Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)

Eric Gisse wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
[cahill article]
Dead wrong. In particular, he does not understand error analysis, and
thinks that Michelson and Morley, and Miller, both "detected absolute
motion". In fact, they did not, and their measurements are fully
consistent with SR. But one must do an error analysis to fully
understand this, and Cahill did not do one.

Do you know why Cahill thought it was best to use the data from a
century old experiment rather than more recent incarnations of the same
experiment which have tighter error bars?

Because the "signal" in just about all of these experiments is proportional to their resolution or errorbars. So the older ones have bigger "signals". He simply does not understand that a statistically insignificant "signal" is useless and a figment of his imgination.

As I say: amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars. Cahill is an amateur.


I have always thought it was odd that he did that.

It's not merely "odd", it's dishonest and just plain wrong.


Tom Roberts
.

Relevant Pages