Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Surfer <surfer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:16:20 +0930
On 02 Jul 2007 17:53:24 GMT, Bilge <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How you analyze the data is irrelevant, since the errors really are in the
data. You can't make them disappear.
Its not clear if Tom Roberts and Miller analysed the same data.
Miller performed a very large number of runs, which may have been
affected differently by temporary disturbances. Eg vibrations due to a
passing truck or train etc.
So Miller might have selected runs for processing with smaller errors
than the runs Tom selected.
Anyway, Miller wrote:
"A study of the numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
10 to 11 kilometers per second is +- 0.33 kilometer per second..."
(Later he scaled these values to allow for relativistic effects.)
So Miller seemed confident enough in his data.
"The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth."
Dayton C. Miller
Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933, Vol 5
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
No. Because even in the experiments that detect absolute motion, it is
If relativity was incorrrect at the level you and cahill seem to think
is an unexplored regime, relativity would have already failed.
very clear that Lorentzian relativity holds.
And in practice, is there really any difference between SR and LR?
-- Surfer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Bilge
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- References:
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Bilge
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Prev by Date: Re: 9.8m/sec^2 Coordinate Acceleration in GR
- Next by Date: understanding thermionic emission diode etc
- Previous by thread: Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Next by thread: Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|