Re: Cahill's recent paper readdressing MMX et al

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 01/19/05 

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:37 GMT

On 18 Jan 2005 01:08:13 -0800, "Thomas Wong" <nonfunctional_email@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> Can you show us anywhere in the literature (or statements by either
>> Michelson or Morley) that says this explicitly? If not, you're
>> simply projecting your 'beliefs' of ehat might have been...
>
> To which of my statements do you object?

 Oh come on, you can't be that dense...

 You said,

   "Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed
    fluctuations as being possibly indicative of a true
    but unexpectedly small signal, they would have stated
    as such. They did not."

 To which I replied the above... The question I thought was clear
 but, lets try a more simply tome. SPECFICALLY, can you point
 to any passge written by either man that supports your claim?

> 1) "Michelson and Morley understood what a true ether drift
> signal would look like." True or False?

 They certainly knew what they were looking for, yes. But that's
 NOT what is being proposed now is it?

> 2) "[they] recognized the observed fluctuations as not having the
> necessary characteristics." True or False?

 That's the million dollar question! Now reference to literature
 where either man says this, please

>3) "What you cite was their estimate of the largest signal that
> could possibly be hiding under the observed noise." True or
> False?

 I cited nothing, I simply asked a couple of questions.

>4) "Had Michelson and Morley considered the observed fluctuations
> as being possibly indicative of a true but unexpectedly small
> signal, they would have stated as such." True or False?

 I don't know, I'm not going to try to be a mind reader. Thus the
 question. It's that simple...

>5) "They did not." True or False?

 They did the proper thing, the published their data as well as
 how it related the predicted, expected results.

>> If M&M were looking for a clear signal of x, and didn't find x or
>> anywhere near x it would seen logical to report this, and present
>> the actual findings as negative FOR the expected x! But, at least
>> they did present the data unlike many nowadays. Now in an age of
>> scrounging for signals in a sea of noise as with COBE is seems
>> pretty damned hypocritical to complain about this. There IS a
>> clear and present pattern in Figure 4 that IS sinusoidal in nature.
>>
>> It seems that the only issue is what is the actual cyclic period.
>
> The cyclical period is on the order of 144 degrees or so, which is
> totally incompatible with any interpretation in terms of ether
> drift.

 What I 'see' in figure 4 is clearly a periodic pattern that is roughly
 sinusoidal. That it isn't perfect is to be expected given the
 crudeness of the measurements and equipment available to the
 experimenters circa the 1880's... One cannot physically have a cyclic
 period of 144°. What one can have is a partial cycle in a 24hr period
 traversing only 144°...

 By 'eyeball' the April graph shows that the 'data' graph crosses the
 zero line @ ~2.5 hrs and back again @ ~16 which is roughly 13.5 hrs
 apart. Thus, this should suggest that @ 29.5 hrs it would recross
 the zero. That looks about right from the trend.

 OTOH, the curve crosses @ ~4 and @ ~16 (12hrs) and projected again to
 cross @ ~28hrs.

 For September the 'data' graph crosses @ ~7.25 and again @ ~16.5 with
 a period of ~9.5hrs. It again would cross ??? since it isn't as
 suggestive as April.

 The curve crosses @ ~6 and ~18 for a 12hr period. What I find the most
 telling is the clear skew or slant in the amplitude towards the right
 of the cyclic itself.
 
 A simple scatterplot of the actual data speaks volumes.

 Paul Stowe