Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372816

Re: A Particle Model of Light

Show all headers | View raw

Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev about
http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf :

> > Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > but  there  was no error analysis, which makes
> > > the numbers and conclusions meaningless.
> >
> > Less  credible -- sure,  but  why   meaningless?
> > Whereas  he  got  a sinusoidal signal instead of
> > noise, the random error is small enough, and  if
> > the singal is to be accounted for by a systemat-
> > ic error then I ought to ask what kind of  error
> > would  produce  a  diurnally varying lag between
> > the actual and observed locations?
>
> The effect of  temperature  upon  the  instruments
> comes to mind.

It is possible, but without knowldedge of the instu-
ments employed by Shtyrkov, we can only  discuss  it
as a black box, i.e. analysing the results observed,
which are:

  1.  The observed azimuth oscillates a little ahead
      of  the  reference curve, as would be expected
      if there were an ether (eq. 7).

  2.  The average orbital velocity of the ether wind
      calculated from the observed aberration of the
      azimuth may be explaned by exactly such  aber-
      ration  due to ether wind as would be expected
      to arise from the orbital motion of the Earth.

  3.  Both seasonal and diurnal  behaviours  of  the
      observed  aberration correspond to the predic-
      tion (eq. 8) derived form  the  assumption  of
      the  ether.   Even  the small variation of the
      Earth's orbital speed due to its slightly  el-
      liptic orbit was resolved.

To  ascribe  it all to a systematic error seems far-
fetched.

> > The  corresponding  Russian   article   mentions
> > briefly that meausurement accuracy was about 10%
> > but the averaging over many observations yielded
> > a  precise-enough  result:  the observed average
> > orbital velocity (29.4 km/s) coincides with  the
> > value accepted in astronomy (29.8 km/s) to about
> > 1%.  Is it a miracle?
>
> Reducing the error by making many observations  is
> an  acceptable procedure.  Is that what the little
> circles on the graph mean?  Do they represent sig-
> ma?

I  fear  not,  and  see no reason why they should be
circles and not errorbars.  Time was  measured  with
very  high precision.  Might those circles be a sort
of eye-candy in the Origin program,  where  Shtyrkov
said he had processed his data?

> They  are  almost  as big as the variation and you
> need at least  three-sigma  (preferably  more)  to
> have any validity.

Shtyrkov  says  nothing  about  the magnitude of his
signal with respect to the sigma.

> And they may well  have  over-massaged  the  data.
> See
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
>
> as an example of how this can happen.

I  have  read Roberts's paper and disagree with some
of his points, about which I have  written  in  this
very   thread,   in  the  subthread  called  "Dayton
Miller's measurements".  I have not had time to  an-
swer all of his counter-arguments, though.

What do you mean by over-massaging?  Processing with
the assumption of a periodic effect  as  would  make
this  effect  "appear"  in  the  result,  as Roberts
claims  Miller  did?   I  see  no  such   error   in
Shtyrkov's  work,  although  fitting  the  predicted
curve and estimating the error would have been  bet-
ter.

> Another  point  is that reducing error by multiple
> measurements only works if the data  approaches  a
> normal distribution.

Well,  standard error of the mean is lower than that
of a single value by the square root of  the  number
of measurements as long the values are statictically
independent.  They need not be normally  distributed
for  that  to  hold.  Confidence intervals, however,
cannot be calculated without knowing the type of the
distribution.   Normal  distibution seems likeliest,
describing the sum of many small additive values.

> > Tom Roberts thinks that this  value  arose  from
> > Shtyrkov's correction for a non-existent aberra-
> > tion, but I did not understand what he meant.
>
> Well, stellar aberration is caused by a  variation
> in relative velocity between earth and star.

Exactly,  and  even  if space were filled with ether
that would not change,  for  the  (assumed-)constant
ether  wind  across the radius vector would effect a
*constant* bending of light-rays without  variation.
Bradley's  stellar  aberration is therefore the same
for empty space and for ether.

> A GPS satellite has NO relative velocity variation
> so maybe that's what he was referring to?

I  don't  think GPS satellites are geostationary, so
their relative speed can't be zero,  but  is  negli-
bibly  small to produce a detectable *stellar* aber-
ration.

The situation will different if we assume  there  is
an  ether.   As the radius-vector of a geostationary
satellite rotates with the  Earth,  its  orientation
with  respect  to the ether wind varies, and so does
the aberration angle.  Mark you it  is  not  stellar
aberration, where the radius vector points in a con-
stant galactic direction.  If you will calculate the
effect  of  the hypothetical ether wind you will see
it is similar to the one in Bradley's ballistic mod-
el:
                 sin(phi) = Vep/c ,

where  Vep  is the projection of the ether wind onto
the plane orthogonal to the radius-vector.

If e denote a unity vector:

                     _    _    _
                   e(r) = r / |r|
         _ _
and proj(a,n) the projection_ of vector  a  onto  the
plane orthogonal to vector  n:
                _  _    _    _  _     _
           proj(a, r) = a - (a, r) e (r),

then  the  apparent radius-vector of the source will
be:  _         _         _    _         _    _
     a = c * e(r) - proj(Vsrc,r) - proj(Veth,r),

where Vsrc and Veth are the speeds of the source and
ether  with  respect  to the observer.  In Bradley's
stellar  aberraton  the  third  term  is  zero.   In
Shtyrkov's  aberration from a geostationary satellie
the second term is zero.

> Similar mistakes in attempts to measure  the  sup-
> posed ether have been made by others:
>
>    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html
>    http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/10410
>    http://www.k1man.com/f61.pdf
>
> These,  of  course,  go against a mountain of evi-
> dence that there is no such  ether  and  that  the
> speed  of  light  is not variable.  Here's a paper
> that refutes the last one above:
>
>        http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.3968v1.pdf

I will comment on these  articles  when/if  I  shall
have read and understood them.

> > > That  the  "measured" motion only varied by 1%
> > > is very strange because that  means  any  sup-
> > > posed ether whould be virtually stationary wrt
> > > the sun, yet the sun is orbiting the galaxy at
> > > 200 km/sec. The whole thing smells really bad.
> >
> > No,  it is simply that the galactic component of
> > the ether wind (declinaton of 89.5  degrees)  is
> > nearly  coincidental with the polar axis and has
> > therefore but a tiny effect on  diurnal  aberra-
> > tion from the satellite.
> >
> > To  explain -- the  diurnal  variations  of  the
> > ether  wind  in  the  plane  orthogonal  to  the
> > source-observer  line  are  caused mainly by the
> > rotation of the Earth as it changes  orientation
> > with  respect  to  its  orbital speed, while the
> > galactic component, having a  near-zero  projec-
> > tion  upon  the  equatorial plane, causes only a
> > negligible variation.
>
> Well, you can see the galactic  plain  (i.e.,  the
> Milky Way).  I don't think the normal to that goes
> anywhere near Polaris.  Consequently,  the  compo-
> nent  of the sun's velocity should be quite large,
> shouldn't it?

I think you misunderstood me--I meant the  Celestial
poles in the Equatorial coordinate system.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:49 +0300
  Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 04:38 -0800
    Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-26 15:06 +0000
    Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 21:57 +0300
      Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 13:17 -0800
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:15 +0000
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 15:40 +0300
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:41 +0000
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:11 +0300
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 14:32 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:05 +0300
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:24 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:57 -0600
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:26 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:13 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:21 -0800
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:26 -0600
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 18:48 +0000
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:29 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:19 +0300
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:03 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 17:28 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 15:41 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 05:02 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 21:00 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 01:04 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 18:45 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:33 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 20:50 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-05 19:50 -0600
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:33 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 12:40 -0600
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 22:27 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 19:15 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:00 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:02 +0000

csiph-web