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. 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. 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? > 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. >
