Discussion:
Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
(too old to reply)
Tom Roberts
2005-12-09 04:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005


Introduction
------------

In the 1920's and 30's Dayton Miller made an enormous number of
measurements using several versions of his Michelson interferometer. In
1933 he published a review article, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the
Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth" [1]. If valid, the
results of that paper would refute SR and GR. Since its publication, no
convincing refutation of that paper has been given, though Shankland et
al tried to do so [2]. Since then numerous people have proclaimed
Miller's data are correct, and have built castles in the air based on
that assumption.

This article explains why Miller, and modern advocates of his anomalous
result, are wrong: there is no real signal in his data at all; his data
and results are completely explained by a large systematic error that
masquerades as a "signal".

I have obtained a significant amount of Miller's raw data (52 runs of 20
turns each), and have been looking at it from a modern data analysis
point of view. This article gives a short summary of what I have found,
giving a very brief overall summary and the primary argument: a simple
and direct model of his systematic error reproduces his data completely,
leaving no room for any real signal at all. In the relatively near
future I will be putting a complete paper about this onto the preprint
servers, and intend to submit it for publication.


Background (summary of other parts of my forthcoming paper)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Modern digital signal processing (DSP) techniques show that Miller's
analysis technique was flawed, and show precisely why his reduced data
show sinusoid-like "signals" with the correct period of 1/2 turn. In
essence, his analysis technique aliased his very large systematic error
into the frequency bin corresponding to 1/2 turn, and the spectrum of
the systematic error forces the result to look sinusoid-like. So it's no
surprise he (and others) thought there was a real signal here. But
that's not the subject of this article.

Miller "determined the absolute motion of the earth" by examining his
voluminous data. A glance at his figures in [1] shows that the data vary
wildly around the values he found. To a modern eye the striking thing
about these figures is their complete lack of errorbars. In fact, an
analysis of those errorbars shows they are larger than the paper the
plots are printed on. That means that his values for the "absolute
motion" also have large errorbars. Had Miller known the techniques
of including the errorbars and using them in a parametric fit to the
data, he would have found that _ANY_ direction would fit the data
equally well. Yes, there is some direction that fits the data best, and
he apparently found it, but it is not _significantly_ better than any
other direction. Ditto for the speed he obtained. This effect is well
known, and is a major reason why data plots without errorbars are
usually not acceptable today. But this is also not the subject of this
article.


The fundamental difficulty Miller faced is that the data from his
interferometer have a very large systematic error added to whatever
cosmic signal is present. This error can be as large as an excursion of
17 fringes during a single 20-turn run(!), and there are a few turns
during which the data drifted more than 3 fringes(!!). I will simply
accept this systematic error as given, and will not speculate on its
origin -- the data alone tell the story I am discussing. Note also that
there are two runs for which there is essentially no 1/2-turn signal at
all, and for which the systematic error is quite small; they are
atypical, and most runs have a systematic error of 3-5 fringes over 20
turns.

In the face of such a large systematic error, it is difficult to find
any real signal of ~0.05 fringe. Modern DSP techniques can often do so,
and it is now simple to perform a digital Fourier transform (DFT) of
each entire run (20 turns, 320 points). Those DFTs, and related
knowledge of DSP techniques, show precisely how his analysis algorithm
biased his result and forced his systematic error to masquerade as
"signal". But they also show that there is indeed a non-zero amplitude
for the 1/2-turn Fourier component, which is where any real signal would be.

The question is: is this a real signal or is it due to that large
systematic error? The best way to determine that is to model the
systematic error and compare its 1/2-turn Fourier amplitude to that of
the data.



Modeling the Systematic Error
-----------------------------

Miller's data consist of an unknown signal plus a comparatively large
systematic error. The symmetry of his instrument forces the real signal
to be periodic, with a period of exactly 1/2 turn (the rotation of the
earth can be neglected during any single data run, which typically took
~15 minutes). There is no such constraint on the systematic error.

The data were recorded to an accuracy of 1/10 fringe at 16 markers
(orientations) placed uniformly around the circle of rotation of the
interferometer; a series of 20 turns (complete rotations) constitutes a
single run. I have data for 52 such runs, mostly from Cleveland in
August of 1927. This discussion is of that data only, but surely applies
to his other data as well (I include the 1925 run he displayed in figure
8 of [1]).

Here I discuss a single run, and apply this process to each run
individually.

As any real signal is periodic, its value at a given orientation must be
the same for every turn within a run. So by subtracting the first 1/2
turn value of Marker 1 from all 20 of the marker 1 values, the resulting
sequence of turn-by-turn differences has no remnant of the periodic
signal. And because of the symmetry, the marker 9 values can be included
in the same series, giving 40 entries for this orientation. This applies
to the other orientations, giving 8 independent series of 40 entries
each. These series characterize the systematic error at each
orientation, but we don't know how to combine the different orientations
to obtain a model of the complete systematic error (the actual data
contain both the signal and the systematic error, we need just the latter).

What we can do is make an assumption: assume that the systematic error
is as small as possible, consistent with those series of differences.

With that assumption, we can treat the initial 8 values of the 8 series
to be adjustable parameters, and we can adjust them so that the
point-by-point differences are as small as possible on average. So the
method is:
a) given the adjustable parameter values, add the measured
differences for each orientation and combine them into a
systematic error with 320 entries (corresponding to the 320
points of the run's raw data).
b) compute the adjacent-point chisquared:
chisq = sum[i=2..320] (systErr[i]-systErr[i-1])2
c) vary the free parameters to minimize the chisquared.
Note that the individual series of differences have one point per 1/2
turn; the chisquared is between adjacent points, which are necessarily
obtained from different series -- each series is a single orientation
and the interferometer was rotating through successive orientations.

This fit converges well for all 52 runs. I won't discuss the details here.

Note this model is as simple as it gets for a model that conforms to the
symmetries of the instrument and also takes advantage of all the
measurements of the systematic error. It is also completely independent
of any real signal -- one could add _ANY_ "signal" (1/2 turn periodic)
to the data and that would not change the modeled systematic error.
Remember the model is determined by the 8 parameters and the
same-orientation differences of the data, so no orientation dependence
of the data is involved in the model, its dependence on orientation is
determined only by the fit.



Comparing the Model of the Systematic Error to the Data
-------------------------------------------------------

Once the model for the systematic error is obtained for each run, we
simply take the 320-point DFT of the data and of the error model, and
compare. As the only frequency component of interest has period 1/2
turn, this is quite fast.

The best comparison for all runs is a plot of the norms of the 1/2-turn
Fourier amplitudes, plotting the value for the systematic model along
the x axis and the value for the data along the y axis. I cannot display
the plot in this ASCII medium, but it shows that 47 of the 52 runs lie
_exactly_ on the line x=y, ranging from an amplitude of 0.01 fringe to
about 0.15 fringe. That is, for 47 of the runs this simple model of the
systematic error gives the same 1/2 turn Fourier amplitude as does the
data; in fact, in the time domain the systematic error model is
identical to the data for each of these 47 runs -- the model reproduces
the data _exactly_.

There are 5 runs that do not lie on the x=y line, and they are as much
as 0.1 fringe away from it. Looking at the raw data for each of these
runs, it is clear that each of them has several turns during which the
data drifted wildly (more than 1 fringe per turn) -- clearly the
instrument was not stable during these turns. That cannot be interpreted
as any sort of real signal, and it violates the assumption that the
systematic error is as small as possible -- that is the cause, because
removing these unstable turns from the fit makes the error models for
all 5 of these runs reproduce the data exactly.


Conclusion
----------

The simple model of Miller's systematic error accurately and completely
reproduces all of his data that I have (52 runs, 1040 turns of
the interferometer). That means there is no signal of cosmic origin in
any of them -- the only "signal" present is from the systematic error
itself. Analysis I have not discussed here shows precisely how and why
the systematic error masqueraded as "signal", and fooled Miller
and his followers.


Miller could not possibly have known about the DSP ideas used here, nor
how his analysis technique was actually extracting an aspect of his
systematic error, not any real signal. Even if he had known this, the
computations required would have exceeded his ability to perform them
manually. And because the use of errorbars and techniques of using them
were not common in his day, he was unaware of this confusion.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com



References
----------

[1] Miller, Rev. Mod. Phys., _5_, (July 1933), p203-242.
[2] Shankland et al, Rev. Mod. Phys., _27_, 2, (April 1955), p167-178.
Koobee Wublee
2005-12-09 05:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
[...]
This is great work. Do you guys acutally do anything productive at all at
Lucent? I wish I had encountered your great works before I invested in
Lucent stocks a few years ago.
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-09 16:42:06 UTC
Permalink
"Koobee Wublee"
aka Australopithecus Afarensis
aka Scholarly Fungi
aka Time Traveler
aka Lordly Amoeba
aka Ibn Battuta
aka Marco Polo
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
[...]
This is great work. Do you guys acutally do anything productive at all at
Lucent? I wish I had encountered your great works before I invested in
Lucent stocks a few years ago.
Too bad.

Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bdq09.28353$***@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=V1r09.661180$***@sccrnsc02
| "Scholarly Fungi" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$***@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=NnI09.31007$***@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=***@posting.google.com
| "Scholarly Fungi" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:<NnI09.31007$***@news2.west.cox.net>...
| > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
| > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
| > hoax.
| >
| > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
| > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
| > holohoax in high school.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=fytJa.78487%24%2542.6441%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=XvKJa.100908$***@fed1read05
| "Australopithecus Afarensis" <***@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
| news:fytJa.78487$%***@fed1read06...
| > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
| > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
| > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
| > things-to-do list for the near future.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=uMeDa.59118%24%2542.39687%40fed1read06
Reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=***@4ax.com
| On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
| <***@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
|
| >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
| >
| >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
| >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
| >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
| >
| >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
| >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
| >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
| >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
| >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
| >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
| >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
| >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
| >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
| >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
| >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
| >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
| >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
| >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
| >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
| >
Dastardly Fiend
2005-12-09 05:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Title: Albert Einstein's thought experiment of 1905 has no data or logical
meaning.
Author: Androcles
Date: December 9, 2005

Introduction
----------------
The absence of data is readily apparent, none was given.
(AB+ BA)/(t'A-tA) = c = 0


Background
---------------
See usenet posts for the last 6 years.

Conclusion
--------------
Einstein was a huckster.


A word on another huckster.
Tom Roberts has never carried out a test on the strong field of an accretion
disk near a black hole.
Ref:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?


"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes" --- Roberts lies.


Androcles.
d***@mind.net
2005-12-09 09:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Dear Tom Roberts,

Since I am the fellow who did the archive work which brought Miller's
Mt. Wilson data sheets to the light of day, stimulating a search at the
Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University where they were
finally located after being submerged for decades, and since I did so
much of the preliminary work rehabilitating Miller, probably I could
spot flaws in your argument where others might not.

Firstly, you can review my papers on the Miller ether-drift subject
here:

"Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look"
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether"
(from Galilean Electrodynamics)
http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf

As to the specifics of your paper:

I note you cite Miller's 1933 paper, but nothing else aside from the
hit-piece authored by Shankland et al. There are dozens of papers
which bear upon these issues, including the positive replication
undertaken by Michelson using Miller's methodology on Mt. WIlson (the
Michelson-Pease-Pearson experiment), and the work of Yuri Galaev, among
others. Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to
dismiss your arguments, and retain clarity about Miller's work.

You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.

Those Cleveland experiments undertaken by Miller prior to Mt. Wilson
often were calibration tests, or experiments to evaluate different
materials for the base and composition of the interferometer, under
different thermal environments, and so on. It seems probable, the data
set you analyzed was another of those calibration tests. Again, the
graphs appearing in Millers 1933 paper were composed from his Mt.
Wilson experiments of 1925 and 1926, not from any data from Cleveland
in August 1927. Perhaps you can give a citation as to where you noted
some kind of graphs for the August 1927 data? I cannot recall any such
publication of Miller's post-Mt.Wilson data. After Mt. Wilson, he was
finished with the problem, felt he had nailed it down. Is it possible,
you have data sets from some of his students? I merely ask, because
there is no relevance to the data you undertook to re-analyze.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.

The Cleveland experiments, pre-Mt.Wilson or post-Mt.Wilson, are not
significant for the question of ether-drift on a number of counts.
Firstly, as mentioned, they were mostly calibration experiments -- can
you cite a publication somewhere which reports on those post-Mt.Wilson
experiments in Cleveland? Are you sure you do not have, by some
accident, the data sheets from 1927 of Michelson-Pease-Pearson? ( If
so, I'd like to get a copy of them!) I would ask, where did you get
your set of Miller data sheets? The only ones I know about include the
full sets from Mt. Wilson, so it seems strange to me that you'd get
only the 1927 data sheets, but not the others from 1925 and 1926 -- I
searched both the Miller and Shankland Archives, plus materials from
Einstein's archives in Jerusalem, and found only one or two of his data
sheets. An unpublished interview with Shankland suggested he
(Shankland) had burned them. With that alarming possibility, I pushed
one of the Case Physics professors to undertake a search in some old
rooms where Miller's stuff had been stored for years, collecting dust
-- and he found them, turning them over to the Case Archive
department. I had copies made of the full data sets -- over 1000
pages. So how did you get possession of only the 1927 data?

As Miller wrote in his 1933 paper (p.228):

"More than half of [my 200,000] readings were made in the Mount Wilson
observations of 1925 and 1926. ... 12,800 single measures of the
velocity of ether-drift and 25,600 single determinations of the apex of
this motion."

These were in April, August and September of 1925, and February of
1926. NOT in August of 1927.

There is a reason why the Mt. Wilson experiments yielded good positive
results, and nearly all other such experiments did not -- it is because
the altitude of the experiment above sea-level influences the result,
due to Earth-entrainment (slowing down) of the Ether. I discuss this
fully in my papers, and so won't repeat it here. The original
Michelson-Morely experiment, the Morley-Miller experiments and the
Miller experiments outside of Mt. Wilson were all performed in
low-altitude Cleveland, often inside the stone structure of the Case
Physics building. The MM experiment also took place in a basement
location, and Miller demonstrated that only by going to higher
altitudes and also removing all dense materials at the light-beam path
-- the metal or heavy wood covers as used by so many others -- would
the ether-drift show itself more easily. Miller did the high-altitude
experiments and got a postive result. Same with
Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and a few others. Galaev more recently
confirmed it. How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.

There is more which could be said, but it is late, and I'm sure you'll
have a reply to what's here already. I suggest firstly to review my
papers on the subject, so I won't necessarily be repeating myself.

Regards,

James DeMeo
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-09 16:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mind.net
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Dear Tom Roberts,
Since I am the fellow who did the archive work which brought Miller's
Mt. Wilson data sheets to the light of day, stimulating a search at the
Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University where they were
finally located after being submerged for decades, and since I did so
much of the preliminary work rehabilitating Miller, probably I could
spot flaws in your argument where others might not.
Firstly, you can review my papers on the Miller ether-drift subject
"Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look"
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Secondly, you can "Ready-Made Orgone Blankets and
Full-Size Orgone Energy Accumulators" right here:
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/SID=1134146137.96752/page=yoracs.htm

Do you think that we are *all* imbeciles, DeMeo?

Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-09 16:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mind.net
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Dear Tom Roberts,
Since I am the fellow who did the archive work which brought Miller's
Mt. Wilson data sheets to the light of day, stimulating a search at the
Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University where they were
finally located after being submerged for decades, and since I did so
much of the preliminary work rehabilitating Miller, probably I could
spot flaws in your argument where others might not.
Firstly, you can review my papers on the Miller ether-drift subject
"Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look"
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Secondly, you can purchase "Ready-Made Orgone Blankets
and Full-Size Orgone Energy Accumulators" right here:
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/SID=1134146137.96752/page=yoracs.htm

Do you think that we are *all* imbeciles, DeMeo?

Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
2005-12-09 17:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mind.net
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
[...]
Firstly, you can review my papers on the Miller ether-drift subject
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf
You make the same mistakes Miller did, and the same mistakes everyone
else who claims his result is valid: you did not include errorbars. Yes,
Miller did not provide errorbars, but he was writing before their usage
became commonplace (or rather, compulsory). But his data contain
voluminous information about them. For plots such as Figure 1 of
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, the errorbars exceed the size of
the paper. That is, the "result" you claim is not _SIGNIFICANT_.
Post by d***@mind.net
I note you cite Miller's 1933 paper, but nothing else aside from the
hit-piece authored by Shankland et al. There are dozens of papers
which bear upon these issues, [...]
Sure -- this is a newsgroup article, not a journal paper. So far. I want
comments, precisely like yours, before preparing a real paper.
Post by d***@mind.net
You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but [...]
I evaluated all the data I could get my hands on easily, and for which I
had a reasonable provenance (I obtained it courtesy of Glen Deen). MSN
groups is not letting me log in, but when I looked at the group
DaytonMillerData several months ago, the files had no sensible
provenance, and I chose not to use them. If you have computer-readable
Post by d***@mind.net
Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, [...]
I agree, but for very different reasons....

No matter, the DSP approach I have been applying can settle the matter.
For the data I have, there is no doubt that there is no real signal. I
am interested in applying it to other data of his if I can obtain it
without undue effort. But I think you are incredibly naive to think that
his Cleveland data could nave no signal at all, and yet his Mt. Wilson
data have a signal. I think the only way to know is to apply a modern
data AND ERROR analysis to that data.
Post by d***@mind.net
[my critique has not] addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS.
You can find faces in clouds, if you look hard enough.

For very noisy data, such as Miller's, there is indeed a best-fit value,
and in many cases simple techniques can find it, and Miller apparently
did. But for all of the data I have, and for the plots in Miller's 1933
article, it is QUITE CLEAR that the answer obtained is not SIGNIFICANT.
That is, one can fit the data in those plots equally well using ANY
direction whatsoever, and ANY speed less than some value >30 km/s. This
is not a "determination of the earth's absolute motion" by any MODERN
standard.

In 1933 Miller could get his paper published; today he would not, for
the simple reason that it lacks an error analysis.
Post by d***@mind.net
The pattern was systematic,
But not SIGNIFICANT.
Post by d***@mind.net
The Cleveland experiments, pre-Mt.Wilson or post-Mt.Wilson, are not
significant for the question of ether-drift on a number of counts.
Firstly, as mentioned, they were mostly calibration experiments -- can
you cite a publication somewhere which reports on those post-Mt.Wilson
experiments in Cleveland? Are you sure you do not have, by some
accident, the data sheets from 1927 of Michelson-Pease-Pearson? ( If
so, I'd like to get a copy of them!) I would ask, where did you get
your set of Miller data sheets?
I obtained Excel files from Glen Deen. Their provenance is in their
contents, which state (among other things): Cleveland; August 1927 and
Seoptember/October 1929, plus I transcribed myself the Fig 8 data from
September 1925.

This is an awful lot of "calibration experiments", over an awfully long
time.
Post by d***@mind.net
The only ones I know about include the
full sets from Mt. Wilson, so it seems strange to me that you'd get
only the 1927 data sheets, but not the others from 1925 and 1926
I only have the data Glen transcribed. I don't know what criteria he
used to select pages for transcription.

I am aware this is a problem, and would love to get more data. But I
don't have the resources to transcribe it myself.
Post by d***@mind.net
Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions
Why so?
Post by d***@mind.net
It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis,
Send me data files, and the analysis will take only a short time. My
biggest problem is finding time to devote to this.

AFAIK none of the "ether advocates" have done ANY realistic or modern
data and error analysis of these data -- they just marvel at the
supposed sidereal variations, without ever asking "are they
SIGNIFICANT?". And then they usually foam at the mouth about how some
vague "science establishment" has "suppressed" Miller's wonderful
result. That is wishing and hoping, not science.


Any _MODERN_ analysis of Miller's data will perform an error analysis,
propose a theory or model to which the real signal can be compared, and
then display via plots WITH ERRORBARS how well (or poorly) the data
agree with the model. If an "absolute direction" or "absolute speed" is
determined, those values will NECESSARILY have errorbars attached. Your
papers do none of that, and neither do Allais', or Consoli's, or
Cahill's, or anybody else's I have found. Except mine (which is
currently just in early draft form -- I haven't gotten to the model
stage yet, but it's clear SR is consistent with the data I have).
Post by d***@mind.net
But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise.
If a quantitative model of the noise [#] completely describes the data,
then there is no room for any real signal. That is the case for all of
the data I have.

[#] Which I call "systematic error" -- "noise" has IMHO the
wrong connotations. What I would call the noise in
Miller's data is quite small, <0.2 fringe; it is due
primarily to roundoff errors by the observer.
Post by d***@mind.net
I suggest firstly to review my
papers on the subject, so I won't necessarily be repeating myself.
I already have. You make the same mistakes everyone else did -- lack of
error analysis, and lack of a MODERN analysis of the data (e.g. why
haven't you reported results of DFTs?).


Have you ever even LOOKED at Miller's data?? -- please spend the time to
actually plot the RAW data from Miller's Figure 8 and LOOK at it! (be
sure to add back his adjustments and plot all 321 data points) -- Then
say with a straight face that you still think there is actually a
"signal" in there.... Or even that Miller's subtraction of a LINEAR
error is even remotely valid. Until you do at least this plot you don't
understand his data at all, no matter how much you have "studied" it.
And if you have already made such a plot, why doesn't it appear in any
of your papers?

The overall appearance of this plot casts grave doubts on any claim to a
real signal in there, and CERTAINLY says that without a full and
complete error analysis no such claim can be believable.

[FWIW that plot shows an extremely ragged sequence, fluctuating
about +- 1 fringe around a line with slope -.3 fringe/turn;
the fluctuations have irregular periods > 1 turn. The supposed
"signal" (with period 1/2 turn) is invisible to the naked eye.]


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
d***@mind.net
2005-12-10 05:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland, when the most serious data which requires
attention is from his Mt. Wilson experiments. I'm sure one could find
unpublished data from Michelson as well, or from Einstein's work -- it
may have historical significance, but is not the point of discussion if
you wish to refute what provides a foundation for much of new interest
in ether and ether-drift. I have no idea why Glen Deen gave you this
data set, instead of something from the Mt. Wilson experiments. Maybe
he can clarify this.

2) The tests in Cleveland would very likely have produced a signal far
below that of the Mt. Wilson experiments, given the effect of altitude
-- higher altitudes produce higher ether-drift velocities, as
documented by Galaev. Therefore, whatever your critique of the
Cleveland 1927 experiments were, they would not apply, or apply only
less-so to the Mt. Wilson experiments of 1925-26. You cannot presume
to assert the "signal to noise" levels were the same for both sets of
experiments. That's an unproven assumption.

3) Even if we assume, the variance within the measurements for any one
of the four seasonal epochs at Mt. Wilson was large, to rest upon that
observation and go no farther is to miss the forest for the trees.
Larger patterns in data sets often are not apparent or ammenable to
analysis via statistical methodology, but rather require dynamical
methods of analysis, or sometimes graphical or
geographical-astrocartographical methods. For example:

4) I did not mean to imply that low-altitude ether-drift experiments
would yield "no signal" at all. They do, but apparently of a reduced
intensity. Consequently, we might ask if the August 1927 data which
you analyzed yielded a variation over sidereal-clock coordinates? And
if so, is this variation along the same sidereal hour axis as what
Miller noted for the Mt. Wilson experiments, even if the velocity
determination would be at a lower level? If so, that would be in
keeping with his overall theory and findings. Miller's pre-Mt.Wilson
tests in Cleveland DID occasionally show similar vectors, as did the
Morley-Miller and even the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yes, he did a
lot of testing and control experiments, as Einstein was at the time
proclaiming (without evidence) that Miller's work was the consequence
of "thermal artifacts". So he did a lot of work to show, exactly, how
the interferometer would react to both small and large external heating
effects, and precautions were undertaken, such as shielding the
interferometer arms with insulation, and so on. NONE of those
experiments -- Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, or Miller in Cleveland
ever produced a fully "null" or "zero" result, which by itself is
significant. But the data was best at Mt. Wilson, and likewise
Michelson-Pease-Pearson also got their best result at Mt. Wilson.
Miller addressed this consideration in the 1933 paper, and
Michelson-Morley were also aware of their own slight positive result,
stating in the 1887 paper the need to perform the experiment over other
seasonal periods -- which they never did. Only Miller did so. The
fact that all four seasonal epochs of the Mt. Wilson experiments
yielded similar sidereal-hour vectors for the axis of drift, and that
this also was the same (though reduced) axis which could be extracted
from the original Michelson-Morley experiment, is THE significant
consideration, even if the velocity determinations were slightly
variable. This is what we call a highly-structured pattern in the
data. The fact that Galaev later found a similar axis of drift in his
work, and the seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" also show a
similar pattern, is "icing on the cake" so to speak.

5) High "signal to noise" ratios plague other data sets from natural
phenomena, such as climate patterns. Daily precipitation is a function
of solar heating and shifting of wind and pressure patterns. But if we
look for variations in precipitation as an indicator of solar heating,
it requires a lot of years of data before we get a climatic curve which
approximates the smooth latitudinal shifting of the sun's location, and
hence, solar heating of the lower atmosphere. Over shorter periods,
rainfall quantities may be extremely variable with large quantities one
day or week, nothing the next day or week, and so on over the years,
with some years very wet, others in drought. If we presume ignorance
of how solar heating works to stimulate rains, we would be hard pressed
to find this pattern in all the "noise" of daily precipitation
variation. We would in fact only find the pattern by recording
precipitation over the year, and then averaging the data by week or
month. Only then, you get a pattern which is valuable, and allows some
degree of confidence and prediction of when a "rainy season" or "dry
season" will occur. Likewise also, I would imagine, with the
determinations of anisotropy in 3-deg.K. in open space -- a lot of
variation, no way to make "statistical analysis" but when it is plotted
on a map -- or along a simple graphical ordination representing
sidereal hour -- it makes a pattern which is important to consider.

Unfortunately, I have no computer-readable data files for Miller. My
role was mostly historical, basically finished after the data sets were
finally obtained, and others set out on that task. I cannot speak to
what Glen Deen and others are doing with the data. My larger interest
today is in the work of Galaev, who developed an elegant and very
simple interferometer using parallel light beams, and seems
potentially easier to use, less afflicted by vibrations, and possibly
could be rendered far more sensitive given current technology. My push
has been, for more experiments to be undertaken, rather than merely to
analyze Miller over and over. I must disagree that your DSP method
will ever critically undermine Miller's findings, if only because my
points above cannot be overcome by purely statistical arguments. If
Miller's four different seasonal epochs had yielded four different
points in the heavens, four different axes of ether-drift, then surely
a rejection of his work would be fully in order and legitimate. But I
encourage you to look again at Figure 2 in my Miller paper.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
This shows Miller's data organized firstly by sidereal hour, and
secondly by civil clock time. By sidereal hour, there is a distinct
pattern in the data, one which appears to be robust enough even to
survive your argument about the need for error-bars. However, when the
same data is organized by civil clock time, the pattern vanishes. This
is the issue which you need to address, and it will not be defeated
with DSP methods.

As noted, I do have copies of all of Miller's data sheets, being the
guy who stimilated their re-discovery from dusty storage rooms. You
mention only the one data sheet of Figure 8 from his 1933 paper, which
showed the results of 19 turns of the interferometer over about a
15-minute period. This is like, extracting rainfall records for one
month of one year, exclaiming there is "no solar-related pattern" and
ignoring all the rainfall data from many other months and years. Sure,
look at only one data sheet, and clear determinations may be
insufficient. But really, your DSP analysis was not of that data
sheet, nor of the hundreds of other data sheets from Mt. Wilson.

I have no interests to second-guess Miller's methods, and your claims
really don't suggest any serious reason why one should be concerned.
Nobody including Michelson had any problem with Miller's methods or
findings at the time when he was doing his work, other than Einstein,
who was no expert in the ether-drift methods. In fact Miller was the
student of Morley, and learned the methods as handed down from
Michelson and Michelson-Morley. You presume to have us believe you
know more about it than they did, even though you haven't undertaken an
analysis of the very same published data from which Miller's
conclusions were derived. And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.

Regards,

James DeMeo
Joe Fischer
2005-12-10 06:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mind.net
Dear Tom Roberts,
1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland,
Do you mean all famous experiments were done in
Cleveland and at Mt. Wilson?

Isn't there higher mountains and sites closer to the
equator that might be better?

[snip]
Post by d***@mind.net
And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.
Regards,
James DeMeo
Is Tom Roberts the only physicist who will even listen?

I would like to know just what it is this wonderful ether
is supposed to do, is it just a whim explanation of how light
is propagated, or is it supposed to do everything that GR
does?

When gravity is included in a theory that must exert
forces on material objects to make them appear to change
motion as observed, really big problems arise.

This magical ether would have to be totally and
completely inelastic, which would seem to prohibit or
restrict inertial motion, and would require infinite shear
strength, and have an infinite energy source.

Plus it would probably need a super computer to
determine just how to exert the exact gravitational force
to cause gravitational mass to be identical to inertial mass.

And even though sound is supposed to be carried
by waves in a medium, it really isn't, it is just variations
in the velocities of molecular units. In mathematical
treatment it may be called waves, but it is far from being
a wave in a continuous medium.

If gravity is not supposed to be involved, the very
suggestion that somehow light needs a special carrier
is an affront to every great physicist who lived in the
20th century.

This isn't about Einstein or relativity, it is the life
work of hundreds of thousands of physicists that is being
demeaned or dismissed.

I think it is good to have a many sided discussion
here, but it seems like the ethernuts are just coming out
of the woodwork, and it must be the ravings by the few
certifiable kooks that is instilling bravery.

I haven't seen a single post that proffers any
attribbutes that this wonderful ether is supposed to
have. And the reason is, there can't be any attributes
that enable long range gravity.

If the MM and Miller experiments did not expect
to find any relationship to any aspect of gravity, then
they were in vain, because General Relativity has
obviously eclipsed them.

Even if gravity is not a "field", which it really
can't possibly be, then a totally different type of
model is needed, mediums will not be able to
enable gravity.

Several people have tried to pass off studies
of the MM and M experimenrs as advanced physics,
but there is just nothing there. In fact the very
reason to do the experiments was to see if there
was anything there to study, and apparerently all
the data in the world is not going to change the
opinion of people who simply don't need ether.

The aether is from the Earth, Fire, Water, and
Aether days, and at that time the Earth was considered
to be fixed in space and completely Euclidean.

Face it, things have changed, the electromagnetic
spectrum is probably the best studied branch of physics,
and the most complete and accurate.

I really believe that before any time is wasted looking
at data, a new specification of just what this ether is
supposed to be and just what it is supposed to do.

Without that, it is just all politics and opinion.

Joe Fischer
David Thomson
2005-12-12 04:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Fischer
I really believe that before any time is wasted looking
at data, a new specification of just what this ether is
supposed to be and just what it is supposed to do.
I haven't seen a single post that proffers any
attribbutes that this wonderful ether is supposed to
have. And the reason is, there can't be any attributes
that enable long range gravity.
I have posted links to my paper that quantifies the structure of the
Aether, shows its relationship to matter, and unifies all the forces
(including gravity).
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

It would be fine to point out the errors in this paper (not mere
opinions), but it is demeaning to ignore it. You talk about the many
scientists who are forced to accept Relativity theories today or face
professional censure, but what about those scientists who continually
find evidence of the Aether's existence and continually expouse its
many uses in physics?

I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
magnetic fields are. The theory further demonstrates that strong
charge, which mediates the strong force, is orthogonal to mass. Thus
the gravitational force is orthogonal to the strong force, which is why
Einstein was able to develop GR based upon gravity, when it should have
been based upon charge.

In Einstein's GR, the tensors are space-time curvature (whatever that
is) and mass/energy (whatever that is). In the Aether Physics Model
the tensors are the electrostatic charge of the Aether (electrostatic
charge is well-known) and the electromagnetic charge of matter (fully
quantified within the theory and understandable).

One of the most pressing problems for Einstein was finding the Unified
Force Theory, which he thought would be an important discovery for
physics. The Aether Physics Model I present has a mathematically
correct, very simple Unified Force Theory, complete with a full set of
force laws for each force. Modern physics cannot do this, but an
Aether theory can. This is significant.

I'm glad that Tom Roberts has gotten hold of the data. He seems
qualified to analyze it from a modern perspective. My feeling is that
all the old science needs to be continually proven with each new
student and subjected continually to rigorous critical analysis. I
look forward to his paper and being able to review his work in detail.
I would really like to understand why he sees the data as absolute
proof that Miller had a systematic error, while Maurice Allais was
absolutely certain there could not have been a systematic error.
Perhaps between the two perspectives we'll get a deeper understanding
of the true message of Miller's data.

I'm also glad to see James Demeo posting here. I have several of his
books and I have read his work over the past couple years. He has some
interesting perspectives that might help understand the data.

As for the Aether and its perfect inelasticity, that only applies to
its surface area. The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
changing shape without changing surface area. The Aether units have a
toroidal type of geometry so that the small radius can shrink while the
large radius grows, thus allowing a certain amount of "springiness,"
which manifests as the inseparable functions of permeability and
permittivity. String theory also predicts this type of behavior with
regard to strings. Also, the Aether units are capable of folding over
on to each other, which is what causes the phenomenon of pairing in
quantum and atomic bindings. Further, each quantum unit of Aether is a
rotating magnetic field and is capable of moving against adjacent
Aether units like perfect ball bearings (which is the reason objects
move so easily through space-time). So although the Aether is
perfectly inelastic with regard to its surface area, it is quite
flexible and moveable, like a perfect fluid and gas. In this way,
Aether acts as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously.

To address your concerns, the Aether is fully quantifiable and an
extremely useful tool for modern physics.

Dave
Joe Fischer
2005-12-12 05:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, one of neglected to include Mr. Demeo's text.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
I really believe that before any time is wasted looking
at data, a new specification of just what this ether is
supposed to be and just what it is supposed to do.
I haven't seen a single post that proffers any
attribbutes that this wonderful ether is supposed to
have. And the reason is, there can't be any attributes
that enable long range gravity.
I have posted links to my paper that quantifies the structure of the
Aether, shows its relationship to matter, and unifies all the forces
(including gravity).
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
And I told you I can't download pdf at the moment,
I think I need to remove and reinstall Internet explorer.
Can't you just create a download link by html?
Post by David Thomson
It would be fine to point out the errors in this paper (not mere
opinions),
I am not qualified to do that, but from what I saw posted
here, it would be difficult for me to tell errors from things beyond
my knowledge.
Post by David Thomson
but it is demeaning to ignore it.
In think it would be a favor to you if I don't comment,
I am extremely predjudiced toward a particular physical model.
Post by David Thomson
You talk about the many
scientists who are forced to accept Relativity theories today or face
professional censure,
No, I have never said that, I said they must avoid certain
things to avoid public ridicule.
Post by David Thomson
but what about those scientists who continually
find evidence of the Aether's existence and continually expouse its
many uses in physics?
I am not aware of any physicist that would give as
much time as Tom Roberts has, even if you payed him
the fees of an expert witness.
Post by David Thomson
I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
magnetic fields are.
I am not interested, but I am convinced you are
not only way over your head, but also treading where
there is no reason to go.
Post by David Thomson
The theory further demonstrates that strong
charge, which mediates the strong force, is orthogonal to mass.
I don't know what that means, isn't orthogonal a term
meaning a direction? I thought the strong force was from
within mass/matter.
Post by David Thomson
Thus
the gravitational force is orthogonal to the strong force, which is why
Einstein was able to develop GR based upon gravity, when it should have
been based upon charge.
Well, that is close to what I believe, I think if the strong
force were not quite as strong as it is thought to be, then
maybe gravity would result. But I may be thinking of something
else.
Post by David Thomson
In Einstein's GR, the tensors are space-time curvature (whatever that
is) and mass/energy (whatever that is). In the Aether Physics Model
the tensors are the electrostatic charge of the Aether (electrostatic
charge is well-known) and the electromagnetic charge of matter (fully
quantified within the theory and understandable).
That is all just meaningless words to me, while I have
a deep interest in gravity, I do not study current theory that much,
and I don't study aether at all.
Post by David Thomson
One of the most pressing problems for Einstein was finding the Unified
Force Theory, which he thought would be an important discovery for
physics.
Not unified force, it was unified field, simply meaning
a continuous entity rather than a discrete or quantity in steps,
like the photons of light or the defined bundles of energy of
quantum theory.

But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.
Post by David Thomson
The Aether Physics Model I present has a mathematically
correct, very simple Unified Force Theory, complete with a full set of
force laws for each force. Modern physics cannot do this, but an
Aether theory can. This is significant.
Then somebody who knows math shorthand will
be able to tell more than I can.
Post by David Thomson
I'm glad that Tom Roberts has gotten hold of the data. He seems
qualified to analyze it from a modern perspective.
I think so.
Post by David Thomson
My feeling is that
all the old science needs to be continually proven with each new
student and subjected continually to rigorous critical analysis.
There are some things that need improved or added to,
but I don't know if anything needs to be continually subjected
to analysis, unless just to give the undergraduate something
to do.
Post by David Thomson
I look forward to his paper and being able to review his work in detail.
I would really like to understand why he sees the data as absolute
proof that Miller had a systematic error, while Maurice Allais was
absolutely certain there could not have been a systematic error.
Perhaps between the two perspectives we'll get a deeper understanding
of the true message of Miller's data.
Maybe years of experience of accelerator work has
provided modern methods.
Post by David Thomson
I'm also glad to see James Demeo posting here. I have several of his
books and I have read his work over the past couple years. He has some
interesting perspectives that might help understand the data.
I think I saw somthing on the web I wanted to look at,
but if it is aether related, I will pass.
Post by David Thomson
As for the Aether and its perfect inelasticity, that only applies to
its surface area.
I don't see how there could be a surface for a medium.
Post by David Thomson
The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
changing shape without changing surface area.
Then they couldn't be inelastic then, could they?
Post by David Thomson
The Aether units have a
toroidal type of geometry so that the small radius can shrink while the
large radius grows, thus allowing a certain amount of "springiness,"
which manifests as the inseparable functions of permeability and
permittivity.
That is fine maybe for electromagnetism in vacuum,
but useless and meaningless for gravity.
Post by David Thomson
String theory also predicts this type of behavior with
regard to strings.
I have read string theory since the 1960s, and
found nothing worth remembering.
Post by David Thomson
Also, the Aether units are capable of folding over
on to each other, which is what causes the phenomenon of pairing in
quantum and atomic bindings. Further, each quantum unit of Aether is a
rotating magnetic field and is capable of moving against adjacent
Aether units like perfect ball bearings (which is the reason objects
move so easily through space-time). So although the Aether is
perfectly inelastic with regard to its surface area, it is quite
flexible and moveable, like a perfect fluid and gas. In this way,
Aether acts as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously.
Do all, be all, huh?
Post by David Thomson
To address your concerns, the Aether is fully quantifiable and an
extremely useful tool for modern physics.
Dave
A lot of people would have to be convinced for
anthing to come of it, and I don't know of any way to
even get very many scientists to even read about it.

I feel like you have invested time and money
that may never be recouped.

Without a physical experiment or so to demonstrate
something, there is no hope at all of convincing anybody.
Math won't do it, and words won't do it.

Is there some reason you haven't quoted the most
believable paragraphs from your paper in this forum?

Joe Fischer
David Thomson
2005-12-12 16:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Fischer
And I told you I can't download pdf at the moment,
I think I need to remove and reinstall Internet explorer.
Can't you just create a download link by html?
There is a .doc format at:
www.16pi2.com/files/A_New_Foundation_of_Physics.doc

If the link doesn't work, remove the underscores in the filename.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
It would be fine to point out the errors in this paper (not mere
opinions),
I am not qualified to do that, but from what I saw posted
here, it would be difficult for me to tell errors from things beyond
my knowledge.
I think that is true for a lot of us. I think that is the way human
intelligence has advanced over the years. People with strengths worked
with others with different strengths. Since Tom is particularly strong
in signal analysis and has access to some of Miller's data, we could
learn something from him when he has finished his paper. It doesn't
bother me that he has an anti-Aether view. Who knows, he might be
right!
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
but it is demeaning to ignore it.
In think it would be a favor to you if I don't comment,
I am extremely predjudiced toward a particular physical model.
That doesn't matter, I am not. I don't let the prejudices of others
get in the way from speaking my mind and staying focused on the topic.
You would actually be doing me a favor if you could find a true
weakness in the theory. I would love to bury this idea if it is no
good. The problem I am facing is that the math all works out perfect,
the theory is solidly based upon empirical data, and the theory
actually solves problems that other models cannot. I cannot let this
idea go until it has been thoroughly examined and either found to be
based on error or proven to be correct.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
You talk about the many
scientists who are forced to accept Relativity theories today or face
professional censure,
No, I have never said that, I said they must avoid certain
things to avoid public ridicule.
That is the same thing. Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule. Public
ridicule is essentially the same thing as censure since a ridiculed
scientist is not hired by anybody. It will be interesting to see if
the Maryland university professor looses his job over the Scientific
American article.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
but what about those scientists who continually
find evidence of the Aether's existence and continually expouse its
many uses in physics?
I am not aware of any physicist that would give as
much time as Tom Roberts has, even if you payed him
the fees of an expert witness.
What does that have to do with the question? The purpose of science is
not to advance a particular political view, but to discover the truth.
The truth appears to be that the Aether exists, is quantifiable, and
has uses in physics. Paying people like Robert Shankland and Tom
Roberts to focus only on cynical responses to a particular physics
theory just to keep Relativity propped up doesn't sound like a rational
response.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
magnetic fields are.
I am not interested, but I am convinced you are
not only way over your head, but also treading where
there is no reason to go.
Well, at least you admit to your prejudice, which is admirable. You
have a right to hold whatever thoughts you choose. As for me being
over my head, aren't we all when it comes to new discoveries? The
trick is to learn to reach new limits of understanding, not give up and
drown. I'm not ashamed of my humble education background or my lack of
professional experience. When I look at the communications skills of
the so-called professionals and experts on these newsgroups, I actually
feel quite good about myself.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The theory further demonstrates that strong
charge, which mediates the strong force, is orthogonal to mass.
I don't know what that means, isn't orthogonal a term
meaning a direction? I thought the strong force was from
within mass/matter.
Yes, orthogonal means from a different direction, but the direction
need not be limited to just the length dimensions. Imagine a stop sign
has being strictly two dimensional. The surface of the sign has
dimensions of length squared, but if you turn the sign 90 degrees, the
same sign appears to have a single dimension of length and appears as a
line. The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way.

Think of the surface of the sign as being charge squared, but when you
turn it 90 degrees you see the linear dimension of mass. This is how
mass is orthogonal to charge. Charge is actually a line of mass moving
a velocity through a quantum Aether unit. Charge exists as a line of
mass scanning an area.

As strange or different as this may sound at first, the concept is
fully quantified and modeled. In fact, it is precisely because mass
and charge are orthogonal to each other that subatomic particles can
appear as both a particle (mass) and wave (charge), depending upon how
you look at it. The fact that a subatomic particle is a line of mass
scanning an area in a quantum moment also explains why the position of
the subatomic particle appears to be a probability function, rather
than a discrete location when trying to pinpoint it in 4D space-time.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
Thus
the gravitational force is orthogonal to the strong force, which is why
Einstein was able to develop GR based upon gravity, when it should have
been based upon charge.
Well, that is close to what I believe, I think if the strong
force were not quite as strong as it is thought to be, then
maybe gravity would result. But I may be thinking of something
else.
It is a different concept in content, but similar in form. You do see
a relationship between the strong force and gravity, and that
relationship is quantified in the Aether Physics Model.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
In Einstein's GR, the tensors are space-time curvature (whatever that
is) and mass/energy (whatever that is). In the Aether Physics Model
the tensors are the electrostatic charge of the Aether (electrostatic
charge is well-known) and the electromagnetic charge of matter (fully
quantified within the theory and understandable).
That is all just meaningless words to me, while I have
a deep interest in gravity, I do not study current theory that much,
and I don't study aether at all.
It is meaningless to a lot of people who don't read General Relativity
theory. And I can't blame them. GR theory is presented in such a
loose and vague manner, with a new dictionary of terms, that few people
have the time in their graduate program to put up with it. PhD
physicists that I have talked to almost brag that their 8 years of
University physics education makes them qualified to state that they
don't understand it. Nevertheless, they know what they need to know to
pass the class and produce the numbers they are required to produce. I
don't claim to fully understand the logic of General Relativity theory
as it is presented, but I can follow the underlying physics and its
importance.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
One of the most pressing problems for Einstein was finding the Unified
Force Theory, which he thought would be an important discovery for
physics.
Not unified force, it was unified field, simply meaning
a continuous entity rather than a discrete or quantity in steps,
like the photons of light or the defined bundles of energy of
quantum theory.
It has been called many names; Grand Unified Theory, Unified Field
Theory, Unified Force Theory, and probably others. The forces are
spread out as fields, so a Unified Force Theory is also a Unified Field
Theory and it is Grand in the sense that it unifies all the known
forces. Fields are fields of force.
Post by Joe Fischer
But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.
At the quantum level, this is true. In each quantum unit of Aether,
geometry is a continuous entity. The space-time physicist work with,
however, is a fabric of Aether. In order to understand how the
geometry of the fabric works, we must understand the function of the
quantum unit from which the fabric is made. Space-time, as the space
and time we live in, is a complex structure, just as are the physical
objects we see existing in space-time. If we are to understand the
physics of space-time, we must first quantify its quantum state.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The Aether Physics Model I present has a mathematically
correct, very simple Unified Force Theory, complete with a full set of
force laws for each force. Modern physics cannot do this, but an
Aether theory can. This is significant.
Then somebody who knows math shorthand will
be able to tell more than I can.
It is interesting that you think I am in above my head, but you don't
think you can do simple algebra. This is not meant as a slight on your
character, because as I said, we all have different strengths. All
that is necessary is to replace the variables with the proper values
and dimensions and then do the simple algebra. If you take the time to
write the problem out on a piece of paper, you will be surprised at how
easy it is to do. All the variables are properly identified in the
paper and in the book.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
My feeling is that
all the old science needs to be continually proven with each new
student and subjected continually to rigorous critical analysis.
There are some things that need improved or added to,
but I don't know if anything needs to be continually subjected
to analysis, unless just to give the undergraduate something
to do.
It is important for the student to have instilled into him or her that
he or she is allowed to question authority. Nobody should ever be told
that they must accept an idea because it has already been proven to be
true. Making mistakes and experiencing failure during the learning
process instills appreciation for the successes that make science
useful.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
As for the Aether and its perfect inelasticity, that only applies to
its surface area.
I don't see how there could be a surface for a medium.
This is where the tools of geometry become useful. We can
mathematically determine the geometry of quantum Aether by observing
the structures of the subatomic particles that reside within it. We
can independently confirm this geometry by analyzing the force
constants.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
changing shape without changing surface area.
Then they couldn't be inelastic then, could they?
You are right, there are limits to the elasticity of the Aether. Even
though it appears near perfectly inelastic during our everyday
experiences on the surface of the Earth, there are several extreme
instances where the Aether can be stretched and compacted. Thus
gravity waves are possible, space-time can stretch, and matter can
implode into a black hole.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The Aether units have a
toroidal type of geometry so that the small radius can shrink while the
large radius grows, thus allowing a certain amount of "springiness,"
which manifests as the inseparable functions of permeability and
permittivity.
That is fine maybe for electromagnetism in vacuum,
but useless and meaningless for gravity.
Not true. Gravity is due to spin direction of the subatomic particles
within the Aether unit. Just as mass is orthogonal to charge, gravity
is orthogonal to electromagnetism, which is why gravity is such a weak
force. We will learn a lot about gravity by examining this quality of
the Aether and understanding the mechanics.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
String theory also predicts this type of behavior with
regard to strings.
I have read string theory since the 1960s, and
found nothing worth remembering.
I didn't think so, either, until I saw what the equations could do. It
seems at least some of the equations of string theory are directly
applicable to the Aether Physics Model. The equation structures share
certain similarities.
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
Also, the Aether units are capable of folding over
on to each other, which is what causes the phenomenon of pairing in
quantum and atomic bindings. Further, each quantum unit of Aether is a
rotating magnetic field and is capable of moving against adjacent
Aether units like perfect ball bearings (which is the reason objects
move so easily through space-time). So although the Aether is
perfectly inelastic with regard to its surface area, it is quite
flexible and moveable, like a perfect fluid and gas. In this way,
Aether acts as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously.
Do all, be all, huh?
It would have to in order to be the proper explanation for how the
Universe works, wouldn't it?
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
To address your concerns, the Aether is fully quantifiable and an
extremely useful tool for modern physics.
A lot of people would have to be convinced for
anthing to come of it, and I don't know of any way to
even get very many scientists to even read about it.
You are correct in that a tremendous amount of effort has been expended
in keeping the Aether out of physics by the Relativists. You are a
prime example of the fruits of their efforts. You are a part of their
system and speak as though you cannot break away from it or you will
fail. In fact, you seem to believe the whole system will fail if the
Aether is mentioned. Fear of failure or being expelled from the
community keeps many people from studying the Aether, today.

But like so many issues where outcasts invade the system and become the
norm (anti-slavery, freedom, children without marriage, the earth is
round, etc.), time is the medium of change, not scientists. Science
would be so much stronger if it would be perfectly elastic in its
reception of new ideas. We should build into our system of science a
process where anybody can present a new idea, regardless of how
ridiculous it is, and have the full privilege of failing under a fair
and truly scientific review.
Post by Joe Fischer
I feel like you have invested time and money
that may never be recouped.
That is a foregone conclusion. But it isn't about time or money, it is
about the pursuit of truth and the happiness that comes from doing your
own part in the greater scheme of things. I don't need fame or
fortune. A satisfied conscience will suffice.
Post by Joe Fischer
Without a physical experiment or so to demonstrate
something, there is no hope at all of convincing anybody.
Math won't do it, and words won't do it.
The truth is, I have the experiment, the math, and the data. I have it
all. The philosophy is merely the culmination of all of these things.
The Aether Physics Model did not exist until I performed an experiment
with high potential, high frequency coils, which clearly produced two
distinct manifestations of charges. The Aether Physics Model is the
unintended result of seeking to quantify these two observed
manifestations of charges. The experiments have been replicated by
several others using different types of apparatuses.
Post by Joe Fischer
Is there some reason you haven't quoted the most
believable paragraphs from your paper in this forum?
I have on many occasions. But the paper is not something that can be
reduced to a single paragraph, otherwise I would have saved a lot of
time and wrote only one paragraph. The theory is broad in its scope.
Not only does it unify the forces, quantifies matter, quantifies
space-time, and quantifies the two different types of charges, it also
reveals errors in our systems of units with regard to charge,
quantifies the neutron as a compound particle, corrects the Casimir
equations, corrects the neutron g-factor, and dozens of other important
important discoveries. In fact, the 27 pages white paper is a highly
condensed version of the book. The book explains many more
discoveries. This is no ordinary model I'm presenting. It is a
completely new foundation for physics; something that never existed
before. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in this theory, and
much more waiting to be discovered.

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-12 19:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule.
Nonsense. A glance at the preprint servers, or the table of contents of
Phys. Rev. D disproves your claim.

Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability. But there
are LOTS of papers discussing what physics would look like in other
domains (e.g. quantum gravity), and for the most part they don't look
like relativity at all.

Within its domain, relativity cannot be challenged on mere theoretical
grounds, or by the type of arguments around here ("I don't like it", "I
think it is wrong", "it doesn't make sense to me", "it has internal
inconsistencies but I am too incompetent to describe them" -- etc.). But
an _experiment_ that challenged or refuted relativity would most
definitely be publishable, as long as the paper and experiment exhibit
competence (attacks on relativity around here universally exhibit
INcompetence).

Do _NOT_ confuse this newsgroup with the physics community.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
David Thomson
2005-12-12 20:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule.
Nonsense. A glance at the preprint servers, or the table of contents of
Phys. Rev. D disproves your claim.
How so? Can you determine from reading those papers, which contradict
Relativity theories, that those scientists did not suffer for their
work? Where is your logic?

Already, when I mentioned the new Scientific American article that
questions Relativity theories, you and several others on this list
belittled the magazine solely on the information that the article
contradicts SR and supports the Aether. What more proof do you need
other than your own actions?
Post by Tom Roberts
Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability. But there
are LOTS of papers discussing what physics would look like in other
domains (e.g. quantum gravity), and for the most part they don't look
like relativity at all.
I don't see any papers about what quantum gravity would look like from
the Aether domain. I submitted a paper to New Journal of Physics and
it was rejected solely on the basis that it quantifies the Aether.
Your self-righteousness is easy for you to believe as long as
everything goes your own way.
Post by Tom Roberts
Within its domain, relativity cannot be challenged on mere theoretical
grounds,
No science can be challenged on mere theoretical grounds, or at least
it shouldn't be. But it has recently become official policy with
several science publications. They now have screening procedures that
deny papers simply on subject, even before the content is reviewed.
This was major news earlier this year, so I'm sure you are aware of it.
Post by Tom Roberts
or by the type of arguments around here ("I don't like it", "I
think it is wrong", "it doesn't make sense to me", "it has internal
inconsistencies but I am too incompetent to describe them" -- etc.). But
an _experiment_ that challenged or refuted relativity would most
definitely be publishable, as long as the paper and experiment exhibit
competence (attacks on relativity around here universally exhibit
INcompetence).
Like the attack on the Scientific American article, which was authored
by two competent university physics professors?
Post by Tom Roberts
Do _NOT_ confuse this newsgroup with the physics community.
Don't worry, I always keep that in mind.

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 05:37:47 UTC
Permalink
[to me]
Already, when I mentioned the new Scientific American article that
questions Relativity theories, you and several others on this list
belittled the magazine solely on the information that the article
contradicts SR and supports the Aether.
Go back and reread any articles you think I wrote about that. I have not
had time to get to a library and read the article, and have refrained
from commenting ON THE ARTICLE. It's quite possible I disagreed with
remarks someone else wrote, and that might be in that thread. But I have
not commented on the article itself, or the magazine.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Eric Gisse
2005-12-13 06:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule.
Nonsense. A glance at the preprint servers, or the table of contents of
Phys. Rev. D disproves your claim.
How so? Can you determine from reading those papers, which contradict
Relativity theories, that those scientists did not suffer for their
work? Where is your logic?
Already, when I mentioned the new Scientific American article that
questions Relativity theories, you and several others on this list
belittled the magazine solely on the information that the article
contradicts SR and supports the Aether. What more proof do you need
other than your own actions?
Here you go again.

The Scientific American article was full of what-ifs and mabeys about a
theory that does not exist. The allusions to the aether were not valid
due to the comparisons between light and sound.

I am tired of watching you desperately try to promote your own theory
in the face of all evidence and logic.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability. But there
are LOTS of papers discussing what physics would look like in other
domains (e.g. quantum gravity), and for the most part they don't look
like relativity at all.
I don't see any papers about what quantum gravity would look like from
the Aether domain. I submitted a paper to New Journal of Physics and
it was rejected solely on the basis that it quantifies the Aether.
Your self-righteousness is easy for you to believe as long as
everything goes your own way.
Hah.

Show us what the rejection letter said, exactly. I don't believe it was
just for that reason. You have nobody to keep your ego in check, as I
have said before.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Within its domain, relativity cannot be challenged on mere theoretical
grounds,
No science can be challenged on mere theoretical grounds, or at least
it shouldn't be. But it has recently become official policy with
several science publications. They now have screening procedures that
deny papers simply on subject, even before the content is reviewed.
This was major news earlier this year, so I'm sure you are aware of it.
Post by Tom Roberts
or by the type of arguments around here ("I don't like it", "I
think it is wrong", "it doesn't make sense to me", "it has internal
inconsistencies but I am too incompetent to describe them" -- etc.). But
an _experiment_ that challenged or refuted relativity would most
definitely be publishable, as long as the paper and experiment exhibit
competence (attacks on relativity around here universally exhibit
INcompetence).
Like the attack on the Scientific American article, which was authored
by two competent university physics professors?
It was a speculative article written for the lay person and not a
physicist and you expect people to take it seriously?
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Do _NOT_ confuse this newsgroup with the physics community.
Don't worry, I always keep that in mind.
Dave
David Thomson
2005-12-13 12:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
I am tired of watching you desperately try to promote your own theory
in the face of all evidence and logic.
Well, then read my paper and point out the math and data errors. Just
because I don't present a philosophy identical to what you choose to
believe does not mean my theory is wrong. Get down from your soap box
and do some real work.
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by David Thomson
I don't see any papers about what quantum gravity would look like from
the Aether domain. I submitted a paper to New Journal of Physics and
it was rejected solely on the basis that it quantifies the Aether.
Your self-righteousness is easy for you to believe as long as
everything goes your own way.
Hah.
Show us what the rejection letter said, exactly. I don't believe it was
just for that reason. You have nobody to keep your ego in check, as I
have said before.
The article submitted was:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

1 September 2005

Dear Dr Thomson

TITLE: A new foundation of physics
AUTHORS: Dr David W Thomson et al

Thank you for your submission to New Journal of Physics. However, we do
not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are
unable to consider your article further.

Thank you for considering New Journal of Physics.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Towell
Senior Publishing Administrator
New Journal of Physics
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by David Thomson
Like the attack on the Scientific American article, which was authored
by two competent university physics professors?
It was a speculative article written for the lay person and not a
physicist and you expect people to take it seriously?
I don't expect anything. I'm just pointing out that it was published
in the most widely circulated scientific publication and that it was
written by two university physics professors.

Dave
s***@nomail.com
2005-12-13 14:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Eric Gisse
Show us what the rejection letter said, exactly. I don't believe it was
just for that reason. You have nobody to keep your ego in check, as I
have said before.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
1 September 2005
Dear Dr Thomson
TITLE: A new foundation of physics
AUTHORS: Dr David W Thomson et al
Thank you for your submission to New Journal of Physics. However, we do
not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are
unable to consider your article further.
Thank you for considering New Journal of Physics.
Yours sincerely
And where does this letter say that your paper "was rejected solely
on the basis that it quantifies the Aether"?

Stephen
Eric Gisse
2005-12-13 22:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Eric Gisse
I am tired of watching you desperately try to promote your own theory
in the face of all evidence and logic.
Well, then read my paper and point out the math and data errors. Just
because I don't present a philosophy identical to what you choose to
believe does not mean my theory is wrong. Get down from your soap box
and do some real work.
Where to begin?

Protons are composite particles, as are everything in the periodic
table.

Neutrions are not dark matter.

Anti-neutrinos are affected by gravity in the same fasion as neutrinos.

Photons are also affected by gravity.

Energy is conserved in quantum theory, despite your protests to the
contrary.

Not all composite particles decay.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by David Thomson
I don't see any papers about what quantum gravity would look like from
the Aether domain. I submitted a paper to New Journal of Physics and
it was rejected solely on the basis that it quantifies the Aether.
Your self-righteousness is easy for you to believe as long as
everything goes your own way.
Hah.
Show us what the rejection letter said, exactly. I don't believe it was
just for that reason. You have nobody to keep your ego in check, as I
have said before.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
1 September 2005
Dear Dr Thomson
TITLE: A new foundation of physics
AUTHORS: Dr David W Thomson et al
Thank you for your submission to New Journal of Physics. However, we do
not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are
unable to consider your article further.
Thank you for considering New Journal of Physics.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Towell
Senior Publishing Administrator
New Journal of Physics
That is a boilerplate rejection. They did not say why it was rejected.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by David Thomson
Like the attack on the Scientific American article, which was authored
by two competent university physics professors?
It was a speculative article written for the lay person and not a
physicist and you expect people to take it seriously?
I don't expect anything. I'm just pointing out that it was published
in the most widely circulated scientific publication and that it was
written by two university physics professors.
Being a professor of physics does not mean they are correct.
Speculation is still speculation even if it has 2 random professors of
physics standing behind it.

Furthermore, Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal of
physics. I don't recall seeing any citations in that article to
peer-reviewd journals where the ideas are more fleshed out for those
who can actually understand them. I have no reason to take it
seriously, and neither should you.
Post by David Thomson
Dave
Jerry
2005-12-13 23:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
Being a professor of physics does not mean they are correct.
Speculation is still speculation even if it has 2 random professors of
physics standing behind it.
Furthermore, Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal of
physics. I don't recall seeing any citations in that article to
peer-reviewd journals where the ideas are more fleshed out for those
who can actually understand them. I have no reason to take it
seriously, and neither should you.
I really don't see what the big fuss is over the Sci Am article.
The authors merely suggest, as have many others, that GR
must be an emergent property arising from some deeper reality.
Their particular approach towards developing a more fundamental
basis for GR is to draw analogies from condensed matter physics.
Post by Eric Gisse
From what I can see, it is all reasonably mainstream speculation,
written for a popular audience. The only unfortunate aspect
of the article is their use of the "aether-word". Certainly they
do not mean by their use of this term anything resembling what
the crackpots on this newsgroup want this term to mean.

Jerry
FrediFizzx
2005-12-14 00:12:36 UTC
Permalink
"Jerry" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Eric Gisse wrote:
|
| > Being a professor of physics does not mean they are correct.
| > Speculation is still speculation even if it has 2 random professors
of
| > physics standing behind it.
| >
| > Furthermore, Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal of
| > physics. I don't recall seeing any citations in that article to
| > peer-reviewd journals where the ideas are more fleshed out for those
| > who can actually understand them. I have no reason to take it
| > seriously, and neither should you.
|
| I really don't see what the big fuss is over the Sci Am article.
| The authors merely suggest, as have many others, that GR
| must be an emergent property arising from some deeper reality.
| Their particular approach towards developing a more fundamental
| basis for GR is to draw analogies from condensed matter physics.
| >From what I can see, it is all reasonably mainstream speculation,
| written for a popular audience. The only unfortunate aspect
| of the article is their use of the "aether-word". Certainly they
| do not mean by their use of this term anything resembling what
| the crackpots on this newsgroup want this term to mean.

Yep. The authors' approach in the SciAm article is very similar to
Volovik's in "The Universe in a Helium Droplet". I think people on both
sides of the fence should read and study what Volovik has to say. There
are very good analogies pointing to the quantum "vacuum" as a
relativistic medium. Although a very unusual one.

FrediFizzx
Eric Gisse
2005-12-14 01:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
Post by Eric Gisse
Being a professor of physics does not mean they are correct.
Speculation is still speculation even if it has 2 random professors of
physics standing behind it.
Furthermore, Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal of
physics. I don't recall seeing any citations in that article to
peer-reviewd journals where the ideas are more fleshed out for those
who can actually understand them. I have no reason to take it
seriously, and neither should you.
I really don't see what the big fuss is over the Sci Am article.
The authors merely suggest, as have many others, that GR
must be an emergent property arising from some deeper reality.
Their particular approach towards developing a more fundamental
basis for GR is to draw analogies from condensed matter physics.
Post by Eric Gisse
From what I can see, it is all reasonably mainstream speculation,
written for a popular audience. The only unfortunate aspect
of the article is their use of the "aether-word". Certainly they
do not mean by their use of this term anything resembling what
the crackpots on this newsgroup want this term to mean.
I don't particularally care about the article. It is explicitly written
that the entire premise is based around a certain model of how things
might be under certain conditions. I tend not to concern myself about
popularizations unless they are severely mistaken, this is the type of
thing that got me interested in physics in the first place of course.

What I *DO* care about is David Thompson dragging it out every few days
as "proof" of his useless theory.
Post by Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
2005-12-14 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
I don't particularally care about the article. It is explicitly written
that the entire premise is based around a certain model of how things
might be under certain conditions. I tend not to concern myself about
popularizations unless they are severely mistaken, this is the type of
thing that got me interested in physics in the first place of course.
Yes, it's important to realize that their approach is only one of
several radically different strategies being explored for developing
a more fundamental theory of (ahem) everything, and at this point
it is impossible to say which approach has the greatest merit.

Personally, I prefer staying grounded in experiment rather than
theoretical speculation, since I don't have the math expertise to
follow advanced theoretical arguments.
Post by Eric Gisse
What I *DO* care about is David Thompson dragging it out every
few days as "proof" of his useless theory.
Who cares about DT's attacks of DTs? He doesn't even have any
entertainment value...

Jerry
Eric Gisse
2005-12-14 03:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry
Post by Eric Gisse
I don't particularally care about the article. It is explicitly written
that the entire premise is based around a certain model of how things
might be under certain conditions. I tend not to concern myself about
popularizations unless they are severely mistaken, this is the type of
thing that got me interested in physics in the first place of course.
Yes, it's important to realize that their approach is only one of
several radically different strategies being explored for developing
a more fundamental theory of (ahem) everything, and at this point
it is impossible to say which approach has the greatest merit.
Agreed, but all the approaches that focus on black holes interest me
just a little bit more for some reason.
Post by Jerry
Personally, I prefer staying grounded in experiment rather than
theoretical speculation, since I don't have the math expertise to
follow advanced theoretical arguments.
Neither do I. I only have enough to make *some* sense out of general
relativity. I don't have a shot with QFT because my understanding of
classical physics is weak. I may understand eigenvalues and
eigenfunctions, but that doesn't help when a QFT book starts talking
about Lagrangians, Hermitians, or Hamiltonians.

I think we need a good balance of *both*.

Without new theory, we don't know where to look.

It seems the only avenue left is as follows: HULK SMASH HARDER. I am
not dismissing particle physics out of hand, but I just don't think
there is anything especially elegant about hearing "we need more
power!".

But on the other hand, without more experimental data that makes us
scratch our heads [perhaps something new will come out of Uncle Al's
experiments, or subatomic particles will break in an unexpected way],
we do not have anything to motivate creating new theory instead of
seeking to develop the theories we have more deeply. On the other hand,
the wake that QM/QFT/GR makes always seems to have something cute
hidden within.

All we seem to have now is a fundamental incompatability between
General Relativity and QM/QFT [I am still unsure if it is fair to treat
all of quantum theory as one entity]. People are looking in every
direction for an answer, with varying degrees of optimism about the
progress being made.
Post by Jerry
Post by Eric Gisse
What I *DO* care about is David Thompson dragging it out every
few days as "proof" of his useless theory.
Who cares about DT's attacks of DTs? He doesn't even have any
entertainment value...
The signal to noise ratio is intolerable. The cranks need some kind of
opposing force.
Post by Jerry
Jerry
Joe Fischer
2005-12-12 19:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
And I told you I can't download pdf at the moment,
I think I need to remove and reinstall Internet explorer.
Can't you just create a download link by html?
www.16pi2.com/files/A_New_Foundation_of_Physics.doc
If the link doesn't work, remove the underscores in the filename.
Right, I knew that, your web site manager makes
too much available.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
In think it would be a favor to you if I don't comment,
I am extremely predjudiced toward a particular physical model.
That doesn't matter, I am not. I don't let the prejudices of others
get in the way from speaking my mind and staying focused on the topic.
What I meant was, I can't be both honest and kind.

My definition of "speaking in tongue" where physics
is concerned is "putting words that are not related in the
same sentence, and those words should not even be on
the same page".
Post by David Thomson
You would actually be doing me a favor if you could find a true
weakness in the theory.
I just stated why I don't. :-) Sorry.
Post by David Thomson
I would love to bury this idea if it is no good.
If you have to completely rewrite physics, it _is_
no good. From what little I saw, you propose changing
everything, even down to basic units and measurements.
Every American mechanic curses the metric system
because they all had to completely replace their tools,
even if there was a good reason to accept your ideas,
it would not be good.
Post by David Thomson
The problem I am facing is that the math all works out perfect,
the theory is solidly based upon empirical data, and the theory
actually solves problems that other models cannot. I cannot let this
idea go until it has been thoroughly examined and either found to be
based on error or proven to be correct.
Fine, but in my opinion, it is an error to even think
that there is any field or force other than what is well
studied in physics and chemistry.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
You talk about the many
scientists who are forced to accept Relativity theories today or face
professional censure,
No, I have never said that, I said they must avoid certain
things to avoid public ridicule.
That is the same thing. Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule. Public
ridicule is essentially the same thing as censure since a ridiculed
scientist is not hired by anybody. It will be interesting to see if
the Maryland university professor looses his job over the Scientific
American article.
He may already have tenure.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
but what about those scientists who continually
find evidence of the Aether's existence and continually expouse its
many uses in physics?
I am not aware of any physicist that would give as
much time as Tom Roberts has, even if you payed him
the fees of an expert witness.
What does that have to do with the question?
The idea of an aether is the problem, if you were
to use the word "empirical" in your book, it would almost
certainly be a falsehood in my opinion.
Post by David Thomson
The purpose of science is
not to advance a particular political view, but to discover the truth.
The truth appears to be that the Aether exists, is quantifiable, and
has uses in physics. Paying people like Robert Shankland and Tom
Roberts to focus only on cynical responses to a particular physics
theory just to keep Relativity propped up doesn't sound like a rational
response.
There are a million physicists that would give anything
to be able to make a major discovery.
But they would need experimental results that would
support their contentions.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
magnetic fields are.
That is what I mean by words that are not related.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
I am not interested, but I am convinced you are
not only way over your head, but also treading where
there is no reason to go.
Well, at least you admit to your prejudice, which is admirable. You
have a right to hold whatever thoughts you choose. As for me being
over my head, aren't we all when it comes to new discoveries? The
trick is to learn to reach new limits of understanding, not give up and
drown. I'm not ashamed of my humble education background or my lack of
professional experience. When I look at the communications skills of
the so-called professionals and experts on these newsgroups, I actually
feel quite good about myself.
What do you mean, there are only a couple of
regulars here that even have a BS.

The rest are BS, including me.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The theory further demonstrates that strong
charge, which mediates the strong force, is orthogonal to mass.
I don't know what that means, isn't orthogonal a term
meaning a direction? I thought the strong force was from
within mass/matter.
Yes, orthogonal means from a different direction, but the direction
need not be limited to just the length dimensions. Imagine a stop sign
has being strictly two dimensional. The surface of the sign has
dimensions of length squared, but if you turn the sign 90 degrees, the
same sign appears to have a single dimension of length and appears as a
line. The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way.
More words that don't fit in the same sentence?
Post by David Thomson
Think of the surface of the sign as being charge squared, but when you
turn it 90 degrees you see the linear dimension of mass. This is how
mass is orthogonal to charge. Charge is actually a line of mass moving
a velocity through a quantum Aether unit. Charge exists as a line of
mass scanning an area.
As strange or different as this may sound at first, the concept is
fully quantified and modeled. In fact, it is precisely because mass
and charge are orthogonal to each other that subatomic particles can
appear as both a particle (mass) and wave (charge), depending upon how
you look at it. The fact that a subatomic particle is a line of mass
scanning an area in a quantum moment also explains why the position of
the subatomic particle appears to be a probability function, rather
than a discrete location when trying to pinpoint it in 4D space-time.
Sorry, I am not even going to load MS Word to look at
your papers, and Wordpad would not load any of them.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Well, that is close to what I believe, I think if the strong
force were not quite as strong as it is thought to be, then
maybe gravity would result. But I may be thinking of something
else.
It is a different concept in content, but similar in form. You do see
a relationship between the strong force and gravity, and that
relationship is quantified in the Aether Physics Model.
I really haven't studied it that close, it may be the
weak or em, or even van de Waals.
But I don't believe in any forces or fields other than
what is in mainstream physics with gravity omitted.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
In Einstein's GR, the tensors are space-time curvature (whatever that
is) and mass/energy (whatever that is). In the Aether Physics Model
the tensors are the electrostatic charge of the Aether (electrostatic
charge is well-known) and the electromagnetic charge of matter (fully
quantified within the theory and understandable).
That is all just meaningless words to me, while I have
a deep interest in gravity, I do not study current theory that much,
and I don't study aether at all.
It is meaningless to a lot of people who don't read General Relativity
theory. And I can't blame them. GR theory is presented in such a
loose and vague manner, with a new dictionary of terms, that few people
have the time in their graduate program to put up with it. PhD
physicists that I have talked to almost brag that their 8 years of
University physics education makes them qualified to state that they
don't understand it. Nevertheless, they know what they need to know to
pass the class and produce the numbers they are required to produce. I
don't claim to fully understand the logic of General Relativity theory
as it is presented, but I can follow the underlying physics and its
importance.
I have been reading it since about 1953 when the
books that were removed from libraries in WWII were being
replaced, some with pages missing.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
One of the most pressing problems for Einstein was finding the Unified
Force Theory, which he thought would be an important discovery for
physics.
Not unified force, it was unified field, simply meaning
a continuous entity rather than a discrete or quantity in steps,
like the photons of light or the defined bundles of energy of
quantum theory.
It has been called many names; Grand Unified Theory, Unified Field
Theory, Unified Force Theory, and probably others. The forces are
spread out as fields, so a Unified Force Theory is also a Unified Field
Theory and it is Grand in the sense that it unifies all the known
forces. Fields are fields of force.
There are no forces acting at a distance, that is
the essence of General Relativity.
During the era that he lived, it was common to
think new forces or fields would be discovered, because
they had just implemented wireless radio by WWI, and
doctors had desktop x-ray machines with no shielding
at all, and received major injury from using them.
Gravity was still considered to be a force, only
Einstein wanted it it be a local force, as a part of a
unified field, which I assume must have meant just
gravity-electromagnetic field.

I think the field ideas have diminished, and
now it is geometry with no force acting for gravity
unless there is contact.
I have a different view of this than formally
educated people because I devised my own Principle
of Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
years before I ever heard GR was a gravity theory.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.
At the quantum level, this is true.
At the level is where everything is, there are no
extend fields except the electromagnetic spectrum,
and it is not a force spectrum, it is a heat energy
spectrum.
Post by David Thomson
In each quantum unit of Aether,
geometry is a continuous entity. The space-time physicist work with,
however, is a fabric of Aether. In order to understand how the
geometry of the fabric works, we must understand the function of the
quantum unit from which the fabric is made. Space-time, as the space
and time we live in, is a complex structure, just as are the physical
objects we see existing in space-time. If we are to understand the
physics of space-time, we must first quantify its quantum state.
Maybe Ken Seto would be a better person to discuss
this with, I don't know what a quantum state is.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The Aether Physics Model I present has a mathematically
correct, very simple Unified Force Theory, complete with a full set of
force laws for each force. Modern physics cannot do this, but an
Aether theory can. This is significant.
Then somebody who knows math shorthand will
be able to tell more than I can.
It is interesting that you think I am in above my head, but you don't
think you can do simple algebra.
I can do simple algebra, but I have never done anything
where I needed it or where it was useful.
Post by David Thomson
This is not meant as a slight on your
character, because as I said, we all have different strengths. All
that is necessary is to replace the variables with the proper values
and dimensions and then do the simple algebra. If you take the time to
write the problem out on a piece of paper, you will be surprised at how
easy it is to do. All the variables are properly identified in the
paper and in the book.
Sorry, I will not be able to, blame it on a complete
lack of interest in any theory where entities other than
physical objects can be observed and measured.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
My feeling is that
all the old science needs to be continually proven with each new
student and subjected continually to rigorous critical analysis.
There are some things that need improved or added to,
but I don't know if anything needs to be continually subjected
to analysis, unless just to give the undergraduate something
to do.
It is important for the student to have instilled into him or her that
he or she is allowed to question authority. Nobody should ever be told
that they must accept an idea because it has already been proven to be
true. Making mistakes and experiencing failure during the learning
process instills appreciation for the successes that make science
useful.
All I can suggest is don't order a second printing
until the first is sold out.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
As for the Aether and its perfect inelasticity, that only applies to
its surface area.
I don't see how there could be a surface for a medium.
This is where the tools of geometry become useful. We can
mathematically determine the geometry of quantum Aether by observing
the structures of the subatomic particles that reside within it. We
can independently confirm this geometry by analyzing the force
constants.
Well, Tom is your man then, he has lots of experience
with subatomic particles.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
changing shape without changing surface area.
Then they couldn't be inelastic then, could they?
You are right, there are limits to the elasticity of the Aether. Even
though it appears near perfectly inelastic during our everyday
experiences on the surface of the Earth, there are several extreme
instances where the Aether can be stretched and compacted. Thus
gravity waves are possible, space-time can stretch, and matter can
implode into a black hole.
Maybe in your book, not in mine.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
The Aether units have a
toroidal type of geometry so that the small radius can shrink while the
large radius grows, thus allowing a certain amount of "springiness,"
which manifests as the inseparable functions of permeability and
permittivity.
That is fine maybe for electromagnetism in vacuum,
but useless and meaningless for gravity.
Not true. Gravity is due to spin direction of the subatomic particles
within the Aether unit. Just as mass is orthogonal to charge, gravity
is orthogonal to electromagnetism, which is why gravity is such a weak
force. We will learn a lot about gravity by examining this quality of
the Aether and understanding the mechanics.
Gravity squeezes energy out of matter in stars,
gravity and inertia are essentially two aspects of the
same attribute of matter, without external forces or
fields, why would a medium be needed, there are
no forces without contact, that is mechanics, it is
not aether and it is not force fields.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
String theory also predicts this type of behavior with
regard to strings.
I have read string theory since the 1960s, and
found nothing worth remembering.
I didn't think so, either, until I saw what the equations could do. It
seems at least some of the equations of string theory are directly
applicable to the Aether Physics Model. The equation structures share
certain similarities.
Math is precise if applied properly, else it can
give any results wanted.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
Also, the Aether units are capable of folding over
on to each other, which is what causes the phenomenon of pairing in
quantum and atomic bindings. Further, each quantum unit of Aether is a
rotating magnetic field and is capable of moving against adjacent
Aether units like perfect ball bearings (which is the reason objects
move so easily through space-time). So although the Aether is
perfectly inelastic with regard to its surface area, it is quite
flexible and moveable, like a perfect fluid and gas. In this way,
Aether acts as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously.
Do all, be all, huh?
It would have to in order to be the proper explanation for how the
Universe works, wouldn't it?
No, most of current accepted theory is just fine,
I have nothing to offer outside gravity.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by David Thomson
To address your concerns, the Aether is fully quantifiable and an
extremely useful tool for modern physics.
A lot of people would have to be convinced for
anthing to come of it, and I don't know of any way to
even get very many scientists to even read about it.
You are correct in that a tremendous amount of effort has been
expended in keeping the Aether out of physics by the Relativists.
Nonsense, the smallest success in any experiment
would allow any supported premise to be big news.
Post by David Thomson
You are a prime example of the fruits of their efforts. You are
a part of their system and speak as though you cannot break
away from it or you will fail.
Now you are hallucinating, even the physics hobbiest
hobba calls me idiot, and Tom calls me insane, and you
think I am a stalwart of current thought?
Post by David Thomson
In fact, you seem to believe the whole system will fail if the
Aether is mentioned. Fear of failure or being expelled from the
community keeps many people from studying the Aether, today.
I think ether is flammable. :-) And it has a distinctive
odor, that is all I remember from the last time I saw it used.
Post by David Thomson
But like so many issues where outcasts invade the system and become the
norm (anti-slavery, freedom, children without marriage, the earth is
round, etc.), time is the medium of change, not scientists. Science
would be so much stronger if it would be perfectly elastic in its
reception of new ideas. We should build into our system of science a
process where anybody can present a new idea, regardless of how
ridiculous it is, and have the full privilege of failing under a fair
and truly scientific review.
Do the experiment, nothing else will help.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
I feel like you have invested time and money
that may never be recouped.
That is a foregone conclusion. But it isn't about time or money, it is
about the pursuit of truth and the happiness that comes from doing your
own part in the greater scheme of things. I don't need fame or
fortune. A satisfied conscience will suffice.
Then be just as satisfied with clearing the confusion
as you would with success.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Without a physical experiment or so to demonstrate
something, there is no hope at all of convincing anybody.
Math won't do it, and words won't do it.
The truth is, I have the experiment, the math, and the data. I have it
all.
Do you have a video of the experiment, the specifications
and the goal met, and is it repeatable? If so, you don't need
me or anybody else.
Post by David Thomson
The philosophy is merely the culmination of all of these things.
The Aether Physics Model did not exist until I performed an experiment
with high potential, high frequency coils, which clearly produced two
distinct manifestations of charges. The Aether Physics Model is the
unintended result of seeking to quantify these two observed
manifestations of charges. The experiments have been replicated by
several others using different types of apparatuses.
Convert the video to mpeg or wmv, and make it available
to document your work.
If that doesn't work, take up gardening as a hobby.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Joe Fischer
Is there some reason you haven't quoted the most
believable paragraphs from your paper in this forum?
I have on many occasions. But the paper is not something that can be
reduced to a single paragraph, otherwise I would have saved a lot of
time and wrote only one paragraph. The theory is broad in its scope.
Not only does it unify the forces, quantifies matter, quantifies
space-time, and quantifies the two different types of charges, it also
reveals errors in our systems of units with regard to charge,
quantifies the neutron as a compound particle, corrects the Casimir
equations, corrects the neutron g-factor, and dozens of other important
important discoveries. In fact, the 27 pages white paper is a highly
condensed version of the book. The book explains many more
discoveries. This is no ordinary model I'm presenting. It is a
completely new foundation for physics; something that never existed
before. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in this theory, and
much more waiting to be discovered.
Dave
And all I am looking for is a mechanism for gravity,
a mechanical one.

Joe Fischer
David Thomson
2005-12-13 12:58:25 UTC
Permalink
For the record, I do not have an "anti-Aether view".
I most definitely have an anti-STUPIDITY view, and around here that
correlates all too strongly with "anti-Aether".
If you had taken the time to comment on the equations and data I use in
my theory, I would find that easier to believe.
And I most definitely have a pro-experiment view, which is why I have
been looking into Miller's data -- his is an experiment that has been
ignored by the mainstream, and I was puzzled by that. At least now I
know both that it is justified, and why (and I hope to get a good
publication out of my investigations).
If Miller's data had been ignored by the mainstream, then the reason
couldn't be because they analyzed the data carefully, now could it?
Even if you are right, you would be rewriting history to say the
mainstream ignored it because of your insightful analysis 100 years
later.
And I also have a "let's use the best theories we have" view, and in
this context that means SR and GR, which is why I have studied them so much.
Hmmm! The best theories are the ones you have studied so much. This
comment presents a logical dilemma. How would you know in advance
which theories were best so that you could study the best one more than
the others? Your statement also assumes that the best theories have
already been discovered prior to your studying so that theories that
come afterward get no consideration.

You have just made a confession of prejudice.

What is so difficult about reading my theory to see if the math and
data are logically interpreted?

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 17:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
And I most definitely have a pro-experiment view, which is why I have
been looking into Miller's data -- his is an experiment that has been
ignored by the mainstream, and I was puzzled by that. At least now I
know both that it is justified, and why (and I hope to get a good
publication out of my investigations).
If Miller's data had been ignored by the mainstream, then the reason
couldn't be because they analyzed the data carefully, now could it?
The justification for ignoring Miller's experiment is that it has no
real signal. Historically it has been ignored because it is inconsistent
with other, better experiments; that is justification of a lower level.

[Cahill claims those others are _different_, not better; but
he cannot dismiss this better justification.]
Post by David Thomson
Even if you are right, you would be rewriting history to say the
mainstream ignored it because of your insightful analysis 100 years
later.
I'm not "rewriting history", I'm merely pointing out that from a modern
perspective Miller's experiment has no real signal. He could not know
that, of course. Nor could anyone before ~1970 or so; between then and
now apparently no _COMPETENT_ investigator was interested.

Let me be clear: my analysis is not ground breaking in any
way, and essentially anyone with a combination of physics
and DSP knowledge and experience would discover what I have
learned about his data.
Post by David Thomson
And I also have a "let's use the best theories we have" view, and in
this context that means SR and GR, which is why I have studied them so much.
Hmmm! The best theories are the ones you have studied so much.
Yes. This is not happenstance, this is _EDUCATION_.
Post by David Thomson
This
comment presents a logical dilemma. How would you know in advance
which theories were best so that you could study the best one more than
the others?
EDUCATION. There is an enormous physics community, and I can build on
the knowledge of others. You should try it.
Post by David Thomson
Your statement also assumes that the best theories have
already been discovered prior to your studying so that theories that
come afterward get no consideration.
"the best theories we have" means the best theories we know of TODAY. I
am not clairvoyant.

The way new theories evolve from speculation to acceptance is quirky --
c.f. Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.
Post by David Thomson
What is so difficult about reading my theory to see if the math and
data are logically interpreted?
Lack of time. Your posts around here indicate that your theory is
extremely unlikely to be useful or interesting. It's one thing to spend
a few minutes on a newsgroup, quite another to spend hours studying a paper.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 05:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
It doesn't
bother me that [Tom] has an anti-Aether view. Who knows, he might be
right!
For the record, I do not have an "anti-Aether view".

I most definitely have an anti-STUPIDITY view, and around here that
correlates all too strongly with "anti-Aether".

And I most definitely have a pro-experiment view, which is why I have
been looking into Miller's data -- his is an experiment that has been
ignored by the mainstream, and I was puzzled by that. At least now I
know both that it is justified, and why (and I hope to get a good
publication out of my investigations).

And I also have a "let's use the best theories we have" view, and in
this context that means SR and GR, which is why I have studied them so much.


Tom Roberts tjroberts2lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-12 19:28:34 UTC
Permalink
"David Thomson" <***@volantis.org> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]
Post by David Thomson
I'm also glad to see James Demeo posting here. I have several of his
books and I have read his work over the past couple years. He has some
interesting perspectives that might help understand the data.
You are glad to see James DeMeo posting here?
You mean the James Demeo who is responsible for the
following?

http://www.orgonelab.org/oracs.htm
| Where Can You Purchase Orgone Energy Blankets,
| Orgone Energy Accumulators, and Accumulator
| Construction Plans and Materials?
...
| Note: The Orgone Biophysical Research Lab makes no medical
| or health claims for the experimental orgone devices
| described below. This information is provided as a public
| service only. If you have a health problem or illness you
| are treating, consult your health-care professional.
...
| Makers of excellent, high-quality 3-ply and 5-ply human-
| sized orgone accumulators, complete with chest-board and a
| charger-shooter box (suitable for garden work or
| experiments) which doubles as a seat, and wheels for easy
| moving. Orgonics also makes orgone seed-chargers, blankets,
| vests, etc. Without question, this is the best source for
| orgone accumulators in the USA, made with excellent
| craftsmanship from the best-possible materials. Send them
| your postal mailing address to receive a free 4-page
| catalog. Telephone 707/ 769-0864, or email to:
| ***@aol.com.
...
| Information on other sources for well-made and legitimate
| orgone devices is welcomed and we will try to be as open and
| fair as is humanly possible. However, out of respect for
| Reich's difficult and important work, we will not post
| information on "orgone devices" of a questionable,
| exaggerated, and/or unproven nature.

Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-10 10:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@mind.net
Dear Tom Roberts,
http://www.orgonelab.org/oracs.htm

| Where Can You Purchase Orgone Energy Blankets,
| Orgone Energy Accumulators, and Accumulator
| Construction Plans and Materials?
|
| Note: The Orgone Biophysical Research Lab makes no medical
| or health claims for the experimental orgone devices
| described below. This information is provided as a public
| service only. If you have a health problem or illness you
| are treating, consult your health-care professional.
...
| Makers of excellent, high-quality 3-ply and 5-ply human-
| sized orgone accumulators, complete with chest-board and a
| charger-shooter box (suitable for garden work or
| experiments) which doubles as a seat, and wheels for easy
| moving. Orgonics also makes orgone seed-chargers, blankets,
| vests, etc. Without question, this is the best source for
| orgone accumulators in the USA, made with excellent
| craftsmanship from the best-possible materials. Send them
| your postal mailing address to receive a free 4-page
| catalog. Telephone 707/ 769-0864, or email to:
| ***@aol.com.
...
| Information on other sources for well-made and legitimate
| orgone devices is welcomed and we will try to be as open and
| fair as is humanly possible. However, out of respect for
| Reich's difficult and important work, we will not post
| information on "orgone devices" of a questionable,
| exaggerated, and/or unproven nature.

Dirk Vdm
Peter
2005-12-10 16:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
For plots such as Figure 1 of
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, the errorbars exceed the size of
the paper.
Not necessarily. The fluctuations that you would like to regard as
errors may be due to turbulence in the flow, which would be part of
the phenomenon we wish to measure.

The following paper shows that turbulence should be expected.

"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS22.pdf

Figure 1 on Page 15 illustrates the case for the sun.

"Velocity field v, with asymptotic flow V , expected from (31) showing
greatest turbulence effects along the direction parallel to V and
through the bulk of the sun S . Flow described by network of observers
co-moving with the sun. On and near the plane P , with normal V , we
have v in .V ¡ 0 . The direction of absolute motion V of the solar
system is such that P is very accurately the plane of the ecliptic."


Peter
Bill Hobba
2005-12-11 01:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Tom Roberts
For plots such as Figure 1 of
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, the errorbars exceed the size of
the paper.
Not necessarily. The fluctuations that you would like to regard as
errors may be due to turbulence in the flow, which would be part of
the phenomenon we wish to measure.
Mr. Cahill, not surprisingly, you are missing the point. The point is it is
consistent with no aether - not that their may be some other explanation
such as aether drag or whatever.

Bill
Post by Peter
The following paper shows that turbulence should be expected.
"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS22.pdf
Figure 1 on Page 15 illustrates the case for the sun.
"Velocity field v, with asymptotic flow V , expected from (31) showing
greatest turbulence effects along the direction parallel to V and
through the bulk of the sun S . Flow described by network of observers
co-moving with the sun. On and near the plane P , with normal V , we
have v in .V ¡ 0 . The direction of absolute motion V of the solar
system is such that P is very accurately the plane of the ecliptic."
Peter
Peter
2005-12-11 04:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Mr. Cahill, not surprisingly, you are missing the point.
If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations.
Post by Bill Hobba
The point is it is consistent with no aether not that their may be some other explanation
such as aether drag or whatever.
Sure, MM experiments consistently prove that there is no _Newtonian_
_aether_.

However Einstein said: "I did not ban the 'quantum ether'..."
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/interview.html

Since Cahill deals with quantum phenomena, any kind of 'ether' he gets
involved with would have to be a 'quantum ether'.

Quantum phenomena are deeper than relativity.

So it seems reasonable to me that SR and GRT will eventually be
replaced by a deeper quantum theory.

Perhaps that possibility was anticipated by Einstein, when he made the
comment quoted above.


Peter
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Peter
The following paper shows that turbulence should be expected.
"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS22.pdf
Figure 1 on Page 15 illustrates the case for the sun.
"Velocity field v, with asymptotic flow V , expected from (31) showing
greatest turbulence effects along the direction parallel to V and
through the bulk of the sun S . Flow described by network of observers
co-moving with the sun. On and near the plane P , with normal V , we
have v in .V ¡ 0 . The direction of absolute motion V of the solar
system is such that P is very accurately the plane of the ecliptic."
Peter
Bill Hobba
2005-12-11 06:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Bill Hobba
Mr. Cahill, not surprisingly, you are missing the point.
If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations.
Post by Bill Hobba
The point is it is consistent with no aether not that their may be some other explanation
such as aether drag or whatever.
Sure, MM experiments consistently prove that there is no _Newtonian_
_aether_.
I am not so sure of that or rather that depends on what you mean by
Newtonian aether. It is perfectly consistent with LET for example which
does have an aether. It goes without saying of course that to most people
LET has nowhere near the elegance or explanatory power of SR so most people
stick to SR. But LET is still a valid theory and we even have
generalizations of that make predictions at variance with GR:
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present alternate
scientific views - not your half truths and vague conjectures.
Post by Peter
However Einstein said: "I did not ban the 'quantum ether'..."
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/interview.html
And Einstein was the last word on QM I suppose? Of course our most complete
theory QFT contains SR and does not have an aether. But I had a quick scan
anyway. Typical discussion at a popularist level presented to support
conjectures designed to con the unwary - eg 'There is a wholeness in quantum
processes which we cannot explain.'. The axioms of QM explain it
completely. Those axioms simply look weird. To be specific Von Neumann
detailed the axioms of QM. The axiom that is of concern is wavefucntion
collapse. But many interpretations exist where that is no problem at all eg
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/histories1.html
Mr Cahill Victor Stenger has your type down cold:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/2005/quantum_quackery_vic.htm
'Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as
implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one
connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.
However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics
plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous,
holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum
mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being
consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal
behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to
be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the
commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time
or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. No
superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with
the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of
quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to
render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on
which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes
virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle
limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human
scale.'
Post by Peter
Since Cahill deals with quantum phenomena, any kind of 'ether' he gets
involved with would have to be a 'quantum ether'.
Quantum phenomena are deeper than relativity.
QM is neither deeper or more shallow than SR - each deal with different
things and are combined into QFT which is the most complete framework we
have and the basis of the most exactly verified theory ever - QED. .
Post by Peter
So it seems reasonable to me that SR and GRT will eventually be
replaced by a deeper quantum theory.
We already have one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
What physicists want is a theory without a cutoff
Post by Peter
Perhaps that possibility was anticipated by Einstein, when he made the
comment quoted above.
I doubt it since he had concerns about QM; believing it was incomplete.

Bill
Post by Peter
Peter
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Peter
The following paper shows that turbulence should be expected.
"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS22.pdf
Figure 1 on Page 15 illustrates the case for the sun.
"Velocity field v, with asymptotic flow V , expected from (31) showing
greatest turbulence effects along the direction parallel to V and
through the bulk of the sun S . Flow described by network of observers
co-moving with the sun. On and near the plane P , with normal V , we
have v in .V ¡ 0 . The direction of absolute motion V of the solar
system is such that P is very accurately the plane of the ecliptic."
Peter
Aetherist
2005-12-11 16:23:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:08:21 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <***@junk.com> wrote:

[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.

If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...

Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-11 20:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)

Dirk Vdm
b***@my-deja.com
2005-12-11 21:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself, or have you lost your memory and
forgotten Bill is a regular?

Bruce
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-11 21:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself, or have you lost your memory and
forgotten Bill is a regular?
Just having a little chat, if you don't mind :-)

Dirk Vdm
Joe Fischer
2005-12-11 22:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself, or have you lost your memory and
forgotten Bill is a regular?
Just having a little chat, if you don't mind :-)
Dirk Vdm
No problem, but did you mean "make wind" or
"break wind", I am assuming your first language is
Dutch and you don't know the correct terminology
for vapor venting.

Joe Fischer
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-11 22:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Fischer
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself, or have you lost your memory and
forgotten Bill is a regular?
Just having a little chat, if you don't mind :-)
Dirk Vdm
No problem, but did you mean "make wind" or
"break wind", I am assuming your first language is
Dutch and you don't know the correct terminology
for vapor venting.
I do know the terminology and I meant the former,
but I could indeed just have well have meant the latter.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Dirk Vdm
Aetherist
2005-12-11 22:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself, or have you lost your memory and
forgotten Bill is a regular?
Just having a little chat, if you don't mind :-)
No problem, but did you mean "make wind" or "break wind", I am
assuming your first language is Dutch and you don't know the
correct terminology for vapor venting.
This from a idiot that is total insane... At least Peter &
other don't go'round claiming that matter expands thus causing
gravity... Ha Ha Ha... FOOL! Pot calling the Kettle Black!

Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
2005-12-12 01:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
You write as if Bill is a newbe. A quick search shows he has been a
regular poster in this group since 2000. So do you think he is too
dumb to figure things out for himself,
When Dirk mentioned I replied I had already figured it out for myself. It
was just good to have Dirk confirm it - that's all. And he has shown
himself far more adept at figuring these things out than me - so his opinion
has more weight.
Post by b***@my-deja.com
or have you lost your memory and forgotten Bill is a regular?
Of course Dirk has'nt.

Bill
Post by b***@my-deja.com
Bruce
Aetherist
2005-12-11 22:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't
let them scare you off - they merely make wind. It's so
strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or
"Sue" ;-)
What one should notice Dinky is that you offered no proof of your
accusation... I think that if Cahill posted he would not be
afraid or ashamed of using his own name. Unlike Bozos like
Bilge, a.k.a. David Semons. Somehow it is there type that are
afraid & hide behind aliases...

Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-11 22:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't
let them scare you off - they merely make wind. It's so
strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or
"Sue" ;-)
What one should notice Dinky is that you offered no proof of your
accusation...
Accusation? What a silly idea :-)
You are paranoid in someone else's place.
Besides, I don't have to prove anything.
And actually, no one can never really prove that two posts
originated with the same person - even if the headers are
virtually identical.
Sometimes I can, but am not allowed to reveal the 'proof'.
Sometimes I can, but choose not to reveal the 'proof'.
Sometimes I can and do reveal the 'proof'.
Sometimes I can't prove and merely strongly suspect.
Sometimes I'm just teasing.
Post by Aetherist
I think that if Cahill posted he would not be
afraid or ashamed of using his own name. Unlike Bozos like
Bilge, a.k.a. David Semons. Somehow it is there type that are
afraid & hide behind aliases...
Trolls & cranks: 70% of population, 75% of them with alias.
Ordinary and sane: 30% of population, 5% of them with alias.
Just an estimate.
I guess they all have their reasons.

Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
2005-12-12 01:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I dislike -
posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the dishonesty of posting under
multiple aliases to not allow people to even killfile you and not owning up
to who you are when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why? My theory BTW is they crave attention and the attention of
people calling them fools or whatever is better than none. When I started
work many years ago I worked as a file clerk. We had this guy Chris Mullens
who was a bit simple. People would pick on him all the time. It was
disgusting. I spoke about it to him and advised he needs to report it. He
never did - because as he said - at least people are noticing him.

Thanks
Bill
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Vdm
Aetherist
2005-12-12 01:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I
dislike - posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the
dishonesty of posting under multiple aliases to not allow
people to even killfile you and not owning up to who you are
when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why?
Liar!!!

Peter said to you, quote:

"If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations."

Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
2005-12-12 04:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I
dislike - posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the
dishonesty of posting under multiple aliases to not allow
people to even killfile you and not owning up to who you are
when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why?
Liar!!!
"If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations."
Actually I didn't recall that. But please note the wording.

Enough said.
Bill
Post by Aetherist
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
2005-12-12 04:42:19 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Hobba" <***@junk.com> wrote in message news:K07nf.18018$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "Aetherist" <***@best.net> wrote in message
| news:***@4ax.com...
| > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:47:15 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <***@junk.com>
wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>"Dirk Van de moortel" <***@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| >>in message news:wz%mf.71652$***@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| >>>
| >>> "Aetherist" <***@best.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:***@4ax.com...
| >>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:08:21 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <***@junk.com>
| >>>> wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>> [Snip...]
| >>>>
| >>>> > BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
| >>>> > alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
| >>>> > conjectures.
| >>>>
| >>>> Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
| >>>> none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der
Mumble's
| >>>> accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
| >>>> you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
| >>>> that something is 'real'.
| >>>>
| >>>> If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
| >>>> proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
| >>>> I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
| >>>> prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
| >>>
| >>> See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
| >>> them scare you off - they merely make wind.
| >>
| >>Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big
mouth,
| >>I
| >>often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you
not
| >>know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make
errors that
| >>I
| >>later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at
least I
| >>am
| >>willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
| >>hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of
fun.
| >>
| >>> It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
| >>> imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue"
;-)
| >>>
| >>
| >> They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I
| >> dislike - posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the
| >> dishonesty of posting under multiple aliases to not allow
| >> people to even killfile you and not owning up to who you are
| >> when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
| >> I wonder why?
| >
| > Liar!!!
| >
| > Peter said to you, quote:
| >
| > "If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations."
|
| Actually I didn't recall that. But please note the wording.

Does that mean you *were* having hallucinations? LOL!

Sorry Bill, couldn't pass that one up.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Bill Hobba
2005-12-12 10:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrediFizzx
|
| >
| >>
| >>>
| >>>>
| >>>> [Snip...]
| >>>>
| >>>> > BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
| >>>> > alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
| >>>> > conjectures.
| >>>>
| >>>> Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
| >>>> none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der
Mumble's
| >>>> accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
| >>>> you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
| >>>> that something is 'real'.
| >>>>
| >>>> If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
| >>>> proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
| >>>> I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
| >>>> prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
| >>>
| >>> See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
| >>> them scare you off - they merely make wind.
| >>
| >>Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big
mouth,
| >>I
| >>often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you
not
| >>know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make
errors that
| >>I
| >>later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at
least I
| >>am
| >>willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
| >>hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of
fun.
| >>
| >>> It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
| >>> imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue"
;-)
| >>>
| >>
| >> They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I
| >> dislike - posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the
| >> dishonesty of posting under multiple aliases to not allow
| >> people to even killfile you and not owning up to who you are
| >> when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
| >> I wonder why?
| >
| > Liar!!!
| >
| >
| > "If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations."
|
| Actually I didn't recall that. But please note the wording.
Does that mean you *were* having hallucinations? LOL!
Sorry Bill, couldn't pass that one up.
That's OK. I actually don't remember him saying that when I wrote what I
did - if I did may not have said it. But the wording is rather
interesting - it does not come out and say I am not Cahill does it? Dirk
however is usually correct about these things so lets just say experienced
people are suspicious. And yes I still think he is Cahill.

Thanks
Bill
Post by FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Peter
2005-12-12 16:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
But the wording is rather
interesting - it does not come out and say I am not Cahill does it?
Well, I thought you and Dirk were joking so tried to reply in kind.

But no, I am not Reg Cahill, although I do live in Adelaide about 10k
from where he works.

By the way, thanks for your detailed response to my last post. I will
check out the links when I get back from my trip.


Peter
Aetherist
2005-12-12 13:22:12 UTC
Permalink
|
[Snip...]
|>> They are cowards - simple as that. It is not using an alias I
|>> dislike - posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the
|>> dishonesty of posting under multiple aliases to not allow
|>> people to even killfile you and not owning up to who you are
|>> when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
|>> I wonder why?
|>
|> Liar!!!
|>
|>
|> "If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations."
|
| Actually I didn't recall that. But please note the wording.
Does that mean you *were* having hallucinations? LOL!
Sorry Bill, couldn't pass that one up.
and you shouldn't have Fred, he WAS havin' hallucinations.

There has not been one shred of objective evidence offered
to support, much less prove his & Dinky's derisive accusations.

'In context', the statement above is a very clear and
unambigious, since it was a reply to Hobba's statement,

"Mr. Cahill, not surprisingly, you are missing the point."

Denial as they say, is not just a river in Egypt. Sayin'
"But please note the wording" is simply a sleasy squirm after
being caught & called on an untruth. The logical thing for
him (or Dinky) to do was to ask Peter if he personally knows
Mr. Cahill. I might suspect that he does. However, that does
not make Peter, Cahill! Jumping to such conclusions based
upon hearsay and no evidence (in this case Dinky's unsupported
claim) does however give one insight into the mental discipline
decision making ability of such a person. Not very scientific,
eh?

Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-12 19:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind.
Why do they all jump up together and scream like gutted pigs
when we call them each other's names? Very strange indeed.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
Bizarre.
Maybe Savain was right after all:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
;-)
Post by Bill Hobba
It is not using an alias I dislike -
posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the dishonesty of posting under
multiple aliases to not allow people to even killfile you and not owning up
to who you are when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why? My theory BTW is they crave attention and the attention of
people calling them fools or whatever is better than none. When I started
work many years ago I worked as a file clerk. We had this guy Chris Mullens
who was a bit simple. People would pick on him all the time. It was
disgusting. I spoke about it to him and advised he needs to report it. He
never did - because as he said - at least people are noticing him.
Thanks
Bill
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
2005-12-13 00:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind.
Why do they all jump up together and scream like gutted pigs
when we call them each other's names? Very strange indeed.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
Bizarre.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
;-)
I think in part it is the argument itself they crave. And in all fairness I
have to say I possess this character flaw ie I am argumentative. Many who
know me have commented on it so it is probably true. The thing I find
difficult is I use discussions, arguments etc to gain a deeper appreciation
of the issues - the cranks around here don't. They never seem to change
their views. Since posting here I have changed mine on a number of issues
eg before posting I did not appreciate relativity is basically a theory
about space-time geometry.

BTW Peter has come out and denied he is Cahill. Usually they do not do that
when confronted so I will respect his wishes on this matter.

Thanks
Bill
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
It is not using an alias I dislike -
posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the dishonesty of posting under
multiple aliases to not allow people to even killfile you and not owning up
to who you are when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why? My theory BTW is they crave attention and the attention of
people calling them fools or whatever is better than none. When I started
work many years ago I worked as a file clerk. We had this guy Chris Mullens
who was a bit simple. People would pick on him all the time. It was
disgusting. I spoke about it to him and advised he needs to report it.
He
never did - because as he said - at least people are noticing him.
Thanks
Bill
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Koobee Wublee
2005-12-13 06:15:02 UTC
Permalink
What's this? Village idiots who pat on each other's back after claiming
seeing Elvis alive for the n'th time?

I notice the discussions with the following four village idiots are just
total waste of time:

** Drunk Turd moortel
** Bilger the Booger
** Billy 'Jimmy' Hoffa
** Eric Airhead Gizzard

Does anyone else notice the same thing?

- - -
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind.
Why do they all jump up together and scream like gutted pigs
when we call them each other's names? Very strange indeed.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
Bizarre.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
;-)
I think in part it is the argument itself they crave. And in all fairness
I have to say I possess this character flaw ie I am argumentative. Many
who know me have commented on it so it is probably true. The thing I find
difficult is I use discussions, arguments etc to gain a deeper
appreciation of the issues - the cranks around here don't. They never
seem to change their views. Since posting here I have changed mine on a
number of issues eg before posting I did not appreciate relativity is
basically a theory about space-time geometry.
BTW Peter has come out and denied he is Cahill. Usually they do not do
that when confronted so I will respect his wishes on this matter.
Thanks
Bill
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
It is not using an alias I dislike -
posters I respect like Bilge do that - it is the dishonesty of posting under
multiple aliases to not allow people to even killfile you and not owning up
to who you are when you are outed. Note Peter never denied he was Cahill -
I wonder why? My theory BTW is they crave attention and the attention of
people calling them fools or whatever is better than none. When I started
work many years ago I worked as a file clerk. We had this guy Chris Mullens
who was a bit simple. People would pick on him all the time. It was
disgusting. I spoke about it to him and advised he needs to report it.
He
never did - because as he said - at least people are noticing him.
Thanks
Bill
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-13 23:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big mouth, I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least I am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind.
Why do they all jump up together and scream like gutted pigs
when we call them each other's names? Very strange indeed.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
Bizarre.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
;-)
I think in part it is the argument itself they crave. And in all fairness I
have to say I possess this character flaw ie I am argumentative. Many who
know me have commented on it so it is probably true. The thing I find
difficult is I use discussions, arguments etc to gain a deeper appreciation
of the issues - the cranks around here don't. They never seem to change
their views. Since posting here I have changed mine on a number of issues
eg before posting I did not appreciate relativity is basically a theory
about space-time geometry.
Of course.
And i.m.o. the nicest thing about it, is that it attracts so many
daft people ;-)
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Peter has come out and denied he is Cahill. Usually they do not do that
when confronted so I will respect his wishes on this matter.
Hm... I don't believe him.
Just look at everything he ever posted here.

Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
2005-12-14 08:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Aetherist
[Snip...]
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Mr Cahill the above is an example of the way to present
alternate scientific views - not your half truths and vague
conjectures.
Present your proof the Peter is Cahill Hobba! I think you have
none. I suspect you have blindly accepted Dinky Van Der Mumble's
accusation without any evidence. This is quite typical of
you and demonstrated what, for you, is needed to convince you of
that something is 'real'.
If YOU! cannot show objective evidence sufficent to consitute
proof that Peter is Cahill, you now owe him an apology. In fact
I think that, at that juncture Peter would have a case for
prosecuting you for libel... Same goes for Dinky...
See, Bill, these ether cranks really stick together, but don't let
them scare you off - they merely make wind.
Nothing around here scares me off Dirk. In fact, by opening my big
mouth,
I
often confirm the adage one can keep silent and let others think you not
know something or you can open it and confirm it. I often make errors that I
later live to regret and generally apologiese when I do. But at least
I
am
willing to post under my own name and suffer the consequences - and,
hopefully, I learn a thing or two along the way and have a bit of fun.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
It's so strange though... somehow they prefer to be called idiots,
imbeciles, morons, whatevers, rather than "Reg Cahill" or "Sue" ;-)
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind.
Why do they all jump up together and scream like gutted pigs
when we call them each other's names? Very strange indeed.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
Bizarre.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
;-)
I think in part it is the argument itself they crave. And in all fairness I
have to say I possess this character flaw ie I am argumentative. Many who
know me have commented on it so it is probably true. The thing I find
difficult is I use discussions, arguments etc to gain a deeper appreciation
of the issues - the cranks around here don't. They never seem to change
their views. Since posting here I have changed mine on a number of issues
eg before posting I did not appreciate relativity is basically a theory
about space-time geometry.
Of course.
And i.m.o. the nicest thing about it, is that it attracts so many
daft people ;-)
Yes and no. The fact I still post after so many years indicates I get
something from it - and some of them are rather amusing.. I just wish they
had not driven away people like John Baex and Steve Carlip who posted more
frequently years ago. Of course both those guys are ultra approachable and
any questions you have they will be more than happy to help with.
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Bill Hobba
BTW Peter has come out and denied he is Cahill. Usually they do not do that
when confronted so I will respect his wishes on this matter.
Hm... I don't believe him.
Just look at everything he ever posted here.
I am not saying I necessarily believe him. I am just saying, from my
perspective, it is probably counter productive arguing about it.

Thanks
Bill
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Vdm
Aetherist
2005-12-13 02:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind. Why do they all jump up
together and scream like gutted pigs when we call them each other's
names?
Oh, let's see,

- Arrogant disdain for & of others...
- Making accusations without evidence (use of MacCartism tactics)...
Very strange indeed.
For someone of your mentality, sure. You're just a petty insecure
jerk who gets his jollies from denigrating others. Rarely do you
ever contribute anything merit to these groups.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Because you have not 'exposed' anyone. You made an unsubstantiated
accusation. A classic MacCarthism tatic. I for one find such
behavior disgusting! I simply got fed up with the behavior. I
suspect you're happy, getting a emotional rise out of others
gives you pleasure.
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
You're pathetic. He missed the reply??? Funny, he answered it!

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6cf4132d5de4504e?dmode=source&hl=en

Your fact checking here is as through as your facts on your
other accusations! In other words, the facts in evidence say
you're dead WRONG! That is, where there is any facts IN evidence...

The facts say either Bill lied or has the memory of a sieve.
Take your pick...
Bizarre.
Bizarre is a word that applies to you, sure... You're just a
two-bit bully wana'be.

Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-13 23:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by Bill Hobba
They are cowards - simple as that.
Yes, but cowards of such a peculiar kind. Why do they all jump up
together and scream like gutted pigs when we call them each other's
names?
Oh, let's see,
- Arrogant disdain for & of others...
Rest assured - I'm very selective with my disdain.
I reserve it for dogshit.
Post by Aetherist
- Making accusations without evidence (use of MacCartism tactics)...
Very strange indeed.
For someone of your mentality, sure. You're just a petty insecure
jerk who gets his jollies from denigrating others. Rarely do you
ever contribute anything merit to these groups.
Why does Stowe jump in when we expose a retired Australian?
Because you have not 'exposed' anyone. You made an unsubstantiated
accusation.
Calling a Peter a Cahill?
Accusation? What a silly idea.
I told you, you are paranoid in someone else's place.
Very silly.
Post by Aetherist
A classic MacCarthism tatic.
Joseph?
Dennis?
Sue?
Post by Aetherist
I for one find such
behavior disgusting!
Yes, that figures, being the disgusting person you are.
Post by Aetherist
I simply got fed up with the behavior.
So don't read my messages. This is a free world.
Use the freedom to close your eyes. Don't be a masochist.
Post by Aetherist
I
suspect you're happy, getting a emotional rise out of others
gives you pleasure.
I find it interesting to see how Village Idiots behave.
Sometimes it's even pleasant, right.
Post by Aetherist
Why does he call you "Liar!" when it's obvious you missed some
of the replies?
You're pathetic. He missed the reply??? Funny, he answered it!
Perhaps *I* missed it.
Perhaps you think I read everything you and your Peter write.
Perhaps you think I'm interested in what turns you on.
I don't, so stop thinking that.
Post by Aetherist
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6cf4132d5de4504e?dmode=source&hl=en
Your fact checking here is as through as your facts on your
other accusations!
There you go again with your paranoia for others.
What a silly man you are.
Post by Aetherist
In other words, the facts in evidence say
you're dead WRONG! That is, where there is any facts IN evidence...
What I have seen is more than enough to call your "Peter"
a Cahill.
Post by Aetherist
The facts say either Bill lied or has the memory of a sieve.
Take your pick...
Bizarre.
Bizarre is a word that applies to you, sure... You're just a
two-bit bully wana'be.
You take all this much too personally.
And it isn't even about your miserable person to begin with.
Or do *you* happen to know something about your "Peter"
that we're not supposed to know?
Mountainman rings a bell...

Dirk Vdm
FrediFizzx
2005-12-11 06:24:08 UTC
Permalink
"Peter" <***@unknown.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:03:19 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <***@junk.com>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >Mr. Cahill, not surprisingly, you are missing the point.
| >
| If you think I am Reg Cahill you are having hallucinations.
| >
| >The point is it is consistent with no aether not that their may be
some other explanation
| >such as aether drag or whatever.
| >
|
| Sure, MM experiments consistently prove that there is no _Newtonian_
| _aether_.
|
| However Einstein said: "I did not ban the 'quantum ether'..."
| http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/interview.html
|
| Since Cahill deals with quantum phenomena, any kind of 'ether' he gets
| involved with would have to be a 'quantum ether'.

Oh... that is good since our theory which can be seen at the link in
the sig. depends on the quantum "vacuum" being a medium. Volovik thinks
so also which we agree with.

| Quantum phenomena are deeper than relativity.
|
| So it seems reasonable to me that SR and GRT will eventually be
| replaced by a deeper quantum theory.

Forget SR; it has already been replaced by GR. GR would probably not be
"replaced" but "enhanced" by a deeper cosmology understanding also in
addition to a better (deeper) understanding of QT. Super-GR is needed
to accomodate spinors at the very least. My personal take; c = 1 does
not hold over very short distances down where spacetime is being defined
by the quantum "vacuum". Point-like quantum objects become strings then
cloud-like "fields" due to super-luminality. From our macroscopic
perspective, they really are in more than one place at the same time.
Yep, quantum phenomena are deeper but they also produce relativity
macroscopically.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Tom Roberts
2005-12-11 05:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Tom Roberts
For plots such as Figure 1 of
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, the errorbars exceed the size of
the paper.
Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily, because that plot assumed the "signal" has period 1/2
turn -- that was ESSENTIAL in the analysis. Given that assumption, a
simple comparison of the first 1/2 turn and the second 1/2 turn for each
of 20 full turns yields 160 differences that MUST be equal for any real
signal, so their RMS differences give a statistical estimate of the
errorbars. Those errorbars are, as I said, larger than the size of the
paper.
Post by Peter
The fluctuations that you would like to regard as
errors may be due to turbulence in the flow, which would be part of
the phenomenon we wish to measure.
If your "turbulence" destroys the periodicity of the signal, then
Miller's analysis technique is completely invalid, because it depends on
that periodicity in an essential and fundamental way. Of course if the
periodicity is destroyed then a Michelson interferometer could not hope
to observe any real signal.

If your "turbulence" preserves that periodicity, my remarks remain valid.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Peter
2005-12-10 16:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
For plots such as Figure 1 of
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, the errorbars exceed the size of
the paper.
Not necessarily. The fluctuations that you would like to regard as
errors may be due to turbulence in the flow, which would be part of
the phenomenon we wish to measure.

The following paper shows that turbulence should be expected.

"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam
In-Flow Theory of Gravity"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS22.pdf

Figure 1 on Page 15 illustrates the case for the sun.

"Velocity field v, with asymptotic flow V , expected from (31) showing
greatest turbulence effects along the direction parallel to V and
through the bulk of the sun S . Flow described by network of observers
co-moving with the sun. On and near the plane P , with normal V , we
have v in .V ¡ 0 . The direction of absolute motion V of the solar
system is such that P is very accurately the plane of the ecliptic."


Peter
Ken S. Tucker
2005-12-09 19:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
If the MMX was not null, these detectors would noticeably drift,
and the members among hundreds who reported that would
certainly be eligable for an award.
Tell the difference between a researcher and antique dealer?
Ken
Post by d***@mind.net
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Dear Tom Roberts,
Since I am the fellow who did the archive work which brought Miller's
Mt. Wilson data sheets to the light of day, stimulating a search at the
Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University where they were
finally located after being submerged for decades, and since I did so
much of the preliminary work rehabilitating Miller, probably I could
spot flaws in your argument where others might not.
Firstly, you can review my papers on the Miller ether-drift subject
"Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look"
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
"A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether"
(from Galilean Electrodynamics)
http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf
I note you cite Miller's 1933 paper, but nothing else aside from the
hit-piece authored by Shankland et al. There are dozens of papers
which bear upon these issues, including the positive replication
undertaken by Michelson using Miller's methodology on Mt. WIlson (the
Michelson-Pease-Pearson experiment), and the work of Yuri Galaev, among
others. Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to
dismiss your arguments, and retain clarity about Miller's work.
You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.
Those Cleveland experiments undertaken by Miller prior to Mt. Wilson
often were calibration tests, or experiments to evaluate different
materials for the base and composition of the interferometer, under
different thermal environments, and so on. It seems probable, the data
set you analyzed was another of those calibration tests. Again, the
graphs appearing in Millers 1933 paper were composed from his Mt.
Wilson experiments of 1925 and 1926, not from any data from Cleveland
in August 1927. Perhaps you can give a citation as to where you noted
some kind of graphs for the August 1927 data? I cannot recall any such
publication of Miller's post-Mt.Wilson data. After Mt. Wilson, he was
finished with the problem, felt he had nailed it down. Is it possible,
you have data sets from some of his students? I merely ask, because
there is no relevance to the data you undertook to re-analyze.
Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.
The Cleveland experiments, pre-Mt.Wilson or post-Mt.Wilson, are not
significant for the question of ether-drift on a number of counts.
Firstly, as mentioned, they were mostly calibration experiments -- can
you cite a publication somewhere which reports on those post-Mt.Wilson
experiments in Cleveland? Are you sure you do not have, by some
accident, the data sheets from 1927 of Michelson-Pease-Pearson? ( If
so, I'd like to get a copy of them!) I would ask, where did you get
your set of Miller data sheets? The only ones I know about include the
full sets from Mt. Wilson, so it seems strange to me that you'd get
only the 1927 data sheets, but not the others from 1925 and 1926 -- I
searched both the Miller and Shankland Archives, plus materials from
Einstein's archives in Jerusalem, and found only one or two of his data
sheets. An unpublished interview with Shankland suggested he
(Shankland) had burned them. With that alarming possibility, I pushed
one of the Case Physics professors to undertake a search in some old
rooms where Miller's stuff had been stored for years, collecting dust
-- and he found them, turning them over to the Case Archive
department. I had copies made of the full data sets -- over 1000
pages. So how did you get possession of only the 1927 data?
"More than half of [my 200,000] readings were made in the Mount Wilson
observations of 1925 and 1926. ... 12,800 single measures of the
velocity of ether-drift and 25,600 single determinations of the apex of
this motion."
These were in April, August and September of 1925, and February of
1926. NOT in August of 1927.
There is a reason why the Mt. Wilson experiments yielded good positive
results, and nearly all other such experiments did not -- it is because
the altitude of the experiment above sea-level influences the result,
due to Earth-entrainment (slowing down) of the Ether. I discuss this
fully in my papers, and so won't repeat it here. The original
Michelson-Morely experiment, the Morley-Miller experiments and the
Miller experiments outside of Mt. Wilson were all performed in
low-altitude Cleveland, often inside the stone structure of the Case
Physics building. The MM experiment also took place in a basement
location, and Miller demonstrated that only by going to higher
altitudes and also removing all dense materials at the light-beam path
-- the metal or heavy wood covers as used by so many others -- would
the ether-drift show itself more easily. Miller did the high-altitude
experiments and got a postive result. Same with
Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and a few others. Galaev more recently
confirmed it. How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.
There is more which could be said, but it is late, and I'm sure you'll
have a reply to what's here already. I suggest firstly to review my
papers on the subject, so I won't necessarily be repeating myself.
Regards,
James DeMeo
Tom Roberts
2005-12-09 21:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this. They specifically suppress
signals with a period anywhere comparable to their rotation period (24
hours) because of geophysical effects that are millions/billions of
times larger than this.
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Tell the difference between a researcher and antique dealer?
First one must know the difference between guesses and knowledge or
understanding. Your guesses are not relevant.


That said, it is of course true that other comparable measurements with
resolutions millions of times better than Miller's have detected no
significant signal (e.g. Brillet and Hall, and repetitions). Ether
advocates each have their own favorite reason for ignoring this, none of
which seem relevant to me, or to most physicists....

My interest is that Miller's results were ignored for no good reason.
IMHO I have found a good and sufficient reason to ignore them....


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Ken S. Tucker
2005-12-09 22:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this.
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula, secretly passed
down by breast milk.
Post by Tom Roberts
They specifically suppress
signals with a period anywhere comparable to their rotation period (24
hours) because of geophysical effects that are millions/billions of
times larger than this.
Larger than what??? You certainly do not understand the
system and it's inter-relativity.
All of the interferometers are rotated 90 degrees in 6 hrs,
(relative to Mach) and all are inter-calibrated.
You constantly wear a hat 3 sizes larger than your head.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Tell the difference between a researcher and antique dealer?
First one must know the difference between guesses and knowledge or
understanding. Your guesses are not relevant.
That said, it is of course true that other comparable measurements with
resolutions millions of times better than Miller's have detected no
significant signal (e.g. Brillet and Hall, and repetitions). Ether
advocates each have their own favorite reason for ignoring this, none of
which seem relevant to me, or to most physicists....
My interest is that Miller's results were ignored for no good reason.
IMHO I have found a good and sufficient reason to ignore them....
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-09 23:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this.
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula, secretly passed
down by breast milk.
So we had John Androcles Parker,
James Reich DeMeo,
Koobee Australopithecus Wublee,
Ken T. Sucker,
and Harry Ether Harald.
So where's Dennis Sue McCarthy when you need him?
And where is Reg Peter Cahill?

Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-10 00:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this.
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula, secretly passed
down by breast milk.
So we had John Androcles Parker,
James Reich DeMeo,
Koobee Australopithecus Wublee,
Ken T. Sucker,
and Harry Ether Harald.
So where's Dennis Sue McCarthy when you need him?
Oops ... sorry.

Dirk Vdm
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
And where is Reg Peter Cahill?
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
2005-12-10 01:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this.
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula,
Anyone can go to http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ and learn for themselves.
That's your problem -- refusal to LEARN. <shrug>
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Tom Roberts
They specifically suppress
signals with a period anywhere comparable to their rotation period (24
hours) because of geophysical effects that are millions/billions of
times larger than this.
Larger than what???
The "signal" that Miller and his supporters claim to see in his data.
Post by Ken S. Tucker
All of the interferometers are rotated 90 degrees in 6 hrs,
Please go to the website given above (or the corresponding sites for any
of the others), and LOOK UP what their sensitivity is for a signal with
period 12 hours. Hint: that is a frequency of 10^-5 Hz.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Ken S. Tucker
2005-12-10 21:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
They all have no hope of measuring this.
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula,
Anyone can go to http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ and learn for themselves.
Ah yes, learn by web-site. Tom read about the intention
of the apparatus, but certainly hasn't studied it's additional
capabilities.
It's like this Tom, you get a pen and are told it's for
writing letter "A". Then I come along and agree and
suggest that pen can write letter "B", but since you
don't know how to write B, it can't be done in your
mind. Therefore NO logical argument can prevail
that would be sensible to you.
I do agree you do NOT NEED TO KNOW how to write
B, C, D...and so on.

Be Happy in Your Work.
Ken
David Thomson
2005-12-12 05:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Ah yes, only Tom has the secret formula, secretly passed
down by breast milk.
Post by Tom Roberts
They specifically suppress
signals with a period anywhere comparable to their rotation period (24
hours) because of geophysical effects that are millions/billions of
times larger than this.
Larger than what??? You certainly do not understand the
system and it's inter-relativity.
All of the interferometers are rotated 90 degrees in 6 hrs,
(relative to Mach) and all are inter-calibrated.
Best step back from this one. I just wrote to the team at VIRGO a few
days ago and their response was exactly what Tom said. The
interferometers are much too big to carefully control the temperature
of the light beam path and the tides of the Earth's crust are enormous
compared to the sensitivity needed to measure individual light fringes.
Also, as Tom pointed out, the equipment is designed to filter out any
variations in light speed. These large interferometers are trying to
detect gravitational waves under the assumption that light speed is
constant.

This, of course, leads us to the question of whether they ever will
since it seems they are filtering out the signals they are looking for.

I have found that gravitational waves can be detected simply by
watching solar x-ray flux. There seems to be a certain pattern of
spikes in x-ray flux when gravitational waves pass through the Sun.
With the new satellites and many stations following up on gamma ray
bursts, I am finding dozens of excellent data sets from which evidence
of gravitational waves can be determined. I have been discussing this
openly on another list and I believe there is a science team presently
working on this very topic.

But the point is that the large interferometers that are looking for
gravity waves are not capable of measuring an Aether drift due to their
design and physical limitations.

Dave
David Thomson
2005-12-13 13:09:38 UTC
Permalink
[about LIGO, VIRGO, et al]
Also, as Tom pointed out, the equipment is designed to filter out any
variations in light speed. These large interferometers are trying to
detect gravitational waves under the assumption that light speed is
constant.
This is not quite correct. The assumption is that the LOCAL speed of
light is constant (=c), but that the interferometers are large enough
that the non-locality will be measurable for a gravitational wave going
by. Simplifying a bit, what they actually measure is the difference in
the integrated path length between their endpoints for two paths: one is
spacelike and determined by their beam pipe, the other is null and is
determined by the light beams.
Thanks for the clarification. But if that is the case, the experiments
are doomed to failure if my theory is correct. In my theory, matter is
quantified as being encapsulated by space-time, not independent of
space-time as assumed by the Relativists. Thus any wave in the fabric
of space-time will also be a wave in the pipe and the medium of the
light. Space-time, the pipe, and the light will never move independent
of the other.
I have found that gravitational waves can be detected simply by
watching solar x-ray flux. There seems to be a certain pattern of
spikes in x-ray flux when gravitational waves pass through the Sun.
With the new satellites and many stations following up on gamma ray
bursts, I am finding dozens of excellent data sets from which evidence
of gravitational waves can be determined. I have been discussing this
openly on another list and I believe there is a science team presently
working on this very topic.
I suspect systematic errors will be intolerably large. But this would be
interesting if not....
The visual observations are extremely clear. It would be all to easy
for a team to mine the solar x-ray flux data and gamma ray burst data
for the past couple years and completely prove the existence of gravity
waves. The mechanism I propose is that the gravity wave not only
causes a ripple in space-time, but also in the dark matter that exists
outside of it. The sudden oscillation of dark matter essentially
bombards the Sun with neutrinos and causes a rapid concentration of
beta decays, thus the spike in solar activity.

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 05:04:13 UTC
Permalink
[about LIGO, VIRGO, et al]
Also, as Tom pointed out, the equipment is designed to filter out any
variations in light speed. These large interferometers are trying to
detect gravitational waves under the assumption that light speed is
constant.
This is not quite correct. The assumption is that the LOCAL speed of
light is constant (=c), but that the interferometers are large enough
that the non-locality will be measurable for a gravitational wave going
by. Simplifying a bit, what they actually measure is the difference in
the integrated path length between their endpoints for two paths: one is
spacelike and determined by their beam pipe, the other is null and is
determined by the light beams.
This, of course, leads us to the question of whether they ever will
since it seems they are filtering out the signals they are looking for.
Not at all! They are looking for signals with frequencies between ~30 Hz
and ~3000 Hz. that's FAR AWAY from the 10^-5 Hz of the earth's rotation,
and they can legitimately suppress the latter by a factor of ~10^12 and
still have an experiment. In fact, they MUST do so, because of
microseismic activity in the earth. Their sensitive frequency range is,
not surprisingly, the predicted frquency range for the largest emission
of gravitational waves from the spiral infall of two compact objects
with masses larger than a solar mass or so.
I have found that gravitational waves can be detected simply by
watching solar x-ray flux. There seems to be a certain pattern of
spikes in x-ray flux when gravitational waves pass through the Sun.
With the new satellites and many stations following up on gamma ray
bursts, I am finding dozens of excellent data sets from which evidence
of gravitational waves can be determined. I have been discussing this
openly on another list and I believe there is a science team presently
working on this very topic.
I suspect systematic errors will be intolerably large. But this would be
interesting if not....
But the point is that the large interferometers that are looking for
gravity waves are not capable of measuring an Aether drift due to their
design and physical limitations.
Yes. In the sense of "aether drift" as Miller meant.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Peter
2005-12-10 15:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
If the MMX was not null, these detectors would noticeably drift,
and the members among hundreds who reported that would
certainly be eligable for an award.
Not if the detectors operate in vacuum.

Michelson interferometers only reveal an anisotropy in the speed of
light if the light is travelling though a gas.

The following explains why.

From:
Analysis of Data from a Quantum Gravity Experiment
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS10.pdf

"Process physics gives a new account of how Michelson interferometers
operate when in gas mode. In particular they can detect absolute
motion through the quantum foam, as shown in the previous paper. Here
this new physics is applied to the extensive data from gas-mode
interferometer observations by Miller (1933). The speed of in-flow of
the quantum foam towards the Sun is determined from Miller's data to
be 47 +\- 6 km/s, compared to the theoretical value of 42 km/s. This
observed in-flow is a signature of a quantum gravity effect in the new
physics."

More at:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Tom Roberts
2005-12-10 17:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Michelson interferometers only reveal an anisotropy in the speed of
light if the light is travelling though a gas.
Not one that I have looked at has revealed a SIGNIFICANT anisotropy, gas
or vacuum. That's my point.
Post by Peter
The following explains why [...ref to Cahill]
It's good to make up theories and test them, as long as the testing is
QUANTITATIVE. Cahill ignores the errorbars on every one of the
experiments, and that invalidates his comparisons. His mode of
comparison had been generally acknowledged to be flawed for that past 40
years at least. He needs to do chi-squared fits to the data, using
REALISTIC errorbars for the data, and provide errorbars on the results.
Had he done so, it is QUITE CLEAR that any direction or speed will fit
Miller's data, and the MMX data.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
v***@bealenet.com
2005-12-10 18:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Tom Roberts wrote:

[...]
Post by Tom Roberts
It's good to make up theories and test them, as long as the testing is
QUANTITATIVE. Cahill ignores the errorbars on every one of the
experiments, and that invalidates his comparisons. His mode of
comparison had been generally acknowledged to be flawed for that past 40
years at least. He needs to do chi-squared fits to the data, using
REALISTIC errorbars for the data, and provide errorbars on the results.
Had he done so, it is QUITE CLEAR that any direction or speed will fit
Miller's data, and the MMX data.
In the thread entitled "What is the correct explanation of the Null
result of the MM Experiment," in post number 269, a number of more
recent experiments are outlined which do use realistic errorbars and
still show non-null results. Have you seen that post? A link to it is
below:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/bb2446073080477b/5bc0fca1359698e0?q=2005+MMX&rnum=5#5bc0fca1359698e0

Vern
Peter
2005-12-11 05:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
He needs to do chi-squared fits to the data, using
REALISTIC errorbars for the data, and provide errorbars on the results.
Had he done so, it is QUITE CLEAR that any direction or speed will fit
Miller's data, and the MMX data.
I appreciate that you are trying to protect us from pseudo-science.

However, if any direction or speed would fit Miller's data, then I
would expect the direction and speeds extracted from Miller's data for
different months of the year to vary randomly.

Yet this is not the case. The values were surprisingly consistent with
each other and Allais showed the correlation could not be due to
systematic errors.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm

To make things more interesting, Cahill found that using the
mathematical analysis he developed in 2002, six other experiments
yielded values for direction and speed that were consistent with the
values he extracted from Miller's data.

You could be correct, but in view of the fact that Cahill's inflow
theory of gravity predicts turbulence (on various scales) some of the
fluctuations in the data that you might interprete as evidence of
systematic errors, might be part of the phenomena that is being
measured.

In that case, your error bars would be too large.


Regards,
Peter
Tom Roberts
2005-12-11 17:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Tom Roberts
He needs to do chi-squared fits to the data, using
REALISTIC errorbars for the data, and provide errorbars on the results.
Had he done so, it is QUITE CLEAR that any direction or speed will fit
Miller's data, and the MMX data.
I appreciate that you are trying to protect us from pseudo-science.
Yes. A lot of people have become emotionaly attached to the dream that
Miller (and others) had a real, non-null result. Some have built
elaborate castles in the air based on that dream. That dream has no
foundation in fact, and they are not doing science. A lot of these
people are going to be embarrassed when my paper comes out.
Post by Peter
However, if any direction or speed would fit Miller's data, then I
would expect the direction and speeds extracted from Miller's data for
different months of the year to vary randomly.
When any direction and speed fit the data equally well, then the results
depend on the preconceptions of the person doing the "extraction". That
is not science.
Post by Peter
Yet this is not the case. The values were surprisingly consistent with
each other and Allais showed the correlation could not be due to
systematic errors.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
Allais did not include errorbars. Children can find faces in clouds; he
is just a bit more sophisticated. Without errorbars he has no
justification that what he found is SIGNIFICANT (in the technical,
statistical sense). My analysis of those errorbars shows definitively
that it is not significant.
Post by Peter
To make things more interesting, Cahill found that using the
mathematical analysis he developed in 2002, six other experiments
yielded values for direction and speed that were consistent with the
values he extracted from Miller's data.
Ditto. Not a single experiment he cites has errorbars. He, too, has no
justification that what he found is SIGNIFICANT (in the technical,
statistical sense).
Post by Peter
You could be correct, but in view of the fact that Cahill's inflow
theory of gravity predicts turbulence (on various scales) some of the
fluctuations in the data that you might interprete as evidence of
systematic errors, might be part of the phenomena that is being
measured.
I separate the 1/2-turn periodic signal from everything else. From the
symmetries of the instrument, any real signal of any type must be
periodic with a period of 1/2 turn. Everything else is what I call
systematic error, and it is sufficient to completely explain Miller's
data for the 52 runs I have. I have no good way to determine what
contributed to that systematic error. I don't think Cahill or you can do
so, either. Shankland et al argued it is due to temperature effects, and
that seems reasonable to me, but by no means definitive[#].

[#] simple estimates imply that if the steel changed temperature
by ~0.005 C, or if the air changed temperature by ~ 0.1 C,
fringe shifts comparable to what Miller observed would occur.
In his Fig 8, his thermometer readings changed by 0.1 to 0.2 C
during the run. Drifts as large as 1.5 degrees during a run
are not uncommon, but ~0.5 degree/run is more typical. There
appears to be at least a loose correlation between temperature
drift during a run and the size of the systematic error, but I
have not looked at this in any quantitative way (yet).


If I assume such "turbulence" is wholly responsible for the systematic
error, your statement amounts to the claim that FOR A GIVEN
INTERFEROMETER ORIENTATION the "real signal" varies by as much as 3
fringes per minute and as little as zero (<0.1 fringe). That's crazy.
Most likely there are temperature effects mixed in, and I doubt there is
any way to separate out that "turbulence"....
Post by Peter
In that case, your error bars would be too large.
The errorbars I was discussing are for MILLER'S ANALYSIS ALGORITHM. His
algorithm depends in an essential and fundamental way on 1/2-turn
peiodicity. If you argue against that periodicity then you cannot
discuss data obtained via his algorithm at all.

BTW my analysis depends on that periodicity, too. I have made no attempt
to estimate the errorbars because there is no signal to apply them to.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Ken S. Tucker
2005-12-10 22:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Today, going into operation, are the most sensitive interferometers
money and technology can buy to detect g-waves, in Europe, US
and Japan.
If the MMX was not null, these detectors would noticeably drift,
and the members among hundreds who reported that would
certainly be eligable for an award.
Not if the detectors operate in vacuum.
Michelson interferometers only reveal an anisotropy in the speed of
light if the light is travelling though a gas.
Well I studied your post and I'm concerned "ring laser
gyro" effects, or some tidal effect. The data has some
thing to with solar escape velocity not absolute motion.
Ken
Post by Peter
The following explains why.
Analysis of Data from a Quantum Gravity Experiment
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS10.pdf
"Process physics gives a new account of how Michelson interferometers
operate when in gas mode. In particular they can detect absolute
motion through the quantum foam, as shown in the previous paper. Here
this new physics is applied to the extensive data from gas-mode
interferometer observations by Miller (1933). The speed of in-flow of
the quantum foam towards the Sun is determined from Miller's data to
be 47 +\- 6 km/s, compared to the theoretical value of 42 km/s. This
observed in-flow is a signature of a quantum gravity effect in the new
physics."
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Harry
2005-12-09 13:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
In the 1920's and 30's Dayton Miller made an enormous number of
measurements using several versions of his Michelson interferometer. In
1933 he published a review article, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the
Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth" [1]. If valid, the
results of that paper would refute SR and GR. Since its publication, no
convincing refutation of that paper has been given, though Shankland et
al tried to do so [2]. Since then numerous people have proclaimed
Miller's data are correct, and have built castles in the air based on
that assumption.
This article explains why Miller, and modern advocates of his anomalous
result, are wrong: there is no real signal in his data at all; his data
and results are completely explained by a large systematic error that
masquerades as a "signal".
The full article is posted to the newsgroup sch.physics.relativity, and
all discussion will take place there.
Assuming you mean sci.physics.relativity : where is the full article? And do
you plan to submit it to a journal?

Harald
oriel36
2005-12-10 13:03:31 UTC
Permalink
To Tom

'Absolute motion of the Earth' highlights the failure of celestial
cataloguers rather than it highlights the failure of Newton.Although
the early 20th century concepts are filtered through Newtonian
assumptions,the actual error is a celestial bookeeping adjustment of
the worse kind and is strictly a matter among astronomers.

The pre- Copernican noon Equation of Time correction which adjusts the
natural day to the equable 24 hour day was adapted by the early
heliocentrists to the newly discovered principle of axial rotation at
15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total.It is one of the
most enjoyable and practical principles in all astronomy.

So,how does axial rotation to the fixed stars in 23 hours 56 min 04
sec stand in contrast to the core Equation of Time principles which
everyone here will use today and for the rest of their lives.

Here is where is all goes astray -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

To spare another generation of being caught up in a rigged argument
that actually originates with Newton rather than the relativistic
finepoints which retain the Newtonian error/misconduct may be the
defining productive nature of this era.
David Thomson
2005-12-11 17:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Tom, it looks like you may have a good argument, and I wish you the
best in presenting it to a refereed journal. Although I lack the
skills for constructing the theory you are working on, I do have enough
skill to understand the structure of MathCAD worksheets. If you can
produce the data onto an Excel worksheet and then systematically
analyze it on a MathCAD worksheet, complete with graphics for the FFTs,
then I would be able to follow your reasoning with more confidence.

I would rather see the worksheet itself, rather than spippets of
graphics. If the data is presented, and the math functions of a
respectable computerized math program are used, I can follow your
argument with full confidence.

Can you do this for us?

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-11 18:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
If you can
produce the data onto an Excel worksheet and then systematically
analyze it on a MathCAD worksheet, complete with graphics for the FFTs,
then I would be able to follow your reasoning with more confidence.
I do indeed have the data in an Excel workbook. But it is not mine to
publish. I will inquire about redistributing it. I do not have MathCAD
nor know how to use it.

Excel does not have the 320-point DFT that is needed, so I have exported
the spreadsheet data to .csv files, and use Java programs to analyze it
and gnuplot to plot it. I have extensive experience in digital signal
processing, and writing these programs is easy for me. At present I have
written fewer than 600 lines of Java, which to me is a very tiny program
(of course most of the work is done by libraries and gnuplot).
Post by David Thomson
I would rather see the worksheet itself, rather than spippets of
graphics. If the data is presented, and the math functions of a
respectable computerized math program are used, I can follow your
argument with full confidence.
Can you do this for us?
I probably won't do that until my paper is at least ready in preprint
form. I prefer to concentrate on writing the paper than in defending it
before it is available.

I posted the initial article here (plus notices in numerous other
forums) in order to see if anybody had any cogent comments on my
technique. So far the only significant comments are from DeMeo
indicating I should get data from Mt. Wilson; I'm working on that.

[Most of the other comments are of the form "Miller's results
agree with experiment XYZ, so they must be valid". Those
people forget that every XYZ had very large errorbars that
were not included in the "analysis" -- in such a case the
preconceptions of the analyst can and usually will be
imposed on the result, and foreknowledge of Miller's
result means this is not nearly as important as claimed.
And NONE of them are _significant_ (in the technical,
statistical sense of the word).]


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
David Thomson
2005-12-12 04:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
I do indeed have the data in an Excel workbook. But it is not mine to
publish. I will inquire about redistributing it. I do not have MathCAD
nor know how to use it.
Maybe if you could explain the exact functions you use, I might be able
to coax it out of MathCAD. For a project of this importance, I would
take the time to learn Fourier analysis (I have an instruction CDROM
from SPIE) and work with you (or someone else) until I get the scripts
right. MathCAD has an excellent forum where experts are always
available to help with these kinds of projects.
Post by Tom Roberts
Excel does not have the 320-point DFT that is needed,
I'm not sure what you mean here, but the version of MathCAD I have
supports up to 500 matrix variables. MathCAD can read the data
straight from the Excel file, too.
Post by Tom Roberts
I have extensive experience in digital signal
processing, and writing these programs is easy for me. At present I have
written fewer than 600 lines of Java, which to me is a very tiny program
(of course most of the work is done by libraries and gnuplot).
I have done extensive database programming in VB 3 (1993), but just as
I got the language mastered, they changed the format and I never had
the time to get used to the new format, since. With programs like
MathCAD, I have been able to get around the need for highly technical
skills, such as you have. As for the signal processing, I have
threatened myself to study it several times, but never had a good
practical reason to study it. If I could have an opportunity to work
with Dayton Miller's data, I would take the time to learn.
Post by Tom Roberts
I probably won't do that until my paper is at least ready in preprint
form. I prefer to concentrate on writing the paper than in defending it
before it is available.
I understand. I can wait.
Post by Tom Roberts
I posted the initial article here (plus notices in numerous other
forums) in order to see if anybody had any cogent comments on my
technique. So far the only significant comments are from DeMeo
indicating I should get data from Mt. Wilson; I'm working on that.
I can't offer constructive comments on technique, but I do have a
question about your comment on Maurice Allais' work. It is easy to say
that he was seeing "shapes in the clouds," but his work was peer
reviewed and published. He stated with absolute certainty that the
data was not offset by thermal anomalies. I understand your "error
bars" point, but he seemed to be aware of that, too. Can you be more
specific as to how Maurice Allais made the great error of "seeing
shapes in the clouds?" That is a very strong position for you to take
when his paper has already been reviewed and published. You will need
to address this.

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-12 05:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
I do indeed have the data in an Excel workbook. But it is not mine to
publish. I will inquire about redistributing it. I do not have MathCAD
nor know how to use it.
Maybe if you could explain the exact functions you use, I might be able
to coax it out of MathCAD.
About the only math function I use is a Digital Fourier Transform with
320 points. Excel only implements an FFT, which is limited to lengths of
a power of 2. I suspect MathCAD will be the same, but don't know.
Post by David Thomson
For a project of this importance,
In the overall scheme of physics, this is not important at all. This is
just clearing up a minor anomaly overlooked by most physicists. Of
course it will be devastating to those few who are emotionally invested
in Miller having a non-null result.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Excel does not have the 320-point DFT that is needed,
I'm not sure what you mean here,
A digital Fourier Transform (DFT) is necessaily a sum over an array of
samples of the signal. Miller took data in runs of 320 points (20 turns,
16 markers per turn). So to avoid discarding data, one needs a DFT
routine that can handle 320 points[#]. I didn't find one after a
5-minute search, so I wrote and debugged one in Java (took ~5 minutes to
write and ~20 minutes to test[@], IIRC; much easier than reading the
quirky .csv files exported from the Excel file).

[#] How quaint (:-)). Today of course one would naturally
pick 256 points as a unit.
Post by David Thomson
I do have a
question about your comment on Maurice Allais' work. It is easy to say
that he was seeing "shapes in the clouds," but his work was peer
reviewed and published. He stated with absolute certainty that the
data was not offset by thermal anomalies.
I have only the English translations from his website. In none of those
papers does he justify that claim, except to assert it. In particular,
he cites no errorbars or error analysis, he just marvels at the patterns
he claims are there.
Post by David Thomson
I understand your "error
bars" point, but he seemed to be aware of that, too.
Where? In which paper does he discuss errorbars? Is there an english
translation available?
Post by David Thomson
Can you be more
specific as to how Maurice Allais made the great error of "seeing
shapes in the clouds?" That is a very strong position for you to take
when his paper has already been reviewed and published. You will need
to address this.
AFAIK he just marvels that the glorious patterns he sees in the data,
without justification or error analysis. That is not science.

It was acceptable in Miller's day. But not today.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
David Thomson
2005-12-12 17:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
In the overall scheme of physics, this is not important at all. This is
just clearing up a minor anomaly overlooked by most physicists. Of
course it will be devastating to those few who are emotionally invested
in Miller having a non-null result.
I had meant of importance to me, of course. I think we are all aware
of how much importance the overall science community places upon the
Aether.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Excel does not have the 320-point DFT that is needed,
I'm not sure what you mean here,
A digital Fourier Transform (DFT) is necessaily a sum over an array of
samples of the signal. Miller took data in runs of 320 points (20 turns,
16 markers per turn). So to avoid discarding data, one needs a DFT
routine that can handle 320 points[#]. I didn't find one after a
5-minute search,
I don't seen anything on the Internet about Digital Fourier Transforms
at all. Would it be the same thing as Discrete Fourier Transform? I
think it does not as the element vector seems to be a power of two, as
you noted.

I'm beginning to appreciate the importance of being able to write your
own code. I also see that in future replications of Miller's work it
would be best to keep his 16 points around the circle but to take
either 16 or 32 repetitions of the data, rather than 20. Then again,
with modern data collection techniques, perhaps 32 or 64 points around
the circle would be better and 32 repetitions.

I have been thinking that instead of using a mercury tank, the table
could be floated on a cushion of air and rotated electromagnetically.
Wireless sensors could read the interference fringes and report them
directly to a computer. The climate can be carefully maintained and
monitored. The whole apparatus could be made portable so that readings
deep underground, at sea level, on mountains, and even in space could
be performed.

Understanding how the data will be processed obviously helps determine
the proper data collection procedure.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
I do have a
question about your comment on Maurice Allais' work. It is easy to say
that he was seeing "shapes in the clouds," but his work was peer
reviewed and published. He stated with absolute certainty that the
data was not offset by thermal anomalies.
I have only the English translations from his website. In none of those
papers does he justify that claim, except to assert it. In particular,
he cites no errorbars or error analysis, he just marvels at the patterns
he claims are there.
That's fair enough for our argument for now. But if he does have solid
data to base his claims on, you should address that in your paper. I
think it would be an excellent reference for you to include in your
bibliography and will give strong support to your paper.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
I understand your "error
bars" point, but he seemed to be aware of that, too.
Where? In which paper does he discuss errorbars? Is there an english
translation available?
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow06.htm

Section C.2.

Error bars are not discussed directly, but he seems to be aware of them
due to applying the method of least squares to the data. This seems to
be an important component of analysis he provided.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Can you be more
specific as to how Maurice Allais made the great error of "seeing
shapes in the clouds?" That is a very strong position for you to take
when his paper has already been reviewed and published. You will need
to address this.
AFAIK he just marvels that the glorious patterns he sees in the data,
without justification or error analysis. That is not science.
It would not be science to just marvel at the patterns, but neither is
it science to assume that he merely marvels at the pattern. You need
to find out why he marveled at the patterns, now, before someone later
comes along to embarass you. The bibliography contains numerous
references to papers he has written and published. He very well may
have discussed error analysis in one of those papers.
Post by Tom Roberts
It was acceptable in Miller's day. But not today.
It has never been acceptable to marvel at patterns within large margins
of errors. You underestimate the brilliance of the early scientists.
The only thing that remotely resembles your remark is that measuring
techniques were not nearly as accurate back then as they are today.
People may have been a bit more forgiving for less than precise data,
but they would not marvel at patterns of data that exceeded its margin
of error.

I'm trying to help you remove your passions from your work. Don't let
your emotional attachment for finding error in Miller's data overrule
your duty to objectivism. Believe it or not, I really want you to
succeed in proving Miller's experimental results to be useless as proof
of light's preferred direction. Obtaining a clear conclusion to this
discussion of Miller's work will make it easier to move on to other
things. I'm sick of not knowing whose work to believe.

Dave
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-12-12 19:34:20 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
It was acceptable in Miller's day. But not today.
It has never been acceptable to marvel at patterns within large margins
of errors. You underestimate the brilliance of the early scientists.
Actually Tom exposes the malicious and voluntary stupidity
of pseudo scientists of today.

Dirk Vdm
Post by David Thomson
The only thing that remotely resembles your remark is that measuring
techniques were not nearly as accurate back then as they are today.
People may have been a bit more forgiving for less than precise data,
but they would not marvel at patterns of data that exceeded its margin
of error.
I'm trying to help you remove your passions from your work. Don't let
your emotional attachment for finding error in Miller's data overrule
your duty to objectivism. Believe it or not, I really want you to
succeed in proving Miller's experimental results to be useless as proof
of light's preferred direction. Obtaining a clear conclusion to this
discussion of Miller's work will make it easier to move on to other
things. I'm sick of not knowing whose work to believe.
Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 05:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
A digital Fourier Transform (DFT)
I don't seen anything on the Internet about Digital Fourier Transforms
at all. Would it be the same thing as Discrete Fourier Transform?
Yes. Definitely. I got the word corresponding to "D" wrong.
Post by David Thomson
I
think it does not as the element vector seems to be a power of two, as
you noted.
For a DFT, the length of the sample array can be any length > 2. For an
FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) the length must be a power of 2. The FFT is
exactly equivalent to a DFT, but it takes advantage of various
properties of sin, cos, and arithmetic to significantly reduce the
computations involved for larger lengths. Here the computational
efficiency is not needed, and the use of 320 points is needed.
Post by David Thomson
I'm beginning to appreciate the importance of being able to write your
own code. I also see that in future replications of Miller's work it
would be best to keep his 16 points around the circle but to take
either 16 or 32 repetitions of the data, rather than 20. Then again,
with modern data collection techniques, perhaps 32 or 64 points around
the circle would be better and 32 repetitions.
16 points around the circle is quite adequate. Remember the sampling
theorem (but the 4 points it requires are too few). But then, why take
data only at specific points, and in "runs" at all? Why not record
continuously? In fact, for heterodyned lasers (see below) that is most
appropriate.
Post by David Thomson
I have been thinking that instead of using a mercury tank, the table
could be floated on a cushion of air and rotated electromagnetically.
Wireless sensors could read the interference fringes and report them
directly to a computer. The climate can be carefully maintained and
monitored. The whole apparatus could be made portable so that readings
deep underground, at sea level, on mountains, and even in space could
be performed.
Make it small, <1 meter in diameter. Use a laser source and heterodyne
the signals, because that is literally millions of times more sensitive
than Miller's eyeball (or the TV camera you seem to be thinking of). Put
as many temperature readouts on it as you can afford; make the base out
of invar (designed for minimum coeff. ot thermal expansion). Enclose the
light paths with invar tubes, keep them isothermal (e.g. ice/water
bath), and if at all possible make it possible to put any gas or vacuum
into the two arms separately.

Obviously to do this right requires knowledge of a host of different
disciplines, both scientific and engineering.
Post by David Thomson
Understanding how the data will be processed obviously helps determine
the proper data collection procedure.
Yes. Definitely.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Tom Roberts
Where? In which paper does he discuss errorbars? Is there an english
translation available?
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow06.htm
Section C.2.
Error bars are not discussed directly, but he seems to be aware of them
due to applying the method of least squares to the data. This seems to
be an important component of analysis he provided.
I'll look at that.
Post by David Thomson
It has never been acceptable to marvel at patterns within large margins
of errors. You underestimate the brilliance of the early scientists.
Errorbars did not become common until well after 1933. The entire volume
Miller's 1933 paper appears in has not a single errorbar displayed in
ANY plot.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
David Thomson
2005-12-13 13:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
I don't seen anything on the Internet about Digital Fourier Transforms
at all. Would it be the same thing as Discrete Fourier Transform?
Yes. Definitely. I got the word corresponding to "D" wrong.
In this case, MathCAD will work quite well. There is a discrete
Fourier Transform where the number of data points can be set to any
value.
Post by Tom Roberts
For a DFT, the length of the sample array can be any length > 2. For an
FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) the length must be a power of 2.
Thanks for the clarification.
Post by Tom Roberts
But then, why take
data only at specific points, and in "runs" at all? Why not record
continuously? In fact, for heterodyned lasers (see below) that is most
appropriate.
Good point.
Post by Tom Roberts
Make it small, <1 meter in diameter. Use a laser source and heterodyne
the signals, because that is literally millions of times more sensitive
than Miller's eyeball (or the TV camera you seem to be thinking of).
I have an argon half watt laser.
Post by Tom Roberts
Put as many temperature readouts on it as you can afford;
I've got at least fifty temperature sensors and an HP 34970A DAQ unit
with several acquisition cards.
Post by Tom Roberts
make the base out
of invar (designed for minimum coeff. ot thermal expansion). Enclose the
light paths with invar tubes, keep them isothermal (e.g. ice/water
bath), and if at all possible make it possible to put any gas or vacuum
into the two arms separately.
I'll keep this in mind.
Post by Tom Roberts
Obviously to do this right requires knowledge of a host of different
disciplines, both scientific and engineering.
My neighbor is a retired Fermi Labs engineer whose job it was to design
and setup instrumentation for a super collider.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
Understanding how the data will be processed obviously helps determine
the proper data collection procedure.
Yes. Definitely.
Can you send a sample of Miller's data? How did he actually measure
the fringe shifts? How would the sensors detect the fringe shifts?
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
It has never been acceptable to marvel at patterns within large margins
of errors. You underestimate the brilliance of the early scientists.
Errorbars did not become common until well after 1933. The entire volume
Miller's 1933 paper appears in has not a single errorbar displayed in
ANY plot.
I believe you. But Miller still understood what a margin of error was,
even if he did not plot it on his graphs. And he certainly would have
known that someone else would know this.

Dave
Tom Roberts
2005-12-13 17:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
I have an argon half watt laser.
That's an eye burner. But it gives a simple way to avoid mode lock: you
can probably accept a 20-40 dB attenuator between laser and
interferometer (for a photodiode detector, you will probably need some
rather large loss). Feedback into the laser is naturally reduced by
twice that value. Using Faraday isolators as the attenuator would give
even larger reverse loss.
Post by David Thomson
Can you send a sample of Miller's data? How did he actually measure
the fringe shifts? How would the sensors detect the fringe shifts?
I attached a .csv file to a post last night, but I don't see it here.
Miller's 1933 paper has one data run of 20 turns in Figure 8.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Joe Fischer
2005-12-13 18:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
I attached a .csv file to a post last night, but I don't see it here.
Miller's 1933 paper has one data run of 20 turns in Figure 8.
A lot of posts were lost or delayed in propagation
last night, but at least most of them are showing up now,
a major server must have been down for at least 10 or 12
hours.
But I haven't seen any posts with an attachment, yet.

Joe Fischer
Tom Roberts
2005-12-14 03:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Where? In which paper does [Allais] discuss errorbars? Is there an english
translation available?
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow06.htm
Section C.2.
Error bars are not discussed directly, but he seems to be aware of them
due to applying the method of least squares to the data. This seems to
be an important component of analysis he provided.
Those are "errors" (meaning differences) between the different patterns
he thinks are present in the data. Useless.
Post by David Thomson
AFAIK he just marvels that the glorious patterns he sees in the data,
without justification or error analysis. That is not science.
It would not be science to just marvel at the patterns, but neither is
it science to assume that he merely marvels at the pattern.
But marvel at them is all he does, albeit in a quite complicated manner.
But he NEVER asks the question "is there really a signal here?" And he
NEVER asks the question "how well are these marvelous orientations
determined?" -- he is so mesmerised by the patterns he finds that he did
not investigate them _quantitatively_ at all.

There isn't any signal there, and those orientations are not determined
at all.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Harry
2005-12-12 16:40:21 UTC
Permalink
SNIP
Post by David Thomson
I have done extensive database programming in VB 3 (1993), but just as
I got the language mastered, they changed the format and I never had
the time to get used to the new format, since. With programs like
MathCAD, I have been able to get around the need for highly technical
skills, such as you have. As for the signal processing, I have
threatened myself to study it several times, but never had a good
practical reason to study it. If I could have an opportunity to work
with Dayton Miller's data, I would take the time to learn.
Probably you can get that data if you seem to be serious and skilled, but be
prepared to type most of it in by yourself!
And note that one month of data (and of which is claimed that it's from a
less important series) is not the best approach. It will be worth the effort
to carefully choose data that corresponds to the most pertinent data points,
as well as some additional data for reproducibility estimations, if needed.

Harald
David Thomson
2005-12-12 18:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry
Probably you can get that data if you seem to be serious and skilled, but be
prepared to type most of it in by yourself!
I've got the time and patience. I also have good OCR software.
Collecting and organizing data is one of my strong points.
Post by Harry
And note that one month of data (and of which is claimed that it's from a
less important series) is not the best approach. It will be worth the effort
to carefully choose data that corresponds to the most pertinent data points,
as well as some additional data for reproducibility estimations, if needed.
I'm actually leaning toward reproducing the entire experiment at this
point. With today's technology, a suitable and more precise
interferometer can be built that will provide continuous data over a
full year. Segments of the data could then be compared to the total
data set.

Now that our solar system is drifting through a large interstellar
cloud, this could provide a unique opportunity for not only detecting
the Aether, but also for learning about the interstellar cloud. The
fact that the cloud has observable physical features helps to determine
whether it is influencing the space-time around us or not. Also, if
Dayton Miller's vectors for Aether drift were correct 100 years ago,
then we could compare those vectors to modern measurements and
determine to what extent the Aether drifts with the interstellar cloud,
as well.

Dave
Harry
2005-12-13 11:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Harry
Probably you can get that data if you seem to be serious and skilled, but be
prepared to type most of it in by yourself!
I've got the time and patience. I also have good OCR software.
Collecting and organizing data is one of my strong points.
I know someone who likely knows how to get the data. If you like, I'll ask
him.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Harry
And note that one month of data (and of which is claimed that it's from a
less important series) is not the best approach. It will be worth the effort
to carefully choose data that corresponds to the most pertinent data points,
as well as some additional data for reproducibility estimations, if needed.
I'm actually leaning toward reproducing the entire experiment at this
point. With today's technology, a suitable and more precise
interferometer can be built that will provide continuous data over a
full year. Segments of the data could then be compared to the total
data set.
That's a big undertaking, I wonder if you are aware of the effort it takes.
And actually, there are several such modern experiments going on, exactly
with that purpose; but I'm not sure if they have a similar precision.
Post by David Thomson
Now that our solar system is drifting through a large interstellar
cloud, this could provide a unique opportunity for not only detecting
the Aether, but also for learning about the interstellar cloud. The
fact that the cloud has observable physical features helps to determine
whether it is influencing the space-time around us or not. Also, if
Dayton Miller's vectors for Aether drift were correct 100 years ago,
then we could compare those vectors to modern measurements and
determine to what extent the Aether drifts with the interstellar cloud,
as well.
I'm afraid that even if there is some kind of signal, that it's not exactly
like that. Without a good theory, trying to measure an unknown signal in a
lot of noise and then conclude something from it, is very tricky.

Harald
David Thomson
2005-12-13 13:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry
Post by David Thomson
I've got the time and patience. I also have good OCR software.
Collecting and organizing data is one of my strong points.
I know someone who likely knows how to get the data. If you like, I'll ask
him.
Yes, I would appreciate this very much. It seems that MathCAD will
handle the 320 point DFT.
Post by Harry
That's a big undertaking, I wonder if you are aware of the effort it takes.
Yes, I am aware of the effort. Though I have key pieces of equipment
needed, I lack the funds and suitable environment at this time. I'm
just musing for now.
Post by Harry
And actually, there are several such modern experiments going on, exactly
with that purpose; but I'm not sure if they have a similar precision.
I've been looking for modern Aether drift experiments, but have not
found any. Do you have links to some web sites?
Post by Harry
I'm afraid that even if there is some kind of signal, that it's not exactly
like that. Without a good theory, trying to measure an unknown signal in a
lot of noise and then conclude something from it, is very tricky.
I wouldn't know until I tried it. I love working with data. You never
really know what you are going to discover from it. I find that data
analysis is an art form. It is also a kind of extreme puzzle sport.
If I look at data long enough, I begin to see patterns and then find
ways to quantify them. That, and logic, is how I discovered the Aether
Physics Model.

Slightly related to the discussion of FFTs, my theory shows that time
is the wrong dimension to record data in. Data should be recorded in
dimensions of distributed frequency instead of single dimension linear
time. If we did this, FFT would not be necessary as the data would
already be in the correct form. What we think of as linear time isn't
linear time at all. It is a constant frequency between forward and
backward time, except that subatomic matter can only spin in the
forward time direction. It is quantum matter that gives the illusion
of forward time, due to its half spin nature. The forward time is
really pulsed forward time, as matter acts as a time diode much like a
resistance diode causes pulsed DC in AC current. The signal we are
recording makes up the second frequency dimension. If the two
frequency dimensions were plotted we would get the same data structure
as seen in FFTs.

Dave
Harry
2005-12-14 09:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Harry
Post by David Thomson
I've got the time and patience. I also have good OCR software.
Collecting and organizing data is one of my strong points.
I know someone who likely knows how to get the data. If you like, I'll ask
him.
Yes, I would appreciate this very much. It seems that MathCAD will
handle the 320 point DFT.
I asked, waiting for reply.
Post by David Thomson
Post by Harry
That's a big undertaking, I wonder if you are aware of the effort it takes.
Yes, I am aware of the effort. Though I have key pieces of equipment
needed, I lack the funds and suitable environment at this time. I'm
just musing for now.
Post by Harry
And actually, there are several such modern experiments going on, exactly
with that purpose; but I'm not sure if they have a similar precision.
I've been looking for modern Aether drift experiments, but have not
found any. Do you have links to some web sites?
Hmm, no sorry I have seen a German one, possibly linked from this group but
now I can't find it back; and I know of an experiment in Argentina, but no
web site.

If I get more information in the coming days, I'll let you know.

Harald
Post by David Thomson
Post by Harry
I'm afraid that even if there is some kind of signal, that it's not exactly
like that. Without a good theory, trying to measure an unknown signal in a
lot of noise and then conclude something from it, is very tricky.
I wouldn't know until I tried it. I love working with data. You never
really know what you are going to discover from it. I find that data
analysis is an art form. It is also a kind of extreme puzzle sport.
If I look at data long enough, I begin to see patterns and then find
ways to quantify them. That, and logic, is how I discovered the Aether
Physics Model.
Slightly related to the discussion of FFTs, my theory shows that time
is the wrong dimension to record data in. Data should be recorded in
dimensions of distributed frequency instead of single dimension linear
time. If we did this, FFT would not be necessary as the data would
already be in the correct form. What we think of as linear time isn't
linear time at all. It is a constant frequency between forward and
backward time, except that subatomic matter can only spin in the
forward time direction. It is quantum matter that gives the illusion
of forward time, due to its half spin nature. The forward time is
really pulsed forward time, as matter acts as a time diode much like a
resistance diode causes pulsed DC in AC current. The signal we are
recording makes up the second frequency dimension. If the two
frequency dimensions were plotted we would get the same data structure
as seen in FFTs.
Dave
b***@my-deja.com
2005-12-12 04:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by David Thomson
If you can
produce the data onto an Excel worksheet and then systematically
analyze it on a MathCAD worksheet, complete with graphics for the FFTs,
then I would be able to follow your reasoning with more confidence.
I do indeed have the data in an Excel workbook. But it is not mine to
publish. I will inquire about redistributing it. I do not have MathCAD
nor know how to use it.
Would you by any chance know of where some of the raw data is provided
on line? Is the data provided on page 11 of this document a good
sample?

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf

Thanks, Bruce
Post by Tom Roberts
Excel does not have the 320-point DFT that is needed, so I have exported
the spreadsheet data to .csv files, and use Java programs to analyze it
and gnuplot to plot it. I have extensive experience in digital signal
processing, and writing these programs is easy for me. At present I have
written fewer than 600 lines of Java, which to me is a very tiny program
(of course most of the work is done by libraries and gnuplot).
Post by David Thomson
I would rather see the worksheet itself, rather than spippets of
graphics. If the data is presented, and the math functions of a
respectable computerized math program are used, I can follow your
argument with full confidence.
Can you do this for us?
I probably won't do that until my paper is at least ready in preprint
form. I prefer to concentrate on writing the paper than in defending it
before it is available.
I posted the initial article here (plus notices in numerous other
forums) in order to see if anybody had any cogent comments on my
technique. So far the only significant comments are from DeMeo
indicating I should get data from Mt. Wilson; I'm working on that.
[Most of the other comments are of the form "Miller's results
agree with experiment XYZ, so they must be valid". Those
people forget that every XYZ had very large errorbars that
were not included in the "analysis" -- in such a case the
preconceptions of the analyst can and usually will be
imposed on the result, and foreknowledge of Miller's
result means this is not nearly as important as claimed.
And NONE of them are _significant_ (in the technical,
statistical sense of the word).]
Harry
2005-12-12 11:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
Author: Tom Roberts
Date: December 8, 2005
Introduction
------------
In the 1920's and 30's Dayton Miller made an enormous number of
measurements using several versions of his Michelson interferometer. In
1933 he published a review article, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the
Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth" [1]. If valid, the
results of that paper would refute SR and GR. Since its publication, no
convincing refutation of that paper has been given, though Shankland et
al tried to do so [2]. Since then numerous people have proclaimed
Miller's data are correct, and have built castles in the air based on
that assumption.
This article explains why Miller, and modern advocates of his anomalous
result, are wrong: there is no real signal in his data at all; his data
and results are completely explained by a large systematic error that
masquerades as a "signal".
I have obtained a significant amount of Miller's raw data (52 runs of 20
turns each), and have been looking at it from a modern data analysis
point of view. This article gives a short summary of what I have found,
giving a very brief overall summary and the primary argument: a simple
and direct model of his systematic error reproduces his data completely,
leaving no room for any real signal at all. In the relatively near
future I will be putting a complete paper about this onto the preprint
servers, and intend to submit it for publication.
SNIP
Post by Tom Roberts
I have data for 52 such runs, mostly from Cleveland in
August of 1927. This discussion is of that data only, but surely applies
to his other data as well (I include the 1925 run he displayed in figure
8 of [1]).
SNIP

Dear Tom,

Apparently you analysed the data of one month (but I wonder why the key term
"sidereal time" is missing in your overview) while the conclusions that you
intend to challenge, primarily bear on seasonal variations. If so, your
analysis is totally insufficient. But I don't want to discourage you: it
will be interesting to see a modern reanalysis of the significance of the
claimed annual effects.

BTW, I now found a copy of Allais' article on the web:
http://www.anti-relativity.com/allaisarticle21stcentury.htm

Best regards,
Harald
Tom Roberts
2005-12-12 15:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
[...]
Apparently you analysed the data of one month
Mostly, not exclusively.
Post by Harry
(but I wonder why the key term
"sidereal time" is missing in your overview)
It is an overview, and limited in space.
Post by Harry
while the conclusions that you
intend to challenge, primarily bear on seasonal variations.
If the systematic error explains 100% of the data, then the "seasonal
variations" in that systematic error are uninteresting, and certainly do
not relate to the "absolute motion of the earth".

For the data I have, the systematic error does indeed reproduce 100% of
the data.
Post by Harry
http://www.anti-relativity.com/allaisarticle21stcentury.htm
Yes, I have that. It does not use errorbars, and is therefore useless.
Allais just marvels at the patterns he thinks are present -- that is not
science.


Tom Roberts ***@lucent.com
Harry
2005-12-12 16:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Harry
Post by Tom Roberts
Title: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal
[...]
Apparently you analysed the data of one month
Mostly, not exclusively.
That is essential.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Harry
(but I wonder why the key term
"sidereal time" is missing in your overview)
It is an overview, and limited in space.
Post by Harry
while the conclusions that you
intend to challenge, primarily bear on seasonal variations.
If the systematic error explains 100% of the data, then the "seasonal
variations" in that systematic error are uninteresting, and certainly do
not relate to the "absolute motion of the earth".
On the scale of one year, the data of one month is little more than one data
point. In such a small time interval one can do as much analysis as one
likes, it means little compared to the 12 month interval that is required to
be sure of including any possible extremes. That was already explained by
Michelson and Morley.
Post by Tom Roberts
For the data I have, the systematic error does indeed reproduce 100% of
the data.
Post by Harry
http://www.anti-relativity.com/allaisarticle21stcentury.htm
Yes, I have that. It does not use errorbars, and is therefore useless.
Allais just marvels at the patterns he thinks are present -- that is not
science.
In the context of seasonal variations, presenting a thorough analysis of
only a one month interval which doesn't show a signal is even more useless;
it certainly can't serve to support the pretentious claim that "Dayton
Miller's Data have no Real Signal".

Harald
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...