Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes

Repeatability is a lower bound for accuracy (relative or absolute). I'm amazed that someone would actually argue against this. How can a result be accurate if you can't get the same result repeatedly? Usually short term repeatability of a measuring device is much better than its absolute or even relative accuracy.

When trying new measurement strategies at work repeatability is the first thing we look for - if the repeatability error is much worse than the expected error of the existing method (and we can't figure out a way to reduce it) then it's automatically thrown out.

Repeatability is a lower bound for accuracy (relative or absolute). I'm amazed that someone would actually argue against this. How can a result be accurate if you can't get the same result repeatedly? Usually short term repeatability of a measuring device is much better than its absolute or even relative accuracy.

When trying new measurement strategies at work repeatability is the first thing we look for - if the repeatability error is much worse than the expected error of the existing method (and we can't figure out a way to reduce it) then it's automatically thrown out.

It is actually very nice to see more people understanding experimental error. A very common way to see what you are saying is when you have an un-calibrated measuring apparatus. Even when all the measurements are more or less repeatable, they are all off. But if you measure, for example, a new battery with a voltmeter and the measurement can't be repeated, you immediately know that either the voltmeter or the battery are damaged.

In this case, when the non-rotating falling times were all over the place, they should have thrown out the experiment's design, just as you say. They should have known that their equipment, which relies on a ball passing through a light beam, is already some decades obsolete. If you do not use interferometry, just as in the A-10 gravimeter, you will never be even close to acceptable precision.

Now that some people have shown that they understand at least the basics of experimental error, it would be nice to discuss how incredibly wrong the statistical analysis of the data from the experiment was. To say that the standard deviation is this much and therefore the probability of a correct result was, in this experiment, of more than 97%, is enough subject for an entirely new thread.

markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.


rs, you cannot divide a difference in a time interval by the total (units of time) and COMPARE this to another unit of measure being used.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

You cannot compare units of time (seconds) with units of gravity measurement (micro-gals).


lorddave, must I remind you of the facts?

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups.

But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.   These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.


The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.


The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.


rs, you cannot divide a difference in a time interval by the total (units of time) and COMPARE this to another unit of measure being used.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

You cannot compare units of time (seconds) with units of gravity measurement (micro-gals).

You just don't know when to stop showing your ignorance. The way in which the experiment is designed, where an object's final part of its fall is measured with a light beam at the start of this final run and another at the end, essentially measures the final speed of the object. Therefore the experiment's results, shown in seconds, are the inverse of final speed. And since the objects are thrown from the same height, and since acceleration is the derivative of speed, acceleration is proportional to final speed.

You would have some reason to your argument if we were comparing two very similar estimations of error, since the exact positions of the light beams could require us to insert a small correction, up to a factor of two. But you have not even started to understand the humongous error in de Palma's experiment. One part in 300 in the observed error in an experiment that could be done with one part per million?

And why are you using bold letters to emphasize what we already know, and which only demolishes your argument? When de Palma or his people repeat their experiment with a repeat ability comparable with a micro-Gal, we can talk again.

I cannot understand your message to markjo. I can only guess you no longer can back up your argument with complete sentences.

Levee, your attempts to distract me from the topic won't work. You have proven yourself to be a fraud. I have seen through your ruse. If you can't stick to the topic of the thread, perhaps you should give up?

There is no one part in 300 error; your calculations are wrong. You cannot compare units of time with units of gravity measurements, unless you have lost your mind.

The accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter is one part per billion, no other comments are needed here.


ld, the antigravitational effects seen and measured precisely by Dr. DePalma and Dr. Kozyrev are DIRECTLY RELATED to the precise and correct structure of the atom: you have not been able, so far, to bring any meaningful arguments to prove anything useful relating to our topic here.

Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.


Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



Exactly the findings mentioned by none other than Sir Isaac Newton:

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

There is no one part in 300 error; your calculations are wrong. You cannot compare units of time with units of gravity measurements, unless you have lost your mind.

The accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter is one part per billion, no other comments are needed here.

Levee can only repeat "your calculations are wrong" (of course, without showing why or doing your own calculations of error) because he is talking about a subject he does not understand.

The problem is as simple as this, and everyone except levee has understood it: if you cannot let an object fall and measure its time to fall a given distance with an error of less than, say, one part per million, you should not be doing experiments related to gravitational pull on Earth. We know that the changes in the local gravitational pull are minuscule (less than one part per million on any given day) so the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance is also constant to less than one part per million or so. If your experiment tells you otherwise, as this one does, you know that the experiment is flawed.

I have achieved my goal, and that is that some people saw science in action (in this case, science demolishing a poorly executed experiment). Levee has shown, yet again, his total lack of understanding of science, doing what pseudo-scientists do all the time: changing the subject every time they feel cornered, throwing a complete barrage of claims at any one who cares to try to answer, so that it is impossible to keep up with the deluge of claims. In this case, we have been jumping from claim to claim and forgotten the OP, as lorddave has tried to remember us. We even got to anti-gravity, how more pseudo-scientific can we get?

Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.

We are on a debate forum discussing barometric pressure of the atmosphere at a date and place you have yet to identify.
What are you discussing?

Quote

Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.

We are on a debate forum discussing barometric pressure of the atmosphere at a date and place you have yet to identify.
What are you discussing?

As I said, he is trying to make the subject of the discussion a moving target, so he can dance his way out of every corner.