Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: Today at 10:59:12 AM »
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:

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

Quote
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?

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 12, 2021, 10:05:06 AM »
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

Quote

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.

Quote
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?

Quote

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?

Quote
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.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 12, 2021, 08:08:38 AM »
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:

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 11, 2021, 09:48:58 PM »
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.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 11, 2021, 09:23:35 PM »
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.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 11, 2021, 08:59:53 PM »
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

Quote

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.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 10, 2021, 02:10:39 PM »
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 10, 2021, 01:19:21 PM »

So now you are arguing that the papers aren't about showing the earth rotation and are just about a series of higher level assumptions. They are "way way past that". Why are you posting these papers of higher level assumptions as proof if it's not about that then?

Your inability to comprehend this stuff is not my problem.

Quote
Quote
No, I can't because if you read the text you've quoted it clearly says 'with mean subtracted' - they aren't interested in the absolute figure, they are interested in the delta. And the delta being measured is absolutely tiny - nano rad/s, or 10-9.

I'm not interested in the mean of the figures, I'm interested in the Earth's rotation. I don't see it.
And you won't see it. It isn't there to be seen. You posted it, not me.

Quote
Quote
Looks pretty questionable.

Based on what? You asked where the rotation was, presumably because you don't understand the data, and now when I show it to you where it is in the data it's too noisy for you? At the start of this I pointed out that this was a cheaper model - it is less accurate, and more noisy - that's the whole point. Measuring earth rate - 15 deg/hour - using a device that's designed for measuring up to 1000 deg / sec is always going to be tricky. If they used a more precise one, it would be less noisy and more precise

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

If that's how you interpret scientific measurement data then it's no wonder your understanding of the planet is so hopelessly at odds with reality. The data has noise in it, but the trend is clear - it's just shy of 10 counts every 10 seconds, which is exactly what we would expect the earth rate measurement to be at the latitude in question. The noise level is significant, yes - but then the rotation rate is tiny, so it's not surprising. When you put roughly the same noise level on a more substantial rotation rate, like the 100 deg/ sec tests shown in graph (f) you get deviations at the 4th or 5th significant figure. Significant noise:signal ratio at low rotation rates is exactly what you would expect to see in a cheaper device like this one.

Quote
Maybe circle back when you figure out why light's speed is constantly increasing and decreasing and which phenomena it's related to and whether it is affecting your assumptions.

Maybe something better than presenting a bunch of noisy garbage and pretending that you know which phenomena is caused by which and why.

The measured earth rate is bang on what we would expect, and the noise level is exactly what we would expect for the device in question. You didn't understand the data, and are now flailing around for another explanation that might give you an 'out' now you've been shown what it is. The data shows the measurement of earth rate. All of the data aligns perfectly with RE expectations.

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 10, 2021, 12:02:14 PM »
Oh, so the only diagram of raw results in the article you posted is flawed because there's an earthquake.

I wasn't really referring to the diagram, more the text itself. The whole point is the incredible accuracy of the system - down to 10-8. If it's a diagram you want, then there's the ∆Ω/Ω graph just above the one you posted. You seem to be demanding that these papers have a section called 'we measured the earth rate and here's what we found it to be' - they aren't going to do that, as they are way, way past that and ΩE itself isn't really of interest - they are interested in tiny, tiny variations in it, hence the article.

Quote
Here is another paper on GINGERRINO which has some angular rotation rate graphs. Nothing about an earthquake appears to be mentioned here:

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

Quote

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.

The units are nrads and μrads now. Maybe the rotation of the earth is in this graph somewhere? Can you point it out to us?

No, I can't because if you read the text you've quoted it clearly says 'with mean subtracted' - they aren't interested in the absolute figure, they are interested in the delta. And the delta being measured is absolutely tiny - nano rad/s, or 10-9.

Quote
I'm not sure I can see what you're talking about without an image. Can you use a photo editor to point out the earth's rotation in one of the graphs?

How's this? The average RLG counts are just under 10, I'd say. That's your earth rate, as I showed in the earlier calculations.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:56:28 AM »
If magnetic declination does change over time, it doesn't mean that was in the configuration that you need it to be for your model for your particular explanation. Again, 'magnetic declination did it' is completely ad-hoc.

It's a point against the model because the standard model doesn't work, and needs these ad-hoc elements, sort of like the 'refraction did it' arguments for the long range observational tests.

So does magnetic variation from true north exist or not? If you're saying it doesn't then you are up against a wall of enormous evidence that it does, but please come off the fence and say so.

If you're saying it does exist then what process or resource are you suggesting one should use to determine what it is at a particular location and time? There is a wealth of independent and completely coherent resources out there, all coming up with pretty much exactly the same numbers, and of course if they are wrong, bad things happen. So it's hardly ad hoc - he is at a particular part of the world where the mag var is recorded as being large, and the results he gets are pretty much exactly what you would expect. Calling it ad hoc is just a desperate mask for a lack of comprehension and a strange straw man - there is no serious scientific model being proposed that relies on there not being magnetic variation.

Mag var would be equally valid on a flat earth - you'd still have to account for the fact that the magnetic North Pole, for example, is both not at the centre of the circle and is mobile.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:46:24 AM »
Quote from: SteelyBob
I'm well aware of what a radian is, thanks. No, the stuff in black isn't earth rotation. You wouldn't see it on that scale - earth rate is 0.000072 rad/s.

So there is noise that is dominating the results, and the earth rate is interpreted indirectly. I see. Well, isn't that a downer for your argument.

Errrr....not really. That's an earthquake you're looking at there, so yes, the noise (ie the earthquake) is dominating the results, which is as you'd expect. When it's not earthquaking, it measures the earth rate very well, indeed far better than the Honeywell one...

Quote

Really, where in the wiggly line graph is the rotation of the earth? Can you point it out to us in a photo editor please?

On all three of the graphs you've shown the left hand y-axis is 'RLG CNTS' - the line averages around 10 after the warm up. As I've shown, that works out pretty much bang on what you'd expect for earth rate. It's not hugely precise, but then it's not really intended for that purpose and it is, as I explained earlier, relatively cheap compared to the far more precise GG1320 - a similar trace from a 1320 would have far less 'wiggle'.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:21:03 AM »
Quote from: SteelyBob
Second, and I suspect most significantly here, he also doesn't seem to have considered magnetic declination, which is kind of schoolboy navigation really. If you look at a declination map of the area he was talking about you'll see that the area he was flying over on the north-western heading part of the journey has a particularly large declination - around 40-50 degrees East. Here's a calculator, although there's plenty of other maps out there that all show the same thing: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml

So a compass would be expected to indicate south of west if the direction of travel was, say 300 degrees true, which it appeared to be from the brief video clip.

This stuff is just utterly basic.

What is the basis of magnetic declination other that to explain that the magnetic field lines aren't working right for the model and so the magnetic field lines must be warped and different?

Claiming that your model works and introducing ad-hoc explanations whenever something doesn't work isn't filling me with confidence for your model.

Not basic, but rather ad-hoc. You've given an ad-hoc explanation for something without basis.

Are you now, seriously and in full public view, claiming that magnetic declination isn't real? Remember, you've argued that there is no RE conspiracy, only a space travel one, so you're suggesting that all of the organisations that teach how to use a magnetic compass (like the Boy Scouts) are either in on the conspiracy, or are wrong.

Magnetic declination isn't just stunningly obvious to anybody who's ever used a compass, it actually changes over time, hence the date input on that calculator and the rate/year stat that usually accompanies mag declination information. It even causes airports to have rename their runways occasionally, as runways take their titles from the first two digits of their mag heading (so runway 21, for example, is around 210 degrees mag), when runways that are close to a boundary drift into the  next bracket - so runway 21 might need to become 22 when its mag heading drifts closer to 220 than 210.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:15:46 AM »

Quote
Really? I thought you said it performed well? If you're confused by the noise on the graphs then you clearly don't understand electronics, or indeed how RLGs work.

Then you should explain to us how it works. Where is the Earth's rotation in the raw output of the Honeywell gyro:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a266418.pdf

It's staring you in the face, if you understand what you're looking at.

The RLG counts for the graphs you've shown there are strobed at 10 seconds, so the line at roughly 10 counts means around 1 count per second. As per the specs you've quoted, the scale factor is 116000 counts per revolution, so the gyro is indicating a rotation of 1 / 116000 = 8.62 x 10-6 revs / sec

Convert that into degrees per hour and you get 11.2. I don't see a lat/long or address for the lab in the paper, but I'm guessing it's southern Canada, around 49 degrees North. 11.2 / sin 49 = 14.8 degrees per hour.

Pretty good, although clearly you'd need to average out the line with a bit more precision, and to locate the lab better than my rough guess.

So yes, the device can and does detect earth rate, and your graphs show it quite clearly. Thanks for sharing.

Worth pointing out that the specs on RLGs can be a bit misleading - early / cheaper ones struggled with slow rotation rates due to 'locking', which prompted the use of dither - this adds to the noise but improves low rotation rate performance.

Quote

I just see a bunch of seismic related stuff in that link:

So is this stuff in black the rotation of the earth?

In black I see that the time other than the earthquake the Earth is wobbling forward and backward, + and -, sort of like the Honeywell gyro.

Here is a definition of rad/s:

I'm well aware of what a radian is, thanks. No, the stuff in black isn't earth rotation. You wouldn't see it on that scale - earth rate is 0.000072 rad/s.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: September 10, 2021, 09:44:32 AM »

I also found this one interesting - The direction of a compass when approaching Australia seems to disagree with the RE Theory: https://odysee.com/@jeranism:9/max-igan-s-santiago-to-sydney-flight:b?&sunset=lbrytv

First of all, trying to use a handheld magnetic compass on an aircraft is a really bad plan - you'll get wildly inaccurate results due to interference from ferrous components of the aircraft, particularly the engine, and from EM interference from various sources such as radios, electric motors and the wiring loom in general.

Second, and I suspect most significantly here, he also doesn't seem to have considered magnetic declination, which is kind of schoolboy navigation really. If you look at a declination map of the area he was talking about you'll see that the area he was flying over on the north-western heading part of the journey has a particularly large declination - around 40-50 degrees East. Here's a calculator, although there's plenty of other maps out there that all show the same thing: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml

So a compass would be expected to indicate south of west if the direction of travel was, say 300 degrees true, which it appeared to be from the brief video clip.

This stuff is just utterly basic.

Then you get into distances and flight times. On the monopole map the straight line between the start and end point of the flight in question is longer than the distance from the edge of the circle to the North Pole, which the wiki claims (see the erastothenes section) to be 12,500 miles. Even if we err on the side of caution, and say it is a minimum of 12,500 miles, then to cover that distance in 14 hours (the slower direction time according to that video) would need a ground speed of around 900mph, and the faster flight of 11 hours would need a groundspeed of over 1100mph, and that's before you consider the slower part of the journey at each end, or the fact the distance on the monopole map is actually longer than 12500 miles. Those are not realistic speeds for an airliner.

And if you run the same exercise on the bipolar map it just makes no sense at all - can you draw a line on a bipolar map, Tom, showing the flightpath that you think the flight is taking?

We also have to bear in mind that, according to the wiki, there is no round earth conspiracy, just a space flight one. So all of this has to be happening in a way that is transparent to the people planning it and flying it, who are using RE derived speeds, headings and distances and arriving quite successfully, using instruments that display distances to waypoints, fuel burns, IAS, TAS and GS that are completely coherent with the experienced journeys.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 09, 2021, 02:34:58 PM »

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 09, 2021, 08:58:00 AM »

Alternatively, you know, the earth was not rotating and this complex compensation is not needed and there was simply a wander of some particular amount during a particular journey.

Can you see how uncontrolled wander invalidates this latitude nut proof of yours?

So every avionics manufacturer is wrong? Every single flight manual, ATPL ground school exam, every military and civilian training course the world over is wrong? Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yzsc3y1R8

Earth rotation is a fundamental part of the align process. These people do this for a living, but they are wrong? The align process takes longer at extreme latitudes than at the equator because....why exactly?

If it's RLG testing you want...this guy is all over it. https://www.repairfaq.org/sam/laserlia.htm#liarlghr

Scroll down to the bit where he tests the GG1320AN:
Quote
If the GG1320 were sitting on a table at the North pole, the Sagnac frequency δf due to the Earth's rotation would be around 3.38 Hz. At the latitude here of 39.95°, δf drops to 2.17 Hz. Multiplying by 4 for the GG1320 X4 resolution results in 8.68 counts/second, which is consistent with the observed count rate. It's comforting to know that the Earth is still spinning correctly as advertised. ;-) The larger than expected change from 9 to 10 seconds when the GG1320 is supposed to be stationary is almost certainly because I was touching it. 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. Isn't Physics wonderful? ;-)

And if you want another example of drift correction due to latitude, how's about the AHRS system on a Hawk T1 training jet? This is a mech gyro based system, with a cockpit selectable latitude scale that is used to ensure the correct earth rate correction is applied. This simulator manual has quite a good overview: https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/1478120/manuals/aerofly_fs_2_just_flight_hawk_t1a_manual.pdf?t=1605888346

See page 15 for the control panel (note the 'LAT' control) and page 48/49 for the description.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 08, 2021, 08:59:21 PM »

I can't get too excited about this one. My point was that your phrase suggested that RLGs are cheap. They aren't. Hence my point about your MEMS example - you find that kind of tech in all sorts of everyday items, not least our phones, for example. The closest most people get to an RLG is the cockpit of the aircraft that takes them holiday.

Quote
The Canadian paper you cite in the wiki was specifically looking at a low cost model, with associated reductions in accuracy.

Incorrect:

"The gyroscope demonstrated excellent high-rate
performance although significant scale factor deviations
were noted during temperature variations."

"Results of the testing showed that instrument
performance at high angular rates was better than
specifications although significant scale factor deviations
were noted during temperature variations. "

That doesn't change the fact that the whole point of the model in question is to make it cheap. The materials used and other specs are way lower than their normal products. Yes, the device performed well, but the bias, amongst other stats, is way, way worse than, say, a GG1320.

Quote
Again, not really. MGP were working with relatively primitive equipment - it is extremely hard to measure fringe distance manually like that, especially when the apparatus would have been hugely sensitive to changes in temperature and any local vibration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a statistical approach - their data shows a clear normal distribution shape with the mean centred on almost precisely the fringe separation one would expect for the apparent rotation at their latitude.

If it's measuring variation it is not directly measuring the phenomenon. They are measuring some sort of variation and are using statistics to make indirect conclusion. There are multiple phenomena involved, which muddies the conclusions.

Are you contesting that fringe separation is a function of rotation rate? Or not? MGP were trying to measure fringe separation. It's not easy. But they did it. And the shape of the stats proves that it is highly unlikely to be a fluke, because far more results occurred around the mean than around the extremes.

It appears that the raw results from the Honeywell Gyro are also inconsistent.

Really? I thought you said it performed well? If you're confused by the noise on the graphs then you clearly don't understand electronics, or indeed how RLGs work.

The raw tests with the earth's rotation from the Honeywell Gyro shows that the signal is inconsistent and noisy.

All of the tests show similar noise levels. If you think the earth is flat, then you presumably don't think the change of angle used to eliminate the earth's rotation from the test would have had any effect, though, right?

Quote
The output from an accurate RLG is nothing like the MEMS graphs you showed

Citation needed. The raw tests from the Honeywell gyro looks very noisy.
'Looks very noisy'...how much noise would it take for you to say that it wasn't noisy? Do you even understand what the noisy signal is? Do you understand the relative amount of noise in the MEMS example, versus the Honeywell gyro in the experiment, versus a more advanced Honeywell gyro, versus something like the large, fixed devices mentioned in the other papers...the ones that can measure changes in rotation rate down to 10-8? Citation needed? The one you've cited works nicely - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf

Quote
measuring several degrees per hour (unless you are on the North Pole, or you orientate your RLG to the earth's rotation axis, you will measure < 15 / deg/hr) is trivial and accurate.

Citation needed. Where are the raw results showing this?

Bob Knodel did quite a nice job, didn't he?!

Lattitude Nut

04:22 "over here on the other side this is your latitude nut right there that can induce you can move that in or out and you can induce some a drift clockwise or counter clockwise on the you know east or west on the whatever you want to call it the scale here"

“This is your latitude nut. You can move it in or out and induce some drift clockwise or counter-clockwise, east or west”

If you can induce the rotation by rotating a nut, how do you know if you're introducing it or removing it by adjusting the nut?

Because when you build the device you design so that, without the gyro spinning, the device is balanced with the nut in the neutral position. All the nut does is move in and out, tipping the scales as it were, and via precession inducing a clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation to oppose the drift.

The test was done with a mechanical gyroscope in a terrestrial environment and no "latitude nut" was needed. The earth didn't move.

Clearly, more evidence is needed on this beyond these assumptions and sourceless appeals.

That video is more fakeable than anything NASA might put out. There's no actual way of figuring out if the gyro is spinning while the video runs, nor is there any way of knowing whether or not he's simply constrained the gyro. If anything, it's too perfect, as most gyros have some inherent drift due to friction and other intolerances.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 08, 2021, 02:54:45 PM »

The rlg works, it just does not work the way the modern scientists imagine it does (they should study its invention, and its inventor) and it does not measure what they presume it does.

I would echo Stack's comment. Don't be so mysterious...if not rotation, what then does a RLG measure? Bear in mind you can put them in a test rig and measure their accuracy very easily (see the Canadian paper in the wiki). So if you've got a system that is proven to be accurate when you rotate it at a known rate, and then it measures a rate of (15 deg / h) x (sin latitude) when you put it flat on a table, what exactly is it measuring, if not the rotation of the table, and therefore the earth?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 08, 2021, 02:51:13 PM »

I don't think you've read through everything in the Wiki on this. The very paper you linked to is cited on the second Ring Laser Gyroscope page in the section 'Fluctuating Earth Rotation Rate'.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

continues onto a second page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope_-_Seismology

You're absolutely right - I hadn't spotted the reference to that paper in the seismology page. My apologies. That said, it doesn't really flow as a 'second page' - it's just one of several links in the article.

Reading the seismology page, and indeed the RLG main page, is a fascinating journey into the bizarre analysis that runs through most of the wiki. I'm still not clear if you have wilfully misrepresented, or just completely misunderstood what is being discussed in the various papers. That one that I linked to above, for example, is describing a new gyro with a sensitivity of below ∆ΩE x 10-8. They aren't talking about being able to measure the earth's rotation - they are interested in parts per million of it. The earth's rotation is so ridiculously, stunningly obvious, and so easy to detect - they are way, way past that.

There's a great deal that's wrong within the wiki. Here's a few:

Quote
The Ring Laser Gyroscope (RLG) is a consumer device version of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment (MGP)

Not really. RLG's are expensive, and accurate ones are even more so. They aren't really consumer products. MGP didn't have access to lasers, or the optical technology required for a RLG. The Canadian paper you cite in the wiki was specifically looking at a low cost model, with associated reductions in accuracy. The Honeywell GG1320AN, which seems to be the industry standard model, has far better specs - a quoted bias drift, for example, of 0.0035 deg/hr, compared to the cheaper/older model used in your paper, which had bias drifts measuring in the low single digit degrees/hr.

Quote
Essentially the tests saw wild results. There was almost no change to light's velocity in one test, and then a lot of change in another test. It is perplexing that the rotation of the earth would start and stop when tested at different times. Only through the statistics was it claimed that the experiment saw the rotation of the earth. The inconsistent results were ambiguous in nature and could offer no evidence of the shift in the phase of the light beams. As stated above, the results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment were inconsistent and an algorithm was applied to get the desired result.

Again, not really. MGP were working with relatively primitive equipment - it is extremely hard to measure fringe distance manually like that, especially when the apparatus would have been hugely sensitive to changes in temperature and any local vibration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a statistical approach - their data shows a clear normal distribution shape with the mean centred on almost precisely the fringe separation one would expect for the apparent rotation at their latitude. Taking multiple samples and applying statistical techniques to them is basic science - if you are rejecting that then there's little point in doing any science at all. If their data showed an equal chance of getting different results, that would be a very different thing. But it doesn't.

Quote
If we are to say that the Ring Laser Gyroscope is the same device, then the same criticism would apply.

But we aren't to say that, are we? Because we are nearly a century on, and we are talking about technology with accuracy that MGP could only have dreamed of.

Quote
It is further seen that, like the original MGP experiment, the raw results of the gyroscopes are inconsistent[2] and dwarf the results from rotation.

None of what follows after this sentence shows that in the context of RLGs. You've had to dig out an experiment using MEMS sensors, which are far, far less accurate than RLGs, which is why you won't find them in navigation equipment. The experiment is really interesting - they are using various statistical techniques to try to pull out the earth rate from the noise - but it is nothing to do with RLGs, although they do actually still manage to measure the earth rate nevertheless, which is very impressive.

The graphs you show from the Canadian test of the Honeywell device show absolutely no comparison of the noise with the signal caused by earth's rotation - it's not in there at all. They essentially ran a series of tests using their calibrated bench test system, some with the device orientated to remove the earth rotation component and some with it not, but the rotation rate itself isn't shown - they were only interested in the measured rate versus the accurately calibrated forced rate. None of your graphs show the actual measurement of the earth's rotation. They just show various noisy signal plots, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the device.

The seismology page takes it to whole new level of oddness.

Quote
Researchers have used these sensitive devices to detect patterns in the background microseismic noise, where certain features are interpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation. The feature of the background noise assumed to be an effect of the earth's rotation is called the "Earth line," and is admitted to be of unknown origin and cause.[2]

This is just utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Seismic activity presents itself as disturbances to the measured earth rate. The earth rate isn't extracted from the noise. The output from an accurate RLG is nothing like the MEMS graphs you showed - the noise is low ppm compared to the signal - measuring several degrees per hour (unless you are on the North Pole, or you orientate your RLG to the earth's rotation axis, you will measure < 15 / deg/hr) is trivial and accurate. High end, large installed RLGs like Gross-ring or GINGER are now able to resolve tiny variations in earth rate - see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070514001406

Quote
It is unclear whether those types of RLGs in airplane guidance systems claim to be able to detect the earth's rotation.

It's not unclear at all - they absolutely do, and they have to be corrected for it. As I've shown before, with you failing to respond (eg https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17396.msg227601#msg227601), even older mechanical directional gyros have to be compensated for drift, either by a bench-adjusted drift nut for short range aircraft, or via a latitude scale set in the cockpit. Something like a GG1320AN, with a bias of around 0.0035 deg/hr, will absolutely drift if earth rate isn't compensated for. It's equally true of mechanical gyro systems and laser based ones (RLGs, of course, aren't actually gyros - they are angle rate sensors). Here's one about marine systems: https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/how-does-inertial-navigation-work)

Overall, I'm shooting for sophistry, rather than misunderstanding, but I could be wrong.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Ring laser gyros
« on: September 07, 2021, 08:13:31 PM »
I noticed that wiki is somewhat brief in its look into RLGs - the data comes from an experiment conducted in the early 20th century, a very early commercial RLG in the the early 1990s, and a MEMs gyro (like the one you would find in a phone, which work on coriolis and not lasers).

I thought people might be interested in this one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf, which is a large, ultra precise RLG capable of measuring tiny variations in the rotation, as well as the rotation itself.

Given that the wiki rejects the notion of a grand-scale conspiracy (in favour of a smaller space-travel one), are the scientists who wrote this paper and who worked on the device wrong?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >