Re: Analysis of gas mode MM interferometer operation using standard SR formulae.

On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 4, 8:48 pm, Surfer <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2008 17:33:18 -0700 (PDT), Jerry

<Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 4, 5:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

You absolutely have to publish this ! It is absolutely hilarious.
I agree 100%.

The difficulty is where to publish it. I doubt any serious physics
journal will be interested, as it does not really present any new
physics. An interesting possibility is Apieron (!), and I bet you can
rather easily meet their criteria. This has the advantage that the
target audience might actually see it (I doubt any of them read Phys.
Rev. :-). I have not read your article in detail, but to make it most
convincing, re-read Miller's 1933 RMP article and reproduce exactly his
analysis algorithm.

I'm wondering if there is some additional mathematical quirk that
essentially forces such an analysis to give an "answer" that is normal
to the ecliptic, and thus reasonably close to one of those
constellations.

At this point, I shall have to confess a slight dodge of mine, so
that my statement written in bold caps "I AM NOT KIDDING, THIS IS
REAL, I DID NOT FUDGE MY FIT TO MATCH MILLER'S DATA" is only 99%
true. When I wrote that I performed my "runs" at 0:00, 6:00, 12:00
and 18:00, I intentionally omitted stating whether I meant "local
time" or "GMT" to double my chances of maybe having a chance
alignment with either Miller's results, the CMBR anisotropy, the
direction of the galactic center (Sagitarrius), or the direction
of the "Great Attractor" (Centaurus).

Also, I was wondering whether I could -possibly- get away with
using Standard Time if neither Daylight Saving Time nor  GMT
offered any interesting correlations.

You need to take into account the fact that as the earth moves in its
orbit, the velocity projected onto the plane of the interferometer
will be modified by how the earths orbital velocity adds to the
velocity of 3-space in the frame of the solar system.

So you ultimately need to get an output that varies appropriately as:

1) The earth rotates on its axis, thus changing the angle with which
the 3-space velocity relative to earth is projected onto the plane of
the interferometer.

2) The earth moves in its orbit thus causing an aberration of 3-space
velocity relative to earth.

To test for 2) you would need to simulate runs for a period of a year.

That could be a good exercise.

If you got an average velocity that didn't vary during the year, that
would suggest the earth maintains a constant velocity relative to
pi-ether, irrespective of how its velocity changes relative to the
sun. That would suggest strange properties (probably unphysical) for
pi-ether.

Surfer, the sad fact of the matter is that Miller performed
hundreds upon hundreds of data runs through the years and
processed the data using an algorithm that -guaranteed- that he
would get imaginary half-period modulations, even as I extracted
imaginary half-period modulations from purely random data.

If you think your half-period modulations are as good as Miller's
half-period modulations why don't you do as I suggest and show that
your pi-ether ends up with sensible properties?

If you can do that, then I would have a reason to take your claims
seriously.


Unaware of modern statistical methods, much less today's digital
signal processing techniques, and utterly convinced that the
modulations that he saw were real, he wasted decades of his life
trying to make sense of the senseless, ultimately grouping and
fitting together contradictory data into a pattern that he
imagined meaningful, and communicating his results to the world.
Even a cursory modern analysis shows the modulations to lack
statistical significance.

You might believe a "cursory" analysis. I prefer to believe the
analyses by Professor Allais who is experienced in statistics and who
has done a proper job.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm


Nevertheless the modulations were always- present.
We have Tom Roberts to thank for explaining
the origin of these seeming regularities.

Tom Robert's account is based on FALSE PREMISES.
See his paper at:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/060823

FALSE PREMISE 1
=====================
The caption under Fig 3. says:

"The assumed-linear systematic drift from the data of Fig. 1.
The lines are between successive Marker 1 values and the points are
Marker 9. These markers are 180 degrees apart, so any real signal has
the same value for every corner and every point--the variations are
purely an instrumentation effect."

This statement is FALSE, because measurements at Marker 1 and Marker 9
were not made simultaneously. If we are to consider ANY real signal,
then we must be prepared to consider real signals that FLUCTUATE. The
value of any real signal that fluctuates would change between readings
at Marker 1 and Marker 9.
======================
FALSE PREMISE 2

At the top of page 6, Tom Roberts wrote:

data = signal(orientation) + systematic(time)

The key point is that signal(orientation) is independent of time,
and for each orientation (marker) it has the same value for every
turn of the interferometer within a given data run Therefore if the
data from the first turn is subtracted marker-by-marker from the
data of every turn, the result is completely independent of any
orientation dependence, and contains only systematic(time).


The above claims are false, because any real FLUCTUATING signal would
vary with orientation AND TIME.

So in particular, the claim that:

"Therefore if the data from the first turn is subtracted marker-by-marker
from the data of every turn, the result is completely independent of any
orientation dependence, and contains only systematic(time)."

is FALSE.
=======================
If you read Tom Robert's paper you will see that nearly all of his
analysis is based on one or the other of the above false premises. So
the only safe thing to do is ignore his paper.


Sorry, Surfer. Only a person such as yourself, who has invested
too many years of his life chasing an utter fantasy to admit that
it was all wasted, could possibly still believe that what Miller
saw was anything real.

Actually, until very recently I assumed SR was true. I only looked at
Miller's paper after reading Tom Robert's paper. I was favorably
impressed by the effort Miller made to exclude temperature effects
from measurement error. I was also impressed by the smallness of his
estimated probable error.


I understand your unwillingness to drop your illusions.

By and large I have not regarded my belief in SR as an illusion. I
still believe SR is generally true. However I think it would be a
mistake to regard it as dogmatically true. In other words I think one
should consider the possibility that motion relative to 3-space could
cause detectable effects--such as observed by Miller.

-- Surfer


.

Relevant Pages