sci.physics.relativity

On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> LeoV...@ wrote:
> > Eric, You wrote:>
> >> No, they are ignored because the error analysis says there is no
> >> significant signal.
>
> > Yes of course! it is about significance.
> > But Maurice Allais found at least "some"diurnal effects.
>
> Allais did not perform an error analysis on the RAW data. I did:
>
> A) Miller's results have no significant signal.
>
> B) A basic consideration of his analysis algorithm in the
> frequency domain shows that the noise in his data will
> be FORCED to look just like the "signal" he expected.
>
> C) A modern analysis which models the drift of his interferometer
> finds zero signal with an errorbar smaller than the false
> signal Miller thought he found.
>
> In short, this is every experimenter's nightmare: he was unknowingly
> looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift
> that mimicked the appearance of a real signal.
>
> See: /abs/physics/0608238
>
> Tom Roberts
>
>
>
> > from wikipedia:
> > Allais's explanation for his observations contradicts the theory of
> > relativity.
>
> > Subsequently, in order to confront the optical anomaly with
> > established experimental results, Prof. Allais performed a statistical
> > analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton
> > Miller and found a corresponding periodicity with the sidereal day,
> > the equinoxes and other celestial events.
>
> > According to Allais, the anomalous effects demonstrate a sofar unknown
> > anisotropy of Space as well as an effect of total velocity.
>
> > However, his analysis disagrees with Robert S. Shankland's analysis of
> > Miller's data, which many physicists consider as the reference work on
> > the subject. Shankland attributed the deviations from relativity
> > predictions to systematic errors of readings and thermal
> > instabilities, despite Miller's claims to the contrary. The claim of
> > anisotropy of space is generally considered to be incompatible with
> > many modern experiments that have not shown any such anomalities.[2]
>
> > Roger Balian wrote a note to refute Allais's interpretation of
> > Miller's result.[3]
>
> > Leo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: C) A modern analysis which models the drift of his
interferometer finds zero signal with an errorbar smaller than the
false signal Miller thought he found.

Did you mean "larger"