Re: An Explanation of Dayton Miller's Anomalous "Ether Drift" Result


"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j1ZIg.12243$%j7.8395@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Harry wrote:
According to Munera in a later, refined publication, the signal can even
change considerably in the time of making one turn.

Reference, please. I see no such preprint on arXiv.org.

Are you are thinking of this:
H.Munera, "Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic
Errors,
Consistency Among Different Experiments, and Compatibility with
Absolute Space", APEIRON Vol. 5 Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998 Page 37.

No, that is the one that you reference, and relative to which I used the
term "later". I have a draft of his that in this context refers to the
following later papers:

H. A. Múnera, E. Alfonso, and G. Arenas, "Empirical verification of the
existence of large fringe-shifts in the original Michelson-Morley and Miller
experiments, and a novel interpretation of its origin", Journal of New
Energy 6 (4) 185-209 (2002).

H. A. Múnera, "The effect of solar motion upon the fringe-shifts in a
Michelson-Morley interferometer à la Miller", Annales de la Fondation Louis
de Broglie 27 (3) 463-484 (2002).

They may be both hard to obtain, but probably the author will be happy to
send you a copy of one of those - or even of his recent draft.

If so, he completely ignores the enormous systematic drift, and makes
several incorrect statements about variation over time of the signal
(including the claim it varies during a single turn).

The claim that it varies during a single turn *is* already a statement
(although implicit) about the systematic drift. It's based on his computer
simulations of combined earth and solar motions and he quantifies it in more
detail in later publications. He needed them for his own M-M experiment
which he has performed, yielding similar results to Miller's.
I repeat: according to his calculations, your claim that the signal does
*not* vary during a single turn is erroneous. I have not been in a position
to inspect your nor his calculations.

As I point out in footnote 7 on page 6, the rotation of the earth
introduces a negligible variation in the orientation of the apparatus
during a run.

The argumentation there is incomplete, more intuitive than quantitative. If
that's as far as your argument goes, then Munera has done a more thorough
analysis of the to-be-expected signals than you did.

Munera is wrong. Munera claimed to consider "systematic errors" but
ignored the systematic drift, which generates errorbars vastly larger
than the tiny effects he considered. And he did not understand the flaws
in Miller's analysis algorithm.

That's not yet clear to me either. Maybe I'll come back to that point later,
after studying your paper more thoroughly. At first sight, Munera tries to
explain the systematic drift while you don't.

I tried to send H. Munera an email pointing out my paper, with the hope
he would look at it and comment, but all attempts bounced.

Yesterday I also sent him an email about it, and it didn't bounce. Just as
you, I look forward to his comments!

Regards,
Harald


.

Quantcast