Progress in Physics: Absolute Motion detected - Flinders Uni, Aust

mountain man wrote:
..

In the end, Tom, either you are wrong, or Cahill is wrong, or
indeed both of you could be wrong. But it will be in the design
and the running of a new replicated experiment, that will speak
the loudest, either in refutation or in support of Cahill.

All else is rhetoric and opinion. BTW, best wishes in your
forthcoming rounds of experiments.


Pete Brown

Reg , err "Pete"

You are wrong. It has been shown in this thread by several of us that
Cahill botched some elementary equations of the relativistic effects of
light propagation in a moving medium with n1. Grad student stuff ,
really. You (err, "he") compounded his theoretical error with faking
his experimental data such that the two errors match. This is why no
serious journal picked up the "discovery".

mountain man wrote:
But then again, he claims to have replicated the following
findings of De Witte. Says Cahill ...

"DeWitte observed that the times for say min travel time
in one direction occurred at different local times over the
178 day run. The average shift is approx 4 minutes/day.
Over six months this is an enormous effect. What this means
is that if the min NS travel time occurs at say midday at the
beginning of the run, then six months later the min happens at
approx midnight - a twelve hour shift. One doesn't need an
atomic clock to measure a 12 hour time shift!! Even a sundial
would do a good enough job."

As difficult as it is to believe, DeWitte had WORSE technique than
Cahill. Specifically, look at the plot of daily variations for 3 days
(Cahill's Fig 8), just LOOK at the intervals between zero crossings --
they vary by more than the difference between a sidereal and a solar
day! Clearly his errorbars are big enough to encompass that difference,
and Cahill's claims about this experiment are JUST PLAIN WRONG.

Cahill, and you, just refuse to actually look at experiments that
conform to your prejudices. Just because an average of data points has a
certain value does NOT mean that value is the true value of the
measurement -- one MUST look at the errorbar to know how good of a
measurement it is. EVERY ONE of these experiments has an average that
can be interpreted to conform to Cahill's prejudices, and EVERY ONE of
them has a large enough errorbar to include the prediction of SR (at
least of the ones I have examined). And I'll bet that would include
Cahill's new experiment, if he would bother to MEASURE HIS SYSTEMATIC
ERRORS.

You guys need to learn how to do science, not whatever it is you are
trying to do. shrug


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote:


Cahill, and you, just refuse to actually look at experiments that conform
to your prejudices.

Gas mode michaelson interferometer experiments
and/or where the light-path is constrained in a coax
are claimed to be the only ones which will work.

Cahill has listed at least 8 experiments which fit into
this category, and has probably exhaustively listed any
experiments of this kind that have been performed.

Do you know of any other gas mode michaelson
interferometer experiment (or coaxial cable based)
which is not cited by Cahill?




Pete Brown

wrote in message
oups.com...

mountain man wrote:
.

In the end, Tom, either you are wrong, or Cahill is wrong, or
indeed both of you could be wrong. But it will be in the design
and the running of a new replicated experiment, that will speak
the loudest, either in refutation or in support of Cahill.

All else is rhetoric and opinion. BTW, best wishes in your
forthcoming rounds of experiments.


Pete Brown

Reg , err "Pete"

You are wrong. It has been shown in this thread by several of us that
Cahill botched some elementary equations of the relativistic effects of
light propagation in a moving medium with n1. Grad student stuff ,

Grad students learn to believe in what they are taught.
They are conditioned to perceive the world in a certain
manner, whether you are willing to admit this or not.

You, and the several others of the crackpot patrol may
like to think your opinion is certified, while Cahill's is not,
but I'm here to tell you your opinion is just an opinion.

Do the experiment - on your head.





Pete Brown

mountain man wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

mountain man wrote:
.

In the end, Tom, either you are wrong, or Cahill is wrong, or
indeed both of you could be wrong. But it will be in the design
and the running of a new replicated experiment, that will speak
the loudest, either in refutation or in support of Cahill.

All else is rhetoric and opinion. BTW, best wishes in your
forthcoming rounds of experiments.


Pete Brown

Reg , err "Pete"

You are wrong. It has been shown in this thread by several of us that
Cahill botched some elementary equations of the relativistic effects of
light propagation in a moving medium with n1. Grad student stuff ,

Grad students learn to believe in what they are taught.
They are conditioned to perceive the world in a certain
manner, whether you are willing to admit this or not.

You, and the several others of the crackpot patrol may
like to think your opinion is certified, while Cahill's is not,
but I'm here to tell you your opinion is just an opinion.

Do the experiment - on your head.





Pete Brown

Reg , ( err "Pete")

It has been shown in this thread by several of us (shevek, myself)
that
Cahill ("Pete"?) botched sthe very elementary equations of the
relativistic effects of
light propagation in a moving medium with n1. Grad student stuff ,
really.There is only one truth in math , so give it up. You (err,
"he") compounded his theoretical error with faking his experimental
data such that the two errors match. This is why no serious journal
picked up the "discovery".

Next.

mountain man wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
Cahill, and you, just refuse to actually look at experiments that conform
to your prejudices.

Gas mode michaelson interferometer experiments
and/or where the light-path is constrained in a coax
are claimed to be the only ones which will work.

You define "work" as "giving results that are consistent with your own
personal prejudices" -- the rest of us naturally reject such a
ridiculous "definition". As far as the rest of us are concerned, all the
others WORK just as well -- in fact, many of them work
_VERY_MUCH_BETTER_ than the 8 that Cahill quotes, because their
errorbars are significantly smaller (for some of them about a MILLION
times smaller...).


Until and unless Cahill provides some rationale for solids and liquids
giving no anisotropy, but gas and SOLID coax giving one, nobody will
believe this SPECIAL PLEAD that is an essential aspect of his theory;
hence his entire structure is not believable.

[And, as I pointed out before, gas and coax are significantly
more subject to temperature effects than the others. I doubt
very much that this is happenstance....]

And he should also explain why he ignores the many OTHER experiments
using gas-mode interferometers. The ones with VERY MUCH SMALLER
errorbars than the ones he chooses to quote. Some references are given
below.


Cahill has listed at least 8 experiments which fit into
this category, and has probably exhaustively listed any
experiments of this kind that have been performed.

Nope. Not even close. Shankland's article lists several dozen Michelson
interferometer measurements, most of which used air.

But there are other types of experiment.

The best one is probably Cialdea. All light paths are in air or He-Ne,
and he observed no anisotropy to an accuracy of 0.9 m/s. Now this is not
a Michelson interferometer -- are you and Cahill going to make up
ANOTHER special plead?

And, of course, all 8 experiments that Cahill quotes have rather serious
problems when looked at in the light of MODERN physics (Cahill acts as
if he were living in the last century, as I have explained before). And
of those 8, all the ones I have looked at have no SIGNIFICANT signal at
all, but neither you nor Cahill understand that, either. And as I have
said so often, finding such "agreements" is NOT physics -- one must TEST
THEORIES, not find faces in clouds and proclaim them to be real. shrug


Do you know of any other gas mode michaelson
interferometer experiment (or coaxial cable based)
which is not cited by Cahill?

R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, "Experimental Establishment of the
Relativity of Time", Phys. Rev. 42 400-418 (1932).

Look in the references Shankland gave.

Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), p1767.


Requiring a Michelson interferometer is silly -- if gas shows anisotropy
then any gas-filled interferometer should exhibit this effect. So any of
the laser experiments listed in the FAQ should qualify. Look at:

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.

Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), p 1697.
[Yes, one laser was synchronized to a Fabry-Perot interferometer
in vacuum, but the _other_ laser is gas, and should show
the claimed anisotropy as the earth rotates.]

Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1 (1958), p 342.

T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, "Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers", Phys.
Rev. 133A 1221-1225 (1964)

A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, "Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space", Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549-552 (1979).
[Yes, one laser was synchronized to a Fabry-Perot interferometer
in vacuum, but the _other_ laser is gas, and should show
the claimed anisotropy as the earth rotates.]


Cahill conveniently ignores experiments with small errorbars, and quotes
ones with large errorbars, even when the errorbars are much larger than
the "signal". That is NOT science.


(to ):
You, and the several others of the crackpot patrol may
like to think your opinion is certified, while Cahill's is not,
but I'm here to tell you your opinion is just an opinion.

I'm here to tell you that your opinion is not science. Nor is Cahill's.

In any case, opinions based on standard models and computations are far
more believable and trustworthy than ones based on special pleads. Read
my paper. The errorbars I derive for Miller's original results are just
about as solid and model-independent as one can get, and show
conclusively that there actually is no SIGNIFICANT signal using his
FLAWED analysis method.


I repeat: you guys need to LEARN how to do science.


Tom Roberts

mountain man wrote:

Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/

I take this to mean that there are two "Peter Brown"s posting here now.
I will therefore go by Peter M. Brown if it comes to that, or just
"Pete."

Best wishes

Pete

wrote:
mountain man wrote:

Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/

I take this to mean that there are two "Peter Brown"s posting here now.
I will therefore go by Peter M. Brown if it comes to that, or just
"Pete."

Best wishes

Pete

The above "Pete Brown" is really Reg Cahill

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
mountain man wrote:

Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/

I take this to mean that there are two "Peter Brown"s posting here now.
I will therefore go by Peter M. Brown if it comes to that, or just
"Pete."

Best wishes

Pete

The above "Pete Brown" is really Reg Cahill


What inescapable logic are you grokking now?
No wonder you got conscripted by the crackpot patrol.



Pete Brown