Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX



Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:13 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Mar 20, 12:05 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Mar 15, 12:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

anonowen7 wrote:

I was browsing some archived thread in a science forum and found a claim that MMX
result was not actually "null", which result would then serve as the cornerstone of
relativity.

This is partly true, but mostly wrong.

In physics, one can never measure anything precisely, so we put
errorbars on measured values. That permits readers to evaluate how
accurate the measurement is. Michelson and Morley did not say they
measured "zero" (what a "null result" would be), they actually said:

"The relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
less than one sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly
less than one-fourth."

So it is true that the MMX did not have what one could call a "null
result". But it did have a result consistent with zero, and thus is
consistent with the prediction of SR. One cannot really ask for more.

A senior poster said something to the effect, though not abundantly clear, that the
Michaelson-Morley experiment resulted in the definitive detection (reproducable later
by others) of some 8 (i think) km/sec motion [...]

You've been had by a "senior poster" who does not really know much about
modern experimental physics, specifically error analysis.

See the appendices ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
for an error analysis of the MMX and Illingworth.

That paper shows why looking for "sinewave patterns" in such
data is hopeless -- the analysis method FORCES the data to
look like a sinewave with the expected period.

Tom, if what you say is true you should be able to plug some random
numbers in and generate a sinewave. That doesn't happen. Nor does
plugging in numbers from a constantly rising or falling line with a
small random diviation added in.

But for the MMX, for Miller, and for
Illingworth, the errorbars on the individual data points exceed the
variations of the data, so there is no SIGNIFICANT variation. Hence any
claims that these experiments "measured 8 km/s" are just plain wrong.

Most people would consider one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity
to be significant even if it was less than expected. And it is
certainly a long way from zero.

As for there being no significant signal in Miller's data, well I
guess not after you filtered it out. There was certainly an obvious
signal in the raw data that was plotted in the graph.

Now you have moved on from useless word games to full on ignorance.
You seem to have no idea of how to analyze an experiment and just
want to follow your prejudices. Your using the term "obvious signal"
is from your ignorance. What is important in science is what the
analysis results say.

The original analysis showed a signal. It seems more like it had to
be re-analized to get rid of that inconvenient fact.

The original analysis introduced a signal that was not there.
Careful analysis gives the correct answer. I know you do not
like that but that does not change the facts.



I used Miller's method of analysis with random numbers as data and did
not get s sinewave. That is a fact. If Miller's analysis introduced
a signal why didn't it show up?

There are lots of ways to introduce a signal. Did you even read
Robert's analysis where he explained this in detail.


But you do not like the result so you want it
to go away. This is particularly stupid given the large number
of well done experiments that have followed in the last nearly
a century which have shown agreement with relativity to many
decimal places. This is why you are reduced to arguing over
semantics and old experiments.

I haven't said anything here about relativity being wrong. I have
only offered a suggestion as to where the signal that was originally
published might have come from.

There was no signal to explain. Trying to create a signal to
explain is not science.


Nor is pretending that one that showed up isn't there.

Your delusions do not constitute the proof of a signal.
Later experiments showed that the null results are
correct so Miller's properly analyzed results are null
as well. Clinging to your delusions will not change that.


My claim is that it was due to the
earth's rotation. You are so prepared to argue against claims of
detecting an aether that you attack any claim that the signal ever
existed. I am well aware that later experiments did not show the same
signals. They were different experiments that eliminated the cause of
the signal.

No, they measured the same phenomenon.



They were different experiments. If you use a tape measure and stop
watch to measure the speed of a car over a measured distance it is
quite possible to get a different result than you would with a radar
gun. One method measures average speed while the other gives an
instantaneous reading at some point. Both methods measure the speed
of the car, but the radar reading tells you nothing about what errors
might have been made using the tape and watch.

Your playing word games does not constitute science. The later
experiments were much more reliable. It looks like you are
seeking your own special crank niche where you want to argue
over things that were settled a long time ago.


I am discussing the old experiments in an attempt to explain where the
signals they detected came from rather than pretending they never
existed.

No, you are trying to pretend the signals existed. That is a delusion.



I didn't make up the data. I would like to see more of Miller's data
but that one example is all I have access to.

Read what Tom Robeets did and you will see why there was no signal.


Bruce
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
    ... accurate the measurement is. ... the errorbars on the individual data points exceed the ... a century which have shown agreement with relativity to many ... signals they detected came from rather than pretending they never ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
    ... accurate the measurement is. ... the errorbars on the individual data points exceed the ... a century which have shown agreement with relativity to many ... signals they detected came from rather than pretending they never ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Complex versus real numbers
    ... pressure. ... But often, a measurement of 'amplitude' ... a real-valued quantity. ... Show that in manipulating signals using the 'inphase/ ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Quick and earnest question about MMX
    ... accurate the measurement is. ... the errorbars on the individual data points exceed the ... signals they detected came from rather than pretending they never ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: averaged PSD estimation
    ... A description of the dual channel processing schemes can be found: ... practical measurement situations. ... with the different techniques. ... corresponding complex analytical signals, is introduced, and the ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)