[SteelyBob]

You claim that there are more accurate devices, but refuse to provide raw graphs, data, and provide only claims and assumptions.

Well, I pointed you to the 1320AN, and quoted the bias stability...if you really want me to walk you by the hand to the data here's the spec sheet: https://aerospace.honeywell.com/content/dam/aerobt/en/documents/learn/products/sensors/brochures/GG1320ANDigitalLaserGyro-bro.pdf

Furthermore, I linked to several papers showing the specs of far more sensitive RLGs - you are using the lack of raw data from those devices as evidence of something, although quite what that is I'm not really clear. But when raw data is shown to you, you haven't the faintest idea how to interpret it, hence your inability to understand counts versus rotation rate, or the difference between rate and rate with mean subtracted. 

I've also linked to some interesting experimental data measuring earth rate, which you ignored, and to an aircraft nav system instructional video that clearly indicates a strong link to latitude and earth rotation, which you again ignored.

You think that a trend is proof, yet refuse to acknowledge that there are many diurnal phenomena beyond the supposed rotation of the earth.

No, I think the data is data, not proof in and of itself. In the case of RLGs, the easiest way to prove you are measuring earth rate and not some anomaly in the system to is to rotate the axis of the gyro in and out of alignment with the spin axis of the earth, just as indicated in the quote I shared with you, which you ignored:

And as further confirmation that the slow counting is indeed due to the Earth's rotation, with the GG1320 tipped at around 40 degrees away from true North, the counting slows to a virtual stand-still with just some randomness in the LSB due to vibrations, and reverses direction when tipped beyond 40 degrees. When tipped the other way up to 50 degrees towards North, the counting is most rapid.

If that Canadian paper had a graph of test BD11991A, for example, we would see a good example of this - this was one of the trial runs with earth rate removed via rotation - I expect we would see a noisy line close to the origin (although not necessarily zero, remember the device has a significant bias of around 1 deg / hour)

You see that the data is tainted with phenomena which are not the rotation of the earth, yet refuse to acknowledge that the presence of unmitigated effects invalidates the assumptions involved.

Pretty much all experimental data is in some way 'tainted' with other data that you don't want - it's a question of degrees. Even a simple task like measuring the length of something is actually difficult to do on a very precise level - both the thing being measured and the thing doing the measuring will expand and contract with temperature, for example, introducing noise to the data. The issue is whether that noise invalidates the experiment.

How often are inconsistent experiment with unknown effects and a series of assumptions accepted in hard sciences like chemistry, biology, etc.?

Vague, desperate stuff, Tom.

You post various papers and then later dismiss them as being "way, way" beyond what we're talking about.

I quoted those papers to point out that far, far more accurate devices exist than the ones you used in your article on RLGs, one of which, incredibly, wasn't even a RLG. Compare the signal:noise ratio of the MEMS experiment to the data from the Canadian paper, and then look at the 1320AN spec sheet, and then the various fixed G-series papers. As I said in the original post, it seems very odd that you've chosen two relatively inaccurate devices when so many more advanced ones are out there. Using inaccurate devices and then pointing triumphantly at noisy data is a bit silly, really.

Are we done here? This is just a load of assumptions and very little in the way of tangible evidence.

I think you're done here. I'm quite happy, thanks.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm asking you for data from these 'accurate' gyroscopes which the shows smoother results you claim. You again refuse to provide it and instead choose to keep arguing why you should not.

Earth rotation rate from the underground G ring laser research gyroscope over 30 days:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-rotation-rate-of-the-Earth-measured-with-the-G-ring-laser-as-a-function-of-time_fig4_45928679

FIG. 4: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time. Averaging over 2 hours was applied
to a corrected dataset, where all known geophysical signals have been removed.

For the detection of fundamental physics signals one has to remove all known perturbation signals of the Earth from
the ring laser time-series. Furthermore we have applied 2 hours of averaging of the data in order to reduce the effect
from short period perturbations. Figure 4 shows an example. In order to reduce the local orientation uncertainties,
which remain after local tilts measured with the high resolution tiltmeters have been removed, averaging as indicated
above was applied to a series of 30 days of data collection, including the period shown in fig. 3.

It appears fairly questionable as to what this is.

If you are going to argue that they can't yet take out all geophysical phenomena affecting the device, then you have invalidated your argument entirely. You are agreeing that they are measuring a mess of noise and interpreting the results indirectly.

[SteelyBob]

I'm asking you for data from these 'accurate' gyroscopes which the shows smoother results you claim. You again refuse to provide it and instead choose to keep arguing why you should not.

Earth rotation rate from the underground G ring laser research gyroscope over 30 days:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-rotation-rate-of-the-Earth-measured-with-the-G-ring-laser-as-a-function-of-time_fig4_45928679

FIG. 4: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time. Averaging over 2 hours was applied
to a corrected dataset, where all known geophysical signals have been removed.

For the detection of fundamental physics signals one has to remove all known perturbation signals of the Earth from
the ring laser time-series. Furthermore we have applied 2 hours of averaging of the data in order to reduce the effect
from short period perturbations. Figure 4 shows an example. In order to reduce the local orientation uncertainties,
which remain after local tilts measured with the high resolution tiltmeters have been removed, averaging as indicated
above was applied to a series of 30 days of data collection, including the period shown in fig. 3.

It fairly questionable as to what this is, to me.

If you are going to argue that they can't yet take out all geophysical phenomena affecting the device, then you have invalidated your argument entirely. You are agreeing that they are measuring a mess of noise and interpreting the results indirectly.

Do you understand the difference between Ω and ∆Ω? That graph isn’t what you claim it to be, which is kind of embarrassing.

[Tom Bishop]

Do you understand the difference between Ω and ∆Ω? That graph isn’t what you claim it to be, which is kind of embarrassing.

It clearly says that it's the "rotation rate of the Earth" in the caption and text, and not some kind of offset or variation.

"FIG. 4: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time."

Do you know how to read? Embarrassing. Please do continue to tell us why words don't mean what they say, and how it's all wrong and misinterpreted, but there is this better data on this from better devices that you continuously refuse to share.

[SteelyBob]

Do you understand the difference between Ω and ∆Ω? That graph isn’t what you claim it to be, which is kind of embarrassing.

It clearly says that it's the "rotation rate of the Earth" in the caption and text, and not some kind of offset or variation.

"FIG. 4: The rotation rate of the Earth measured with the G ring laser as a function of time."

Do you know how to read? Embarrassing. Please do continue to tell us why words don't mean what they say, and how it's all wrong and misinterpreted, but there is this secretive smooth and stable data from better devices that you continuously refuse to find and share.

I’m assuming you don’t understand then.

Yep, the caption text says that, but it’s not well written - an error, I guess. The graph clearly says ∆Ω on the axis, and the units are pico radians / sec, which is absolutely tiny. It clearly isn’t Ω, but ∆Ω.

If that was the presented the same way as the graphs from the Canadian paper that you didn’t understand, you’d be looking at a flat line. But of course that would be pointless, because the purpose of the analysis isn’t to measure Ω, but to look at tiny variations in it for other purposes.

[Tom Bishop]

So you have resorted to arguing that the captions are mislabeled, but you know better than the scientists, and continue to insist that there is this better data out there that supports your case. Give us a break.

Maybe the data you are trying to argue for doesn't exist and they can't really measure the earth's rotation with this device and only make various inferences and you are the one in error. You have a hard time showing it it, after all. You have argued that they're not showing the Earth's rotation rate in full because they are "way, way" beyond that. Alternatively, you don't have the data so you're "way, way" wrong.

[SteelyBob]

So you have resorted to arguing that the captions are mislabeled, but you know better than the scientists, and continue to insist that there is this better data out there that supports your case. Give us a break.

Maybe the data you are trying to argue for doesn't exist and they can't really measure the earth's rotation with this device and only make various inferences and you are the one in error. You have a hard time showing it it, after all. You have argued that they're not showing the Earth's rotation rate in full because they are "way, way" beyond that. Alternatively, you don't have the data so you're "way, way" wrong.

Do you accept that it can’t be Ω if it’s measured in picorads/sec?

Either the axis or the caption is wrong - they can’t both be correct.

You seem to be obsessed with a desire to see a flat line, but you don’t seem to understand the data. That graph is effectively a zoomed in look at the flat line - the ‘noise’ in the rotation data. If you don’t believe it, I can’t really help you, but everybody reading this can see it for themselves.

You don’t need better data - it’s staring you in the face, once again. You keep saying the rotation signal is ‘dominated’ by other factors - they are showing you a graph with the other factors down in the 10^-12 region. Given that Ω is  0.26 x 10^-5 rad/s, that’s a phenomenal level of precision.

[Tom Bishop]

Delta and Phi can mean a lot of things. I see a zero there on the axis for the Delta baseline, for example.

Nothing in the text  in the document says that "here are the variations of the earth's rotation". Nor does the text around the graph. It says that it the line represents the "rotation rate of the Earth". They must not have explained what they were showing in the document, except for when your brain created an unsaid interpretation apparently.

If you are going to argue your imagined version of things I would suggest citing someone other than yourself. You appear to have a rich imagination where the scientists are writing down wrong things, the data you want to exist is there but hidden and unexplained, and misexplained, but you have special knowledge to correct them based on your special personal logic.

[Tom Bishop]

This paper has some interesting graphs on the super precise GINGERINO Ring Laser Gyroscope.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012084/pdf

The left-hand axis ranges from -6 to +6 x 10^-10 rad/s

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/scientific-notation-converter.php

Converting 4 x 10^-10 to a real number = 0.00000000004 (real number)

The 4 on the chart is 0.00000000004 rads/sec

http://www.kylesconverter.com/frequency/degrees-per-hour-to-radians-per-second

For the earth's rotation, 15 deg/hour = 0.000072722 rads/sec



Where's the rotation of the earth? This chart doesn't go that high. The rotation of the earth is several magnitudes higher.

Perhaps it has something to do with this quote about the GINGERRINO in bold here:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2020.00049/full

Figure 8. (A) The data utilized in the present analysis (30 days from June 15, 2018), ωs0 with mean subtracted, and the data after around day 20 have been removed since GINGERINO was in split mode. (B) ωs, mean subtracted, evaluated with the model of the laser systematic. The data have been decimated down to 1,800 s. Since GINGERINO is a single-ring gyroscope, with an ~45° inclination with the Earth axis, it is impossible to distinguish rotations and inclinations. On the right, the sensitivity is expressed in change of the relative angle with the Earth rotation axis, showing that the orientation of the apparatus of GINGERINO is stable at the level of a few μ rad.

This appears to suggest that they can't distinguish the rotation of the earth directly and they may be making indirect inferences.

[SteelyBob]

This paper has some interesting graphs on the super precise GINGERINO Ring Laser Gyroscope.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012084/pdf

The left-hand axis ranges from -6 to +6 x 10^-10 rad/s

Converting 4 x 10^-10 to a real number = 0.00000000004 (real number)

The 4 on the chart is 0.00000000004 rads/sec


For the earth's rotation, 15 deg/hour = 0.000072722 rads/sec

Where's the rotation of the earth? This chart doesn't go that high. The rotation of the earth is several magnitudes higher.

You're absolutely right, that paper does have some interesting graphs - you just don't understand them, or are wilfully misrepresenting them. It would help if you read the totality of things, instead of scrabbling around for cherries to pick, especially when you don't understand them. If you actually read the detail around that graph, it clearly says 'residual'.

Fortunately for our discussion, if you just look above that graph, you'll see this one, which I guess is the kind of thing you've been after, or have been pretending to be after:



This shows the raw rotation data over a couple of months, with an earthquake visible as an obvious spike. Look at the y-axis - the line is showing around 4.925 x 10^-5 rad/s, which if you correct for the latitude of Gran Sasso, around 42.47 degrees N, comes in at 7.29 rad/s, which is bang on earth rate.

That graph is exactly what I said you'd see if you measure earth rate using a more precise system - thank's for drawing my attention to it, as I'd obviously not noticed it when we spoke previously. When discussing the Canadian test of the Honeywell RLG you said the data:

 

Looks pretty questionable. If that's the Earth's rotation then something is increasing and decreasing it's speed by 30%.

Now you've got a graph showing earth rate with noise levels that are barely readable, outside of the obvious seismic event. Are you now satisfied with the evidence, or are you going to move the goalposts? I'd say that graph should have pride of place in the wiki - what do you think? It is, after all, raw data from a highly accurate RLG showing earth rate to a remarkable degree of precision.

Perhaps it has something to do with this quote about the GINGERRINO in bold here:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2020.00049/full


Figure 8. (A) The data utilized in the present analysis (30 days from June 15, 2018), ωs0 with mean subtracted, and the data after around day 20 have been removed since GINGERINO was in split mode. (B) ωs, mean subtracted, evaluated with the model of the laser systematic. The data have been decimated down to 1,800 s. Since GINGERINO is a single-ring gyroscope, with an ~45° inclination with the Earth axis, it is impossible to distinguish rotations and inclinations. On the right, the sensitivity is expressed in change of the relative angle with the Earth rotation axis, showing that the orientation of the apparatus of GINGERINO is stable at the level of a few μ rad.

This appears to suggest that they can't distinguish the rotation of the earth directly and they are making indirect inferences.

It's not that they are hiding it in these various graphs, like you are arguing. They can't see it directly and have an excuse for that.

If you don't understand stuff, it's best not to go public with it. The point they are making is the GINGERINO is a single axis system - there is just one ring laser, orientated horizontally with respect to the earth's surface, and therefore at an angle to the earth's rotation axis equal to it's latitude in Italy. This is as opposed to, say, an aircraft INS where you would typically have three, arranged orthogonally. This means it can only measure rotation around one axis, meaning any disturbances in the steady rotation rate could be either rotations or inclinations of the earth, but you wouldn't know which.

[Tom Bishop]

This shows the raw rotation data over a couple of months, with an earthquake visible as an obvious spike. Look at the y-axis - the line is showing around 4.925 x 10-5 rad/s, which if you correct for the latitude of Gran Sasso, around 42.47 degrees N, comes in at 7.29 rad/s, which is bang on earth rate.

7.29 rad/s is 1503670 degrees per hour. You apparently do not know what you're talking about.



The line should be at ~7.27 x 10^-5 rad/s, which is 15 degrees per hour. This one is closer and has it about right in this link:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/736594/contributions/3184374/attachments/1741872/2819336/DiVirgilio_COSMO2018.pdf



The Earth rotation rate in blue is pretty funky there. Not too consistent.

Another image:



And see how it says seismology at the top?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012084/pdf

GINGERINO is shown in Fig. 2 . It is located inside the deep underground INFN laboratory of the Gran Sasso (LNGS) [7]; its aim was to characterise the underground rotational seismic disturbances.

GINGERINO is a "rotational seismic observetory":

https://publishing.aip.org/publications/latest-content/going-deep-to-measure-earth-s-rotational-effects/

GINGERino is now operating, along with seismic equipment provided by the Italian Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, as a rotational seismic observatory.

So no, I don't see how these other types of graphs are clearly the 'rotation of the earth' either. Rotating seismic disturbances can also exist on a FE.

[SteelyBob]

7.29 rad/s is 1503670 degrees per hour. You apparently do not know what you're talking about.

Well, hey, we all make mistakes. I have obviously missed off the 'x 10^-5'. I suspect you know that. I won't edit it, since you've pointed it out, but I will clarify here for anybody reading this.

The line on the graph is roughly 4.92 x 10^-5 rad/s. The latitude of the equipment is around 42.47 degrees N. So 4.92 x 10^-5 / (sin 42.47) = 7.29 x 10^-5 rad/s.

7.29 x 10^-5 rad/s x 3600 x 360 / (2 x pi) = 15.04 degrees / hour

The line should be at ~7.27 x 10^-5 rad/s, which is 15 degrees per hour. This one is closer and has it right in this link:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/736594/contributions/3184374/attachments/1741872/2819336/DiVirgilio_COSMO2018.pdf

Well, yes, that's earth rate right there. Thanks for sharing.

The Earth rotation rate in blue is pretty funky there. Not too consistent.

Well, hang on a minute. Look at the noise level in your MEMS example (noise bigger than the earth rate), then the Canadian Honeywell paper (noise around 20-30% of earth rate - which you said was too much), then the graph we discussed above, and also this graph, which shows several different sources. The blue one (the old 1Hz data) is clearly the noisiest, but even that has fluctuations less than 1% of the earth rate. Then compare with the green and red lines and you're into a whole order of magnitude less noise. It goes back to my earlier question - if the noise is making you doubt the veracity of the figures, what level of noise would you require to change your mind?

Another image:



And see how it says seismology at the top?

That graph is fantastic - another one for the wiki, I would suggest. It shows earth rate beautifully, and clearly shows how tiny the noise is compared to the magnitude of the underlying rate. Yes, of course - it says seismology at the top. It is showing another earthquake effect. How does that invalidate the clear line showing earth rate, outside of the earthquake section?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012084/pdf

GINGERINO is shown in Fig. 2 . It is located inside the deep underground INFN laboratory
of the Gran Sasso (LNGS) [7]; its aim was to characterise the underground rotational seismic
disturbances.

So no, I don't see how these other types of graphs are clearly the 'rotation of the earth' either. Rotating seismic disturbances can also exist on a FE.

If the that RLG was on a flat, not rotating earth, then yes, it would show seismic disturbances too. But if the FE wasn't rotating, then the fluctuations would be around zero, and not 7.29 x 10^-5 rad/s, wouldn't they? What is the RLG measuring at 7.29 x 10^-5 rad/s, if not earth rate? And why do these different RLGs at different locations measure earth rate differently, but when corrected for the sine of their latitude find it to be the same? That is clear, brilliant evidence for a rotating globe shaped earth.

[Tom Bishop]

Sines also exist in flat circles, not just globes. I am sure you know this since you are using a circle to get that result:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/precalctwo/chapter/unit-circle-sine-and-cosine-functions/

Defining Sine and Cosine Functions

Now that we have our unit circle labeled, we can learn how the (x,y) coordinates relate to the arc length and angle. The sine function relates a real number to the y-coordinate of the point where the corresponding angle intercepts the unit circle.

If the that RLG was on a flat, not rotating earth, then yes, it would show seismic disturbances too. But if the FE wasn't rotating, then the fluctuations would be around zero, and not 7.29 x 10-5 rad/s, wouldn't they?

According to you it's not at 7.29 x 10^-5. You just told me that at 42 degrees they are going slower at 4.92 x 10^-5 rad/s. You are saying that they get slower as you near the pole.

The Gingerino is an underground "rotational seismic observatory". If the seismic fluctuations are rotating around the earth with the celestial bodies on a FE it is clear why seismic signals would pass over the device faster at 42 degrees than at the North Pole.

Likewise, on an RE the earth is moving at a different rate at the North Pole and at 42 degrees.

And why do these different RLGs at different locations measure earth rate differently, but when corrected for the sine of their latitude find it to be the same?

What are you talking about? You only have a single data point.

And on an FE the result of such data would be only be useful in determining whether the Flat Earth is a Monopole or Bi-Polar model.

[SteelyBob]

Sines also exist in flat circles, not just globes. I am sure you know this since you are using a circle to get that result:

If the that RLG was on a flat, not rotating earth, then yes, it would show seismic disturbances too. But if the FE wasn't rotating, then the fluctuations would be around zero, and not 7.29 x 10-5 rad/s, wouldn't they?

According to you it's not at 7.29 x 10^-5. You just told me that at 42 degrees they are going slower at 4.92 x 10^-5 rad/s. You are saying that they get slower as you near the pole.

No - the other way round. If you try to measure the earth rate using a gyro with its spin axis vertical to the earth's surface then the measured rate of rotation will be earth rate multiplied by the sine of the latitude. Sin 0 is 0, sin 90 degrees is 1, so the measured rate increases the further away you go from the equator, reaching earth rate at the poles.

The Gingerino is an underground "rotational seismic observatory". If the seismic fluctuations are rotating around the earth with the celestial bodies on a FE it is clear why seismic signals would pass over the device faster at 42 degrees than at the North Pole.

Likewise, on an RE the earth is moving at a different rate at the North Pole and at 42 degrees.

And why do these different RLGs at different locations measure earth rate differently, but when corrected for the sine of their latitude find it to be the same?

What are you talking about? You only have a single data point.

And on an FE the result of such data would be only be useful in determining whether the Flat Earth is a Monopole or Bi-Polar model.

You seem to be completely muddling the seismic data, which shows as oscillatory signals, with the steady state rotation. Look at the Gingerino graph:



If the earth wasn't rotating, then you wouldn't have the steady state line at 7.29 on the y-axis - it would be showing zero, and the seismic activity would show as vibrations above and below zero. That graph shows earth rotation perfectly. If the world is flat, and it's not rotating, then why is the RLG showing a constant rotation?

[sandokhan]

If the earth wasn't rotating, then you wouldn't have the steady state line at 7.29 on the y-axis - it would be showing zero, and the seismic activity would show as vibrations above and below zero. That graph shows earth rotation perfectly. If the world is flat, and it's not rotating, then why is the RLG showing a constant rotation?

Sure the graph shows rotation. So, based on the results of the RLGs experiments (we might also mention the MGX) you are saying that it is the Earth which is rotating around its own axis? Is that your last word? You still have time to retract your statement.

[SteelyBob]

Sure the graph shows rotation. So, based on the results of the RLGs experiments (we might also mention the MGX) you are saying that it is the Earth which is rotating around its own axis? Is that your last word? You still have time to retract your statement.

Not sure it's my last word on the matter, but yes, the graph clearly shows the output from a ring laser gyro measuring the earth's rotation around the polar axis. What is your point?

[sandokhan]

What is your point?

You must be joking, of course.

Here is the point: you are using the wrong formula for the RLGs and the MGX. To detect rotation, you need the SAGNAC EFFECT formula. Your formula (the one that you are endorsing) is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. Then, you have two possibilities: either the Earth is rotating, OR, you have a rotational ether drift above the surface of the Earth. The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Each RLG has TWO FORMULAS: one for the Coriolis effect, and one for the Sagnac effect.

One is a mechanical effect, the slight deflection of the light beams (Coriolis), it is proportional to the area/angular velocity. The other one is an electromagnetic effect (Sagnac), it is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

[SteelyBob]

What is your point?

You must be joking, of course.

Here is the point: you are using the wrong formula for the RLGs and the MGX. To detect rotation, you need the SAGNAC EFFECT formula. Your formula (the one that you are endorsing) is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. Then, you have two possibilities: either the Earth is rotating, OR, you have a rotational ether drift above the surface of the Earth. The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Each RLG has TWO FORMULAS: one for the Coriolis effect, and one for the Sagnac effect.

One is a mechanical effect, the slight deflection of the light beams (Coriolis), it is proportional to the area/angular velocity. The other one is an electromagnetic effect (Sagnac), it is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

All of the graphs have come from papers and briefings made by other people. The specific graph we are discussing came from this slide pack: https://indico.cern.ch/event/736594/contributions/3184374/attachments/1741872/2819336/DiVirgilio_COSMO2018.pdf

It clearly explains the use of the sagnac effect to derive the rotation rate. That graph is derived from the sagnac effect.


[edited to fix link]

[stack]

What is your point?

You must be joking, of course.

Here is the point: you are using the wrong formula for the RLGs and the MGX.

What's the wrong formula you're referring to and who is using it?

[sandokhan]

Show me your formula. Is it by any chance, dt = 4Aω/c²? That's the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

A huge difference.