Re: An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Tom Roberts писал(а):
....
An upper limit on “absolute
motion” of 6 km/sec is derived from his raw data, fully consistent with
similar experimental results and the prediction of Special Relativity.

Dear Tom, I’m so pleased to see that you already confirm Miller’s
result not zero but 6 km/s

Obviously you did not read the paper. The 6 km is an UPPER BOUND AT THE 90% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. Indeed, the actual value obtained by the analysis is PRECISELY zero, but there is an errorbar on that result leading to the upper bound.


But you are wrong, of course, that SRT predicts it.

Not true; in the limit in which the rotations of earth and interferometer can be neglected, SR predicts a truly null result. Taking them into account one can show their effects are enormously less than the errorbar of 0.015 fringe. Indeed, even vastly more sensitive measurements like Brillet and Hall's cannot see the predicted effects of the rotations.


Unfortunately, in
the space-time contraction, according to the Fitzgerald hypothesis
which Lorentz and Einstein used in their interpretations, the result
must be strongly zero.

Hmmm. You seem to be saying two contradictory things. In any case, it is SR on which modern physics is based, not the Lorentz-Fitzgerald hypothesis.


Predicting some, even little, speed with respect
to aether, relativists have to admit the motion with respect to some
absolute reference frame which is strongly rejected by Relativity.

You need to learn what relativity actually ways, instead of your clearly wrong guesses.


Though I much disagree with your manner to analyse, but if even with
all your manipulations with data you had to admit the same value of
speed as Miller claimed, this in the best way evidences Miller’s
results stable.

NOT TRUE AT ALL. Miller reported non-null results, and my re-analysis CLEARLY shows there is no signal at all, and the values of Figure 11 for the reasonably stable runs are IDENTICALLY ZERO.

You need to actually READ THE PAPER.


Tom Roberts
.

Relevant Pages