Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format

From	Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc>
Newsgroups	sci.stat.math
Subject	Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format
Date	2023-03-20 01:08 +0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<20230320010854.d766debddd20812faa887c04@gmail.moc> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <20230225001353.60271597ed5a42bec16e8d54@gmail.moc> <0u3qvhlnu50kk3kg7e7jn6ujnene2fo8jk@4ax.com> <ttksrl$3jrcu$1@dont-email.me> <20230319004103.a1d8cad77b443543374dc671@gmail.moc> <tv5jp8$2ms1e$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

David Jones:

> > The Miller data are a time series in a way,
>
> They are only a time-series because they have been
> manipulated in the form of a time-series.

Not at all: each run, consisting of 20 consequtive turns
with perhaps a few "adjustment" turns, spans about 20
minutes and represents and single measurement of the aether-
drift.  The manipulation comprises reinstating the
adjustments and unrolling the 20 turns of 16 observasions
into a sequence 320 observations.

> You should not remove real structure in the form of groups
> of data

No such structure was removed. The periodicity of individual
turns is preserved in the observatsion indices and time
markings. The data of a "run" is physically a time-series.

> unless you can sure that doing so
>  (a) does not remove or mask effects you are looking
>  (b) does not introduce effects of the kind you are
>      looking for.

I am sure the serialisation in question does neither.

> > with the
> > readings as uniform as the rotation of the device.  Would it
> > be possible to analyse it using the SigSpec algorithm:
> >            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SigSpec
> > using the eponymous program:
> >             https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.5081.pdf
>
> There may be better/more-capable packages available from
> time-series analysis specialists.

There may be, but SigSpec seems one of the very best, and
specifically designed to detect significant spectral
components in time series. It will no doubt find significant
high-magnitude and low-frequency components in the Miller
signal, but we are interested in whether full- and half-
period components are prominent above the others, and by how
much. "Multisine" analysis (like SigSpec) seems more
unbiased in this case than the standard Fourier, with its
fixed set of harmonics.

> But you should be aware that any statistical tests would
> depend on the validity of the usual assumptions which
> would need to be given serious consideration, If you were
> planning on doing something depending in a simple way on
> FFTs you would need to consider that there is an inherent
> assumption that the series being analysed is a good
> representative of a stationary process (in terms of the
> length of the series being analysed).

The signal sought is stationary within each run, the noise
is also stationary, whereas the instrumental drift is
probably not.

> Loosely speaking, can you imagine in a general way how the
> observed time-series would have behaved before and after
> the period supposedly observed. But if we assume the
> instrumental drift to be free of any periodicity in turn,
> we may discrard spectral components whose frequencies are
> not multiples of 1/turn.

I can imagine that about the hypothetical signal and noise,
but not about the instrumental drift.  The assumption,
however, that it is of lower frequency than the signal, may
help to separate one from the other.

> The "time-series" in the 2006 paper seems to show a
> distinct change in behaviour part way through.

It does.

> One might consider a logical way forward that doesn't
> place heavy reliance on assumptions would be to show that
> the apparent peak in the FFT, such as shown in the 2006
> paper, is or is not removed when any explanatory effects
> are removed, perhaps leaving this to be judged on an
> informal basis.

I thought that the spectral-significance (SigSpec) measure
was made to answer such questions.

> Even if this can be done, you could still be left with the
> problem that you are looking for an effect whose cause is
> indistinguishable from the effects of other causes, as
> previously identified in other literature.

Yes, the instrumental error itself could be periodic, but
then it would be present with similar parameters in all
"runs", which is not the case. Mr. Roberts made the same
assumtion -- that the instrumental error is not periodic in
a turn.


-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

Back to sci.stat.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2023-02-27 16:00 -0500
  Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format davidd02@tpg.com.au (David Duffy) - 2023-02-28 07:47 +0000
    Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format davidd02@tpg.com.au (David Duffy) - 2023-02-28 09:12 +0000
      Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format davidd02@tpg.com.au (David Duffy) - 2023-03-13 01:23 +0000
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-13 10:32 +0300
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-13 10:58 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format davidd02@tpg.com.au (David Duffy) - 2023-03-14 04:13 +0000
  Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-02-28 12:42 +0000
    Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-28 14:22 +0100
      Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-02-28 14:01 +0000
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-28 15:12 +0100
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-02-28 14:57 +0000
            Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-28 21:36 +0100
    Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-04 00:46 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 23:40 +0100
    Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-09 17:07 +0000
    Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-19 00:41 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-19 00:08 +0000
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-20 01:08 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-19 23:14 +0000
            Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-19 23:48 +0000
            Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-20 11:58 +0300
              Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-20 17:23 +0000
                Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-24 00:11 +0300
                Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format "David Jones" <dajhawk18xx@@nowhere.com> - 2023-03-23 23:59 +0000
      Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-19 14:22 -0500
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-20 14:07 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-20 14:35 +0100
            Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-20 17:01 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-20 16:20 -0500
        Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-20 14:35 +0100
          Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-20 17:33 +0300
  Re: statistics in Roberts. Was: RAW vs. raw image format Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-03 23:33 +0300
  Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-05 12:48 -0600
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-05 21:47 +0100
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-08 21:26 -0600
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2023-03-06 23:08 -0500
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-08 21:40 -0600
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-08 15:33 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-08 23:11 -0600
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-10 01:04 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-11 12:54 -0600
            Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-12 14:25 +0300
              Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-17 13:27 -0500
                Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-19 00:32 +0300
                Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-19 14:45 -0500
            Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-20 16:06 -0500
              Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-21 13:00 +0300
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-08 19:11 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-09 11:48 +0300
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-09 11:57 +0300
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-08 21:09 -0600
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-09 17:13 +0000
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-09 23:26 +0300
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-10 01:37 +0000
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-10 11:25 +0100
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-11 00:13 +0300
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-10 15:42 -0600
            Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-11 01:32 +0300
              Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller - Data Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-11 12:18 -0600
                Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller - Data Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-12 00:13 +0300
                Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller - Data Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-20 00:38 +0300
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-10 15:25 -0600
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-12 00:01 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-10 15:10 -0600
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-11 01:14 +0300
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-11 13:08 -0600
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-03-12 01:51 +0300
    Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-15 17:10 +0000
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-15 22:36 +0100
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller "David Jones" <dajhawk18xx@@nowhere.com> - 2023-03-15 22:18 +0000
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-15 23:28 +0100
      Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-19 13:46 -0500
        Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller "David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> - 2023-03-19 22:57 +0000
          Re: statistics in Roberts' paper on Miller Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-03-20 12:05 +0300

csiph-web