Re: The Myths Examined
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Nick: "Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR."
- Previous message: ueb: "Re: Overlightvelocities"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:11:32 GMT
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:10gikkupdne8t20@corp.supernews.com...
> Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:4108c32b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gglcbaqils03c@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:4107d128$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > what was predicted is by definiton a "null result" in physics, as I
> > > > explained some time ago (you can "Google" it).
> > >
> > > You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Even David knows better.
> > > Finding "less" than was predicted (as in the case of the MMX) is not a
> > > 'null' result.
> >
> > Not just "less" but "very different".
>
> Null means 'nothing'. Zip. Nada. Zero. None. Empty set.
Then you have a null head.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22null+result%22+statistics
Idiot.
Dirk Vdm
>
> "Amounting to nothing, lacking, absent, non-existent." From old French
> 'nul', meaning 'zero.' Which was from latin 'nullus': 'ne' NOT 'ullus'
> ANY." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.)
>
> Null does not mean 'different than we expected.'
>
> > You mean also David still doesn't know that?
>
> David provided a standard definition of what an experimental null would be.
> That no signal of any sort is found above the resolution of the experimental
> instrument.
>
> > Not at all finding what was predicted is a null result in experimental
> > physics.
>
> Why do you simply keep repeating this? Mere repetition does not advance
> your cause.
>
> > People who don't know that confuse it with finding zero (which is
> > unscientific)
>
> Any one experiment can be used to test many different theories. It does not
> matter what theory the experimenter was thinking about.
>
> > or finding less than the error margin (which M&M didn't even
> > specify!).
>
> No one has addressed the 'error margin' (whatever you mean by that unique
> phrase). An error band requires that you have some readings to measure --
> that you have processed through some statistical analysis. When you get
> *NO* signal above the experimental precision, THEN you have a null result.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_result
>
> And that site is wrong, too. It contains several historical and factual
> errors -- in addition to it's misunderstanding of this very basic aspect of
> the scientific method.
>
> If either you or the above website were correct, then the MMX experiment is
> 'null' for absolute space (which is what Michelson was using). But the MMX
> experiment is not 'null' for Maxwell's aether, and is not null for Lorentz'
> aether, and is not even null for SR -- because you get exactly what you
> expect!
>
> Quite simply, the intent of the experimenter is irrelevant to the
> determination of a 'null result' in an experiment.
>
> --
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
> {remove planet for return e-mail}
>
>
- Next message: Nick: "Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR."
- Previous message: ueb: "Re: Overlightvelocities"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: The Myths Examined"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
