MMX & Miller

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />Your comments seem to indicated you have some explanation for the cyclic nature of those experiments, which suggest a link to velocity (See graphics) but you say were from another cause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What graphics?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you enlighten us as to what would cause such a flucuation and why it would correleate with veloicty.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What velocity?

I have in mind a speculation about one thing large enough to explain at least part of Miller's result. But I don't care to go there. It doesn't matter whether my speculation is right or wrong. Those who want to pour time and energy into that result instead of moving on once something is definitively disproved have my blessing. But I don't plan to spend another minute of the time remaining to <i>me</i> on Miller.

Life is too short to check out every blind alley. See my paper on processing GPS data. Miller saw effects of order many kilometers per second. GPS fails instantly and catastrophically if light in space varies in speed by that much. It isn't so. And GPS is 1000 times more accurate than Miller. -|Tom|-

Tom,

www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt111c.htm

This is the MMX graphics.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />This is the MMX graphics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see a graph that is indistinguishable from a zero signal to within statistical error. To me, this says more about the psyche of people who claim to see a non-zero signal than it does about relativity. Anyone with experience with real data would call that a null result. -|Tom|-

Tom,

I would say that pretty much depends on one's definition of "Null".

It clearly isn't null but has a cyclic nature congruent with the predicted variation based on time of day and direction.

But it is also a long way from meeting any proof. It would lbe interesting to understand why there is any congruent change in data.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

From the other thread:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The effect of elysium density changes on the speed of light is of the same order as changes in the gamma factor, or about 10^-10 c, just a few centimeters per second.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

These tiny changes, do they have some sort of cyclic nature? Could it be somehow that if they also have (a cyclic nature) that these will correspond to what Miller and others have found, even tough the magnitude is different?

Rudolf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Could it be somehow that if they also have (a cyclic nature) that these will correspond to what Miller and others have found, even tough the magnitude is different?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, in my opinion that is not possible. In any case, the changes are pseudo-random with no repeatable pattern. -|Tom|-