Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:06:44 GMT
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote: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 imagination.
If that is the case, the older ones have lower signals.
Not true. Older experiments with resolutions about 7 km/s are ascribed a "signal" about 7 km/s; later experiments with better resolutions are ascribed smaller signals. And he dismisses modern experiments with resolutions well under 1 m/s. Modern repetitions of the MMX show no significant variation with orientation at the few parts in 10^17 level.
Once the importance of errorbars is recognized and their value computed, _ALL_ of these experiments are seen to be consistent with the null result predicted by SR.
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.
This is not at all what these experiments do.
But a signal of 300 Km/s can be hardly associated with noise.
None of them claim a signal anywhere near that large.
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.
No, it is a valid comment on the ability of all too many amateurs to understand science. <shrug>
The signal is WAY to BIG to be affected by resolution significantly.
Not true. In all of these experiments the "signal" is comparable to the resolution, and is not statistically significant.
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Said it once, I'll say it again
- Next by Date: Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
- 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
|
