5hrs. It again would cross ??? since it isn't as
> suggestive as April.
>
> The curve crosses @ ~6 and ~18 for a 12hr period. What I find the most
> telling is the clear skew or slant in the amplitude towards the right
> of the cyclic itself.
>
> A simple scatterplot of the actual data speaks volumes.
I doubt that the quantity of data is sufficient to draw any hard
conclusions, but I still like to know what you mean with that.
Thanks,
Harald
Thomas Wong
<snip>
> > 2) "[they] recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
> > necessary characteristics." True or False?
>
> That's the million dollar question! Now reference to literature
> where either man says this, please
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? If they considered the
fluctuations as having the necessary characteristics of an ether drift
signal, they would have reported so. Nowhere in the literature did they
ever do so.
<snip>
Ah yes. You most DEFINITELY have a reading comprehension problem! Paul,
you have misinterpreted the markers as being time markers.
They are DIRECTIONAL markers. In orientation 1, the interferometer is
oriented North-South. In orientation 9, the interferometer is oriented
South-North.
An entire set of seventeen readings would be taken in a few minutes.
Tom
Thomas Wong
> It was in 6 minutes if I read it well, thus I came to agree with him
that
> Cahill's hidden signal should be 180 ° - but the same conclusion for
Wong's
> systematic error!
First of all, I claim that the curve appears to be a MIXTURE of
systematic and random error; how much is systematic, and how much
random, I have no idea.
Second, why do you insist that systematic error must be 180 degrees in
period?
Consider this scenario. Michelson and Morley's interferometer was not
exactly designed in the most ergonomic fashion. Photographs of the
device show this quite well. OK, Michelson is walking around in the
dark, taking his readings, and he needs to stretch a bit. Ah, that
feels better. Back to the eyepiece.
A tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
Cough, cough. Michelson readjusts his eyeglasses.
Another tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
Since only one complete turn of data was collected in this run,
generations of crackpots focus on these two glitches and conclude that
Michelson and Morley were actually observing something significant.
Tom
Harry
Harry wrote:
>> It was in 6 minutes if I read it well, thus I came to agree with him
that
>> Cahill's hidden signal should be 180 ° - but the same conclusion for
Wong's systematic error!
> First of all, I claim that the curve appears to be a MIXTURE of
systematic and random error; how much is systematic, and how much
random, I have no idea.
>Second, why do you insist that systematic error must be 180 degrees in
period?
I don't insist - it seems just about equally likely from the input I got
from you.
But until now you were too biased to take notice.
>Consider this scenario. Michelson and Morley's interferometer was not
exactly designed in the most ergonomic fashion. Photographs of the
device show this quite well. OK, Michelson is walking around in the
dark, taking his readings, and he needs to stretch a bit. Ah, that
feels better. Back to the eyepiece.
Walking in the dark?! Obviously your analyis was just as superficial as
mine...
>A tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
Such tiny glitches were averaged with 5 other readings. And how can that
produce a sinus?!
>Cough, cough. Michelson readjusts his eyeglasses.
>Another tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
>Since only one complete turn of data was collected in this run,
Six.
>generations of crackpots focus on these two glitches and conclude that
Michelson and Morley were actually observing something significant.
I just saw you suggest in one breath that such errors are capable of
producing a sinus and that Hicks, Miller and Allais are crackpots!
Hopeless.
Harald
Thomas Wong
> "Thomas Wong" <nonfuncti...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1106134860.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Consider this scenario. Michelson and Morley's interferometer was
> >not exactly designed in the most ergonomic fashion. Photographs of
> >the device show this quite well. OK, Michelson is walking around in
> >the dark, taking his readings, and he needs to stretch a bit. Ah,
> >that feels better. Back to the eyepiece.
>
> Walking in the dark?! Obviously your analyis was just as superficial
> as mine...
>
> >A tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
>
> Such tiny glitches were averaged with 5 other readings. And how can
> that produce a sinus?!
Harry, you are SERIOUSLY confusing Michelson and Morley's analysis
with Cahill's misanalysis.
Michelson and Morley executed 6 data collection runs. Three noontime
runs were conducted on separate days; likewise three afternoon runs
were conducted on separate days. Michelson and Morley averaged the
three noontime runs together, and they averaged the three afternoon
runs together, and published the plots of their averaged readings,
superimposed against plots of the theoretically expected results
assuming ether drift.
The averaged plots show small, irregular wiggles that in no way
resemble the theoretically expected curves.
Contrary to your assertion, Cahill did not present Michelson and
Morley's averaged readings in his paper. Rather, he looked over
the data from all six runs, and selected for presentation the SINGLE
run that showed semi-regular variations somewhat reminiscent of
what might be expected of ether drift.
> >Cough, cough. Michelson readjusts his eyeglasses.
> >Another tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
> >Since only one complete turn of data was collected in this run,
>
> Six.
One.
> >generations of crackpots focus on these two glitches and conclude
> >that Michelson and Morley were actually observing something
> >significant.
>
> I just saw you suggest in one breath that such errors are capable of
> producing a sinus
Yes, you can get something resembling a sinusoidal pattern.
Have you ever seen faces in the clouds? Birds, dogs, cats, horses?
> and that Hicks, Miller and Allais are crackpots!
Exactly.
> Hopeless.
Tom
shevek
Thomas Wong wrote:
> Ben Bean wrote:
> > What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of Light and the
> Einstein
> > Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
> >
> ----
> In sum: don't waste your time with Cahill.
>
Thanks all for the helpful critique! I was dreading going through
those details. In addition to other problems with mis-interpretation
and looking at old data when better is avaiable, I see another in his
analysis.
He takes the speed of light as V=c/n.. but this is the speed as
measured in the lab frame. In the ether frame the speed of light is
slightly different, and works out to
V = [c/n +- U] / [1 +- U/n/c]
where the +- are for the opposite directions.
Probably this works out the predicting a null result for MMX. Anyone
care to do the math for me?
CHeers -
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > "Thomas Wong" <nonfuncti...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1106134860.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Consider this scenario. Michelson and Morley's interferometer was
> > >not exactly designed in the most ergonomic fashion. Photographs of
> > >the device show this quite well. OK, Michelson is walking around in
> > >the dark, taking his readings, and he needs to stretch a bit. Ah,
> > >that feels better. Back to the eyepiece.
> >
> > Walking in the dark?! Obviously your analyis was just as superficial
> > as mine...
> >
> > >A tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
> >
> > Such tiny glitches were averaged with 5 other readings. And how can
> > that produce a sinus?!
>
> Harry, you are SERIOUSLY confusing Michelson and Morley's analysis
> with Cahill's misanalysis.
> Michelson and Morley executed 6 data collection runs. Three noontime
> runs were conducted on separate days; likewise three afternoon runs
> were conducted on separate days.
M&M:
"The following tables give the the means of the six readings".
Hicks pointed out that regretfully M&M didn't provide an error estimation
based on that (forever lost) information.
Note that therefore the total time of one run was not 6 minutes as I thought
yesterday.
> Michelson and Morley averaged the
> three noontime runs together, and they averaged the three afternoon
> runs together, and published the plots of their averaged readings,
> superimposed against plots of the theoretically expected results
> assuming ether drift.
> The averaged plots show small, irregular wiggles that in no way
> resemble the theoretically expected curves.
>
> Contrary to your assertion, Cahill did not present Michelson and
> Morley's averaged readings in his paper.
I did no such thing.
> Rather, he looked over
> the data from all six runs, and selected for presentation the SINGLE
> run that showed semi-regular variations somewhat reminiscent of
> what might be expected of ether drift.
>
> > >Cough, cough. Michelson readjusts his eyeglasses.
> > >Another tiny glitch shows up in the data for the next few readings.
> > >Since only one complete turn of data was collected in this run,
> >
> > Six.
>
> One.
>
> > >generations of crackpots focus on these two glitches and conclude
> > >that Michelson and Morley were actually observing something
> > >significant.
> >
> > I just saw you suggest in one breath that such errors are capable of
> > producing a sinus
>
> Yes, you can get something resembling a sinusoidal pattern.
>
> Have you ever seen faces in the clouds? Birds, dogs, cats, horses?
Have you ever seen a sinus in the clouds?
> > and that Hicks, Miller and Allais are crackpots!
> Exactly.
>
> > Hopeless.
I'm out of here.
Harald
Bilge
>> Personally, I think it would be a great idea for him to obtain the raw
>> data and do all of the work necessary to analyze it. He'd then have some
>> understanding of data anlysis and what to infer from plots in journal
>> articles as well as why no one really cares about any single experimental
>> result. I personally don't think it's possible to alter the conclusions
>> of an experiment unless there was subjectivity in the data set and these
>> days data are acquired by electronics that don't have any opinion
>> as to which value is ``better.''
>
>Are you not a bit too optimistic? Just think of the selection of what to
>analysis one should do on the raw data, and which data to reject (ozone
>hole!).
That is not a scientific problem, it's a political misuse of
science problem. Scientists can collect data and give caveats
regarding what it means. How politicians spin the data to suit
some political goal is beyond the control of science. Politicians
are willing to spend more money on pr than science.
[...]
>
>> >But physicists tend to be pack rats, and a request several decades after
>> >the collaboration had disbanded might succeed, if you could find someone
>> >willing to expend the effort.
>>
>> I think someone would be willing to do it, provided the person wasn't
>> unreasonable about the time frame and wasn't a jerk.
>
>A refusal to hand over data because of personal traits isn't acceptable in
>science, or is it?
Sure. You don't own it.
Koobee Wublee
>
> I'm just going by what he wrote and using 2.4 instead of the number
> he used. You can take up the absolute motion part with him.
What I am saying is that according to his derivations, your 2.4 makes no
difference between his 1.01 to detect the absolute motion. Can you prove
your 2.4 is a magic number? Do you agree with his derivation or something?
As I maintain, the fault of his argument lies in the derivation of the MMX
where he erroneously used the speed of light after being slowed down by the
index of refraction not the choice of index of refraction.
harry
>Are you not a bit too optimistic? Just think of the selection of what
to
>analysis one should do on the raw data, and which data to reject
(ozone
>hole!).
"That is not a scientific problem, it's a political misuse of
science problem. Scientists can collect data and give caveats
regarding what it means. How politicians spin the data to suit
some political goal is beyond the control of science. Politicians
are willing to spend more money on pr than science."
Agree, but I meant the scientific problem that you didn't hear of or
forgot. The hole was originally detected but automatically removed from
data processing as the program writers assumed beforehand that such
data must be errononous...
Thus it was detected but nevertheless for a long time not observed.
Cheers,
Harald
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncusbff....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> I'm just going by what he wrote and using 2.4 instead of the number
>> he used. You can take up the absolute motion part with him.
>
>What I am saying is that according to his derivations, your 2.4 makes no
>difference between his 1.01 to detect the absolute motion.
Then it also makes no difference whether the index of refraction
is 1.0000... or 1.01, in which case, the entire argument about
gas interferometers is irrelevant.
> Can you prove
>your 2.4 is a magic number?
It's only magic in the sense that 2.4 is the index of refraction
for arsenic trisulfide glass, which is readily available in the form
of fibers or crystals, which makes such an experimentsimple.
>Do you agree with his derivation or something?
I only agree that I provided an experiment that makes it easy
to check his derivation. I don't think much of anything he's
written is correct.
>As I maintain, the fault of his argument lies in the derivation of the MMX
>where he erroneously used the speed of light after being slowed down by the
>index of refraction not the choice of index of refraction.
It doesn't really make much difference where the fault lies. He
makes a claim for a physical effect based on his argument. If you
think his argument is faulty, why are you objecting when I say his
argument is faulty?
Thomas Wong
> M&M:
> "The following tables give the the means of the six readings".
> Hicks pointed out that regretfully M&M didn't provide an error
estimation
> based on that (forever lost) information.
Upon looking over Michelson and Morley's paper, I see that you are
correct on this point, and I was wrong.
Nevertheless, the apparent period of the systematic/random error for
the July 11 noontime run remains 6.5 markers. Attempting to force-fit
the data to an 8 marker period does not work.
Tom
Koobee Wublee
>
> Then it also makes no difference whether the index of refraction
> is 1.0000... or 1.01, in which case, the entire argument about
> gas interferometers is irrelevant.
As you have now corrected yourself, the choice of the index of refraction
makes no difference on his hypothesis.
> It doesn't really make much difference where the fault lies. He
> makes a claim for a physical effect based on his argument. If you
> think his argument is faulty, why are you objecting when I say his
> argument is faulty?
My objection is that you cannot identify his fault and still call him a
crackpot. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Paul Stowe
Thus my earlier comment,
"If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't
find x or anywhere near x it would seen logical to report
this, and present the actual findings as negative FOR the
expected x! ..."
> Which is certainly correct *and* irrelevant. Thus I didn't bother
> to go this way.
I know. My question was specific and not centered on this.
[Snip of rest]
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>>Are you not a bit too optimistic? Just think of the selection of what
>to
>>analysis one should do on the raw data, and which data to reject
>(ozone
>>hole!).
>
>"That is not a scientific problem, it's a political misuse of
>science problem. Scientists can collect data and give caveats
>regarding what it means. How politicians spin the data to suit
>some political goal is beyond the control of science. Politicians
>are willing to spend more money on pr than science."
>
>Agree, but I meant the scientific problem that you didn't hear of or
>forgot. The hole was originally detected but automatically removed from
>data processing as the program writers assumed beforehand that such
>data must be errononous...
tell you the significance of any deviation from the fit. Fitting functions
are determined by models.
>Thus it was detected but nevertheless for a long time not observed.
I can't address something without being given enough information
to address it. You have a similar view of the michelson-morely
experiment, so I find what you say suspect. You seemed to have
difficulty with the concept of fitting to a model when you posted
regarding ``null results.'' I'm not sure you ever got the point
about agreement meaning of fitting with a particular model and
agreement with the model being determined by the |fit - data|
being zero to within the experimental error, since you keep
posting about some 144 degree variation, without offering a model
that fits the data to make such a comparison.
In any case, if someone removed data points without justifying their
removal, then they weren't performing a proper data analysis. The only
justification for eliminating data points would be in the case where one
could demonstrate a systematic error was responsible for an anomaly. That
is, unless you think it would be acceptable to treat a non-functioning
detector as data with a value of zero, even though you discovered it
wasn't connected to the system.
Paul Stowe
>
>"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>>
>> What I 'see' in figure 4 is clearly a periodic pattern that is roughly
>> sinusoidal. That it isn't perfect is to be expected given the
>> crudeness of the measurements and equipment available to the
>> experimenters circa the 1880's... One cannot physically have a cyclic
>> period of 144°. What one can have is a partial cycle in a 24hr period
>> traversing only 144°...
>
> It was in 6 minutes if I read it well, thus I came to agree with him
> that Cahill's hidden signal should be 180° - but the same conclusion
> for Wong's systematic error!
Well it was late and I screwed up. Figure 4 in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051? is Miller's data NOT M&M's...
That Figure is in time (hours).
Where can one find M&M's data, preferably on-line. A simple scatterplot
would suffice... If the interferometer turn 180° the the data should
roughly match if there is a cyclic shift. But without seeing the acual
data I cannot comment. :(
Here's some that have some (but not raw) data
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://nov55.com/mmor.pdf
It seems that M&M DID indicate a cyclic pattern during rotation
see page 340, Figure 6 of http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
>> By 'eyeball' the April graph shows that the 'data' graph crosses the
>> zero line @ ~2.5 hrs and back again @ ~16 which is roughly 13.5 hrs
>> apart. Thus, this should suggest that @ 29.5 hrs it would recross
>> the zero. That looks about right from the trend.
>>
>> OTOH, the curve crosses @ ~4 and @ ~16 (12hrs) and projected again to
>> cross @ ~28hrs.
>>
>> For September the 'data' graph crosses @ ~7.25 and again @ ~16.5 with
>> a period of ~9.5hrs. It again would cross ??? since it isn't as
>> suggestive as April.
>>
>> The curve crosses @ ~6 and ~18 for a 12hr period. What I find the most
>> telling is the clear skew or slant in the amplitude towards the right
>> of the cyclic itself.
>>
>> A simple scatterplot of the actual data speaks volumes.
>
> I doubt that the quantity of data is sufficient to draw any hard
> conclusions, but I still like to know what you mean with that.
If I plot actual data on a grid cyclic patterns are rather easy to spot
and recognize. Of couse one MUST set the axes such that the data spread
is sufficient to fill a perferably square area. If it looks like someone
to a shotgun to the page then, of course, randomness is also apparent.
The human eye is quite good at pattern recognition. Of course, some might
argue, too good. However, if you have collected tens of thousands of data
points over several days, a scatterplot WILL illuminate any cyclic processes
that might be present. Then you go to work using any good standard data
fitting software to find out. For M&M, even their few showed a cyclic
pattern according to their paper referenced above.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncuubfa....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> Then it also makes no difference whether the index of refraction
>> is 1.0000... or 1.01, in which case, the entire argument about
>> gas interferometers is irrelevant.
>
>As you have now corrected yourself, the choice of the index of refraction
>makes no difference on his hypothesis.
post I've made in which I say cahill's argument has any merit.
>> It doesn't really make much difference where the fault lies. He
>> makes a claim for a physical effect based on his argument. If you
>> think his argument is faulty, why are you objecting when I say his
>> argument is faulty?
>
>My objection is that you cannot identify his fault and still call him a
>crackpot.
That is speculation on your part and in any case, it has zero relevance.
I'm not obligated to correct what you perceive as _the_ fault, since I
think the article I read was flawed in its entirety. On the contrary, I've
never found cranks willing consider a flaw when it's pointed out, so I
_insist_ that someone who posts a so-called ``theory'' or posts references
to one he/she supports, _not_ disregard anything that it contains. Then
there is no dispute whatsoever regarding precisely what is being assumed
or the consequences of the assumptions. I have no interest in hearing
another rebuttal based upon me being part of some establishment konspiracy
to supress the truth, unoriginal, etc., etc. It's a lot easier to
just accept what is given as a result and insert real values in the
few cases that someone will actually provide an equation.
Cahill is free to change what he has written and come up with a new
theory, but you are not free to change what he has written and refer to
the changed version as his. I suggested an experiment for which he
predicts a result according to what he has written.
>This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Why is up to me to try and figure out what someone else thinks is
and isn't legerdemain? I think the whole thing is legerdemain, so
the only correction I could suggest is to delete the file.
Koobee Wublee
>
> I am not correcting myself. If you think I am, then reference a
> post I've made in which I say cahill's argument has any merit.
Previously, you have claimed that by using an index refraction of 2.4,
Cahill can find out about the fallacy of his experiment. In the second post
from the last one in this sub-thread, you wrote
"Then it also makes no difference whether the index of refraction is
1.0000... or 1.01, in which case, the entire argument about as
interferometers is irrelevant."
Therefore, I have understood it as that you are withdrawn your accusation
that by using an index refraction of 2.4 Cahill can find out about the
fallacy of his experiment. If that is not what you meant, you are confusing
me.
> That is speculation on your part and in any case, it has zero relevance.
> I'm not obligated to correct what you perceive as _the_ fault, since I
> think the article I read was flawed in its entirety. On the contrary, I've
> never found cranks willing consider a flaw when it's pointed out, so I
> _insist_ that someone who posts a so-called ``theory'' or posts references
> to one he/she supports, _not_ disregard anything that it contains. Then
> there is no dispute whatsoever regarding precisely what is being assumed
> or the consequences of the assumptions. I have no interest in hearing
> another rebuttal based upon me being part of some establishment konspiracy
> to supress the truth, unoriginal, etc., etc. It's a lot easier to
> just accept what is given as a result and insert real values in the
> few cases that someone will actually provide an equation.
No, it is not speculation on my part. Your behavior of claiming foul on
some one's work and yet not have identified the fault is rather sinisterly.
Say, next time, I mention something important to my work, and you came along
and tell me I am full of sh*t. I would certainly like to know why you think
so, and then we can argument about. If you don't understand or do not take
any step to try to understand what I am doing, we are going to end up with
what I have recently gone through where the mob working as a tag team just
constantly drilled me with the same or similar question over and over again.
We would eventually walk away without learning anything which may suit you
just fine. Therefore, the conspiracy theory you proposed is just not too
far stretched after all.
> Cahill is free to change what he has written and come up with a new
> theory, but you are not free to change what he has written and refer to
> the changed version as his. I suggested an experiment for which he
> predicts a result according to what he has written.
You are right. No one should change what Cahill wrote. However, you are
suggesting an issue that does not even impact on his final result at all.
It is no brainer that he ignored you, and that is because you have not tried
to understand what his argument is.
> Why is up to me to try and figure out what someone else thinks is
> and isn't legerdemain? I think the whole thing is legerdemain, so
> the only correction I could suggest is to delete the file.
No, that is exactly what happened to Copernicus and Galileo.
Harry
> harry:
> >[Bilge:]
> >>Are you not a bit too optimistic? Just think of the selection of what
> >to
> >>analysis one should do on the raw data, and which data to reject
> >(ozone
> >>hole!).
> >
> >"That is not a scientific problem, it's a political misuse of
> >science problem. Scientists can collect data and give caveats
> >regarding what it means. How politicians spin the data to suit
> >some political goal is beyond the control of science. Politicians
> >are willing to spend more money on pr than science."
> >
> >Agree, but I meant the scientific problem that you didn't hear of or
> >forgot. The hole was originally detected but automatically removed from
> >data processing as the program writers assumed beforehand that such
> >data must be errononous...
>
> One does not assume that data is erroneous. Data is data. Error bars
> tell you the significance of any deviation from the fit. Fitting functions
> are determined by models.
According to the news reports of that time, such data was automatically
rejected.
> >Thus it was detected but nevertheless for a long time not observed.
>
> I can't address something without being given enough information
> to address it.
I speak from memory, and hoped to ring a bell in yours. Apart of that, you
have Google just as I have.
> You have a similar view of the michelson-morely
> experiment, so I find what you say suspect.
You find it suspect that I have a similar view as you on matters with
insufficient data?!
> You seemed to have
> difficulty with the concept of fitting to a model when you posted
> regarding ``null results.''
That's because you thought the term to mean something that they were not
investigating.
> I'm not sure you ever got the point
> about agreement meaning of fitting with a particular model and
> agreement with the model being determined by the |fit - data|
> being zero to within the experimental error, since you keep
> posting about some 144 degree variation, without offering a model
> that fits the data to make such a comparison.
To the contrary, I kept insisting that no valid model was proposed for
either hypothesis that could fit the data to make such a comparison. I get
bored from such cargo cult science.
> In any case, if someone removed data points without justifying their
> removal, then they weren't performing a proper data analysis.
On that point we agree with Hicks.
> The only
> justification for eliminating data points would be in the case where one
> could demonstrate a systematic error was responsible for an anomaly. That
> is, unless you think it would be acceptable to treat a non-functioning
> detector as data with a value of zero, even though you discovered it
> wasn't connected to the system.
I was taught a less absolutist approach to data. But I do think that it is
irresponsible to reject data without warning -as, it appears, the ozone
layer program did.
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:58:27 +0100, "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> What I 'see' in figure 4 is clearly a periodic pattern that is roughly
> >> sinusoidal. That it isn't perfect is to be expected given the
> >> crudeness of the measurements and equipment available to the
> >> experimenters circa the 1880's... One cannot physically have a cyclic
> >> period of 144°. What one can have is a partial cycle in a 24hr period
> >> traversing only 144°...
> >
> > It was in 6 minutes if I read it well, thus I came to agree with him
> > that Cahill's hidden signal should be 180° - but the same conclusion
> > for Wong's systematic error!
>
> Well it was late and I screwed up. Figure 4 in
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051? is Miller's data NOT M&M's...
> That Figure is in time (hours).
>
>
> Where can one find M&M's data, preferably on-line. A simple scatterplot
> would suffice... If the interferometer turn 180° the the data should
> roughly match if there is a cyclic shift. But without seeing the acual
> data I cannot comment. :(
>
> Here's some that have some (but not raw) data
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
AFAIK that's all there is, I don't know of any other raw data.
Regretfully it seems that they even threw it away without using it for
random error estimation.
> http://nov55.com/mmor.pdf
>
> It seems that M&M DID indicate a cyclic pattern during rotation
> see page 340, Figure 6 of
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Sure. They talk about 1/8 of the expected displacements.
> >> By 'eyeball' the April graph shows that the 'data' graph crosses the
> >> zero line @ ~2.5 hrs and back again @ ~16 which is roughly 13.5 hrs
> >> apart. Thus, this should suggest that @ 29.5 hrs it would recross
> >> the zero. That looks about right from the trend.
> >>
> >> OTOH, the curve crosses @ ~4 and @ ~16 (12hrs) and projected again to
> >> cross @ ~28hrs.
> >>
> >> For September the 'data' graph crosses @ ~7.25 and again @ ~16.5 with
> >> a period of ~9.5hrs. It again would cross ??? since it isn't as
> >> suggestive as April.
> >>
> >> The curve crosses @ ~6 and ~18 for a 12hr period. What I find the
most
> >> telling is the clear skew or slant in the amplitude towards the right
> >> of the cyclic itself.
> >>
> >> A simple scatterplot of the actual data speaks volumes.
> >
> > I doubt that the quantity of data is sufficient to draw any hard
> > conclusions, but I still like to know what you mean with that.
>
> If I plot actual data on a grid cyclic patterns are rather easy to spot
> and recognize.
Miller used a harmonic analyser to reanalyse M&M's data.
I simply averaged every quarter period and found that the signal becomes
more sinus-like instead of more noise-like. Which for me is indicative for a
true signal, but it may be just due to temperature or so.
What did you mean with "the clear skew towards the right"?
> Of couse one MUST set the axes such that the data spread
> is sufficient to fill a perferably square area. If it looks like someone
> to a shotgun to the page then, of course, randomness is also apparent.
>
> The human eye is quite good at pattern recognition. Of course, some
might
> argue, too good. However, if you have collected tens of thousands of
data
> points over several days, a scatterplot WILL illuminate any cyclic
processes
> that might be present. Then you go to work using any good standard data
> fitting software to find out. For M&M, even their few showed a cyclic
> pattern according to their paper referenced above.
>
> Paul Stowe
Yes, I think that almost everyone agrees on that.
Harald
Bilge
>Therefore, I have understood it as that you are withdrawn your accusation
>that by using an index refraction of 2.4 Cahill can find out about the
>fallacy of his experiment. If that is not what you meant, you are confusing
>me.
I see no reason to try and try and clarify this, since regardless of
what I say, you apply my response to a question you didn't ask and
assume I meant exactly the opposite of what I did mean. Just think
of what you are going to ask, then answer it by choosing the opposite
of what you think I said and that out to work. I still have no idea
what you meant by the first cryptic response you gave, so I have no
idea how you've managed to arrive at the conclusion above.
[...]
>> or the consequences of the assumptions. I have no interest in hearing
>> another rebuttal based upon me being part of some establishment konspiracy
>> to supress the truth, unoriginal, etc., etc. It's a lot easier to
>> just accept what is given as a result and insert real values in the
>> few cases that someone will actually provide an equation.
>
>No, it is not speculation on my part. Your behavior of claiming foul on
>some one's work and yet not have identified the fault is rather sinisterly.
You are free to use google and find what I've said previously. I did
mention that the topic has come up before and you must obviously be
aware of that if you read the thread.
>Say, next time, I mention something important to my work, and you came along
>and tell me I am full of sh*t. I would certainly like to know why you think
>so, and then we can argument about.
That's not a problem. Assuming you post something _and_ I think
something is wrong with it _and_ you aren't an ass, I can even leave
out the part about you being full of sh*t, unless you prefer that
I include it. I'm fairly flexible.
On the other hand, if you have a point other than you don't think
I know what I'm talking about, you might try making it first and
save the rant till the end. I can't imagine you want a response from
some who doesn't know what he is talking about and I quit reading
once he post becomes repetitious.
mountain man
>
>> BTW it's easy to declare somebody else's comments as "dishonest". For
>> example, while you wrote:
>> "Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these
> fluctuations
>> > as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic
> error
>> > in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure"
>>
>> AFAIK they didn't state anything like that but they wrote:
>> "the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less
> than
>> one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
>> It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
>> between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It
> is not
>> impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea
> the
>> relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used
> in these
>> experiments."
>
> Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift signal would
> necessary characteristics. What you cite was their estimate of the
> largest signal that could possibly be hiding under the observed noise.
And this estimate was between 6 and 8 km/sec. This result/finding
was at variance with the expected result of around 30 km/s which
is the orbital velocity of the earth about the sun. That is why the
citing above refers to "one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity".
However Cahill correctly points out that the original analysis
(used to arrive at the 6-8km/s) was flawed, not taking into
account the refractive index of the air, for a start.
Cahill is correct, and the first person
to point out this oversight since 1870.
> Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations as being
> possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small signal, they would
> have stated as such. They did not.
Michaelson and Morley, Miller and others performing
the gas mode interferometer experiments did not know
the physics of the apparatus, and could not therefore
understand their results (6-8 k/s).
Either Cahill is correct about the physics
of the gas mode michaelson interferometer
requiring admission of a term for the
refective index of the gas, or he is not.
Which is it to be?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
Tom Roberts
An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Paul Stowe wrote:
> It seems that M&M DID indicate a cyclic pattern during rotation
> see page 340, Figure 6 of http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Of course they did! By subtracting off the assumed-to-be-linear
systematic shift per turn they _FORCED_ the data to have a "cyclic pattern".
>>I doubt that the quantity of data is sufficient to draw any hard
>>conclusions, [...]
This depends upon what type of "conclusion" one attempts to draw. The
following are hard conclusions drawn from the data in the link Paul
Stowe gave above:
1. The MMX measurements are solidly consistent with a null result.
2. Estimates for their basic resolution in measuring the position
of a fringe are 0.14-0.15 fringe width. This is based on a
statistical analysis of the data in that paper.
3. Conclusions that they saw a non-zero effect are bogus, because
the variations in the data are below their resolution.
See my post in the other thread referenced above for details.
> If I plot actual data on a grid cyclic patterns are rather easy to spot
> and recognize. Of couse one MUST set the axes such that the data spread
> is sufficient to fill a perferably square area. If it looks like someone
> to a shotgun to the page then, of course, randomness is also apparent.
But you also must plot the errorbars. If the error bars are larger than
the variations in the data, any conclusion that the data does vary is
unwarranted.
> The human eye is quite good at pattern recognition.
Yes. And quite good at finding "patterns" that are demonstrably not in
the data itself. Experimenter's bias comes in many forms....
> if you have collected tens of thousands of data
> points over several days, a scatterplot WILL illuminate any cyclic processes
> that might be present.
You are naive. The human eye will _always_ find patterns in a
randomly-populated scatterplot that is reasonably dense. Physicists have
known for many decades that one _MUST_ perform a statistical analysis on
both the data and the errors/resolutions.
> For M&M, even their few showed a cyclic
> pattern according to their paper referenced above.
But the "cyclic pattern" is forced by their analysis technique, and is
smaller in amplitude than their resolution. You are looking at errors
and proclaiming them to be significant. In the figure on p340, the
errorbars are taller than the entire plot (0.057 \Lambda). See my post
in the other thread referenced above for details.
Mountain man wrote;
> However Cahill correctly points out that the original analysis
> (used to arrive at the 6-8km/s) was flawed, not taking into
> account the refractive index of the air, for a start.
>
> Cahill is correct, and the first person
> to point out this oversight since 1870.
Cahill's analysis is fundamentally flawed -- he imposes his persoal
hopes and dreams onto the data. A proper comparison of this "theory" to
the MMX data, using a realistic estimate of its resolution obtained
from the data, would indicate the experiment is consistent with his
"theory" for ANY speed relative to the ether between zero and several
thousand km/s, in any direction. Like Stowe above, Cahill is looking at
errors and proclaiming them significant; he then divides by a tiny
number to obtain agreement with his personal prejudices.
I put "theory" in quotes because he invokes MAGIC to
exclude experiments that otherwise refute his "theory"
(any measurement using a solid, such as Shaumir and Fox).
> Michaelson and Morley, Miller and others performing
> the gas mode interferometer experiments did not know
> the physics of the apparatus, and could not therefore
> understand their results (6-8 k/s).
They understood them perfectly well in the theoretical context of their
time. Nobody could reasonably ask for more.
> Either Cahill is correct about the physics
> of the gas mode michaelson interferometer
> requiring admission of a term for the
> refective index of the gas, or he is not.
His current papers are fundamentally flawed in their "analysis" of
various experiments. And his invocation of magic is just ridiculous.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5dgHd.1825$ry.471@fed1read05...> news:slrncuijrg....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
SNIP
> > Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one could perform to
> > prove the claim if he were interested. He uses the silly numbers of 1
and
> > 1.001 as a comparison of indicies of refraction and notes how small the
> > difference is. Well, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out that
> > the difference will be huge if one uses an index of refraction of 2.4,
> > which I suggested to someone trying to peddle cahill's nonsense on this
> > newsgroup a while back (plug in the numbers and you'll see what I mean
> > about being obvious). As it turns out, one can purchase light fibers
made
> > of some special glass which has that index of refraction, so it should
be
> > a slam-dunk to do the experiment. So far, no word. I guess a real
> > experiment is not part of his plan.
>
> What Cahill did was to re-examine the mathematical approach that leads to
> Special Relativity. To his credit, he noticed that by including the index
> of refraction it allows a different speed of light for the observer.
> Mathematically, he then went on to prove the absolute speed term can be
> extracted from that. If this is the case, even conducting an experiment
> with an index of refraction of 2.4 should prove beyond any reason of doubt
> that the absolute speed can be detected. If not, then the mathematics
that
> leads down to Special Relativity has to be revised. That means Special
> Relativity cannot be correct.
Koobee, I am afraid that you have it upside down.
According to SRT mathematics, no absolute speed can be detected. An
experiment with RI 2.4 should have yielded such a detection according to
Cahill, but he admitted that it didn't happen and next he invented an
unlikely explanation.
Harald
greywolf42
news:sBTId.8820$k05...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> I have just posted an article on this in a new thread with subject:
> An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Oh, wow! Deja vu, all over again!
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > It seems that M&M DID indicate a cyclic pattern during rotation
> > see page 340, Figure 6 of
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
>
> Of course they did! By subtracting off the assumed-to-be-linear
> systematic shift per turn they _FORCED_ the data to have a "cyclic
> pattern".
By subtracting a linear shift, the data is forced into a sine wave? LOL!
> >>I doubt that the quantity of data is sufficient to draw any hard
> >>conclusions, [...]
>
> This depends upon what type of "conclusion" one attempts to draw. The
> following are hard conclusions drawn from the data in the link Paul
> Stowe gave above:
> 1. The MMX measurements are solidly consistent with a null result.
LOL! Dream on, Tom.
> 2. Estimates for their basic resolution in measuring the position
> of a fringe are 0.14-0.15 fringe width. This is based on a
> statistical analysis of the data in that paper.
LOL! I can't wait to see this! Unfortunately, Tom, basic resolution of an
instrument is a physical quantity that is independent of statistics (i.e.
the number of actual measurements).
> 3. Conclusions that they saw a non-zero effect are bogus, because
> the variations in the data are below their resolution.
But -- as Tom has admitted before -- Tom simply has assumed the resolution
of the MMX, in the past. Solely to be able to claim a "null" result.
Now, let me take a wild guess. Tom will draw a straight line through all of
the MMX data points, do a least squares fit, and then declare that the value
is "zero." -- and also claim a "resolution" equal to the chi squared value.
> See my post in the other thread referenced above for details.
Oh, I will. I do so enjoy a farce!
> > If I plot actual data on a grid cyclic patterns are rather easy to spot
> > and recognize. Of couse one MUST set the axes such that the data
> > spread is sufficient to fill a perferably square area. If it looks
like
> > someone to a shotgun to the page then, of course, randomness is
> > also apparent.
>
> But you also must plot the errorbars.
And in a perfect world, the error bars *will* always be plotted for
averages. And in a perfect world, the raw data will always be available.
> If the error bars are larger than
> the variations in the data, any conclusion that the data does vary is
> unwarranted.
Unless, of course, the "conclusion" agrees with Tom's preferred theories.
As in this case, when Tom "concludes" support for SR. :)
> > The human eye is quite good at pattern recognition.
>
> Yes. And quite good at finding "patterns" that are demonstrably not in
> the data itself. Experimenter's bias comes in many forms....
As in the "negative bias" demonstrated by Tom. "Nope -- just because it
looks like a 24-hr cycle , doesn't mean that there's a cycle..."
> > if you have collected tens of thousands of data
> > points over several days, a scatterplot WILL illuminate any cyclic
> > processes that might be present.
>
> You are naive. The human eye will _always_ find patterns in a
> randomly-populated scatterplot that is reasonably dense.
LOL! You mean, like the Hubble relation?
> Physicists have
> known for many decades that one _MUST_ perform a statistical analysis on
> both the data and the errors/resolutions.
So how does the statistical fit for the sine wave fit, versus the assumption
of noise (zero value)?
I'll wager Tom hasn't done that one.
> > For M&M, even their few showed a cyclic
> > pattern according to their paper referenced above.
>
> But the "cyclic pattern" is forced by their analysis technique,
ROTFLMAO!!! There *WAS* no "analysis technique" in that plot! It's simply
a plot of data points ... no "analysis" whatsoever.
> and is smaller in amplitude than their resolution.
But Tom won't mention what *he* claims the "resolution" of the MMX *was.*
> You are looking at errors
> and proclaiming them to be significant. In the figure on p340, the
> errorbars
Error bars? There are no error bars on that chart.
> are taller than the entire plot (0.057 \Lambda). See my post
> in the other thread referenced above for details.
Sure. If first you *assume* that there is no signal, and treat the
variations as "noise."
> Mountain man wrote;
> > However Cahill correctly points out that the original analysis
> > (used to arrive at the 6-8km/s) was flawed, not taking into
> > account the refractive index of the air, for a start.
> >
> > Cahill is correct, and the first person
> > to point out this oversight since 1870.
>
> Cahill's analysis is fundamentally flawed -- he imposes his persoal
> hopes and dreams onto the data.
Of course, Tom can't tell you what the "flaw" is. Tom only has his *own*
personal hopes to steer by.
> A proper comparison of this "theory" to
> the MMX data, using a realistic estimate of its resolution obtained
> from the data,
How many times can you repeat this, Tom, without admitting that you don't
know the resolution of the MMX? You have admitted that you simply guess at
this -- based on what SR requires.
> would indicate the experiment is consistent with his
> "theory" for ANY speed relative to the ether between zero and several
> thousand km/s, in any direction. Like Stowe above, Cahill is looking at
> errors and proclaiming them significant; he then divides by a tiny
> number to obtain agreement with his personal prejudices.
>
> I put "theory" in quotes because he invokes MAGIC to
> exclude experiments that otherwise refute his "theory"
> (any measurement using a solid, such as Shaumir and Fox).
What a pathetic lie, Tom. Identifying a physical effect is not "magic."
> > Michaelson and Morley, Miller and others performing
> > the gas mode interferometer experiments did not know
> > the physics of the apparatus, and could not therefore
> > understand their results (6-8 k/s).
>
> They understood them perfectly well in the theoretical context of their
> time. Nobody could reasonably ask for more.
But, Tom, *YOU* are quite willing to re-analyse *ANY* experiment in the
"theoretical context" of your own current views. (And then "modify" the
reported results on the basis of "lemmas" and theorems.)
> > Either Cahill is correct about the physics
> > of the gas mode michaelson interferometer
> > requiring admission of a term for the
> > refective index of the gas, or he is not.
>
> His current papers are fundamentally flawed in their "analysis" of
> various experiments. And his invocation of magic is just ridiculous.
Of course, Tom cannot identify any specific flaw in the analysis. So Tom
simply lies, and calls it "magic," to try to slander the effort.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
news:oWaJd.3432$rc4....@fe07.usenetserver.com...
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:sBTId.8820$k05...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > I have just posted an article on this in a new thread with subject:
> > An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
>
> Oh, wow! Deja vu, all over again!
{snip}
> > This depends upon what type of "conclusion" one attempts to draw. The
> > following are hard conclusions drawn from the data in the link Paul
> > Stowe gave above:
> > 1. The MMX measurements are solidly consistent with a null result.
>
> LOL! Dream on, Tom.
>
> > 2. Estimates for their basic resolution in measuring the position
> > of a fringe are 0.14-0.15 fringe width. This is based on a
> > statistical analysis of the data in that paper.
>
> LOL! I can't wait to see this! Unfortunately, Tom, basic resolution of
an
> instrument is a physical quantity that is independent of statistics (i.e.
> the number of actual measurements).
>
> > 3. Conclusions that they saw a non-zero effect are bogus, because
> > the variations in the data are below their resolution.
>
> But -- as Tom has admitted before -- Tom simply has assumed the resolution
> of the MMX, in the past. Solely to be able to claim a "null" result.
>
> Now, let me take a wild guess. Tom will draw a straight line through all
of
> the MMX data points, do a least squares fit, and then declare that the
value
> is "zero." -- and also claim a "resolution" equal to the chi squared
value.
>
> > See my post in the other thread referenced above for details.
Score one prediction for me.
{snip}
> > Physicists have
> > known for many decades that one _MUST_ perform a statistical analysis on
> > both the data and the errors/resolutions.
>
> So how does the statistical fit for the sine wave fit, versus the
assumption
> of noise (zero value)?
>
> I'll wager Tom hasn't done that one.
Score another prediction for me.
{snip}
greywolf42
> Bilge wrote:
> > Ben Bean:
> > >What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of Light and the
Einstein
> > >Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
>
> bar, making him conclude that a result consistent with zero is nonzero.
> He needs to learn how to handle error bars correctly, and how to
> properly compare a theory to an experiment.
Tom, what *IS* the "invalid analysis technique?" Your unsupported claim
that he did "something wrong" is not sufficient. Especially in light of the
fact that *you* have admitted that you simply "guessed" at the error bars of
all those experiments on the FAQ.
> > Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one could perform
> > to prove the claim if he were interested. [...]
>
> Already done:
>
> Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
> A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex
> (n=1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe.
> They report a null result with an upper limit on Vaether of 6.64
> km/sec.
That's a light pipe, Tom. As such it is not an MMX device. Ever hear of
phase lock?
> So Cahill's theory is already refuted experimentally.
Tom continues posting irrelevant references.
greywolf42
> Ben Bean wrote:
> > What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of Light and the
> Einstein
> > Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
> >
> > results are utterly INvalid, exCEPT when there is a gas medium
> > present in the apparatus. That's looney, one would guess, since
> > light requires no medium to behave just so.
> >
> > The remainder of Cahill's thesis is for TPs to interpret.
>
> Cahill's reinterpretations of classic MMX experiments are worse than
> misguided; they have always been intellectually dishonest. For
> instance, consider this horrible mess:
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf
>
> Every single re-analysis in this older paper, whether it be of
> Michelson-Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Joos, Jaseja et al., Torr and
> Kolen, or DeWitte represents complete intellectual butchery.
Of course, you have only vitriol to support your claim. Why not try posting
a specific or two? Oh right, you have nothing specific.
> I have no
> time to deal with every one of Cahill's nonsensical reinterpretations.
> For the purpose of this post,
Then you have no basis for making the claim.
> let me focus on his treatment of
> Michelson-Morley 1887:
>
> Consider Cahill's Figure 3, which is a plot of micrometer readings for
> Michelson and Morley's July 11 noontime run. Their readings exhibited
> minor fluctuations as they rotated their apparatus. Each marker on this
> figure represents 22.5 degrees of rotation, and I count 2.5 up-and-down
> fluctuations as the apparatus was rotated through a complete 360
> degrees.
>
> Cahill writes, "The Michelson-Morley interferometer data clearly shows
> the characteristic sinusoidal form with period 180 degrees together
> with a large speed."
>
> Cahill is being grossly dishonest in this misrepresentation of
> Michelson and Morley's data. These fluctuations DO NOT show
> "characteristic sinusoidal form with period 180 degrees." Instead, the
> plotted fluctuations display a periodicity of 360/2.5 = 144 degrees.
Total B.S. Also unsupported.
> In addition, Cahill presents, but does not plot, Michelson and Morley's
> data from their 6 PM run of July 9. When I plot their data, I see
> irregular fluctuations of similar magnitude as present in their July 11
> noontime run, but with a periodicity of approximately 120 degrees, i.e.
> approximately three up-and-down oscillations per 360 degree turn of
> their apparatus.
Did you do a chi-squared fit?
> Michelson and Morley were hence correct in ignoring these fluctuations
> as representing nothing but some sort of random and/or systematic error
> in their experimental apparatus and/or data gathering procedure.
Except the M&M did no such thing.
> ----
> In sum: don't waste your time with Cahill.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
mountain man
news:41f4e16e$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Cahill's explanation is that absolute motion is not detected in vacuum
devices and solid state devices (such as the 2.4 RI plastic/glass).
"The explanation appears to be that the Lorentz contraction in the
direction of motion affects, via the elasticity of the solid, the refractive
index in the orthogonal direction. In other words solids are much
more complex than gases, which display no such effect."
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics
Have a nice day,
mountain man
...[trim]...
> Mountain man wrote;
>> However Cahill correctly points out that the original analysis
>> (used to arrive at the 6-8km/s) was flawed, not taking into
>> account the refractive index of the air, for a start.
>>
>> Cahill is correct, and the first person
>> to point out this oversight since 1870.
>
> Cahill's analysis is fundamentally flawed -- he imposes his persoal hopes
> and dreams onto the data. A proper comparison of this "theory" to the MMX
> data, using a realistic estimate of its resolution obtained from the data,
> would indicate the experiment is consistent with his "theory" for ANY
> speed relative to the ether between zero and several thousand km/s, in any
> direction.
You are totally avoiding the issue here.
The issue is whether the refractive index of the gas being used
in a gas mode michaelson interferometer is critical to the understanding
of the operation of the experimental device.
It either is or it isn't.
>> Michaelson and Morley, Miller and others performing
>> the gas mode interferometer experiments did not know
>> the physics of the apparatus, and could not therefore
>> understand their results (6-8 k/s).
>
> They understood them perfectly well in the theoretical context of their
> time. Nobody could reasonably ask for more.
Nonsense. It is not unreasonable to ask whether or not
the refractive index of air should have been taken into
account. This is basic physics.
It seems to have been overlooked not only by M&M
but by the entire profession of physicists between the
years of 1887 and 2002.
Have a nice day,
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:TjEJd.134703$K7.7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
...
> Nonsense. It is not unreasonable to ask whether or not
> the refractive index of air should have been taken into
> account. This is basic physics.
>
> It seems to have been overlooked not only by M&M
> but by the entire profession of physicists between the
> years of 1887 and 2002.
So the MMX experiments that were run in vacuum, c_medium was not "accounted
for"?
I thought that c_medium was supposed a function of c_aether (and other
things)?
Please don't descend into the silly at this point...
David A. Smith
Harry
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
Exactly, that's what I referred to.
Cheers,
Harald
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:sBTId.8820$k05...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>and dreams onto the data. A proper comparison of this "theory" to the MMX
>>data, using a realistic estimate of its resolution obtained from the data,
>>would indicate the experiment is consistent with his "theory" for ANY
>>speed relative to the ether between zero and several thousand km/s, in any
>>direction.
>
> You are totally avoiding the issue here.
No. This is the fundamental issue: does Cahill's theory agree with the MMX, and
if so for what values of its parameters? [ditto for all other experiments, but
I'll consider only the MMX here.]
My answer is: it looks to me like it does agree for any speed between zero and
several thousand km/s, in any direction. I have not done the detailed analysis
to put a number on that upper bound, but it is quite clear that the lower bound
is zero, and I think the upper bound is probably larger than ~4 km/s divided by
(n-1) for air, which is something over 10,000 km/s.
> The issue is whether the refractive index of the gas being used
> in a gas mode michaelson interferometer is critical to the understanding
> of the operation of the experimental device.
That is theory dependent. For SR it is not critical or even important, for
Cahill's theory it is indeed critical.
> It either is or it isn't.
No. The answer is theory dependent.
> It is not unreasonable to ask whether or not
> the refractive index of air should have been taken into
> account. This is basic physics.
And for the theories of 1887 it was known to not be important. By "important" I
mean "is an effect comparable to or larger than the errorbars in the data". This
experiment, of course, gave an unexpected result which generated numerous new
theories, and in some/many of them this is important.
Today, I think nobody would claim the air can be ignored, because the extinction
length in air is vastly smaller than the path lengths. But today we don't
normally interpret this experiment as "measuring speed relative to the ether".
> It seems to have been overlooked not only by M&M
> but by the entire profession of physicists between the
> years of 1887 and 2002.
It was not "overlooked", as even a casual investigation of the literature will
show (many measurements using different media from vacuum to helium to perspex).
greywolf42 wrote:
> what *IS* the "invalid analysis technique?"
Assuming that the values reported are exact (i.e. without errorbars), fitting to
a sinusoid, dividing by a small number, and proclaiming agreement with his
personal prejudice.
Treating such data as a "measurement of speed" like that is an old technique
that is inherently unable to account for the errorbars on the data. That's why
modern analyses don't do this; instead they parameterize the theory, compute the
results of the measurements in terms of those parameters, and then fit the
theoretical parameters to the data. This method does handle errorbars, and when
properly done also gives errorbars on the values of those parameters. While I
have not done this for Cahill's theory, I have investigated the errorbars on the
MMX data, and from that it is clear that such a fit will obtain good chi-squares
for any speed between zero and several thousand km/s, and any direction.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
mountain man
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:sBTId.8820$k05...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>>Cahill's analysis is fundamentally flawed -- he imposes his persoal hopes
>>>and dreams onto the data. A proper comparison of this "theory" to the MMX
>>>data, using a realistic estimate of its resolution obtained from the
>>>data, would indicate the experiment is consistent with his "theory" for
>>>ANY speed relative to the ether between zero and several thousand km/s,
>>>in any direction.
>>
>> You are totally avoiding the issue here.
>
> No. This is the fundamental issue: does Cahill's theory agree with the
> MMX, and if so for what values of its parameters? [ditto for all other
> experiments, but I'll consider only the MMX here.]
Data from 7 experiments have been re-analysed, not just the MMX.
You see that "et al" in the subject line of this thread.
The fundamental issue is the existence of absolute motion, the very
thing that this entire series of experiments commencing with the MMX
were trying to get a handle on --- so dont confuse Cahill's real issue.
The point missed is that there are at least 7 experiments have detected
absolute motion. The most significant data is from Miller and from DeWitte.
The others do not have the same quality or quantity of data, but they are
consistent with Miller and DeWitte. Miller did 20,000 rotations, so his
data set is incredibly large. His interferometer was also much larger than
MM so his errors are much smaller.
DeWitte used a different apparatus, so that his results agree with Miller,
and the others, is very significant. Being a 1st order coaxial cable
experiment the errors are very small compared to the signal (DeWitte
used 6 cesium atomic clocks).
Of course by themselves the MM data would not have been conclusive,
no single experiment ever is. BUt when we use the speed and direction
from Miller and DeWitte and go back and compute what MM should
have seen, their data is remarkably consistent with that prediction.
This is the essence of Cahill's claims.
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
Bilge
>Cahill's explanation is that absolute motion is not detected in vacuum
>devices and solid state devices (such as the 2.4 RI plastic/glass).
Naturally - that would be too easy to check.
>"The explanation appears to be that the Lorentz contraction in the
>direction of motion affects, via the elasticity of the solid, the
>refractive index in the orthogonal direction. In other words solids
>are much more complex than gases, which display no such effect."
That is another non-explanation. What's the deal? Can't you actually
quantify something rather than offer a lot of vague platitudes?
mountain man
It is an attempted explanation for what appears
to be observed in experiment. ie: null results in
vacuum and solid state devices, but positive results
in gas-mode interferometer devices.
The Crackpot Patrol of course will argue black
and white that what is observed in the experiments
is not actually observed.
Have a noice day,
Bilge
>news:slrncvur48....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> mountain man:
>>
>> >Cahill's explanation is that absolute motion is not detected in vacuum
>> >devices and solid state devices (such as the 2.4 RI plastic/glass).
>>
>> Naturally - that would be too easy to check.
>>
>> >"The explanation appears to be that the Lorentz contraction in the
>> >direction of motion affects, via the elasticity of the solid, the
>> >refractive index in the orthogonal direction. In other words solids
>> >are much more complex than gases, which display no such effect."
>>
>> That is another non-explanation. What's the deal? Can't you actually
>> quantify something rather than offer a lot of vague platitudes?
>
>
>
>It is an attempted explanation for what appears
>to be observed in experiment. ie: null results in
>vacuum and solid state devices, but positive results
>in gas-mode interferometer devices.
>
>The Crackpot Patrol of course will argue black
>and white that what is observed in the experiments
>is not actually observed.
Yes, you always do.
mountain man
> mountain man:
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrncvur48....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> mountain man:
> >>
> >> >Cahill's explanation is that absolute motion is not detected in vacuum
> >> >devices and solid state devices (such as the 2.4 RI plastic/glass).
> >>
> >> Naturally - that would be too easy to check.
> >>
> >> >"The explanation appears to be that the Lorentz contraction in the
> >> >direction of motion affects, via the elasticity of the solid, the
> >> >refractive index in the orthogonal direction. In other words solids
> >> >are much more complex than gases, which display no such effect."
> >>
> >> That is another non-explanation. What's the deal? Can't you actually
> >> quantify something rather than offer a lot of vague platitudes?
> >
> >
> >
> >It is an attempted explanation for what appears
> >to be observed in experiment. ie: null results in
> >vacuum and solid state devices, but positive results
> >in gas-mode interferometer devices.
>
> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
The picture may be bad.
But why spit on it?
> >The Crackpot Patrol of course will argue black
> >and white that what is observed in the experiments
> >is not actually observed.
>
> Yes, you always do.
Have a nice day,
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
>
>The picture may be bad.
>But why spit on it?
Because it's being peddled as science.
mountain man
That's just quaint sentamentalism. You are
defending the cause of the orthodoxy as
every Crackpot Patrolman's creed demands.
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnd06e8i....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> mountain man:
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
>> >
>> >The picture may be bad.
>> >But why spit on it?
>>
>> Because it's being peddled as science.
>
>
>That's just quaint sentamentalism. You are defending the cause of the
>orthodoxy as every Crackpot Patrolman's creed demands.
You were free to prove me wrong by defining the jargon in
cahill's articles. But you didn't.
mountain man
What you call "proof" above will be determined via experiment.
It is not up to me, or the Crackpot Patrol, to define "right" and
"wrong", if indeed such can be applied to assertions in physics.
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnd0gna8...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> mountain man:
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnd06e8i....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >> mountain man:
>> >> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> >> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
>> >> >
>> >> >The picture may be bad.
>> >> >But why spit on it?
>> >>
>> >> Because it's being peddled as science.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >That's just quaint sentamentalism. You are defending the cause of the
>> >orthodoxy as every Crackpot Patrolman's creed demands.
>>
>> You were free to prove me wrong by defining the jargon in
>> cahill's articles. But you didn't.
>
>
>What you call "proof" above will be determined via experiment.
experiments, so there is no reason to believe you'll accept the
results from any experiment.
>It is not up to me, or the Crackpot Patrol, to define "right" and
>"wrong", if indeed such can be applied to assertions in physics.
It is obviously up to someone to decide what is good physics bad
physics. You're right about it not being up to you, but obviously
wrong about it not being up to the conventional physicists to whom
you refer as the ``Crackpot Patrol.'' In fact, you might even say
that one of the obligations scientists have is to educate the
public on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Ken S. Tucker
>In fact, you might even say
> that one of the obligations scientists have is to educate the
> public on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
"might even say that"..."educate the public"..."science".
Why am I overweight I ask as I chow down another
McFlaburger?
Criminals keep cops/lawyers/judges in business.
Sick people keep doctors/drug companies in business.
Screw conservation of energy, Big Bang sells!
Glad you said "might"...
Ken
mountain man
> mountain man:
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnd0gna8...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> mountain man:
> >> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:slrnd06e8i....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> >> mountain man:
> >> >> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The picture may be bad.
> >> >> >But why spit on it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it's being peddled as science.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >That's just quaint sentamentalism. You are defending the cause of the
> >> >orthodoxy as every Crackpot Patrolman's creed demands.
> >>
> >> You were free to prove me wrong by defining the jargon in
> >> cahill's articles. But you didn't.
> >
> >
> >What you call "proof" above will be determined via experiment.
>
> Not a chance.
The fat lady has not yet sang.
Wait for the G probe B series.
>You haven't accepted an entire century's worth of
> experiments, so there is no reason to believe you'll accept the
> results from any experiment.
You have not accepted that an entire centuries worth of
experiments *commenced* with gas mode michaelson
interferometers and generated inexplicable results because
the newtonian theory of the interferometer was and is wrong.
> >It is not up to me, or the Crackpot Patrol, to define "right" and
> >"wrong", if indeed such can be applied to assertions in physics.
>
> It is obviously up to someone to decide what is good physics bad
> physics. You're right about it not being up to you, but obviously
> wrong about it not being up to the conventional physicists to whom
> you refer as the ``Crackpot Patrol.''
Crackpot Patrol membership has nothing to do with physics.
It is allocated for use of the high moral right hand, for knowing
everything (including what will be discovered tomorrow) and
for behaving like ignorant and abusive pigs in a public forum.
> In fact, you might even say
> that one of the obligations scientists have is to educate the
> public on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
It's a wonder you didn't use a capital O for obligation.
You might even say there's the beginning of a CREED
in the above.
How would you educate the public on the difference
between the field of cosmology and the field of
mythology?
Have a nice day,
Ken S. Tucker
largest stock-holders in candy companies
were dentist's.
Stripe tooth-past looks like a candy cane
in a tube, maybe it is.
Ethics is very important.
Ken
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnd0rka4....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> mountain man:
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnd0gna8...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >> mountain man:
>> >> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:slrnd06e8i....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >> >> mountain man:
>> >> >> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's a lot of meaningless jargon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The picture may be bad.
>> >> >> >But why spit on it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because it's being peddled as science.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >That's just quaint sentamentalism. You are defending the cause of the
>> >> >orthodoxy as every Crackpot Patrolman's creed demands.
>> >>
>> >> You were free to prove me wrong by defining the jargon in
>> >> cahill's articles. But you didn't.
>> >
>> >
>> >What you call "proof" above will be determined via experiment.
>>
>> Not a chance.
>
>
>The fat lady has not yet sang. Wait for the G probe B series.
as the michelson-morely experiment. Whatever you expect to find,
won't be found, but there will be a ``signal'' hidden in the
error bars that was covered up by the conspiritors to preserve the
orthodoxy to protect their personal fortunes amassed by crushing
dissidents seeking the truth.
>>You haven't accepted an entire century's worth of
>> experiments, so there is no reason to believe you'll accept the
>> results from any experiment.
>
>
>You have not accepted that an entire centuries worth of experiments
>*commenced* with gas mode michaelson interferometers and generated
>inexplicable results because the newtonian theory of the interferometer
>was and is wrong.
What about the 1 zilion other experiments, including the day-to-
day run-of-the mill accelerator operations that depends upon
relativity to function? Just about everything in the world depends
upon an index of refraction in one way or another. That's what's
so silly about cahill's whole idea. I especially like the excuse
regarding solids peddled to avoid anything with a large index of
refraction. Having such an easily available, non-exotic test must
be a real inconvenience. It sounds a lot more hip to rattle off
stuff about gravity probe B.
>> >It is not up to me, or the Crackpot Patrol, to define "right" and
>> >"wrong", if indeed such can be applied to assertions in physics.
>>
>> It is obviously up to someone to decide what is good physics bad
>> physics. You're right about it not being up to you, but obviously
>> wrong about it not being up to the conventional physicists to whom
>> you refer as the ``Crackpot Patrol.''
>
>
>Crackpot Patrol membership has nothing to do with physics.
Well, let's see... So far your ``Crackpot Patrol'' consists of
anyone who considers cahill a crackpot, which as far as I can
tell includes every physicist who has read what cahill has written
and posted a response based upon what they've read.
>It is allocated for use of the high moral right hand, for knowing
>everything (including what will be discovered tomorrow) and
>for behaving like ignorant and abusive pigs in a public forum.
No one (but a number of crackpots) have claimed to know everything.
On the other hand, there are a number of people who have actually
studied physics who do know a lot about physics. You'll excuse me
if I expect a reply at a level somewhat above halliday and resnick
level platitudes from someone who plans to revolutionize physics.
Tossing in jargon like ``quantum foam'' and ``information theoretic''
just doesn't cut it without precisely defining what those terms
mean in the revolutionary theory.
>> In fact, you might even say
>> that one of the obligations scientists have is to educate the
>> public on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
>
>
>It's a wonder you didn't use a capital O for obligation.
Why? It was in the middle of a sentence.
>You might even say there's the beginning of a CREED in the above.
Well, thanks for the suggestion, but I can't really see how that
would apply to anything physics related. But, if it works for you,
by all means use to describe cahill's stuff.
>How would you educate the public on the difference between the field
>of cosmology and the field of mythology?
I thought that was what I was doing.
Creighton Hogg
Well, it is true that most of the money in physics comes from the
"Department of Dissident Crushing", a branch of the NSF funded by the
remants of the Knights Templar that are in league with the Illuminati to
hide the Ultimate Truth of God=G_u_v from the Greys living at Area 51, who
are still waiting for a Space Taxi to pick them up from this godforsaken
planet.
Ken S. Tucker
That's going into my new movie, Count Drocles
Frankenfixics...
Ken
mountain man
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.050212...@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
Anyone who funds research into the first 10^-n seconds
of the cosmos is funding research into mythology, and
philosophy, but not physical science.
Physics cannot predict the detailed configuration state of
the constituent matter (water, milk, sugar, coffee) in my
coffee cup THREE MINUTES AFTER a good stir !!!!!
If it cannot predict in the kitchen at home, what are the
appropriate error bars when applying this to predicting
the state of the whole cosmos after 10^-n seconds?
mountain man
Times change.
> >>You haven't accepted an entire century's worth of
> >> experiments, so there is no reason to believe you'll accept the
> >> results from any experiment.
> >
> >
> >You have not accepted that an entire centuries worth of experiments
> >*commenced* with gas mode michaelson interferometers and generated
> >inexplicable results because the newtonian theory of the interferometer
> >was and is wrong.
>
> What about the 1 zilion other experiments, including the day-to-
> day run-of-the mill accelerator operations that depends upon
> relativity to function?
What about them? See below.
> Just about everything in the world depends
> upon an index of refraction in one way or another. That's what's
> so silly about cahill's whole idea.
Cahill acknowledges relativistic effects and points out
that they need not be incompatible with the idea of the
detection of absolute motion. His theory provides a
causal mechanism for the appearance of relativistic
effects. The current theory is only mathematics.
> I especially like the excuse
> regarding solids peddled to avoid anything with a large index of
> refraction. Having such an easily available, non-exotic test must
> be a real inconvenience. It sounds a lot more hip to rattle off
> stuff about gravity probe B.
How much did your crystal ball cost?
> >> >It is not up to me, or the Crackpot Patrol, to define "right" and
> >> >"wrong", if indeed such can be applied to assertions in physics.
> >>
> >> It is obviously up to someone to decide what is good physics bad
> >> physics. You're right about it not being up to you, but obviously
> >> wrong about it not being up to the conventional physicists to whom
> >> you refer as the ``Crackpot Patrol.''
> >
> >
> >Crackpot Patrol membership has nothing to do with physics.
>
> Well, let's see... So far your ``Crackpot Patrol'' consists of
> anyone who considers cahill a crackpot, which as far as I can
> tell includes every physicist who has read what cahill has written
> and posted a response based upon what they've read.
In fact it had nothing to do with the Cahill posts, but was
prepared well beforehand after a return to sci.physics
after years of absence.
It was prepared as a balancing entry, on behalf of all folk
who have been the target of abuse in the name of physics,
because they have different ideas than the mainstream.
You will note that the original "crackpot index" of the 90's
targetted the ideas presented, not the posters.
> >It is allocated for use of the high moral right hand, for knowing
> >everything (including what will be discovered tomorrow) and
> >for behaving like ignorant and abusive pigs in a public forum.
>
> No one (but a number of crackpots) have claimed to know everything.
And what about the behavioural aspect?
> On the other hand, there are a number of people who have actually
> studied physics who do know a lot about physics. You'll excuse me
> if I expect a reply at a level somewhat above halliday and resnick
> level platitudes from someone who plans to revolutionize physics.
H&R dont cover dark matter.
Have you read Cahill's papers on dark matter?
> Tossing in jargon like ``quantum foam'' and ``information theoretic''
> just doesn't cut it without precisely defining what those terms
> mean in the revolutionary theory.
PP07 - Smart Nanostructures and Synthetic Quantum Systems [2001]
PP06 - Process Physics: Inertia, Gravity and the Quantum [2001]
PP05 - Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information
[2000]
PP04 - Self-Referential Noise as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality [1999]
PP03 - Self-Referential Noise and the Synthesis of Three-Dimensional Space
[1998]
PP02 - Bootstrap Universe from Self-Referential Noise [1997]
PP01 - Pregeometric Modelling of the Spacetime Phenomenology [1996]
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> I don't have to wait. The plot will follow the same storyline
>> as the michelson-morely experiment. Whatever you expect to find,
>> won't be found, but there will be a ``signal'' hidden in the
>> error bars that was covered up by the conspiritors to preserve the
>> orthodoxy to protect their personal fortunes amassed by crushing
>> dissidents seeking the truth.
>Times change.
But you're still stuck in the 19th century.
>> Just about everything in the world depends
>> upon an index of refraction in one way or another. That's what's
>> so silly about cahill's whole idea.
>
>
>Cahill acknowledges relativistic effects and points out
That didn't address what I said.
>that they need not be incompatible with the idea of the detection of
>absolute motion. His theory provides a causal mechanism for the
>appearance of relativistic effects. The current theory is only
>mathematics.
So is F = ma. You are just being a hypocrite and trying to limit
everyone to your rather low level of comprehension.
[...]
>> I especially like the excuse
>> regarding solids peddled to avoid anything with a large index of
>> refraction. Having such an easily available, non-exotic test must
>> be a real inconvenience. It sounds a lot more hip to rattle off
>> stuff about gravity probe B.
>
>How much did your crystal ball cost?
I don't need a crystal ball to recognize an excuse.
[...]
>It was prepared as a balancing entry, on behalf of all folk
>who have been the target of abuse in the name of physics,
>because they have different ideas than the mainstream.
You give yourself too much credit. You aren't posting any physics.
>You will note that the original "crackpot index" of the 90's
>targetted the ideas presented, not the posters.
Your so-called ideas are not physics.
>> No one (but a number of crackpots) have claimed to know everything.
>And what about the behavioural aspect?
You seem to think you know that, too.
>> On the other hand, there are a number of people who have actually
>> studied physics who do know a lot about physics. You'll excuse me
>> if I expect a reply at a level somewhat above halliday and resnick
>> level platitudes from someone who plans to revolutionize physics.
>
>
>H&R dont cover dark matter.
>Have you read Cahill's papers on dark matter?
Have you studied quantum mechanics? So far, you can't even define the
terms in those papers and cahill can't either.