Roberts versus Lazio on "Overaveraging"

greywolf42 wrote in message
. ..
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...

{snip}

This is Data Analysis 101. Let your detector be anything you want it
to be. Let it measure temperature on the sky, volts out of a
voltmeter, whatever. If you take a long data stream from it, you can
easily measure well below the "resolution" of the detector.

LOL! Another proof-by-assertion. Citation, please.

No response....

And (on the 15th):
=========
it is well known that one can make specific kinds of measurements
below the resolution limit of an instrument,

Joseph, *why* do you keep repeating this silly statement? Many people make
such claims, but it is not valid science or statistics. You can easily show
me wrong, by directing me to a statistics treatise on how to perform
measurements below the resolution of the instrument used.
=========

No response, again.....


A week ago, (in the sci.astro thread Cosmic Acceleration Rediscovered),
Joseph Lazio repeated the claim that one can get data to better precision
than the measuring instrument is physically capable of supporting.

Tom Roberts (and Bill Rowe), on the other hand, have many times called such
processes "overaveraging" (at least when it is applied to experiments that
would otherwise disprove SR). i.e.:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vr....supernews.com

"And results reported implying an order of magnitude improvement in
resolution over the best the instrument can achieve are very dubious."



Now it's time to see these two newsgroup stars have at it, over the
experimental and scientific principle of whether data can be "averaged"
below the physical resolution (or sensitivity) of the apparatus!

Is it overaveraging -- and invalid?

Or is it simply data analysis 101 -- and valid?

May the best argument win!

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}