> > > On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: > >> >> That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out. >> Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts, > > Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has > replicated his results.
Miller replicated M & M results, with more precision. Both experiments are in good agreement. There were other, more precise experiments afterwards, and all of them obtained different non-null result. It turns out that there's an explanation for the divergences between all the experiments. > > A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicates that his results > were, in fact, within his expected error of zero. In short, his result > was also statistically insignificant ... as well as being inconsistent > with classical ether theory. No. If you consolidate the results over a full year, the divergences tend to cancel each other. That's the analysis made by his assistant. READ THE PAPERS I've kindly pointed to you, and please stop arguing with old arguments and objections. > > See, for instance, > > http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/physics/0608238 > > direct link to pdf at: > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608238 > > (Roberts is a very smart guy, FWIW, but a bit stiff necked, and liable > to lapse into math which is very hard to follow.) > > As to seasonal variations .... have you read how Miller's lab was set > up? On a mountain top, with canvas walls? Not hard to suspect there > might have been some "seasonal artifacts" running around that lab, eh? Think about that. It is you who must think about that, no me. > > >> and their experiments where >> re-analized a number of times, to try to attribute the seasonal >> variations >> he obtained to mere statistical fluctuations, without success. >> >> The fact that an effect does not match any theory, must not be an >> argument >> to discard it, or to try to attribute it to mere statistical >> fluctuations. >> >> Anyway, the best argument against any relativity theory, as I've already >> pointed out, is epistemological in nature: Relativity is not physically >> sound. Reality is not relative. As simple as that. > > All you've just said, with the epistemological argument, is relativity > doesn't match your intuition. In short, your last paragraph just means, > "I, Mauro Lacy, don't like relativity". > > This is a lot like Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics: God > doesn't play dice with the universe. Like, Einstein had a direct line > to God, and knew that for a fact? > > Tell me what "reality" is, and tell me what it means for "reality" not > to be "relative", or for "relativity" to be "physically sound", and I > may change my mind. All that is something you'll have to discover for yourself. Nobody would do that for you, because it is impossible. Look, all of what I'm saying have strong experimental and mathematical foundations. Doing the right experiments, and having the right understanding of the results will be enough, because the subjacent reality does not change if your model is wrong. It stubbornly keep working on its own, real way. That's just the way reality works. I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to clearly show what I mean by "reality is not relative", but I'll not do that. Because the really important thing here is for you to think about it, and to be able to understand it on your own.
