Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill]

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:33:55 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:44:10 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> Null results? Let's 'look' at M&M actual paper... See,
>>
>> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
>>
>> Now look on page 340. There is a table of 'results'. Now does that
>> table report < than detectable? Does it report zero (0)? Is there
>> anywhere in that paper paper where Michelson or Morely claim their
>> measurements are null or less than detectable? They do say that the
>> results ARE much less than anticipated. If you actually analyse the
>> data presented it isn't random noise...
>>
>> Also, note the Supplement on page 341 which anticipates Miller's
>> later results.
>
> And, of course, historically we know that Michelson Morely data
> actually did amount to a null result.

 That, as shown in the actual experimental results,is simply false.
 A product of scientific telephone... If it were null, then the data
 would be pure random noise, no signal. Is that your claim Sam?
 That the data in the Tables of figure 6 have no mathematically
 discernable signal. Now come on, have a spine, say yes or no!

 The is a high likelyhood that you'll just run for cover.

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages