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?