Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- From: "Mike" <eleatis@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Jun 2006 17:26:32 -0700
Tom Roberts wrote:
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.
Can you give a reference to "modern repetitions" of the MMX? The LIGO
dipole detected a definite absolute motion speed of about 365 Km/s.
This is not modern?
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.
Tell me something. let's say a car is moving at 30 Km/hr. You try to
measure the speed by marking two lines on the road pavement 8.3333 m
apart and you have a clock that counts only seconds, not less. Your
resolution is 8.333 m/s = 30 Km/hr.
Does that mean the car is not moving if you measure it's speed to be 30
Km/s?
No, it means that it may be going slower or faster. Not that it is not
moving.
Drawing the conclusion that something does not move just because it's
speed falls within the range of the resolution of the measuring device
is the biggest blunder one can make.
Then, in this example, the measuring device was calibrated in advance.
What is the calibration factor of these experiments. that is, what does
1m/s resolution correspond in terms of absolute motion speed. The
amplification effect is very high and it gets bigger as the resolution
gets lower.
What remains is to see a paper from you with the error bar analysis of
the results by Miller. Everything else is just hand waving
Mike
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
.
- References:
- Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- From: Mike
- Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: A Crazy question for crazy people?
- Next by Date: Re: To Androcles
- Previous by thread: Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Next by thread: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
