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


<rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156949836.646208.46920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Harry wrote:
<rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156946546.406267.45090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Harry wrote:
<rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156865657.413616.104270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

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).

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.

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.

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.


Tom Roberts

Here is a later Munera "masterpiece"

http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-272/aflb272p463.pdf

...a regurgitation of the earlier Apeiron publication. BTW,
Apeiron is
another one of the fringe journals, with a clear antirelativistic
twist. It publishes mostly garbage rejected elsewhere.

Thanks for the direct reference to an article that Tom asked me for!
But
I
have not seen that one published in Apeiron; instead, this was
apparently an
invited paper for a special edition of AFLB (challenging mainstream,
in
honour of de Brogli).
Thus your diversion attempt is noticed. How would you describe the
Annales
de la Fondation Louis de Brogli?

Harald

Diversion? What the hell are you talking about? This is your "thank
you" for trying to help you out?

Not me, but Tom. I already had a copy of that paper. And "Thanks" does
indeed mean "thank you"!
About diversion: weirdly enough you did not comment on the journal in
which
it appeared, but on another journal.

Annales de la Fondation de Louis de BrogliE apparently allowed a kook
thru the referee system, it happens all the time, look at the Consoli
paper, it went thru Phys.Rev.Letters A, a much more reputable
publication than the now defunct "Annales".

Apparently we agree that AFLB is not a kook journal.

Harald

Look what I was writing:

"Last I looked the Munera paper was collecting dust in arxiv, has any
journal been conned into publishing it?"

At the time I was writing I had not searched for the Munera paper yet,
I did not know that it had been published by Annales. So there was no
"diversion"
The paper is still a kook paper and any "follower" of Dayton Miller is
a kook just the same.


Maybe something had gone wrong with editing or transmission when the
following message arrived in my mailbox:

"
From: rambus2005@xxxxxxxxx

[...]

Here is a later Munera "masterpiece"

http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-272/aflb272p463.pdf

....a regurgitation of the earlier Apeiron publication. BTW, Apeiron is
another one of the fringe journals, with a clear antirelativistic
twist. It publishes mostly garbage rejected elsewhere.
"

Anyway, any follower of anyone is IMHO a kook. In contrast, experimenters
who verify (redo) experiments by others in a professional way practice
science.

Harald


.

Relevant Pages