| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"qbit" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2007 02:05:37 PM |
| Object: |
Those Scandalous Clocks |
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
"[...] In the article "Those Scandalous Clocks", R.R.Hatch [1],
a distinguished pioneer in the GPS system, provides evidence
of discrepancies between the observational facts (from the GPS system,
the Very Long Bases Interferometry and the pulsar detections)
and some formulations in the Special Relativity. He provides
analysis showing that such discrepancies do not exist if using
the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). His analysis led to revealing
one very important effect: the speed of light is velocity dependent,
but in the experiments it appear independent, because the Doppler shift
and the relativistic effect of clock rate change cancel each other.
Such effect means a reconsidering of light velocity experiments.
This includes also the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is cited
in text books as a basic proof of not existing Ether. Now not only
new experiments confirm the detection of our motion throudh a
space medium, but the original data from Michelson-Morley experiment
has been reanalyzed by M.Consoli and E.Constanzo [4] using a
correct method and two velocities are clearly identified:
the Earth orbital velocity around the Sun and the solar system
velocity around the centre of the Milky way. [...]
[1] Ronald R. Hatch, Those Scandalous Clocks, Springer-Verlag, DOI 10.107,
30 Apr 2004, http://springerlink.com
...
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(--> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576 )
"
See also on 'Those Scandalous Clocks':
http://necsi.org/events/iccs6/viewpaper.php?id=342
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1180.html%3C/t-14996.html
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007sh.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007y.pdf
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5176#5176 (German)
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5189#5189 (German)
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 06:51:32 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 11:05 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
[...]
I'd love to hear why you think SR is relevant to GPS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 01:30:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:05:37 +0100, "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com>
wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
"[...] In the article "Those Scandalous Clocks", R.R.Hatch [1],
a distinguished pioneer in the GPS system, provides evidence
of discrepancies between the observational facts (from the GPS system,
the Very Long Bases Interferometry and the pulsar detections)
and some formulations in the Special Relativity. He provides
analysis showing that such discrepancies do not exist if using
the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). His analysis led to revealing
one very important effect: the speed of light is velocity dependent,
but in the experiments it appear independent, because the Doppler shift
and the relativistic effect of clock rate change cancel each other.
Such effect means a reconsidering of light velocity experiments.
This includes also the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is cited
in text books as a basic proof of not existing Ether. Now not only
new experiments confirm the detection of our motion throudh a
space medium, but the original data from Michelson-Morley experiment
has been reanalyzed by M.Consoli and E.Constanzo [4] using a
correct method and two velocities are clearly identified:
the Earth orbital velocity around the Sun and the solar system
velocity around the centre of the Milky way. [...]
[1] Ronald R. Hatch, Those Scandalous Clocks, Springer-Verlag, DOI 10.107,
30 Apr 2004, http://springerlink.com
...
Ok. I like this comment by Alfred Leick, the editor in chief:
This manuscript has been reviewed following the guidelines of GPS
Solutions. Having received credible reviews in favor and against
publication, the process was unfortunately not conclusive. The
manuscript is published in the hope that it will help in resolving
apparently deeply held differences of opinions among experts in
this area. We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful comments given
by all reviewers. Alfred Leick, Editor in Chief.
Apparently, some Einstein Dingleberries tried to censor it. ahahaha...
I can't believe the article was published in 2004 and this is the
first I've heard of it. This thing should be on the front page of
science magazines, for crying out loud.
Nothing can move in spacetime, by definition:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 01:20:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:05:37 +0100, "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com>
wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
"[...] In the article "Those Scandalous Clocks", R.R.Hatch [1],
a distinguished pioneer in the GPS system, provides evidence
of discrepancies between the observational facts (from the GPS system,
the Very Long Bases Interferometry and the pulsar detections)
and some formulations in the Special Relativity. He provides
analysis showing that such discrepancies do not exist if using
the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). His analysis led to revealing
one very important effect: the speed of light is velocity dependent,
but in the experiments it appear independent, because the Doppler shift
and the relativistic effect of clock rate change cancel each other.
Such effect means a reconsidering of light velocity experiments.
This includes also the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is cited
in text books as a basic proof of not existing Ether. Now not only
new experiments confirm the detection of our motion throudh a
space medium, but the original data from Michelson-Morley experiment
has been reanalyzed by M.Consoli and E.Constanzo [4] using a
correct method and two velocities are clearly identified:
the Earth orbital velocity around the Sun and the solar system
velocity around the centre of the Milky way. [...]
[1] Ronald R. Hatch, Those Scandalous Clocks, Springer-Verlag, DOI 10.107,
30 Apr 2004, http://springerlink.com
...
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(--> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576 )
"
See also on 'Those Scandalous Clocks':
http://necsi.org/events/iccs6/viewpaper.php?id=342
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1180.html%3C/t-14996.html
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007sh.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007y.pdf
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5176#5176 (German)
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5189#5189 (German)
This is interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Louis Savain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 09:45:56 PM |
|
|
qbit wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
"[...] In the article "Those Scandalous Clocks", R.R.Hatch [1],
a distinguished pioneer in the GPS system, provides evidence
of discrepancies between the observational facts (from the GPS system,
the Very Long Bases Interferometry and the pulsar detections)
and some formulations in the Special Relativity. He provides
analysis showing that such discrepancies do not exist if using
the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET).
This indicates his whole approach is wrong: LET is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR.
I do not have Hatch's book, but your link above contains mostly nonsense.
His analysis led to revealing
one very important effect: the speed of light is velocity dependent,
but in the experiments it appear independent, because the Doppler shift
and the relativistic effect of clock rate change cancel each other.
Well gee, there are an infinity of theories equivalent to SR in which
this happens. But claiming this "is" so is silly -- one can only rely on
measurement, and they show the measured speed of light to be isotropic
and independent of the velocity of the source.
Note that Doppler shift and clock rate change are UTTERLY INCAPABLE of
doing this, because they are merely rate changes -- one needs a change
of synchronization.
BTW the speeds of the GPS satellites are sufficiently high that if the
speed of signals from satellite to ground traveled with speed c+v, where
v is the velocity of the satellite projected onto the line-of-sight to
the receiver, then the GPS simply would not meet its accuracy
requirements. It does.
the original data from Michelson-Morley experiment
has been reanalyzed by M.Consoli and E.Constanzo [4] using a
correct method and two velocities are clearly identified:
the Earth orbital velocity around the Sun and the solar system
velocity around the centre of the Milky way. [...]
Consoli and Constanzo did not perform an error analysis, they simply
ASSUMED that since M&M used a vernier with markings of 1/50 fringe that
that was their resolution. In particular C&C completely ignored the fact
that M&M's final result consists of AVERAGES, and one can histogram the
values being averaged and show that the ACTUAL errorbars are
considerably larger than the variations in the result. That is, those
variations are not statistically significant.
See Appendix I of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 for a real
error analysis. That paper also shows why Miller's result is not valid
(which C&C rhapsodize on also).
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 02:15:22 PM |
|
|
qbit wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
First, let me make a couple of comments about Qbit's post.
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
I must admit that I was hoping this would be Hatch's article, so that I
could look at it. But rather it was the usual crackpottery stuff.
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(--> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576 )
But I did enjoy reading this article. Did Michelson and Morley really
get figures of about 8km/s? Presumably they must have decided that
these figures were much smaller than they expected, and were probably
either the result of some, perhaps unknown, systematic error, or smaller
than their error estimates. On the other hand this paper suggests error
estimates of about 1km/s.
See also on 'Those Scandalous Clocks':
http://necsi.org/events/iccs6/viewpaper.php?id=342
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1180.html%3C/t-14996.html
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007sh.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/mail0110261847/npa/npa2007y.pdf
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5176#5176 (German)
http://www.mahag.com/FORUM/forum.php?id=5189#5189 (German)
Second - this is for Eric Gisse and such like. You simply cannot engage
Qbit and his ilk in proper scientific discussions. Notice that if you
make sensible scientific replies to their posts, that you usually get
ignored. They will only reply if they can find clever way to
misconstrue you. Rather than actually reply, they prefer to make fresh
threads and bring up other nonsense issues.
On the other hand, when you finally get tired of their tirades and start
insulting them (with words like idiot and stoopid), they reply back with
worse insults, and then they sit back thinking that they outwitted you
so much that you lost your temper.
It is important to realize that Qbit and his ilk either are incapable of
getting it, or actively desire not to get it. You simply cannot
persuade them that relativity is the legitimate paradigm of science,
because they simply don't want to get it. You must realize that their
game is psychology, not science.
Now, this is to Eric Gisse in particular. I see on another thread that
you are on your way to earning a degree in math. My guess is that you
are looking for a job in academia at some point in your life. Let me
tell you this, loud and clear - people who argue nonsense like Qbit are
every bit as prevalent in academia as anywhere else! Typically these
people become university administrators, and you are forced to deal with
these people on a day to day basis. Now Qbit is relatively harmless -
he merely posts nonsense posts on relativity to a newsgroup that frankly
has little impact on the world around us. But those university
administrators will make decisions that will mess up your career, that
will mess up your students, and who knows what else.
Use Qbit as an opportunity, not to learn how to communicate science with
more clarity, but how to psychologically deal with with people who
actively pursue and choose to believe nonsense when it fits their
agenda. And above all, argue with Qbit only for the fun of it. You
have no duty to put him right, or even to correct him in the eyes of others.
Best regards, Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 07:37:46 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 11:15 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
<step...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
qbit wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
First, let me make a couple of comments about Qbit's post.
http://www.helical-structures.org/Chapters/Chapter1.pdf
I must admit that I was hoping this would be Hatch's article, so that I
could look at it. But rather it was the usual crackpottery stuff.
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(-->http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576)
But I did enjoy reading this article. Did Michelson and Morley really
get figures of about 8km/s? Presumably they must have decided that
these figures were much smaller than they expected, and were probably
either the result of some, perhaps unknown, systematic error, or smaller
than their error estimates. On the other hand this paper suggests error
estimates of about 1km/s.
Hell no.
The Michelson and Morley experiment measured no such thing. The claim
that they "observed" the ether drift comes from folks like Cahill who
"re-analyze" the results. Not only does Cahill's analysis collapse
under increased scrutiny [this is Tom Robert's hobby, in fact] but it
is completely unsupported by the sucessive experiments ran over the
intervening 120+ years. Eyebrows should be raised when someone has to
go back to the original experiment in the 19th century to find support
for their ideas.
It needs to be said that Miller's ether drift experiments have been
completely discredited and that Cahill's analysis is thoroughly
flawed. Neither are credible in the least but because they give
results that give credence to the ether, they simply refuse to go AWAY
and never be heard from again.
There seems to be a certain impression that either the MMX was the
only interferometry experiment ever ran or that it is the only one
people refer to when deciding whether the ether exists. It was a
seminal experiment, but it is not in any way the only one.
[...]
On the other hand, when you finally get tired of their tirades and start
insulting them (with words like idiot and stoopid), they reply back with
worse insults, and then they sit back thinking that they outwitted you
so much that you lost your temper.
I'm yet to lose my temper...! The worst that I have done is waste too
much time on here. But that time wouldn't have been spent productively
anyway - summer break with minimal responsibilities has that effect.
To be fair, he /is/ an idiot and says things that are best quantified
as stooopid.
It is important to realize that Qbit and his ilk either are incapable of
getting it, or actively desire not to get it. You simply cannot
persuade them that relativity is the legitimate paradigm of science,
because they simply don't want to get it. You must realize that their
game is psychology, not science.
That's why I explain every so often that folks like him are
entertainment. I'm yet to change anyone's mind. I have never had
anyone look at one of my references or arguments and say "well *****, I
was wrong".
Now, this is to Eric Gisse in particular. I see on another thread that
you are on your way to earning a degree in math. My guess is that you
are looking for a job in academia at some point in your life. Let me
tell you this, loud and clear - people who argue nonsense like Qbit are
every bit as prevalent in academia as anywhere else! Typically these
people become university administrators, and you are forced to deal with
these people on a day to day basis. Now Qbit is relatively harmless -
he merely posts nonsense posts on relativity to a newsgroup that frankly
has little impact on the world around us. But those university
administrators will make decisions that will mess up your career, that
will mess up your students, and who knows what else.
Physics major, math minor. Whenever I get around to declaring that
minor. Hm, I should probably do that soon actually.
I can deal with useless functionaries with personalities like qbit.
That isn't ever a problem until the useless functionary steps in and
decides that what I have spent several years studying is completely
and utterly wrong because he has a GED, MBA or BA in Liberal Arts.
If it ever gets to the point where I have a university administrator
that I *have to deal with* saying relativity is wrong for <stupid
reason similar to qbit's>, that means it is time to go somewhere
else.
Use Qbit as an opportunity, not to learn how to communicate science with
more clarity, but how to psychologically deal with with people who
actively pursue and choose to believe nonsense when it fits their
agenda. And above all, argue with Qbit only for the fun of it. You
have no duty to put him right, or even to correct him in the eyes of others.
I do.
I find great entertainment in trapping them with their own logic and
watching them weave a blanket of cognitive dissonance to wrap
themselves in.
Best regards, Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
13 Aug 2007 11:56:30 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:15 am, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
<step...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
qbit wrote:
Ronald R. Hatch has worked on the development of the GPS system
and he wrote a paper revealing that the calculated time dilation value
by Einstein's Relativity Theory (ie. as done mainly by Prof. Ashby)
is not the correct value:
[snip]
Buncha crap.
The Michelson and Morley experiment measured no such thing. The claim
that they "observed" the ether drift comes from folks like Cahill who
"re-analyze" the results. Not only does Cahill's analysis collapse
under increased scrutiny [this is Tom Robert's hobby, in fact] but it
is completely unsupported by the sucessive experiments ran over the
intervening 120+ years. Eyebrows should be raised when someone has to
go back to the original experiment in the 19th century to find support
for their ideas.
[snip]
I find great entertainment in trapping them with their own logic and
watching them weave a blanket of cognitive dissonance to wrap
themselves in.
1) Michelson-Morley experiment: space is isotropic for photons to
differential 10^(-8) in 1887.
2) to 1.7x10^(-15) in 2002
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
3) to 10^(-16) in 2007 employing two simultaneous interferometers
over a year's observation: Optical in Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N
13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia at 31°53'S 115°53E. An
aether background could never be at rest relative to both of them.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
4) No ether, no Lorentz invariance in the masseless sector by
empirical observation,
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 08:19:20 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(-->http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576)
But I did enjoy reading this article. Did Michelson and Morley really
get figures of about 8km/s? Presumably they must have decided that
these figures were much smaller than they expected, and were probably
either the result of some, perhaps unknown, systematic error, or smaller
than their error estimates. On the other hand this paper suggests error
estimates of about 1km/s.
Hell no.
The Michelson and Morley experiment measured no such thing. The claim
that they "observed" the ether drift comes from folks like Cahill who
"re-analyze" the results. Not only does Cahill's analysis collapse
under increased scrutiny [this is Tom Robert's hobby, in fact] but it
is completely unsupported by the sucessive experiments ran over the
intervening 120+ years. Eyebrows should be raised when someone has to
go back to the original experiment in the 19th century to find support
for their ideas.
It needs to be said that Miller's ether drift experiments have been
completely discredited and that Cahill's analysis is thoroughly
flawed. Neither are credible in the least but because they give
results that give credence to the ether, they simply refuse to go AWAY
and never be heard from again.
There seems to be a certain impression that either the MMX was the
only interferometry experiment ever ran or that it is the only one
people refer to when deciding whether the ether exists. It was a
seminal experiment, but it is not in any way the only one.
[...]
Thanks for setting me straight.
On the other hand, when you finally get tired of their tirades and start
insulting them (with words like idiot and stoopid), they reply back with
worse insults, and then they sit back thinking that they outwitted you
so much that you lost your temper.
I'm yet to lose my temper...! The worst that I have done is waste too
much time on here. But that time wouldn't have been spent productively
anyway - summer break with minimal responsibilities has that effect.
To be fair, he /is/ an idiot and says things that are best quantified
as stooopid.
Agreed.
I capriciously introduced the idea of Newtonian versus relativistic
velocities, and now he is even writing C++ programs to compute between them!
It is important to realize that Qbit and his ilk either are incapable of
getting it, or actively desire not to get it. You simply cannot
persuade them that relativity is the legitimate paradigm of science,
because they simply don't want to get it. You must realize that their
game is psychology, not science.
That's why I explain every so often that folks like him are
entertainment. I'm yet to change anyone's mind. I have never had
anyone look at one of my references or arguments and say "well *****, I
was wrong".
OK, glad to see you have the right attitude.
Now, this is to Eric Gisse in particular. I see on another thread that
you are on your way to earning a degree in math. My guess is that you
are looking for a job in academia at some point in your life. Let me
tell you this, loud and clear - people who argue nonsense like Qbit are
every bit as prevalent in academia as anywhere else! Typically these
people become university administrators, and you are forced to deal with
these people on a day to day basis. Now Qbit is relatively harmless -
he merely posts nonsense posts on relativity to a newsgroup that frankly
has little impact on the world around us. But those university
administrators will make decisions that will mess up your career, that
will mess up your students, and who knows what else.
Physics major, math minor. Whenever I get around to declaring that
minor. Hm, I should probably do that soon actually.
I can deal with useless functionaries with personalities like qbit.
That isn't ever a problem until the useless functionary steps in and
decides that what I have spent several years studying is completely
and utterly wrong because he has a GED, MBA or BA in Liberal Arts.
Although let me add that as you go higher up, the correlation between
stupidity, and whether the degree is a BS or BA, becomes less and less.
If it ever gets to the point where I have a university administrator
that I *have to deal with* saying relativity is wrong for <stupid
reason similar to qbit's>, that means it is time to go somewhere
else.
I think you can rest fairly safe. University administrators tend to
follow fashion, and since it is not currently fashionable to discredit
Einstein, none of them do.
Use Qbit as an opportunity, not to learn how to communicate science with
more clarity, but how to psychologically deal with with people who
actively pursue and choose to believe nonsense when it fits their
agenda. And above all, argue with Qbit only for the fun of it. You
have no duty to put him right, or even to correct him in the eyes of others.
I do.
I find great entertainment in trapping them with their own logic and
watching them weave a blanket of cognitive dissonance to wrap
themselves in.
OK, well have fun.
This poking fun at qbit has become a bit addictive in the last few days,
and I think I need to lay off for a while. So I am going to try to end
my brief excursion into sci.physics. But I did enjoy myself a lot.
Good luck with your degree program.
Best regards, Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gimp" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
12 Aug 2007 02:37:32 AM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 9:15 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
<step...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
qbit wrote: <crap>
hey *****,
you are so foken stoopid using woerds and saying nothen, but
that you love gisse and hate administrative personals
fok you *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Those Scandalous Clocks |
11 Aug 2007 09:53:09 PM |
|
|
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
[4] M.Consoli and E.Constanzo, The motion of the Solar System and the
Michelson-Morley experiment, arXiv:astro0ph/0311576v1 (2003)
(--> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576 )
But I did enjoy reading this article.
See my comments on their paper in a recent post in this thread.
Did Michelson and Morley really
get figures of about 8km/s?
In their words: “the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is
probably less than one sixth the earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly
less than one-forth”. The earth's orbital velocity is ~30 km/s.
Read the original for yourself: http://www.aip.org/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
On the other hand this paper suggests error
estimates of about 1km/s.
C&C did not do a proper error analysis, and merely GUESSED. They were
wrong. An error analysis is in Appendix I of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
