The earth rotation

  • 101 Replies
  • 7639 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2020, 09:00:59 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

Looks like this is a checkmate then. You admit that it is noisy raw data that must be filtered.
Not so fast!
It might need data averaging to each this precision (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec but even without averaging the relative errors are not more than one part in 1000.
Look for yourself at the raw data.

Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa and the result is:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The device is detecting a multitude of unknown effects and special filtering algorithms are applied to pull out patterns in the data. How do we know which effect is being pulled out from the various phenomena from the background environment that is causing the noise?
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.
So all these so-called "unknown effects" always average to the same value on all the ring-laser gyroscope installed around the world?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Because it matches the period of a diurnal day? Not really sufficient evidence. If the earth were flat and motionless phenomena related to the diurnal day would still exist.
No one ever mentioned the "diurnal day". Try reading what is written!
But, in any case why would "phenomena related to the diurnal day" be significant when the Moon supposedly circles with a period about 50 minutes longer.
And, according to flat-Earthers the Moon is about the same size as the Sun.

It's not just one large ring-laser gyroscope in Italy but there's a similar one in Germany, one in New Zealand etc and numerous smaller ones with lewer precision.

You whole attitude seems be that we can measure nothing and that proves the Earth to be flat - but it does nothing of the sort.

Now what about justifying some of the flat-Earth claims such as the Sun and Moon's heights?

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2020, 12:29:03 AM »
Look what I found: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope
You mean look at what you wrote.

As you have pointed out before, your baseless claims can just be dismissed.
Do you have evidence?

It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.
Really?
It looks pretty stable, staying between 280.40 and 280.45 with the exception of a few spikes such as due to Earthquakes.
That is a variation of less than 0.02%.
That is very stable.

Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):
Did you read the title?
It is raw-average.
This alone doesn't tell us much, other than that the variation is very small, on the order of 10-8 rad/s.
Now what was the average?
Going by what rab posted I suspect it is on the order of 10-5, so again, a tiny variation.

That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that. Scale won't help you.
Can you not read, or are you intentionally being dishonest?
Like I said, that is raw-AVERAGE!
It is not the raw data. It is purely showing the noise.

So no, that is not showing Earth rotating backwards, try again.

Because it matches the period of a diurnal day? Not really sufficient evidence. If the earth were flat and motionless phenomena related to the diurnal day would still exist.
No, it doesn't. Look at the plot over 1 hour. Does that match a day? No.
But more importantly, what is causing your flat, allegedly stationary Earth to record such a rotation, or such strong noise at that specific frequency?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 12:30:39 AM by JackBlack »

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2020, 02:13:53 AM »
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data?
I don't see 15 degrees in those minute random deviations in data!
Why on earth would you expect to "see 15 degrees in that mess of data"?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.
Rubbish! That graph shows nothing of the sort!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Scale won't help you.
I need no scale to help but the scale is vitally important,

This is getting tedious! Read what is written in the title of that graph!

It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".

Look! That graph does not show any angular velocity at all - but it does show how small the deviations were!

Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Hence the raw data, without any averaging shows the Earth's rotation rate as (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec.
Who needs any better to show that the Earth rotates? By the way, the ring-laser gyroscope responds to rotation not to gravitation or electromagnetic effects.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Why are you spamming about Rowbotham in a thread about rotation?
I'm not spamming!
Firstly you raised these these baseless claims about the precision of the gyroscopes so I wanted you to face the abysmal precision of the few measurements flat-Earthers have claimed.

And then because you refuse to address that in any other thread!

Now, in future please read what is written in the references and the annotations on diagrams and graphs!

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2020, 06:50:06 AM »
Forget all the technical issues with the gyro.  The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5518
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2020, 07:03:39 AM »
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2020, 10:01:44 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz
of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

Looks like this is a checkmate then. You admit that it is noisy raw data that must be filtered.
Not so fast!
It might need data averaging to each this precision (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec but even without averaging the relative errors are not more than one part in 1000.
Look for yourself at the raw data.

Quote
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39313
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2020, 10:58:14 AM »
Tom, do you actually understand the data or the statistical analysis involved in the graphs that you presented?  Pointing to a graph without understanding the context doesn't really help your argument.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2020, 11:36:30 AM »
If you need a statistical analysis of noise to prove your case, it is a weak case. You may as well perform analysis on TV static and tell me that you can detect the rotation of the earth. Totally invalid. The nature of the analysis itself, of trying to pick out one thing among unknown effects, provides no empirical demonstration or verification of what you are trying to measure.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 03:33:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2418
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2020, 01:08:37 PM »
So, no then.  You could have just said no.  What makes you think it's all noise?  Did you notice the slope of the average actually increase at constant rate over that 1 hour graph?  Do you know what that may or may not mean?  I didn't read the article, so why did you post it, what is it showing?  Don't be lazy, explain your reasoning for it being evidence to support your position, not point at something you clearly don't understand and say it's just noise.

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2020, 01:13:25 PM »
Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.
Except as the aether doesn't exist, that leaves just the Earth rotating.

Also, I am yet to see any explanation of why the aether would magically cause the Coriolis effect.
In fact, you have it completely the wrong way around.
The Sagnac effect can be explained by Earth rotating or a hypothetical aether rotating around Earth.
So the Coriolis effect, like displayed by Foucault's pendulum would be the deciding factor, unless you accept that aether doesn't exist, in which case either can be.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
Except the data you are just ignoring.
Of course when you ignore it you can pretend it isn't there.
But for everyone else, it still is.

In fact, you provided some of the data yourself.

Remember that first graph you posted? Showing a variation between 280.40 Hz and 280.45 Hz?
What is the variation in that? 0.05 Hz
What is the average? Roughly 280.425.
So what is the % variatoin?
0.05/280.425 = 0.0001783...
Or, expressed as a percentage is 0.01783...%
i.e. less than 0.02%.
Or to express it another way, it is + or - less than 0.01%.

Likewise, with the second figure you provided, we see that the variation from the average is less than 2*10^-8 rad/s and the average is roughly 7.3*10^-5 rad/s.

So what is the variation as a fraction?
2*10^-8/(7.3*10^-5)=0.00027 = 0.027%.

But of course, you ignore that and just pretend that that tiny variation means it just noise and we are trying to pull something from noise.

To compare it to your TV analogy, it would be akin to saying that the TV is just trying to pull a pattern from the noise, which just somehow makes a picture on the TV and it has nothing at all to do with people transmitting that image, all because there is some tiny, almost unnoticeable noise.
It is pure nonsense.

The signal is quite apparent, and quite clear.
Even without averaging, it is still clearly there.

Why not be honest and admit that there is clearly something there and that we aren't just pulling nonsense from noise?

Or at the least be consistent and say that because EVERYTHING will have some measure of noise that nothing can ever be empirically demonstrated because of that noise, regardless of how small the noise is compared to the signal?

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2020, 01:39:16 PM »
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.

So your version of ether can physically move a solid object like a pendulum?


*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2020, 02:48:45 PM »
If you need a statistical analysis of noise to prove your case, it is a weak case. You may as well perform analysis on TV static and tell me that you can detect the rotation of the earth. Totally invalid.
If you "perform analysis on TV static" you might learn a lot more than you realise! But I doubt that you would "detect the rotation of the earth" - but who knows?

And it was unexpected "static" that lead to radio-astronomy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The nature analysis itself, of trying to pick out one thing among unknown effects, provides no empirical demonstration or verification of what you are trying to measure.
In other words, you know nothing about statistical analysis - got that!

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2020, 03:01:20 PM »
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):


No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2020, 03:25:11 PM »
Quote from: JackBlack
In fact, you provided some of the data yourself.

Remember that first graph you posted? Showing a variation between 280.40 Hz and 280.45 Hz?
What is the variation in that? 0.05 Hz
What is the average? Roughly 280.425.
So what is the % variatoin?
0.05/280.425 = 0.0001783...
Or, expressed as a percentage is 0.01783...%
i.e. less than 0.02%.
Or to express it another way, it is + or - less than 0.01%.

Bunk. The noise displacement in that graph was across 0.05 Hz, yes. But the displacement the earthquakes were causing ranged across about 0.11 Hz. Now you are claiming that the general static seen is about half the magnitude of an earthquake and are trying to dismiss the range as trivial.

None of it tells us how small the supposed rotation rate of the earth compares.

Quote
Likewise, with the second figure you provided, we see that the variation from the average is less than 2*10^-8 rad/s and the average is roughly 7.3*10^-5 rad/s.

So what is the variation as a fraction?
2*10^-8/(7.3*10^-5)=0.00027 = 0.027%.

More bunk. You are now talking about figures after the data analysis filtering, in the effort to make your argument.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 03:33:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2020, 03:27:03 PM »
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):


No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?

Your argument appears garbled, since you are comparing a figure from further filtering steps and processes down the line to raw data.

Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 03:29:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2020, 05:12:25 PM »
The unfiltered data is already within 0.1% of the averaged value.

What are you basing this claim on? You have provided no supporting quotes or sources.
It might not hurt to admit that you were totally wrong with this silly claim "Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.":
That last graph that I posted shows data for one hour. The earth is supposed to rotate 15 degrees in that time. Where do you see 15 degrees in that mess of data? Sometimes the earth is rotating backwards according to that.

I'm basing my claim on the graph that you seem incapable of understanding! This one that you so helpfully pointed out:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):


No, not Angular Velocity in rad/s but Angular Velocity in rad/s x 10-8 but what a little factor of 100 million :o?
The vertical axis is the deviation in rad/s x 10-8 and elsewhere the paper,  Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa gave the result as:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Earth Rot. Rate (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec
which is a period of 23.93447 hours and the currently quoted sidereal day is 23.9345 hours.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?

Your argument appears garbled, since you are comparing a figure from further filtering steps and processes down the line to raw data.
And why not? That shows how little that raw data deviates from that average.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!
So, of course,
I cannot "Just show YOU where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph" because it is not on that graph and was never intended to be!

Read what is written in the title of that graph!

It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".

Look! That graph does not show any angular velocity at all - but it does show how small the deviations were!

Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Now, in future please read what is written in the references and the annotations on diagrams and graphs!
Do you understand YET?
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Here is the "raw data" as simply the Sagnac frequency:
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:

It doesn't look like the data is naturally stable to me. We can presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Look at the scale!
Even the raw data deviations (including the minor quakes) are around 0.1 Hz in 280 Hz and of course "they are applying algorithms to the noisy raw data".

But even the raw data has a "natural stability" orders of magnitude better than anything any flat-Earther has ever dome!
As to your "presume that there were not constant earthquakes for all 95 days" claim.
Of course, there are "not constant earthquakes for all 95 days" but there are quite a number of minor shakes as is noted in the paper.

And it needs little data processing to see that, apart from minor quakes etc the Sagnac frequency lies in the range 280.42 0.02 Hz.

Show me any relevant measurement that any flat-Earther has done to anything like that precision.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 917
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2020, 05:17:54 PM »
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect) can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.

Since there's no such thing as ether, that reduces those options by one.
Nullius in Verba

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2020, 05:36:18 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!

Quote
Read what is written in the title of that graph!



I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?

Quote
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Actually, it doesn't say that.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 05:57:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2020, 05:47:01 PM »
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a much better proof of the earth's rotation.

No.

Foucault's pendulum
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
and gyrocompasses (Coriolis effect)
The mechanical marine gyrocompass might be due to the Coriolis effect but Ring Laser Gyroscopes are based on the Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
can be explained (see Mach's principle) using two possible causes:
Except that Mach's principle was little more than a conjecture of Ernest Mach and the name "Mach's principle" was coined by Albert Einstein.

Einstein would like to have had his GR successfully encompass the "complete relativity" of Mach's principle but realised that was not possible though questions still remain.

Quote from: sandokhan
either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.
But the ether drift has never been proven and a number of experinents, when taken together, seem to indicate that no consistent ether theory can be found.

Quote from: sandokhan
The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT, the only effect which measures rotation directly.
Well, no it isn't, but there are a number of Sagnac devices that can measure rotation directly to better than 1 part in 107.

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2020, 06:08:43 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
How many time must I say the same thing? that graph does NOT show any angular velocity!

Quote from: rabinoz
Read what is written in the title of that graph!

I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?
Read it again then because it says "angular velocity - average value . . . . . Raw data". So where is the no 15 degrees per hour shown!
How could you possibly not see the "- average value" in this ?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: rabinoz
That graph is only showing the deviation between the instantaneous reading and the average value and it says exactly that at the top of the graph - read it again!

Actually, it doesn't say that.
Actually, it does say: !

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2020, 10:47:55 PM »
That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm. It explicitly says RAW DATA.

It's untouched raw data showing what would be the total raw values of the angular velocity, to which we can see the average noise and trends.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 10:53:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2020, 11:21:14 PM »
That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm. It explicitly says RAW DATA.
Abd it just as explicitly that it is !

And it cannot possibly be simply "raw data" because it is centred on ZERO! The angular acceleration cannot be centred on zero because it was derived from a Sagnac frequency averaging (by eye only) about 280.42 Hz.

Look in your own post:
Raw data from the second document, in Angular Velocity (rad/s):

Now, look at the raw Sagnac frequency shift.
I got this from the GINGERRINO document:

You have seen both of that because those are your own posts.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's untouched raw data showing what would be the total raw values of the angular velocity, to which we can see the average noise and trends.
No, it is not simply "raw data" because the graph says it st not! Can't you read plain English?
Read again: - what do you think a "minus sign" means.

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2020, 11:33:22 PM »
Bunk. The noise displacement in that graph was across 0.05 Hz, yes.
And that is tiny compared to the signal.
Do you understand that?
The measured value was roughly 280.425 Hz.
0.05 Hz is basically nothing.
So you are complaining over nothing.
So no, not bunk at all.

You are appealing a tiny amount of noise to say there is no signal.
Again, that is like complaining about unnoticeable noise to say there is no TV signal.

None of it tells us how small the supposed rotation rate of the earth compares.
Again, can you see the clear signal?
That makes it quite clear how well it compares.

More bunk. You are now talking about figures after the data analysis filtering, in the effort to make your argument.
No, now I am comparing the noise to the average value.

If there was filtering, it would not be that noisy.
Do you understand what filtering does?
It removes the noise.

What is shown is the difference between the raw data and the average.
All that is doing is offsetting it.

You are attacking strawmen to pretend you have an argument.

That graph shows raw data for the span of an hour. Where do you see 15 degrees manifested in that graph?
Just show us where the 15 degrees per hour shows up in that graph.
No, it is your argument that is complete garbage.
Again, that graph shows the raw data minus the average.
Do you understand that?
It is showing the deviation from the average.
Now, do you think Earth's rotation rate is part of the average, or part of the deviation?
As Earth's rotation is almost constant (especially over that time period) it would be part of the average, and thus when you look at the deviation, it will vanish.

Do you understand?
If you do, why are you continuing to make such a pathetic and obviously false claim?

I did read it. It says angular velocity. Raw data. So where is the 15 degrees per hour shown?
Try harder. Make sure you note what it says after angular velocity.
Here, I'll even make it simpler by circling it in red.

Can you see it now? The important 2 words you are either completely missing or intentionally lying about?

Again, where you expect Earth's ~15 degree per hour rotation rate to show up in that graph?

Actually, it doesn't say that.
While it doesn't use those exact words, that is what it says.
It is the angular velocity-average value, and that is the deviation.
Just what do you think the deviation is?

That does not imply that the results are averaged with an algorithm, or that some things are subtracted with an algorithm.
Then what do you think it means?
Please explain exactly what you think angular velocity - average value means?
What is the average value?

It explicitly says RAW DATA.
To indicate that it hasn't been filtered.

All it does is change the 0 point, i.e. shift the axis.

It is like expressing "RAW DATA" for temperature in celsius vs fahrenheit.

If it was just the raw data like you want to pretend then it would not have " - average value".

Do you understand the insanity of your claim?
You are saying that even though it explicitly states that the value plotted has had the average subtracted, it somehow doesn't mean that the average has been subtracted?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2020, 09:50:37 PM »
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.

It specifically says RAW DATA and you are arguing that it is filtered in some way. I can only interpret that as a rather weak argument. On topics like these there should be multiple sources or quotes which confirm what you are trying to claim, yet you appeal to your own personal interpretation of a dash.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 09:56:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2020, 11:32:15 PM »
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.
No, that is obviously a "minus sign" otherwise it would not have been centred on zero!

Read it again:
Read what is written in the title of that graph!

It reads "GINGERino angular velocity - average value".
That heading would be meaningless with a "dash".

Stop this scrabbling around for excuses to explain away these results.
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec with no data averaging:
Even the raw data rarely shows deviations exceeding 2 x 10-8 rad/sec and the average deviation is about 1 x 10-8 rad/sec.

Hence the raw data, without any averaging shows the Earth's rotation rate as (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec.
Who needs any better to show that the Earth rotates?

But when the data is quite legitimately "filtered" the result is:
Quote from: Angela Di Virgilio
Ring-Lasers seismic rotational sensing, Angela Di Virgilio-INFN-Pisa
Earth Rot. Rate (7.29211500.0000001)10−5 radians/sec

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #55 on: January 16, 2020, 11:42:55 PM »
That could be a dash, not a minus sign.
No, it is quite clearly a minus sign.
What would the dash even mean?

Again, clearly explain just what you think that portion of the title means.

you are arguing that it is filtered in some way.
No, we are arguing that it has an offset, as in the average has been subtracted.
Meanwhile, you are completely ignoring that it clearly states it is the angular velocity - average value, you are completley ignoring that the average has been subtracted.

That isn't a rather weak argument. That is blatant dishonest, wilfully rejecting reality to prop up fantasy.

On topics like these there should be multiple sources or quotes which confirm what you are trying to claim
You mean like the other data which clearly show it isn't centred on 0? The data you just like to ignore?

You are the one clinging to personal interpretation, not us.

Again, tell us just what you think that means.
Not just that you think it could be a dash, but exactly what you think that title means, making sure you address the " - average value" part.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5518
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2020, 12:14:35 AM »
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.

However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.

Two different formulas.

This is the point Knodel and his critics did not understand.

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2020, 01:00:54 AM »
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec
No.
Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Again, PURE GARBAGE!
We have been over this countless times with you repeatedly failing to justify your insane claims.
The sagnac effect will be the same regardless of if you accept reality with a rotating Earth, or if you choose to cling to a refuted aether which is stationary with Earth rotating, or the refuted aether which rotates about a stationary Earth, or the refuted aether which rotates with Earth rotating as well.


The Sagnac effect is recorded with ring laser gyroscopes. You blatantly lying about that will not change that fact.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to go back to one of the countless threads on the Sagnac effect you have already been refuted in and try to defend your claims. Maybe start with a derivation, from first principles, starting with how long it takes for light to traverse a stationary loop.

*

Stash

  • 4059
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2020, 01:03:21 AM »
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.

However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.

Two different formulas.

This is the point Knodel and his critics did not understand.

Looks like these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2020, 03:51:32 AM »
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.2920.002)10−5 rad/sec

No.

Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Who says that?

Quote from: sandokhan
If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
True and the Ring Laser Gyroscope is based on the Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
However, the RLGs do not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT at all.
How is it then that everybody of note does claim that Ring Laser Gyroscopes do measure the rotation of the Earth through the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Are all those physicists wrong and are you the only one who is right?