Question for Tom Roberts
Bruce Richmond
When discussing Miller's experiments you said that one of his problems
involved averaging. Averaging does not increase the accuracy of a
measurement. I was just wondering how that applies to something like
the satellite measurement of sea level.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/technology.html
The two parts of the measurement are to measure the height of the
satellite above the earth's surface (accurate to 2-3 centimeters) and
the measurement of the distance from the satellite to the surface of
the sea directly below it (accurate to 3-4 centimeters). By
subtraction they claim to have a measurement that is accurate to
within 4-5 centimeters.
Seems to me that the errors could combine so it is in fact only
accurate to within 5-7 centimeters. Also they claim, "By averaging
the few-hundred thousand measurements collected by the satellite in
the time it takes to cover the global oceans (10 days), global mean
sea level can be determined with a precision of several millimeters."
How does this work if we apply error bars to the original data? Would
the measurement of a 2mm rise in sea level a year later be considered
significant?
Thanks, Bruce
Tom Roberts
> When discussing Miller's experiments you said that one of his problems
> involved averaging.
The problem is not averaging per se, but rather in assuming that averaging does
things that averaging cannot do. In particular, averaging does NOT project out
the signal he wanted.
> Averaging does not increase the accuracy of a
> measurement.
No. But in many common cases where one can make multiple STATISTICALLY
INDEPENDENT measurements of a SINGLE quantity, then the average of those
measurements gives a better estimate of the quantity's true value than does any
individual measurement. Moreover, the variance of the measurements gives
information about how accurately that average is determined. This is the
underlying basis for error analysis.
> I was just wondering how that applies to something like
> the satellite measurement of sea level.
> http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/technology.html
> The two parts of the measurement are to measure the height of the
> satellite above the earth's surface (accurate to 2-3 centimeters) and
> the measurement of the distance from the satellite to the surface of
> the sea directly below it (accurate to 3-4 centimeters). By
> subtraction they claim to have a measurement that is accurate to
> within 4-5 centimeters.
Those appear to me to be statistically independent measurements, because they
are based on completely different technologies. I'll assume that, and also that
the quoted accuracies are the sigmas of the underlying distributions of the
individual measurements (probably a good assumption, as this is standard practice).
[I'm ignoring the obvious problem of resolving individual
waves; I assume they handled it in a reasonable manner.]
Given two measurements: a +- sigma_a, and b +- sigma_b, with statistically
independent normally distributed errors, their difference is:
(a-b) +- sqrt(sigma_a^2+sigma_b^2)
which is consistent with the statements on that website. In short, when the
conditions are satisfied, the errorbars add in quadrature. As those guys
presumably are competent, they surely know this and also know that the
conditions are satisfied.
One can understand this, remembering that the statistical
model is that a and b are individually sampled from random
values normally distributed around their true values. For
the measurement in which a happens to be at the top of its
range, b is not likely to also be at the top of its range.
Work it out for all combinations, and one gets the above
formula. Note that for this to be valid a and b MUST be
normally distributed, and they MUST be statistically
independent.
BTW the sigma of (a+b) is the same as that of (a-b).
Here's how errorbars work for the mean of multiple measurements:
Given a set of N measurements {m_i} of a SINGLE quantity, with the measurements
being STATISTICALLY INDEPENDENT, one can compute their mean and sigma:
mean = (1/N) sum_i{ m_i }
sigma = sqrt( (1/N) sum_i{ (m_i - mean)^2 } )
When one considers the mean to be the best estimate of the true value, one
assigns an errorbar:
mean +- sigma/sqrt(N-1)
Exercise for the reader: derive this from the above formula
for the sigma of the sum of a and b. You'll also need the fact
that given a +- sigma_a, multiplying by a constant K gives
K*a +- K*sigma_a. Hint: the hard part is the "-1", so first
do without it. You'll need to look more deeply into this in
order to understand the "-1".
This all comes from the central limit theorem of statistics, and REQUIRES that
the measurements be statistically independent, and that N be large enough so the
mean is normally distributed. In practice, it is often the case that N as low as
5 works well.
Note I have not discussed systematic errors, which behave
in a VERY different manner, and there is no general theory
to apply to them; that's why each experiment or measurement
needs its own error analysis.
For Miller's data, surfer keeps attempting to apply these formulas in situations
where the conditions for their validity are not satisfied. In particular, after
a DSP filter the data points are NOT statistically independent, their errors are
NOT normally distributed, and the errorbars surfer claims are wrong. By HUGE
factors.
Tom Roberts
Bruce Richmond
Thank you for the thorough answer.
Bruce
Surfer
<tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>For Miller's data, surfer keeps attempting to apply these formulas in situations
>where the conditions for their validity are not satisfied.
>
I disagree.
As Miller's data is periodic, passing it through a DSP filter is
similar to passing signals from an antenna through a tuning circuit
(which these days could very well be a DSP filter).
Tuning circuits and DSP filters are very effective at removing noise
OUTSIDE the band of frequencies used to pass the selected signal.
They don't adversely affect the selected signal, provided the
bandwidth is sufficient to contain all the signal components.
For Miller's signal that would be the case because his signal is only
modulated by very low frequencies (such as the earth rotation effect).
That allows us two choices.
1) We can calculate errorbars from the raw data containing signal,
plus noise components of a FULL RANGE of frequencies, or,
2) We can calculate errorbars from the filtered data containing
signal, plus noise components of only a NARROW RANGE of frequencies
passed by the filter.
You prefer the former and get error bars that are larger than the
signal.
I prefer the latter and get error bars that are smaller than the
signal.
Surfer
Surfer
>
>As Miller's data is periodic,
>
That should of course be "As the signal in Miller's data is
periodic...."
Surfer
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:08:01 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> For Miller's data, surfer keeps attempting to apply these formulas in situations
>> where the conditions for their validity are not satisfied.
>>
> similar to passing signals from an antenna through a tuning circuit
> (which these days could very well be a DSP filter).
But you don't account for the effect on the errorbars of such a filter.
> They don't adversely affect the selected signal, provided the
> bandwidth is sufficient to contain all the signal components.
If you understood error analysis, you would know that the errorbars can
be affected differently from the "signal".
Another aspect you don't understand is that while you can indeed find a
non-zero amplitude for a period 1/2-turn sinusoid, you have no way to
demonstrate that it is of cosmic origin, and is not simply an aspect of
the ENORMOUS background.
My analysis, on the other hand, shows that the orientation-dependent
component of Miller's data is zero, with an errorbar SMALLER than the
false "signal" that Miller found.
> You prefer [...]
> I prefer [...]
This is not about "preferences", this is about what an accurate and
comprehensive error analysis _IS_. You simply do not understand the
subject, and your opinions and "preferences" are useless.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>But you don't account for the effect on the errorbars of such a filter.
>
Yes I do. The filter removes noise OUTSIDE the band of frequencies
used to pass the signal. The errorbars are therefore greatly reduced
by the filter, as calculated here:
http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/
>
>If you understood error analysis, you would know that the errorbars can
>be affected differently from the "signal".
>
Of course they are affected differently. The signal is PASSED
approximately as is and the errorbars are greatly REDUCED !
(IOW signal to noise ratio is greatly increased !)
>
>Another aspect you don't understand is that while you can indeed find a
>non-zero amplitude for a period 1/2-turn sinusoid, you have no way to
>demonstrate that it is of cosmic origin, and is not simply an aspect of
>the ENORMOUS background.
>
That can be demonstrated by confirming that the signal is
appropriately modulated by earth rotation and earth orbit effects.
Miller showed that was the case in his 1933 paper:
The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
>My analysis, on the other hand, shows that the orientation-dependent
>component of Miller's data is zero, with an errorbar SMALLER than the
>false "signal" that Miller found.
>
Your analysis is essentially a straw man argument in that your error
bars are calculated from raw data and so include noise OUTSIDE the
band of frequencies that are passed by Miller's algorithm.
Miller's algorthm produces essentially the SAME output as the DSP
filter, as shown here.
http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/HTMLFiles/index_32.gif
Surfer
Dirk Van de moortel
9htuc55927mvuja3d...@4ax.com
[snip the usual]
>> My analysis, on the other hand, shows that the orientation-dependent
>> component of Miller's data is zero, with an errorbar SMALLER than the
>> false "signal" that Miller found.
>>
> Your analysis is essentially a straw man argument
Cahill, to a crow, *everyone* looks like a straw man.
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:21:03 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> But you don't account for the effect on the errorbars of such a filter.
>>
> Yes I do. The filter removes noise OUTSIDE the band of frequencies
> used to pass the signal.
The errorbars indicate how well the "signal" is measured. No matter what
you do, you must come to grips with the FACT that for that 0.062 fringe
"signal" the original measurements varied by almost 6.000 fringes at
EACH ORIENTATION. So the ORIENTATION-DEPENDENT part must be 100 times
smaller than the variation in the measurements. THAT is what errorbars
represent, not how well any particular filter can discard unwanted
frequency bands.
> The errorbars are therefore greatly reduced
> by the filter, as calculated here:
> http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/
No, they are not. You are wrong. That is NOT what errorbars represent.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>The errorbars indicate how well the "signal" is measured. No matter what
>you do, you must come to grips with the FACT that for that 0.062 fringe
>"signal" the original measurements varied by almost 6.000 fringes at
>EACH ORIENTATION.
>
Provided the variations lie outside the filter frequency band used to
pass the signal, it doesn't really matter how large they are.
What is more important is whether or not the final signal is
appropriately modulated by earth rotation and orbit effects.
To determine that, Miller only needed to know how signal amplitude and
phase varied with time. He did not need to know the fringe shifts at
each orientation.
Surfer
eric gisse
NOBODY - LEAST OF ALL MILLER OR YOU - KNOWS HOW THE TRANSIENT TEMPERATURE
EFFECTS BEHAVED AS A FUNCTION OF TIME. FUCK.
Same stupid fucking argument over and over.
>
> Surfer
Tom Roberts
> NOBODY - LEAST OF ALL MILLER OR YOU - KNOWS HOW THE TRANSIENT TEMPERATURE
> EFFECTS BEHAVED AS A FUNCTION OF TIME.
Actually, I do -- Miller measured it (without realizing it). Look in
section IV of my paper where I remove any orientation-dependent
component from one of Miller's runs and display the pure time
dependence: Fig. 10 shows the time-dependent variations for each
orientation of his apparatus, using the run in Fig. 1. So this plot
includes not just temperature effects, it has all
non-orientation-dependent effects. That is, ALL backgrounds.
I did this for 67 of Miller's runs. Of those, the 53 which are stable
enough so my background model is valid give the same answer: the
time-dependent component is equal to the original data. So there is no
orientation-dependent signal at all. The errorbar on any
orientation-dependent signal with period 1/2-turn is smaller than the
false "signal" that Miller found.
Unlike surfer's erroneous computation of errorbars
after a DSP filter, my analysis uses such a filter
in a VALID way to obtain the desired errorbar. In
particular the errorbar is determined in the usual
way by an increase of 1 in the chisq of the fit.
Read the paper for how that is projected onto the
period 1/2-turn signal bin.
Also unlike surfer's nonsense, this approach EXPLICITLY computes the
value and errorbar of the ORIENTATION-DEPENDENT signal. There's no need
to ask whether the result is due to a time-dependent background that
happens to have the right period. Surfer has no way to distinguish
between orientation dependence and time dependence (other than hopes,
dreams, and personal prejudices).
Tom Roberts
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Surfer has no way to distinguish
>between orientation dependence and time dependence (other than hopes,
>dreams, and personal prejudices).
>
The output from the DSP filter is a signal with a period of half a
turn. The phase of the signal is orientation dependent wrt the
interferometer.
The amplitude of the signal is modulated by the earth rotation effect.
The envelope of the waveform for that has a period of one sideral day,
and the phase of the envelope is orientation dependent wrt to the
celestial sphere.
The amplitude is also modulated by the earth orbit effect.
The envelope of the waveform for that has a period of one year.
Such different periods allow the effects to be readily distinguished,
allowing Miller to quite accurately calculate speed and direction for
absolute motion.
Figure 23 in his paper
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
shows he was able to calculate the direction in two different ways,
namely,
- Apex from magnitude, and,
- Apex from azimuth
and that the two ways gave consistent results.
Surfer
eric gisse
[...]
> Unlike surfer's erroneous computation of errorbars
> after a DSP filter, my analysis uses such a filter
> in a VALID way to obtain the desired errorbar. In
> particular the errorbar is determined in the usual
> way by an increase of 1 in the chisq of the fit.
> Read the paper for how that is projected onto the
> period 1/2-turn signal bin.
This is the part of the process that I find exceptionally dishonest on
Surfer's part.
He makes assumptions about the noise background, and then thinks he can use
signal processing tricks to find a "signal". When cornered, he brings out
the "lock in amplifier" non-sequitur response. I haven't seen his reply to
your message yet but I figure there's a 50% shot that it is in there.
>
> Also unlike surfer's nonsense, this approach EXPLICITLY computes the
> value and errorbar of the ORIENTATION-DEPENDENT signal. There's no need
> to ask whether the result is due to a time-dependent background that
> happens to have the right period. Surfer has no way to distinguish
> between orientation dependence and time dependence (other than hopes,
> dreams, and personal prejudices).
That's basically it. I'm personally tired of watching him repeat the same
failed arguments and am waiting for a coherent re-run of Miller's experiment
since he is so "sure" a signal was detected.
Signal processing has never been an especially strong tool in my bag of
tricks, but I believe I know enough to know how stupid it is for this
argument to continue. I can't wait for the next repetition of the "n^2-1"
argument for using a gas-mode interferometer design that ignores other
experiments that contradict him which use gas, or other experiments using a
*solid* which contradict him even more strongly.
*shrug, he belongs on this newsgroup.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
eric gisse
Just not consistent with modern error analysis, or other experiments.
>
> Surfer
Tom Roberts
> I'm personally tired of watching him repeat the same
> failed arguments and am waiting for a coherent re-run of Miller's experiment
> since he is so "sure" a signal was detected.
Yes. For a few thousand dollars in machining, plus instrumentation
Cahill already has, a vastly more sensitive repeat of Miller's
measurements could be made, and put this to rest once and for all. But
Cahill and Surfer are incompetent and don't see how to do that.
I have neither funding, the instrumentation, or the desire
to waste my time.
What I would do is build four thick-walled invar tubes 2-3 cm in
diameter and 2-3 meters long, with a mirror at one end and two fibers at
the other (in and out -- avoid feedback into the laser); the tubes
should be strong enough to be pumped to vacuum and pressurized to
several bar. Build 6 interferometers from the 4 tubes laid out as the 4
spokes of a rotating horizontal wheel. All tubes are fed from a common
laser [#], but with fiber splitters on their outputs so 6 detectors can
measure the interference between all 6 pairs of tubes (keep all fibers
short and temperature stabilized) -- that gives 4 SIMULTANEOUS
measurements of signal (tubes at right angles) and 2 SIMULTANEOUS
measurements of systematic errors (tubes lined up). The tubes must each
be temperature stabilized (e.g. in a melting ice bath) with multiple
temperature readouts accurate to at least 0.001 C, and rigidly mounted
to the rotating wheel. Obviously one can explore different gases,
different pressures, different rotation rates, deliberate temperature
changes, interchanging positions of tubes, laying tubes side-by-side
instead of individually, etc. I do not know if sufficient temperature
and mechanical stability can be achieved, but suspect it can....
[#] I'm not sure if a standard lab laser will work. I
suspect a single-mode laser is required, which
significantly increases the cost.
> Signal processing has never been an especially strong tool in my bag of
> tricks, but I believe I know enough to know how stupid it is for this
> argument to continue.
I spent 9 years at Bell Labs doing digital signal signal processing, in
a group containing some of the world's experts. Yes, there's no point in
continuing "discussing" this with Surfer (or Cahill).
Tom Roberts
eric gisse
[...]
> [#] I'm not sure if a standard lab laser will work. I
> suspect a single-mode laser is required, which
> significantly increases the cost.
Why single mode?
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [#] I'm not sure if a standard lab laser will work. I
>> suspect a single-mode laser is required, which
>> significantly increases the cost.
>
> Why single mode?
In a textbook, a laser is a source of pure, monochromatic light. In the
real world, typical lab He-Ne lasers have a gain bandwidth that includes
2-7 longitudinal modes of the mirrors[@]. The output of such a laser is
shared randomly among the modes within its gain bandwidth, with
fluctuations among them typically on the the scale of 0.001 - 1 seconds.
The different modes typically differ by about a part per million in
frequency and wavelength (i.e. the mirrors are typically about a million
wavelengths apart). When the laser randomly switches modes, an
interferometer setup on a null of the first mode suddenly is no longer
on a null -- this can mimic all sorts of signals [#]. You'll note that
in the setup I suggested all 6 detectors will see this SIMULTANEOUSLY,
as they are all fed from the same laser. So that setup can detect this;
I don't know how debilitating it will be to data taking (that depends on
how often mode switching occurs, which is highly dependent on the laser,
and is often unstable and unpredictable).
[@] This is due to Doppler broadening of the atomic line.
It is inescapable in standard He-Ne lasers.
[#] This is almost certainly part of the "signals" that
Silvertooth and Cahill found; it may well be the
entire "signal". Cialdea used this in an important
way.
A single-mode laser uses some mechanism to narrow the gain bandwidth so
it includes only a single longitudinal mode of the mirrors. They are
more difficult to set up, and are more expensive because of the
additional optical components required and the much smaller market.
There are several techniques to do this; google (scholar) is your friend.
A major aspect of the quality of a laser is expressed by its coherence
length, roughly the depth-of-field that it has for making 3-d holograms.
A typical He-Ne laser has a coherence length of a few cm. A single-mode
He-Ne laser can have a coherence length of many meters. That is
basically the ratio of the gain bandwidth of the Doppler-broadened
quantum line to the gain bandwidth of a single mode of the mirrors. Good
mirrors carefully aligned have a single-mode bandwidth about 0.1% to 1%
of the separation between modes.
Tom Roberts
eric gisse
[...]
That makes sense. Thanks.
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>eric gisse wrote:
>> NOBODY - LEAST OF ALL MILLER OR YOU - KNOWS HOW THE TRANSIENT TEMPERATURE
>> EFFECTS BEHAVED AS A FUNCTION OF TIME.
>
>Actually, I do -- Miller measured it (without realizing it). Look in
>section IV of my paper where I remove any orientation-dependent
>component from one of Miller's runs and display the pure time
>dependence: Fig. 10 shows the time-dependent variations for each
>orientation of his apparatus, using the run in Fig. 1. So this plot
>includes not just temperature effects, it has all
>non-orientation-dependent effects. That is, ALL backgrounds.
>
I can see a problem with a basic assumption of Fig. 10.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
The caption says:
"Because the first turn has been subtracted, any real signal has been removed"
That would be true if the contribution of the real signal was
accurately recorded. However, that cannot be the case because the
judgement of the observer and effect of quantization will vary
somewhat from reading to reading.
Therefore every turn will contain different contributions for the real
signal, so you cannot reliably remove the real signal by subtracting
the first turn from the other turns.
In view of that, Fig. 10 and subsequent analysis cannot give reliable
results.
If you repeated your analysis after passing the data through a DSP
filter to remove noise outside the signal band, your procedure might
work better. Such a filter should reduce noise due to variation of
observer judgement and effect of quantization.
The DSP filter would also undo quantization, so Fig 11 would then not
suffer from "lack of variance around zero... due to quantization of
the data".
Surfer
Tom Roberts
> I can see a problem with a basic assumption of Fig. 10.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
>
> The caption says:
>
> "Because the first turn has been subtracted, any real signal has been removed"
>
> That would be true if the contribution of the real signal was
> accurately recorded. However, that cannot be the case because the
> judgement of the observer and effect of quantization will vary
> somewhat from reading to reading.
Think about what you just said. NONE of those are part of the signal --
the SIGNAL is constant at each orientation. This is, of course, MILLER'S
model.
> [... repetition of the same ignorant nonsense]
Tom Roberts
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> I can see a problem with a basic assumption of Fig. 10.
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
>>
>> The caption says:
>>
>> "Because the first turn has been subtracted, any real signal has been removed"
>>
>> That would be true if the contribution of the real signal was
>> accurately recorded. However, that cannot be the case because the
>> judgement of the observer and effect of quantization will vary
>> somewhat from reading to reading.
>
>Think about what you just said. NONE of those are part of the signal --
>the SIGNAL is constant at each orientation.
>
The quantity being measured might be constant. But since judgement of
the observer and effect of quantization will vary from reading to
reading, the quantity to be measured will not have a constant effect
at each orientation.
As a result the signal PRODUCED BY MEASUREMENT will not be constant at
each orientation, so won't be reliably removed by subtracting one turn
from another.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:27:08 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>>I can see a problem with a basic assumption of Fig. 10.
>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
>>>
>>>The caption says:
>>>
>>> "Because the first turn has been subtracted, any real signal has been removed"
>>>
>>>That would be true if the contribution of the real signal was
>>>accurately recorded. However, that cannot be the case because the
>>>judgement of the observer and effect of quantization will vary
>>>somewhat from reading to reading.
>>
>>Think about what you just said. NONE of those are part of the signal --
>>the SIGNAL is constant at each orientation.
>>
>
> The quantity being measured might be constant. But since judgement of
> the observer and effect of quantization will vary from reading to
> reading, the quantity to be measured will not have a constant effect
> at each orientation.
Yes, and this is part of the errors.
>
> As a result the signal PRODUCED BY MEASUREMENT will not be constant at
> each orientation, so won't be reliably removed by subtracting one turn
> from another.
>
The REAL signal is removed. Noise and artifacts remain.
>
> Surfer
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>> The quantity being measured might be constant. But since judgement of
>> the observer and effect of quantization will vary from reading to
>> reading, the quantity to be measured will not have a constant effect
>> at each orientation.
>
>Yes, and this is part of the errors.
>
Agree.
>>
>> As a result the signal PRODUCED BY MEASUREMENT will not be constant at
>> each orientation, so won't be reliably removed by subtracting one turn
>> from another.
>>
>The REAL signal is removed.
>
What do you mean by "the REAL signal"?
I have pointed out that there is,
1) a "quantity to be measured", and
2) a "signal PRODUCED BY MEASUREMENT"
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
When you take points at the same angle and subtract them, any
real signal is removed. However, you have left the noise
and artifacts of measurements. These are not signals. These
are noise and need to be treated as such. You are trying to
play games and that does not work.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>When you take points at the same angle and subtract them, any
>real signal is removed.
>
Consider an interferometer with 4 markers, with marker 1 recorded
again at the end of each row, with the operator able to discrimminate
to nearest whole unit.
Suppose the real signal is:
0 1.5 0 -1.5 0
Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter larger for the first
turn so the operator records:
0 2 0 -2 0
Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter smaller for the second
turn so the operator records
0 1 0 -1 0
Now, subtract turn 2 from turn 1 and we get:
0 1 0 -1 0
In other words, two thirds of the real signal remain in this case.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
No, what remains is the quantization error. That is not signal.
What you have introduced is another signal with amplitude
0 .5 0 .5.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:56:19 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>When you take points at the same angle and subtract them, any
>>>real signal is removed.
>>>
>>
>> Consider an interferometer with 4 markers, with marker 1 recorded
>> again at the end of each row, with the operator able to discrimminate
>> to nearest whole unit.
>>
>> Suppose the real signal is:
>>
>> 0 1.5 0 -1.5 0
>>
NB: For an MM interferometer, the markers would have to be 45 degrees
apart for this scenario.
>>
>> Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter larger for the first
>> turn so the operator records:
>>
>> 0 2 0 -2 0
>>
>> Suppose that noise makes the amplitude slighter smaller for the second
>> turn so the operator records
>>
>> 0 1 0 -1 0
>>
>> Now, subtract turn 2 from turn 1 and we get:
>>
>> 0 1 0 -1 0
>>
>> In other words, two thirds of the real signal remain in this case.
>
>No, what remains is the quantization error.
>
It can be labeled that way.
However the following statement in Tom Robert's paper is falsified:
In first paragraph, page 6
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
"Therefore if the data from the first turn is subtracted marker-by-marker
from the data of every turn, the result is completely independent of any
orientation dependence, and contains only systematic(time)."
Because, as one can see, the above subtraction has produced a result
that DOES DEPEND on orientation. (The dependence arises from the way
quantization error+noise affects the recording of the real signal.)
This will allow the real signal to be partially carried into Tom's
calculation of systematic error.
So when he later calculates "the �-turn Fourier amplitude of data
minus systematic" the amplitude of the real signal component in the
systematic error will be subtracted from the amplitude for the real
signal in the data. The "quantization of both data and parameters" may
then leave him with zero amplitude.
In contrast, if one averages the two turns, as would be done by
Miller's algorithm, the quantization errors cancel and one obtains the
full real signal with zero error in this case.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
That is not a signal. It is noise since it is an observational
effect. Quantization errors will be random.
>
> So when he later calculates "the �-turn Fourier amplitude of data
> minus systematic" the amplitude of the real signal component in the
> systematic error will be subtracted from the amplitude for the real
> signal in the data. The "quantization of both data and parameters" may
> then leave him with zero amplitude.
>
>
> In contrast, if one averages the two turns, as would be done by
> Miller's algorithm, the quantization errors cancel and one obtains the
> full real signal with zero error in this case.
Now you are playing games. It does not work that way.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
>
Surfer
True. But because this noise is DERIVED FROM THE SIGNAL it is
orientation dependent.
(Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
any orientation dependence". )
But I have discovered something more significant.
Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
Here is a relevant extract:
"In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
effect..."
Fig 30 shows that for six fringes in the field of view, the full
period effect is about 75% of the half period effect.
That means that for any real signal, there would be a significant
difference between the first and second halves of each turn.
Eg see the plot of a full turn in Fig. 8 in Millers paper (Fig 1 in
Tom's paper).
Unfortunately, Tom Roberts assumed that for any real signal EVERY HALF
TURN WOULD BE IDENTICAL and to simplify his analysis he subtracts the
first half turn from subsequent half turns, rather than subtracting
the first complete turn from subsequent complete turns.
But because the Full Period Effect guaranttees that for any real
signal, the first half turn must differ significantly from the second
half turn, Tom's procedure only partially removes the real signal from
the result.
Then when he fits his 8 sequences to a single function of time, the
fitting process will tend to restore the Full Period Effect (as in his
model that is noise not signal, so needs to be included in his model
of systematic error), but restoring the Full Period Effect will
probably also at least partially restore the first half turn that was
originally subtracted.
He could then end up with a model of systematic error that pretty well
includes the whole real signal.
Since he writes,
"the systematic model reproduces the data exactly for all runs
with moderate or good stability."
that seems to be the case.
Needless to say, subtracting such a model of systematic error from the
data would remove the signal as well as the noise so,
"the �-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic"
would then usually be zero, as shown in Fig. 11.
Surfer
doug
Quantization effects are not derived from the signal. In your
example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
>
> (Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
> any orientation dependence". )
>
> But I have discovered something more significant.
>
> Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
>
> The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
> honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
> on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
>
> Here is a relevant extract:
>
> "In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
> variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
> in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
> as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
> which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
> amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
> as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
> observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
> effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
> with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
> of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
> effect..."
>
This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is
saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
>
> Fig 30 shows that for six fringes in the field of view, the full
> period effect is about 75% of the half period effect.
>
> That means that for any real signal, there would be a significant
> difference between the first and second halves of each turn.
> Eg see the plot of a full turn in Fig. 8 in Millers paper (Fig 1 in
> Tom's paper).
>
> Unfortunately, Tom Roberts assumed that for any real signal EVERY HALF
> TURN WOULD BE IDENTICAL and to simplify his analysis he subtracts the
> first half turn from subsequent half turns, rather than subtracting
> the first complete turn from subsequent complete turns.
This is a good assumption on Tom's part, given how interferometers
work.
>
> But because the Full Period Effect guaranttees that for any real
> signal, the first half turn must differ significantly from the second
> half turn, Tom's procedure only partially removes the real signal from
> the result.
This effect exists only in the minds of cranks.
>
> Then when he fits his 8 sequences to a single function of time, the
> fitting process will tend to restore the Full Period Effect (as in his
> model that is noise not signal, so needs to be included in his model
> of systematic error), but restoring the Full Period Effect will
> probably also at least partially restore the first half turn that was
> originally subtracted.
>
> He could then end up with a model of systematic error that pretty well
> includes the whole real signal.
>
No, not from what you have said.
> Since he writes,
>
> "the systematic model reproduces the data exactly for all runs
> with moderate or good stability."
>
> that seems to be the case.
>
> Needless to say, subtracting such a model of systematic error from the
> data would remove the signal as well as the noise so,
>
> "the �-turn Fourier amplitude of data minus systematic"
>
> would then usually be zero, as shown in Fig. 11.
Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
and remain in denial about the facts
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>Quantization effects are not derived from the signal.
>
But the size of the effect is equal to difference between the signal
and the nearest level, so its modulated by the signal.
>
>In your example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
>you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
It seems a potential problem.
>>
>> (Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
>> any orientation dependence". )
>>
>> But I have discovered something more significant.
>>
>> Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
>>
>> The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
>> honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
>> on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
>>
>> Here is a relevant extract:
>>
>> "In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
>> variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
>> in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
>> as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
>> which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
>> amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
>> as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
>> observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
>> effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
>> with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
>> of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
>> effect..."
>>
>This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is
>saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
>then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
>
Hick's theory is mathematical physics.
But Miller writes in,
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Bottom Page 238:
"A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
as required by the theory of Hicks."
Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
(expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional
to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
path.
For vacuum, n=1, so no fringe shift is seen and observations perfectly
support SR.
>
>The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
>is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
>and remain in denial about the facts
>
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
Reginald T. Cahill
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146
suggests that following gas-mode experiments give consistent results
when analysed so as to take the (n^2 - 1) factor into account.
Light path in air
Michelson-Morley Experiment 1887
Miller Experiment 1925/26
Light path in helium
Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
Light path in helium/neon mixture
Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:27:58 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Quantization effects are not derived from the signal.
>>
>
>
> But the size of the effect is equal to difference between the signal
> and the nearest level, so its modulated by the signal.
It is a measurement error. You have to be very careful with this.
In the past we made one bit correlators which worked very well
doing averages when the signal and noise were in a very narrow
range (about equal) and completely failed when the gain was
either increased or decreased.
>
>
>>In your example, you added a signal and then noticed that remained when
>>you subtracted the real signal. That is a mistake.
>
>
> It seems a potential problem.
I would argue that adding a signal to show the presence of a signal
is a mistake.
>
>
>>>(Tom's analysis assumes that "the result is completely independent of
>>>any orientation dependence". )
>>>
>>>But I have discovered something more significant.
>>>
>>>Tom's analysis did not take "THE FULL PERIOD EFFECT" into account.
>>>
>>>The Full Period Effect (sometimes referred to as the "Hicks Effect" in
>>>honor of Professor Hicks who developed a theory for it) is described
>>>on Page 238 of Millers 1933 paper.
>>>
>>>Here is a relevant extract:
>>>
>>> "In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the periodic
>>> variation in the relative phases of the two beams of light
>>> in the interferometer takes place with the mirrors adjusted
>>> as in actual practice, there is introduced an additional effect
>>> which is periodic in a full turn of the instrument. The
>>> amplitude of this full period effect, which varies inversely
>>> as the width of the fringes being used at the time of
>>> observation, is about equal to the amplitude of the ether-drift
>>> effect when there are eight fringes in the field of view;
>>> with the adjustment usually secured for six fringes in the field
>>> of view, the full period effect is smaller than the half-period
>>> effect..."
>>>
>>
>>This is a grasping at a straw and an imaginary straw at that. He is
>>saying that if you assume there is a "special" effect in the data,
>>then you can see some results. This is just bad science.
>>
>
> Hick's theory is mathematical physics.
What does it have to do with reality. You are assuming it introduces
a specific assymetry which just happens to help Miller.
>
> But Miller writes in,
> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
> Bottom Page 238:
>
> "A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
> magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
> as required by the theory of Hicks."
>
> Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
> (expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
>
> So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
Well, no. There is no signal in the Miller experiment.
You keep saying this and it is wrong by experiment. You have been
given the references many times and you ignore them because they
show you to be wrong.
>
> For vacuum, n=1, so no fringe shift is seen and observations perfectly
> support SR.
>
And in gas and solids with n>1 also support SR. End of story.
>
>>The silly point you keep trying to bring up about the gas effect
>>is also shown to be wrong by experiment as you have been shown
>>and remain in denial about the facts
>>
>
>
> Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
> Reginald T. Cahill
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146
>
> suggests that following gas-mode experiments give consistent results
> when analysed so as to take the (n^2 - 1) factor into account.
Yes, and Cahill is a crank. His work is wrong. This paper is even
more silly than most of his
>
> Light path in air
> Michelson-Morley Experiment 1887
> Miller Experiment 1925/26
>
Neither of these showed any signal.
> Light path in helium
> Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927.
> Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930.
>
> Light path in helium/neon mixture
> Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964.
>
I have not seen these last two but Cahill just made his
usual assertion without support.
Now where are the solid mode tests that showed no effect?
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>>
>> But Miller writes in,
>> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>> Bottom Page 238:
>>
>> "A comparision of the width of the fringes thus indicated with the
>> magnitude of the full period effect shows a direct linear relationship
>> as required by the theory of Hicks."
>>
>> Fig 30 shows a plot of observed amplitude versus width of fringes,
>> (expressed as number of fringes visible in the eye piece.)
>>
>> So the theory seems to be substantiated by observation.
>
>Well, no. There is no signal in the Miller experiment.
>
Yet, the DFT of Miller's data in Fig 6 of Tom's paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
shows a distinct peak in the bin for a period of half a turn.
Tom claims to have proved that it is noise not signal. But if it
noise, why is it twice the amplitude of the noise in the nearby bins?
>>
>>>Again, you also have to remember that since experiments have
>>>been done with a sensitivity of around 10^8 times that of Miller
>>>and no signal was seen, that you cannot be correct in your opinion.
>>>
>>
>> The difference can be explained by the fringe shift being proportional
>> to (n^2 - 1), where n is the refractive index of gas in the light
>> path.
>
>You keep saying this and it is wrong by experiment. You have been
>given the references many times and you ignore them because they
>show you to be wrong.
>
Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
See:
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore since
they show him to be wrong, show that those conclusions are correct.
Cahill chooses very selective experiments to "reanalyze". He ignores
the ones that show him to be absolutely wrong by orders of magnitude.
You clearly only looked for MMX and then quit. You cannot hide from
the truth by pretending ignorance.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
>> original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
>> the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
>>
>> See:
>> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>> Motion
>> Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>
>> So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
>
>The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
>are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
>
You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
>
>A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
>since they show him to be wrong,
>
I am not sure what you mean.
Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
Surfer
eric gisse
Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts, except
for the ones in a solid - with a much higher refractive index - don't work
as your theory predicts.
Except for that, yeah.
>
> Surfer
Surfer
<jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>>
>> Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
>> results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
>
>Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
>
I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
mind?
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
No, Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
and Miller results and ignores newer experiments that show him to
be wrong. He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
of billions. When you ignore the experimental results to push
you pet theory, that is the definition of a crank.
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>>Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
>>>results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
>>
>>Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
>>
>
> I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
That is an amazing, Cahill like statement. You feel that you can
ignore those experiments which show you to be wrong.
>
> But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
> mind?
You have been given the list. You have no excuse for ignoring it.
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
eric gisse
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
>>> results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
>>
>>Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
>>
> I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
Gosh, suddenly those few poorly analyzed experiments aren't as strong of a
challenge to SR as they were yesterday...
>
> But among MM experiments using gas, which specific ones do you have in
> mind?
>
> Surfer
Holy shit. Seriously?
Why don't you look at the past few years of the responses to your shameless
peddling of your own nonsense on here to see?
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:17:05 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Surfer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, you gave me a link to a page of experiments. But it included the
>>>>original MM experiment, which after being re-analysed to account for
>>>>the (n^2 - 1) factor has been shown to have detected absolute motion.
>>>>
>>>>See:
>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>Motion
>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>>
>>>>So I didn't find the page to be conclusive.
>>>
>>>The classic cry of the crank supporting another crank (if, indeed, you
>>>are not Cahill). Cahill is a joke. MMX and Miller showed nothing.
>>>
>>
>> You are sounding terribly dogmatic.
>>
>>>A century of careful experiments, which Cahill has to ignore
>>>since they show him to be wrong,
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean.
>>
>> Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
>> results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
>
>No, Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
>and Miller results...
>
So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller
reported.
>
>He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
>solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
>of billions.
>
As yet you have not informed me of a single such experiment.
Surfer
doug
This is what we call lying on your part.
>
>>He ignores the gas mode experiments and he ignores the
>>solid state experiment which show him to be wrong by factors
>>of billions.
>>
>
> As yet you have not informed me of a single such experiment.
This is what we call lying on your part.
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>... Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
>>>and Miller results...
>>>
>>
>> So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller
>> reported.
>
>This is what we call lying on your part.
>>
Here are the MMX results.
Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
449-463.
Here is Cahill's paper.
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?
Here is Miller's 1933 paper
www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
reported?
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:41:52 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>... Cahill is being very dishonest. He lies about the MMX results
>>>>and Miller results...
>>>>
>>>
>>>So far as I can tell he quite accurately reports what MM and Miller
>>>reported.
>>
>>This is what we call lying on your part.
>>
>
> Here are the MMX results.
>
> Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
> 449-463.
>
> Here is Cahill's paper.
>
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
> Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>
> In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
> report in their paper?
He claims there is an unambiguous signal. This is wrong from both
the data and newer experiments which have far better resolution.
Cahill is either trying to be misleading or is intentionally
lying.
>
> Here is Miller's 1933 paper
> www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>
> In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
> reported?
>
Miller had no signal in his data. That also is shown by more recent
experiments.
I notice that you snipped the part where you were lying about not
having received a list of experiments where Cahill's theory is
shown to be badly wrong. That is continuing dishonesty on your
part.
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
Surfer
<jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:11 -0800, eric gisse
>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Surfer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most of the experiments use vacuum and in such cases they get null
>>>> results, just as Cahill's theory predicts.
>>>
>>>Except for the ones in a gas that don't work as your theory predicts,
>>>
>> I wouldn't expect every experiment to work as theory predicts.
>
>Gosh, suddenly those few poorly analyzed experiments aren't as strong of a
>challenge to SR as they were yesterday...
>
Your response suggest a misunderstanding on your part.
Cahill supports a Lorentzian interpretation of SR.
In that interpretation, the gas experiments don't challenge SR,
because the MEASURED SPEED OF LIGHT IN VACUUM is alway c, as usual.
The way in which the gas experiments detect absolute motion must be
due to some subtle and as yet not sufficiently studied effect. Eg
consider:
Precision tests with a new class of dedicated ether-drift experiments
M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
Eur.Phys.J.C55:469-475,2008
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0979
In principle, by accepting the idea of a non-zero vacuum energy, the
physical vacuum of present particle physics might represent a
preferred reference frame. By treating this quantum vacuum as a
relativistic medium, the non-zero energy-momentum flow expected in a
moving frame should effectively behave as a small thermal gradient and
could, in principle, induce a measurable anisotropy of the speed of
light in a loosely bound system as a gas. We explore the
phenomenological implications of this scenario by considering a new
class of dedicated ether-drift experiments where arbitrary gaseous
media fill the resonating optical cavities. Our predictions cover most
experimental set up and should motivate precise experimental tests of
these fundamental issues.
Surfer
Surfer
>>
>> Here are the MMX results.
>>
>> Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
>> 449-463.
>>
>> Here is Cahill's paper.
>>
>> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>> Motion
>> Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>
>> In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
>> report in their paper?
>
>He claims there is an unambiguous signal.
>
Quotes please.
In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
report in their paper?
>>
>> Here is Miller's 1933 paper
>> www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>>
>> In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>> reported?
>>
>Miller had no signal in his data.
>
Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:
<Start extract>
Probable error
A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.
<End extract>
So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:22:57 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Here are the MMX results.
>>>
>>>Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
>>>449-463.
>>>
>>>Here is Cahill's paper.
>>>
>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>Motion
>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>
>>>In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
>>>report in their paper?
>>
>>He claims there is an unambiguous signal.
>>
>
> Quotes please.
Have you even looked at the abstract of the paper or the first
page of the paper?
>
> In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
> report in their paper?
He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.
>
>
>>>Here is Miller's 1933 paper
>>>www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>>>
>>>In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>>>reported?
>>>
>>
>>Miller had no signal in his data.
>>
>
>
> Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Probable error
>
> A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
> probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
> ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
> while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
> 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
> declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.
>
> <End extract>
>
> So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.
Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.
It is Cahill that is lying. Note the made up data in figure 4.
I notice that you again snipped the part where you lie about
not having seen the list of experiments which verify that there
was no signal in MMX or Miller. Cahill lies by omission in ignoring
all of those. You have been shown them. You are saying they do
not exist. That is a lie.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
doug
Surfer wrote:
And, Cahill ignores all the experiments which show him to be wrong.
That is why he continues to be a crank.
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>
>>>>Here are the MMX results.
>>>>
>>>>Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
>>>>449-463.
>>>>
>>>>Here is Cahill's paper.
>>>>
>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>Motion
>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>>
<snip>
>>
>> In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
>> report in their paper?
>
>He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
>that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
>signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.
>
That is your opinion.
But the question I asked was,
"In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"
You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
you havn't done.)
>>
>>
>>>>Here is Miller's 1933 paper
>>>>www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>>>>
>>>>In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>>>>reported?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Miller had no signal in his data.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:
>>
>> <Start extract>
>>
>> Probable error
>>
>> A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
>> probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
>> ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
>> while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
>> 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
>> declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.
>>
>> <End extract>
>>
>> So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.
>
>Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.
>
Again that is your opinion.
But my original question was:
>>>>
>>>>In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>>>>reported?
>>>>
You havn't provided any evidence for that.
(To provide evidence you would have to quote from papers by Miller and
Cahill, which you havn't done)
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:48:54 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Here are the MMX results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
>>>>>449-463.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is Cahill's paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>>Motion
>>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
>>>report in their paper?
>>
>>He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
>>that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
>>signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.
>>
>
> That is your opinion.
>
> But the question I asked was,
>
> "In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
> Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"
>
> You havn't provided any evidence for that.
> (To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
> you havn't done.)
Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
do is rewrite history.
You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
that show Cahill to be wrong. Why is that?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Here is Miller's 1933 paper
>>>>>www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>>>>>reported?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Miller had no signal in his data.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually on page 238 of his paper Miller writes:
>>>
>>><Start extract>
>>>
>>>Probable error
>>>
>>>A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
>>>probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
>>>ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
>>>while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
>>>2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
>>>declinations of the polar chart, Fig 28, is +/- 0.5 degrees.
>>>
>>><End extract>
>>>
>>>So it appears you have inaccurately reported what Miller reported.
>>
>>Miller's error analysis is wrong as has been shown to you many times.
>>
>
> Again that is your opinion.
No, the experiments which show sensitivity much greater than
that of Miller say my answer is correct.
>
> But my original question was:
>
>>>>>In what way has Cahill ever inaccurately reported what Miller
>>>>>reported?
>>>>>
>
>
> You havn't provided any evidence for that.
> (To provide evidence you would have to quote from papers by Miller and
> Cahill, which you havn't done)
>
Cahill shows a plot purporting to be a sidereal curve of Miller's
signal. Since we know from experiments that there is no signal
and proper error analysis shows that there is no signal, this
is misrepresenting what Miller showed.
>
Again, why are you hiding from the experiments which show Cahill
to be wrong? Those have been provided for you many times.
> Surfer
>
>
eric gisse
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:48:54 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>>>>Here are the MMX results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michelson, A.A. and Morley, A.A. Philos. Mag. S.5 24 No.151,1887,
>>>>>449-463.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is Cahill's paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>>Motion
>>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what Michelson and Morley
>>> report in their paper?
>>
>>He claims there is a signal. There is not. He just claims
>>that the analysis is wrong and then says there is a real
>>signal. That is wrong and even he has to know that.
>>
> That is your opinion.
So is 2+4=4 by that logic, such as it is.
>
> But the question I asked was,
>
> "In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
> Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"
You really don't know?
[snip rest]
Surfer
>>>>
>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>Motion
>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>
<snip>
>>
>>
>> "In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
>> Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"
>>
>> You havn't provided any evidence for that.
>> (To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
>> you havn't done.)
>
>Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
>MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
>at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
>do is rewrite history.
>
I think its more correct to say that in the past the data was assumed
to be noise. But re-analysis of the data reveals a more interesting
story.
Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:
<Start extract>
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post
relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this
experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
<End extract>
Regarding the plots, I don't see the problem to which you refer.
Eg. The caption under Figure 2 is as follows:
<Start extract>
Figure 2: Shows all the Michelson-Morley 1887 data after removal of
the temperature induced fringe drifts. The data for each 360
degree full turn (the average of 6 individual turns) is
divided into the 1st and 2nd 180 degree parts and plotted one above
the other. The dotted curve shows a best fit to the data using (5),
while the full curves show the expected forms using the Miller
direction for v and the location and times of the Michelson-Morley
observations.
While the amplitudes are in agreement in general with the Miller based
predictions, the phase varies somewhat. This may be related to the
Hick�s effect [4] when, necessarily, the mirrors are not orthogonal.
We see that this data corresponds to a speed in excess of 300km/s, and
not the 8km/s reported in [1], which was based on using Newtonian
physics to calibrate the interferometer.
<End extract>
>
>You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
>that show Cahill to be wrong.
>
>Why is that?
>
You don't provide references so I don't take your claims seriously.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:06 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>>Motion
>>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>
> <snip>
>
>>>But the question I asked was,
>>>
>>> "In what way does Cahill inaccurately report what
>>> Michelson and Morley report in their paper?"
>>>
>>>You havn't provided any evidence for that.
>>>(To provide evidence you would have to quote from the papers, which
>>>you havn't done.)
>>
>>Look at his plots which purport to show a sidereal curve in the
>>MMX data. Since we know that data was only noise, the plots are
>>at best fanciful and at worst frauds. What he is trying to
>>do is rewrite history.
>>
>
>
> I think its more correct to say that in the past the data was assumed
> to be noise. But re-analysis of the data reveals a more interesting
> story.
The correct statement is that in the past the data was determined
to cover the values including zero and that later experiments with
higher precision have verified that. Cahill's "reanalysis" is
just fraud in that light.
>
> Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
> rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
> was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
> revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
> speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
> the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
> less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth.
It was rejected since the error bars were consistent with zero.
A 2002 post
> relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
> gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s.
This is the fanciful delusions of cahill in operation.
So this
> experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
> Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
> first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
Cahill is completely wrong.
>
> <End extract>
>
> Regarding the plots, I don't see the problem to which you refer.
>
> Eg. The caption under Figure 2 is as follows:
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Figure 2: Shows all the Michelson-Morley 1887 data after removal of
> the temperature induced fringe drifts. The data for each 360
> degree full turn (the average of 6 individual turns) is
> divided into the 1st and 2nd 180 degree parts and plotted one above
> the other. The dotted curve shows a best fit to the data using (5),
> while the full curves show the expected forms using the Miller
> direction for v and the location and times of the Michelson-Morley
> observations.
> While the amplitudes are in agreement in general with the Miller based
> predictions, the phase varies somewhat. This may be related to the
> Hick�s effect [4] when, necessarily, the mirrors are not orthogonal.
> We see that this data corresponds to a speed in excess of 300km/s, and
> not the 8km/s reported in [1], which was based on using Newtonian
> physics to calibrate the interferometer.
>
> <End extract>
>
>>You run away and hide on the issue of all the experiments
>>that show Cahill to be wrong.
>>
>>Why is that?
>>
>
> You don't provide references so I don't take your claims seriously.
You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
appear to be uninterested in the truth.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>>>>>>The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
>>>>>>Motion
>>>>>>Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
>>>>>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174
>>>>
<snip>
>>
>> Eg here is the abstract for the above paper:
>>
>> <Start extract>
>>
>> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
>> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
>> rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it
>> was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data
>> revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
>> speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
>> the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
>> less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth.
>
>It was rejected since the error bars were consistent with zero.
>
You are wrong I am afraid. Michelson and Morley didn't calculate error
bars. So on this particular point Cahill is correct.
> A 2002 post
>> relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
>> gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s.
>
>This is the fanciful delusions of cahill in operation.
>
Its just a logical consequence of the analysis.
> So this
>> experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
>> Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
>> first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
>
>And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
>mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
>Cahill is completely wrong.
>
>You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
>appear to be uninterested in the truth.
>
I remember seeing a link to:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.
So when you claim that some experiments prove Cahill wrong, which
specific experiments do you mean?
Surfer
doug
Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved
the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
totally at odds with Cahll's delusions. Of course he has to pretend
those experiments do not exist or he has nothing to push.
I also thought his claim of seeing gravity waves was a real hoot.
>
>> So this
>>
>>>experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
>>>Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
>>>first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
>>
>>And many more have shown this to be nonsense. Both gas and solid
>>mode experiments have extended the resolution so we know that
>>Cahill is completely wrong.
>>
>>You are lying about not having been provided the references. You
>>appear to be uninterested in the truth.
>>
>
> I remember seeing a link to:
>
> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.
Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
show him wrong.
>
> So when you claim that some experiments prove Cahill wrong, which
> specific experiments do you mean?
Actually look at the experiments.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
Surfer
>
>Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved
>the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
>totally at odds with Cahll's delusions.
>
So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
give null results, as they do.
<snip>
>>
>> I remember seeing a link to:
>>
>> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>
>> But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.
>
>Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
>show him wrong.
>
Just looking isn't sufficient.
The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
Cahills method, taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
measurements were made.
Eg. There can be no absolute motion induced fringe shifts when the
motion is perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer.
Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:23:43 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Note again that this is ignoring the experiments which have improved
>>the accuracy of the measurement by orders of magnitude and are
>>totally at odds with Cahll's delusions.
>>
>
> So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
> are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
> give null results, as they do.
>
Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer
which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect and it
shows nothing. Therefore Cahill is wrong. Cahill is also ignoring
the gas mode experiments. How many of the experiments did you
actually read to see if they were vaccuum or not?
> <snip>
>
>>>I remember seeing a link to:
>>>
>>>What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>>
>>>But none of those experiments test Cahill's formula.
>>
>>Look at it again. There are gas mode tests and solid tests. They
>>show him wrong.
>>
>
> Just looking isn't sufficient.
>
> The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
experiments, not some.
>
> To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
> Cahills method, taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
> relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
> absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
> measurements were made.
No, the experiments need to be examined for the actual data they
produced. What cahill wants them to say has nothing to do with
it. The Hicks effect is what you make up and appeal to when
the data does not support your conclusions.
>
> Eg. There can be no absolute motion induced fringe shifts when the
> motion is perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer.
Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
Miller had, calculate how much off the perpendicular the plane
needs to be and see how long a data run it would take to get
that much earth rotation.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>>
>> So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
>> are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
>> give null results, as they do.
>>
>Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer
>which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect...
>
No. His formula for light paths through gas doesn't apply when solid
dielectrics are used.
>
>> The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
>
>Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
>experiments, not some.
>
I am looking at the table of MM experiments under
3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
They all show fringe shifts.
>
>Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
>Miller had....
>
I think you are referring to resolution when measuring fringe shifts.
To me sensitivity would refer to the capacity for absolute motion
effects to cause fringe shifts.
Eg for vacuum MM experiments, the sensitivity would be zero.
For gas MM experiments, the sensitivity would be proportional to the
length of the light path times (n^2 - 1).
On that basis, Miller's interferometer would have had the highest
sensitivity as the light paths of all the others were shorter and had
equal or lower values for (n^2 - 1).
Surfer
Inertial
news:o1tee5lhlamjr4kc0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:31:01 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> I am looking at the table of MM experiments under
> 3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> They all show fringe shifts.
So ... you've never heard of experimental error, and error analysis and
error bars?
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:31:01 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>>So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
>>>are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
>>>give null results, as they do.
>>>
>>
>>Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer
>>which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect...
>>
>
> No. His formula for light paths through gas doesn't apply when solid
> dielectrics are used.
Ah, the plea of the crank. But it only works in situations that I
use. So n^2-1 is not real after all.
>
>
>>>The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
>>
>>Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
>>experiments, not some.
>>
>
> I am looking at the table of MM experiments under
> 3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> They all show fringe shifts.
Oh my god, you really do not understand error analysis.
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any “æther drift”.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, “Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers”, Phys.
Rev. 133A 1221–1225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
“unknown”; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
2×10−13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
You are already making the crank plea that it only works on your
experiments in your circumstances etc.
>
>
>>Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
>>Miller had....
>>
>
> I think you are referring to resolution when measuring fringe shifts.
No.
>
> To me sensitivity would refer to the capacity for absolute motion
> effects to cause fringe shifts.
Yes. That is what has demonstrably improved.
>
> Eg for vacuum MM experiments, the sensitivity would be zero.
If you believe the crank cahill but it does not matter since the
above were gas mode experiments and the limit on absolute motion
is 10,000 times at least below what cahill claims.
>
> For gas MM experiments, the sensitivity would be proportional to the
> length of the light path times (n^2 - 1).
>
But you just said that formula does not work.
> On that basis, Miller's interferometer would have had the highest
> sensitivity as the light paths of all the others were shorter and had
> equal or lower values for (n^2 - 1).
You do realize there have been other experiments in the last century?
The experiments listed above completely shatter Cahill's delusions.
>
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
>
Tom Roberts
> [to Surfer:]
> I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
> of experiments:
>
> # Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
>
> # T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, “Test of Special
> Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers”, Phys.
> Rev. 133A 1221–1225 (1964)
> # A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
> Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
> comparing a gas laser to one referenced to a vacuum etalon]
>
> # Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
> comparing a gas laser to one referenced to a vacuum etalon]
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.
Uses two multi-mode He-Ne lasers separated by a light path in air [...]
Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of
propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass
and the return ray in air [...]
To Surfer:
For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
air is a gas :-); Ragulsky's air is a gas :-).
[Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
gas. But neither you nor Cahill seem to care, because you insist on only
quoting experiments with enormous errorbars, which you then IGNORE in
order to claim that the INSIGNIFICANT variations are "a signal".
What Cahill and Surfer are doing, cherry-picking experiments and
ignoring errorbars, is NOT science.
doug: please email me privately with a valid email for
yourself.
Tom Roberts
Surfer
>
>I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
>of experiments:
>
># Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
>
>They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
>on any ��ther drift�.
>2�10?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
>limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
>inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
>Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
>light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
>Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
>(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
>or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
>or so).
># A
>
>And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
>also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
>
>How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
>
All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula
wasn't developed for that.
Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
laboratory.
But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
the two sets of results.
Surfer
Jerry
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
> >of experiments:
>
> ># Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
>
> >They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
For the benefits of newbies...
It is not sufficient merely to find that your MMX apparatus
generates an anisotropy in its output, to conclude that one has
detected a signal of celestial origin.
The output MUST MAKE SENSE in terms of meeting other criteria
which would serve to distinguish between systematic and random
noise, versus a genuine signal.
In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
Guided by faulty theory, Miller drew theoretical best fits through
his data points in bold lines that were much more prominent than
the actual data. The effect was to draw the eye of the reader
away from the fact that the theoretically computed lines tended
to miss the data entirely. In the following link, I examine
Miller's claim that the signals he detected showed constant phase
when plotted against sidereal time, thus proving a celestial
origin for the signals. The plots at first look rather convincing,
until you realize that Miller's bold lines force your eye to look
at his fanciful interpretation of the data, rather than the data
itself. ERASE MILLER'S FANCIFUL FITS, AND THE CLAIMED CONSTANT
PHASE VANISHES.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/Miller/EraseMillerLines.htm
Jerry
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>To Surfer:
>For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
>maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
>air is a gas :-); Ragulsky's air is a gas :-).
>
> [Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
> make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
> am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
>
>Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
>sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
>They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
>gas.
>
I can see a counter argument to that though.
The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
effect on wavelength.
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
wavelength to change accordingly.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
Surfer
Dono.
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
>
> If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
> contraction, What are you talking about, Peter?In the frame of the lab there is no length contraction.
>
> As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
> won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
>
...because it doesn't even apply to MMX interferometers EITHER. It is
time you laid off the Cahill crackpottery, eh?
eric gisse
For fucks sake.
Either it applies, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
>
> Surfer
doug
Surfer wrote:
This is wrong on so many points. The MM interferometers work by
comparing the transit time of light beams in the two arms. That
transit time includes lots of factors including temperature, gas
density, and whatever other effects one wants to include.
The resonant frequency of a cavity is a measure of the transit time
of the radiation in the cavity. So comparing the frequencies of two
cavities or of a rotation of one cavity is measuring the time of
flight of the light under the same circumstances with the same
effects included.
So you have to claim that cavities change length but interferometer
arms do not or some such preposterous thing.
Lets summarize.
Cahill has his n^2-1 term which applies everywhere except
a. In solids where the effect is large and would be noticed
b. In cavities where it is not seen.
c. In any experiment with sufficient resolution to give a
result different than cahill wants.
This means that Cahill's "theory" is only applicable to a class of
poorly done experiments whose error bars are big enough that
he can "reanalyze" them and claim a "signal" according to his
predictions. Any experiments which purport to differ with him
obviously have some other factor that no one has noticed that
just happen to make his "theory" not apply.
>
> Surfer
>
>
doug
Surfer wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
>>of experiments:
>>
>># Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
>>
>>They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
>>on any ��ther drift�.
>># T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, �Test of Special
>>Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers�, Phys.
>>Rev. 133A 1221�1225 (1964)
>>
>>They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
>>shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
>>table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
>># A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, �Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
>>Space�, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549�552 (1979).
>>
>>This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
>>round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
>>beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
>>single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
>>anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
>>laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
>>space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
>>Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
>>Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
>>round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
>>usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
>>
>>Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
>>�unknown�; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
>>could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
>>this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
>>by a few microradians.
>># Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
>>
>>This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
>>the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
>>2�10?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
>>limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
>>inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
>>Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
>>light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
>>Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
>>(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
>>or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
>>or so).
>># A
>>
>>And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
>>also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
>>
>>How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
>>
>
> All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula
> wasn't developed for that.
You make this assertion as though it is meaningful. You seem to be
looking for excuses. So the answer to my question is that you plan
on ignoring all experiments that show Cahill to be wrong.
>
> Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
> anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
> laboratory.
>
> But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
> one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
> to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
They are measuring the same thing, therefore the application of the
results is the same. You are reduced, sadly, to claiming that light
in an interferometer travels in the preferred frame while light in
a cavity travels in a different frame.
>
> As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
> the two sets of results.
>
Well, no, there is a lot of delusion on your part but no physics.
We have not even gotten to the Mossbauer effect experiments yet.
Hint: they show cahill to be wrong as well.
Serious question: are you interested in science or just in
pushing Cahill?
>
> Surfer
>
>
>
doug
Jerry wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:57 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
>>>of experiments:
>>
>>># Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
>>
>>>They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
>>>on any ��ther drift�.
>>># T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, �Test of Special
>>>Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers�, Phys.
>>>Rev. 133A 1221�1225 (1964)
>>
>>>They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
>>>shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
>>>table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
>>># A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, �Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
>>>Space�, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549�552 (1979).
>>
>>>This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
>>>round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
>>>beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
>>>single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
>>>anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
>>>laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
>>>space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
>>>Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
>>>Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
>>>round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
>>>usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
>>
>>>Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
>>>�unknown�; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
>>>could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
>>>this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
>>>by a few microradians.
>>># Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
>>
>>>This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
>>>the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
>>>2�10?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
When did facts enter into Cahill's "theories"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Surfer
>
>
>Surfer wrote:
>
>>
>> The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
>> effect on wavelength.
>>
>> If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
>> contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
>> wavelength to change accordingly.
>>
>> As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
>> won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
>
>This is wrong on so many points. The MM interferometers work by
>comparing the transit time of light beams in the two arms. That
>transit time includes lots of factors including temperature, gas
>density, and whatever other effects one wants to include.
>The resonant frequency of a cavity is a measure of the transit time
>of the radiation in the cavity. So comparing the frequencies of two
>cavities or of a rotation of one cavity is measuring the time of
>flight of the light under the same circumstances with the same
>effects included.
>
Thanks, that is a good argument.
Surfer
Dono.
>
> The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
>
But the perspex ones, don't. How stupid are you, Peter?
You have been also told countless times by Tom Roberts and others that
the gas refractive index varies wildly with temperature and pressure.
You have also been told countless times that Cahil's "formula" is a
hoax, that he doesn't know simple speed composition for moving media.
> To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
> Cahills method,
Cahill's "method" is just basic ignorance when it comes to calculating
the speed of light im moving media, Peter.
> taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
> relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
> absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
> measurements were made.
All the above (minus the "Hicks effect" which is another hoax) are
accounted for in the experiments using perspex.
Give it a rest, Peter.