Re: QM support for a preferred frame

On Jul 1, 8:33 am, Surfer <sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:48:37 -0500, Tom Roberts



<tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:05:56 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the errorbars of Miller's original
result [...] are HUGE,

In Fig. 5 in your paper they look about 20 times larger than the
variations of the data.

Yes.

Now according to Miller's paper, he processed a large amount of data
with a harmonic analyser. It seems to me this would have been
analogous to feeding a radio signal into a tuning circuit, so he could
well have successfully rejected the errors that concern you.

No. He did that after averaging, which completely negates the
possibility you raise. The damage is done by the averaging. Had he
applied such an harmonic analysis to the raw data, as I did with the
320-point DFT, it would have separated out the component with period 1/2
turn.
But as I stated in the paper, by itself this is not sufficient to
determine if that amplitude is signal or noise. For the radio and its
tuning circuit, your EARS AND BRAIN separate the announcer's voice from
the static, but there is no analogous method of separating signal from
noise for Miller's data.

That does not seem quite correct.

Because the earth is rotating, the extracted signal should vary in a
distinct way during the course of a day.

Further, because the velocity of the earth changes as it orbits the
sun, the extracted signal should also vary in a distinct way during
the course of a year.


Correct application of SR (not the wrong one by Cahill) will predict a
null result for such experiment. Neither you , nor Cahill seem to know
this....


So suitable processing should allow these variations to be separated
from the noise.


No, see above. SR predicts a null result. Only a HOAX type application
of SR like in Cahill's case reconciles with an incorrect processing of
data resulting into a "signal"




This is not necessarily a quantitative matter. Suppose Trimmer got
fringe shifts due to the air, but that were very much smaller than
what he expected from the effect of the solid dielectric. In that
case, to save himself trouble he might have chosen to present a null
result.


As opposed to Cahill who publishes his hoaxes in his own journal,
Trimmer published in Phys Rev D, a highly respected, peer reviewed
journal.
As opposed to Cahill, who doesn't understand first thing about
calculating light speed in a moving refractive medium, Trimmer knows
that.

As opposed to Cahill , who is "cooking" his experimental results,
Trimmer doesn't lower himself to doing that.




Hmmm. There are literally hundreds of experiments that confirm many
different aspects of SR.

I think Cahill supports SR overall. But he writes:


He doesn't. He doesn't even begin to understand SR. He wouldn't be
messing up some simple formulas if he did.


"The detection of absolute motion is not incompatible with Lorentz
symmetry; the contrary belief was postulated by Einstein, and has
persisted for over 100 years, since 1905.

HaHaHa. You and he are missing a big chapter in relativity that deals
with this issue. That particular chapter develops experiments that
contradict you and Cahill.


.