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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373136

Re: A Particle Model of Light

Show all headers | View raw

Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:

> > Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > The effect of temperature upon the instruments
> > > comes to mind.
> >
> > It is possible, but without  knowldedge  of  the
> > instuments  employed  by  Shtyrkov,  we can only
> > discuss it as a black box,  i.e.  analysing  the
> > results observed, which are:
>
> But we can't even do that without error bars.

We  can  estimate the random error by fitting a sine
and calculating the dispersion  of  the  mesurements
with respect to it.

> Raw data would be more satisfactory.

I  am  sure  you would appreciate it.  If I get it I
will post it, with the author's permission.

> Do you know how many are required  to  reduce  the
> error from 10% to 1?

A  hundred.   Remember that he tracked the satellite
for several years and used several days' data to de-
termine  the average azimuth lead angle at every se-
lected date in every year.

> >
> >   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 aberra-
> >       tion of the azimuth may be explaned by ex-
> >       actly such aberration due to ether wind as
> >       would be expected to arise  from  the  or-
> >       bital motion of the Earth.
> >
> >   3.  Both  seasonal  and  diurnal behaviours of
> >       the observed aberration correspond to  the
> >       prediction  (eq. 8)  derived  form the as-
> >       sumption of the  ether.   Even  the  small
> >       variation of the Earth's orbital speed due
> >       to its slightly  elliptic  orbit  was  re-
> >       solved.
> >
> > To  ascribe  it  all to a systematic error seems
> > far-fetched.
>
> Systematic error was what caused Dayton Miller  to
> proclaim an ether wind.

Are  you so convinced of it because of Tom Roberts's
paper?  Well, he didn't publish the raw data  either
and commited a serious overlook in section III where
he writes Miller combined the half-periods, which he
did not.  The section's concusion is therefore base-
less:

   And in the final plot the frequency bin in  which
   the real signal would appear is bin 1, the lowest
   nonzero  frequency  bin.   From  the  nature   of
   Fourier  analysis,  it should be clear that after
   this analysis any initial  data  with  a  falling
   spectrum  (e.g.  1/f  noise) will have a spectrum
   similar to Fig. 9, and a time  domain  appearance
   similar  to  the  plot  at  the bottom of Fig. 1.
   This is a simple consequence of the fact that the
   1/2-turn  Fourier  component  is  the lowest fre-
   quency retained by the  algorithm,  and  it  will
   dominate because of the falling spectrum.

Not  that  it renders the whole paper wrong, though.
I still have suspicions to test, when time permits.

> > Shtyrkov says nothing about the magnitude of his
> > signal with respect to the sigma.
>
> Indeed, thus the paper is unscientific claptrap.

Then  do you consider claptrap any reports from pre-
error-analysis days?

Maybe he didn't deem it necessary  as  long  as  the
measurements so clearly correspond with the expected
result regarding the orbital motion of the Earth.

> > 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 answer  all  of  his  counter-arguments,
> > though.
>
> Apparently, you don't understand statistical anal-
> ysis.

I may be wrong and may be deluded, but to  say  that
anyone  disagreeing  with  a certain report is wrong
and does not understand statistics, without pointing
out  at  least one specific error by way of example,
seems prejudiced.

> > 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 er-
> > ror in Shtyrkov's  work,  although  fitting  the
> > predicted  curve  and estimating the error would
> > have been better.
>
> Just how did they reduce the error to 1% from 10%?
> How  many  measurements  did  they  make  per data
> point?

Each data point  consists  of  several  sessions  of
1-3-day  tracking,  each taken at a certain epoch in
every year.  Here is a typical session:

         http://oi64.tinypic.com/k532i9.jpg

The orbital speed calculated from the data turned to
be within 1% of the known astronomical value.

> > 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.
>
> Were they?  Who knows?
>
> > They need not be normally distributed  for  that
> > to hold.
>
> Again,  how  many  measurements  did they make for
> each point on the graph?  Was there a trend  while
> they were measuring or were results purely random?

Does the above graph help?

> > Normal  distibution  seems likeliest, describing
> > the sum of many small additive values.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about here.

About the central limit therem.

> > > Well, stellar aberration is caused by a varia-
> > > tion  in  relative  velocity between earth and
> > > star.
> >
> > Exactly, and even  if  space  were  filled  with
> > ether  that  would  not  change,  for  the  (as-
> > sumed-)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.
>
> I don't believe so:
>
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Luminiferous_aether

Yes, I was wrong about the effect of ether drag upon
aberraion.   If photons light completely and instan-
teously entrained by the ether  there  would  be  no
aberration observable from the Earth.

One  proposition is that light is qualitatively dif-
ferent from electro-magnetic waves  and  that  tran-
verse  ether  flow  exerts  a  very small force upon
light, so that large distances are required.  Not so
with electro-magnetic waves.

There  are  at  least two theories in which light is
not simly an electromagnetic wave.  How deep  should
light  penetrate into sea water according to Maxwell
equations, and how deep does it in reality?

> > > > > That the "measured" motion only varied  by
> > > > > 1%  is very strange because that means any
> > > > > supposed ether whould  be  virtually  sta-
> > > > > tionary wrt the sun, yet the sun is orbit-
> > > > > ing 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  de-
> > > > grees) is nearly coincidental with the polar
> > > > axis and has therefore but a tiny effect  on
> > > > diurnal aberration 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 ori-
> > > > entation  with respect to its orbital speed,
> > > > while the galactic component, having a near-
> > > > zero  projection  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.   Consequent-
> > > ly, the component of the sun's velocity should
> > > be quite large, shouldn't it?
> >
> > I think you misunderstood me--I meant the Celes-
> > tial poles in the Equatorial coordinate system.
>
> The "celestial pole" points to Polaris.

Ah,  ok.  The Sun is orbiting the galaxy, the galaxy
too is moving somewhither.  What  is  the  resultant
motion and is it to be considered absolute?

> Anyway,  I  don't see anything in Shtyrkov's paper
> to justify throwing out the mountain  of  evidence
> against it:
>
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>                                      --Marcello Truzzi
>
> And Shtyrkov's paper does not provide it.

Can't dismiss a paper on such a basis.

-- 
()  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