Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- From: "The Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:20:46 GMT
"Mike" <eleatis@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149429925.005447.186710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > 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.
|
| If that is the case, the older ones have lower signals. For example, if
| you are using a high resolution encoder to measure position and then
| calculate velocity, the signal is bigger (sum of counts) and your
| accuracy better provided your counter's clock can keep up. The lower
| the resolution the lower the signal and the higher the noise.
|
| But a signal of 300 Km/s can be hardly associated with noise. It is
| just to big. Increasing the resolution will probably increase the
| figure than lower it.
|
| >
| > As I say: amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars.
| > Cahill is an amateur.
|
| This gum you chew constantly about errorbars is a childish red herring.
| The signal is WAY to BIG to be affected by resolution significantly.
| That could happen if we were talking about mm/s or nm/s.
|
|
| > > I have always thought it was odd that he did that.
| >
| > It's not merely "odd", it's dishonest and just plain wrong.
|
| Dishonest is the attitude of the scientific community for failing to
| declare SR and GR garbage.
|
| Mike
Roberts is the cream of the crop, but he's not part of the scientific
community.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Androcles
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Next by Date: Re: Length Contraction Fully Explained
- Previous by thread: Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Next by thread: Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
