Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al
From: Thomas Wong (nonfunctional_email_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Human time perception"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Simple question (Yes or No) Is there a Pre-Bang Universe?"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Jan 2005 05:58:10 -0800
Harry wrote:
> "Thomas Wong" <nonfunctional_email@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1105955387.260588.76980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Harry wrote:
> > > "Thomas Wong" <nonfunctional_email@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1105870475.037201.153900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > Bilge wrote:
> > > > > > Ben Bean:
> > > > > > >What's the word on Cahill's newest work, The Speed of
Light
> > and
> > > > the Einstein
> > > > > > >Legacy: 1905-2005, abstract of which is found here,
> > > > > > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051?
> > > > >
> > > > > He uses an invalid analysis technique that greatly amplifies
the
> > > > error
> > > > > bar, making him conclude that a result consistent with zero
is
> > > > nonzero.
> > > > > He needs to learn how to handle error bars correctly, and how
to
> > > > > properly compare a theory to an experiment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it is looney. But, there's an easy experiment one
could
> > > > perform to
> > > > > > prove the claim if he were interested. [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Already done:
> > > > >
> > > > > Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
> > > > > A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex
> > > > > (n=1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to
~0.00003
> > > > fringe.
> > > > > They report a null result with an upper limit on
Vaether
> > of
> > > > 6.64
> > > > > km/sec.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So Cahill's theory is already refuted experimentally.
> > >
> > > IMO yes, but one should distinguish theory from measurement data.
> > >
> > > > Cahill is aware of Shamir and Fox, and in an intellectual
> > pinwheeling
> > > > that places him in the upper reaches of crackpottery, claims
that
> > the
> > > > null result of Shamir and Fox is the result of anisotropic
> > refractive
> > > > index changes in transparent solids that cancel out one's
ability
> > to
> > > > detect ether drift effects.
> > > > http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf
> > >
> > > Not so. He admitted that they had not expected that result and
that
> > they
> > > even did a similar experiment with the same outcome. He then gave
his
> > "most
> > > likely explanation" in an attempt to show that his theory could
be
> > correct
> > > nevertheless. A poor explanation attempt isn't a crackpot claim,
or
> > many
> > > scientists would be crackpots (I have seen quite a few in peer
> > reviewed
> > > journals). And thanks for the reference.
> >
> > What is your take on Cahill's total misrepresentation of
> > Michelson-Morley, which I discussed on a another branch of this
thread?
> > Tom
>
> From what you quote you seem quite right that his comments were
extremely
> biased, but I didn't look into it - one year ago he was not able to
explain
> me his theory, and I let it go in particular because I didn't buy his
poor
> explanation above.
> OK I'll have a quick look.
> Harald
All of his other analyses are equally biased. What is your take on his
horribly biased reanalysis of Joos? He throws out every turn which
disagrees with his preconceptions, and focuses on a single outlier.
He displays complete, total intellectually dishonesty.
Tom
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Human time perception"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Simple question (Yes or No) Is there a Pre-Bang Universe?"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|