T O P I C R E V I E W 
Samizdat 
Posted  05 Dec 2005 : 16:29:49 Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"
http://www.relativitycollapse.net/

20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) 
Larry Burford 
Posted  10 Feb 2014 : 16:25:34 [Jim] "Its hard to isolate climate change from politics these days. What causes climate to change ..."
By this I presume you mean 'the ACTUAL causes (plural)' of climate change.
[Jim] "... is not even a concern."
as opposed to the various scapegoats and straw men at which politicians like to point.
***
It is truly unfortunate that the average voter is so poorly informed. (Otherwise, they would stop voting. 30% to 40% already understand this. But it is not enough.) Have I mentioned that we are doomed? I think I have. LB 
Jim 
Posted  10 Feb 2014 : 14:39:08 Its hard to isolate climate change from politics these days. What causes climate to change is not even a concern. In any event,the topic here is really far removed from either/or; is too, is not, of climate change. 
Larry Burford 
Posted  10 Feb 2014 : 08:26:44 [Jim] "Climate change is ... not relative to anything at this site."
We talk about a lot of things here that seem, at first glance, to be off topic.
This is primarily an astronomy site, but over the years I've come to realize that most other areas of scientific exploration are tied to astronomy in some way or another. Earth's climate for example, and the way it changes, is influenced by things that happen elsewhere in our planetary system. Changes in the output of our star are the most obvious, but a tiny asteroid or comet hitting us could also do the trick.
If we do begin a discussion of things related to climate and climate change I'd like to focus on the science rather than the politics. Political things (should we use force to "fix" it) can't be avoided, so I'm not suggesting a ban. I'm just saying we should focus on the scientific and the engineering things (what is actually happening, what can/might happen, can we "fix" it if it did/does happen, and how exactly would that be done).
[Jim] "... an important topic ..."
***
Any comments? 
Jim 
Posted  09 Feb 2014 : 21:34:45 Climate change is an important topic not relative to anything at this site. It might be better to do what you did with political matters and get it out of this forum that DR Joe has owned for years. 
Larry Burford 
Posted  09 Feb 2014 : 19:54:12 [Joe Keller] "... an epoch of climate extremes, with unusually many extremes of high and low temp, wet and dry."
Climate Change.
The (New/Next) Ice Age.
The (New/Next) Global Warming.
***
Democratic/Liberal pundits say "it" is a done deal, already too late to fix (but even if it isn't (a done deal), we ought to fix it anyway).
Republican/Conservative pundits say it isn't happening (and even if it is, it isn't being caused by human actions.)
Have you ever noticed that when political factions argue with each other, they never use the same "buzz words" (never talk about the same things)? How else can they keep their idiotic followers hooting? Roughly a quarter of the population sends regular checks to the politicians on the conservative side of this (or any) """""debate""""".
At the same time, roughly a quarter of the population (NOT the same quarter, I hope you see that) sends regular checks to the politicians on the liberal side of this (or any) """""debate""""".
The rest of us pretty much ignore the *ssh*l*s in the aforementioned groups. The problem with this tactic is that while you can ignore them, they (the libs and the cons) are NOT ignoring you. Your paycheck (if you are an employee) or your profits (if you are an employer) or your benefits (if you are a recipient) are clearly visible on their radar.
And since they are the government they have access to your money.
***
So, IMO climate change exists whether or not it is caused by/exacerbated by human action.
Climate change has always existed. We can clearly see it in the geological record. Why should now be any different?
Oh yeah  the contribution of human activity. (Only *NOW* has this become important.) IMO, it is not credible to claim that human activity has had NO IMPACT on climate change. But just as obviously it is not credible to claim that it is the only reason we have climate change right now.
We have been using energy at an exponentially increasing rate for thousands of years. Sooner or later this is going to tip a balance somewhere.
***
Is this a Bad Thing?
Or is it a Good Thing?
Or is it just a thing?
Your opinion is solicited.
***
Manmade or natural or some combination of the two, if our climate deviates too far off the norm we are SERIOUSLY screwed. As in the proverbial 'extinction level event'.
***
Should we start a new forum to talk about this? It seems a bit off topic here.

Joe Keller 
Posted  09 Feb 2014 : 18:00:04 Hi all!
I'm still here and I'm OK, despite the six month silence. I've been busy planning, buying (in Oct. 2013) and caring for two Gotland ponies. Also my Samoyed dam had seven live puppies in Dec. 2013. This and other agricultural enterprises have been keeping me too busy to think about astronomy much.
I recommend the recent threepart series in Sky & Telescope, about the structure of our Milky Way. It's excellent!
A few days ago I heard the former Governor of Iowa, Governor Vilsack, now U. S. Secretary of Agriculture, being interviewed on National Public Radio. He said that while he didn't like the term "global warming" (a way of saying that he didn't believe in global warming) he was sure that we were in an epoch of climate extremes, with unusually many extremes of high and low temp, wet and dry. 
Joe Keller 
Posted  02 Aug 2013 : 16:20:58 Dear Pierre Fuerxer, Thomas Goodey, James DeMeo,
Yes, it is easier for me to mail you the 3.5" standard floppy disk, than it is for me to "cut and paste" the program into an email. The reason is, that I cannot find any way to "cut and paste" more than a few lines each time, so I must do more than a thousand "mouse clicks". The data are column sums, because this results in a twentyfold saving of transcription labor for me, as opposed to entering the row of data for every turn of the interferometer.
The program has my own analysis (with corrections of my previous errors) which some people might find useful. But also, the program contains the data for all of Miller's steel interferometer experiments in Cleveland. (Before, I only had the data from 19221924, but now it is all of the Cleveland steel interferometer data, 19051929.) There were 140 data sheets also known as "sets" or "experiments"; each data sheet resulted in a DATA line with 16 data for the interferometer readings at the 16 azimuths (column sums of the 20, more or less, turns per set) and on a DATA line above that, another 8 data giving the midpoint time of the set (5 data for date and time), number of turns in the set, GoodeyKeller page reference (the standard pagination of the definitive, i.e. the Case Archives / DeMeo, version of Miller's notebooks, which some Iowa State college students made under Goodey's supervision when Thomas visited me in Ames in Feb. 2004) and number of fringes in view (important for evaluating the Hicks effect). Also, the program contains "REM" (i.e. reminder) statements explaining the many interpretations and emendations I had to make: correction of addition errors in the columns, adjustment for varying numbers of mirrors or varying labeling of North, omission of control experiments using heaters, determination of the most correct time, etc.
In sum, the program is not only the data; it is annotated with the important emendations and explanations I gleaned from what Miller wrote on these pages, and also there is my own analysis program.
As the program exists now, my detrending procedure still is erroneous. I believe I now understand how to detrend correctly, but my preliminary estimate of the effect of detrending, is that it will affect the result by less than one degree. I ran the program without detrending (coarse search grid only, on my slow "Intel 486" home computer) and found that on a 10x10 degree grid, my erroneous detrending made no difference in the grand result, vs. no detrending. So, my latest grand result, below, for the Cleveland drift vector, which I also have posted on the messageboard of www.metaresearch.org, should not differ significantly, that is to say should not differ more than 10 degrees, from the properly detrended result. It is possible that some of the subgroups, say "1922" for example, might be significantly affected by correct detrending.
Latest version, posted yesterday to metaresearch.org:
The best fitting (least sum of squared differences of observed and predicted second harmonic coefficients for each set) drift directions (RA, Decl) with correlation coefficient of observed & expected, sigma, apparent drift speed, no. of sets, no. of turns, and mean Julian Date weighted by no. of turns:
1905* (one July set, four OctNov sets) RA,Decl = 210, 25 +0.74,+2.52,11.6km/s 5,230,2417119.880
Apr 1922 0,85 +0.68,+2.19,34.8km/s 5,81,2423162.415
AugSep 1923 15,30 +0.44,+2.73,12.6km/s 18,263,2423660.527
JunJul 1924 90,80 +0.50,+4.93,12.3km/s 41,608,2423979.216
Apr 1927 (There was a () correlation that was larger, 0.34.) 265,45 +0.26,+1.62,7.2km/s 20,400,2424984.541
Aug 1927 90,80 +0.45,+4.22,10.3km/s 40,800,2425110.636
SepOct 1929 220,65 +0.67,+3.51,13.0km/s 11,220,2425887.935
Grand result for all data, 19051929, for the steel interferometer at Cleveland: RA, Decl = 196,82 corr coeff = +0.2392, sigma = +4.060, apparent drift speed = 9.945km/s 140 sets, 2602 turns, mean Julian Date 2423979.047 weighted by turns
* For the data subsets, I made only a coarse search on a 5x5deg northern hemisphere (including equator) grid with rough sec(Decl) correction in RA steps. For the grand data set, this was followed by strict 1x1deg search on the largest grid square centered on the best coarse point and not overlapping other coarse points.
I had reason to doubt the sign of the 1905 data (ambiguous notation in Miller's notes, giving me two possible interpretations) so I chose the interpretation for 1905 giving the largest positive correlation. As noted above, I could have obtained a larger positive correlation by reversing the sign of the Apr 1927 data but lacking any other reason, did not do so. Likewise although a convenient way to explain the three times greater apparent drift speed in 1922 would be to assume that Miller was recording hundredths, not tenths, of a fringe that year, I did not make this emendation either, because I find no evidence for it on that year's data sheets.
The coarse search on the grand data set found sigma = +4.032 for RA,Decl = 210,80. So, the significance, p, was almost as great, for a direction three greatcircle degrees away from the best. This suggests, by extrapolation of sigma and integration weighted by 1/p, an error bar of at least 10 degrees, even for the grand result.
The Hicks first harmonic correlation was much larger, when I assumed that the Hicks effect should be 90deg out of phase with the drift azimuth, as I believe Hicks did also. If the Hicks effect leads by 90deg, then the largest correlation coefficient is +0.15, sigma = +2.55, at RA,Decl = 339,71; this is 26 deg from the best second harmonic indicated direction given above.
 Joe Keller 
Joe Keller 
Posted  28 Jul 2013 : 16:27:21 Regarding the difference between my analysis of Miller's Cleveland data and Miller's own analysis of his Mt. Wilson data
Both Miller and I use a bandpass filter on each set of turns: that is, we reduce each set to second harmonic coefficients, i. e. an azimuth and amplitude for the second harmonic approximant. But Miller uses another filter which I haven't: for the unevenly distributed data over one turn of the Earth (at a given epoch spanning a few days) Miller not only replaces the azimuth & amplitude data with first harmonic approximants (i.e. period one day); he also subtracts the mean from the azimuth. However, I tried this by subtracting the unweighted mean coefficient of sin(2*theta), and found about the same bestfitting drift direction, RA,Decl = 194,84, hardly any different from what I found without this reduction to mean zero. 
Joe Keller 
Posted  22 Jul 2013 : 14:17:57 Several errors to correct: the program as posted switches RA & Decl in the printout; that is, the order of these two numbers is switched compared to what the printout says they are. Also, yesterday's post says 1905 were included but really they weren't. I had changed them to REM statements and forgot to unchange them. More serious, though trivial errors: I discovered July 23, was that I forgot to convert degrees to radians in my precession adjustment subroutine. I discovered July 31, that I had entered grossly wrong ordinates for my reference second harmonic sine wave, and also that my detrending procedure was slightly erroneous. So, here are my corrected results as of July 31:
The best fitting (least sum of squared differences of observed and predicted second harmonic coefficients for each set) drift directions (RA, Decl) with correlation coefficient of observed & expected, sigma, apparent drift speed, no. of sets, no. of turns, and mean Julian Date weighted by no. of turns:
1905* (one July set, four OctNov sets) 210, 25 +0.74,+2.52,11.6km/s 5,230,2417119.880
Apr 1922 0,85 +0.68,+2.19,34.8km/s 5,81,2423162.415
AugSep 1923 15,30 +0.44,+2.73,12.6km/s 18,263,2423660.527
JunJul 1924 90,80 +0.50,+4.93,12.3km/s 41,608,2423979.216
Apr 1927 (There was a () correlation that was larger, 0.34.) 265,45 +0.26,+1.62,7.2km/s 20,400,2424984.541
Aug 1927 90,80 +0.45,+4.22,10.3km/s 40,800,2425110.636
SepOct 1929 220,65 +0.67,+3.51,13.0km/s 11,220,2425887.935
All data, 19051929 for the steel interferometer at Cleveland: 196,82 +0.2392,+4.060,9.945km/s 140,2602,2423979.047
* For the data subsets, I made only a coarse search on a 5x5deg northern hemisphere (including equator) grid with rough sec(Decl) correction in RA steps. For the whole data set, this was followed by strict 1x1deg search on the largest grid square centered on the best coarse point and not overlapping other coarse points.
I had reason to doubt the sign of the 1905 data (ambiguous notation in Miller's notes, giving me two possible interpretations) so I chose the interpretation for 1905 giving the largest positive correlation. As noted above, I could have obtained a larger positive correlation by reversing the sign of the Apr 1927 data but lacking any other reason, did not do so. Likewise although a convenient way to explain the three times greater apparent drift speed in 1922 would be to assume that Miller was recording hundredths, not tenths, of a fringe that year, I did not make this emendation either.
The coarse search on the whole data set found sigma = +4.032 for RA,Decl = 210,80. So, the significance, p, was almost as great, for a direction three degrees away from the best, suggesting by extrapolation of sigma and integration weighted by 1/p, an error bar of ~15deg.
The Hicks first harmonic correlation was much larger when I assumed that the Hicks effect should be 90deg out of phase with the drift azimuth. If the Hicks effect leads by 90deg, then the largest correlation coefficient is +0.15, sigma = +2.55, at RA,Decl = 339,71; this is 26 deg from the best second harmonic indicated direction. 
Joe Keller 
Posted  20 Jul 2013 : 16:29:05 Progress on Dayton Miller Cleveland Data
I've now inputted all of Dayton Miller's Cleveland data from the steel interferometer. These span the years 1905, 19221924, and 19271929. Searching the entire celestial sphere, the largest correlation coefficient between observed and expected second harmonic coefficients for the fringe shift, now is +0.39919, which is found for a drift parallel or antiparallel to the direction RA 208, Decl +71. Sigma for this correlation coefficient is approximately 6.9068 for onetailed p = 2.5/10^12.
The negative correlation coefficient largest in magnitude occurs for a drift parallel or antiparallel to RA 49, Decl 18 (separated from the other axis by 90 deg). This correlation coefficient is 0.30903 for sigma = 5.2038, onetailed p = 9/10^8: almost 40,000 times larger than p for the largest positive correlation. So it is the negative correlation which is the mathematical byproduct (the normal to the interferometer is limited to a cone and cannot range over the entire celestial sphere) and Miller's Mt. Wilson ether drift direction is confirmed by my analysis of Miller's Cleveland steel interferometer data.
These searches always are on a 5x5 deg coarse grid (with appropriately larger RA steps near the celestial poles) and then a 1x1 deg fine grid centered on the best coarse grid point and just small enough not to overlap the other coarse points. The number of experiments (sets of turns) is 135 (usually of 20 turns each, so the data set is almost half the size of the Mt. Wilson data set). The number of items correlated is 135*2 = 270, because there are sine and cosine harmonic terms.
All the 19271929 sets and some of the others, tell the number of fringes in view. So a phase and amplitude are likewise discoverable for the Hicks fullperiod effect. I haven't had time to program that yet, but the phaseonly analysis somewhat confirms the above. 
Joe Keller 
Posted  18 Jul 2013 : 15:27:06 Dear Pierre, James, Thomas, The Hicks first order effect has, of course, an amplitude and a phase. The amplitude isn't directly known for Cleveland 19221924 (or for Mt. Wilson) because the amplitude of the Hicks effect is proportional to the number of fringes in view (that is, the expected Hicks effect is found in units of length; Miller recorded in units of fringes, so unless fringes can be converted to length, the observed amplitude of the Hicks first order effect isn't known). Miller did record the number of fringes (e.g. typically "6" or "10", small integers, but good enough for quantitative results) for the 19271929 Cleveland data. So the Hicks first order effect can be assessed for Cleveland 19271929 and used to corroborate the Maxwell second order effect. I've already used the Hicks first order effect to corroborate my previous results, by considering only the observed and predicted phase of the effect, not its amplitude, for Cleveland 19221924 (excluding the heat lamp, etc., experiments which Miller knew would have to be discarded) plus Cleveland Apr 1927 (altogether the 84 sets I referred to previously, n=84 because only one datum, phase, arises per set). I found that the largest Hicks effect is for a drift line in space toward roughly RA 200, Decl +20 (or the opposite of this), i.e. about 30 degrees different from the second order effect (the one with large negative correlation coefficient, in line with Libra) and is significant (sum of cosines of angles between observed and expected phase) at sigma = 2.7.
Years ago I looked at the lengthy calculations in Hicks' paper, and wasn't able to digest it in the time then available. Miller says in his notes that Lorentz didn't understand the Hicks effect either, when Lorentz visited Miller and they talked about it, so I'm in good company. My best guess is that it is basically a matter of the photons hitting downstream or upstream when the telescope arm is crossways of the drift, that is, the whole shebang, fringes and all, is moved by the drift in a first order way (first order in theta, but second order in v/c) that has nothing to do with interference.
I gather that if phi is the drift azimuth and theta is the telescope azimuth, then the Hicks effect is proportional to sin(phi  theta). I find that this constant of proportionality is negative if the drift is toward Libra, and of course necessarily positive if the drift is in the opposite direction.
 Joe Keller 
Joe Keller 
Posted  15 Jul 2013 : 18:49:18 (continued) Here are emails three through five.
July 15, 2013:
Hi Pierre, Each long data line has 16 entries; these are the fringe shifts (in tenths of a wavelength) recorded by Miller. Above each of these lines, is a short line giving the time of the observation. The first number is the year, the second is the month, the third is the day, the fourth is the hour Eastern Standard Time (add 5 hour to get Greenwich Mean Time) and the fifth is the minute. I think these times, for these data, refer to the beginning of the experiment, but since each turn required only about one minute, it would be good enough, to add one half as many minutes as turns (the sixth number is the number of turns of the interferometer). An error of ten minutes would be only about five arcminutes in the Lunar position. Knowing the time, you could of course then find the Lunar positions from the JPL online ephemeris, or from old almanacs.  Joe Keller
July 15, 2013:
Hi James, In 2004 I decided to work on Miller's Cleveland data because Miller himself had analyzed the Mt. Wilson data (Miller also made some analysis of the Cleveland data but it seems, from the notebooks, to have been very approximate, usually merely graphical, and incomplete). The Cleveland data are much shorter. If I analyzed them, then between Miller and myself, all of them would be analyzed and Cleveland could be compared to Mt. Wilson, showing that the ether drift is, at least approximately and on the average, independent of time on a scale of a few years, and independent of geographic location. Analyzing Mt. Wilson not only would have required much more data typing by me, but would have been basically a repeat of what Miller already had done by the oldfashioned but valid data processing methods of the 1920s. On the other hand, if I analyzed Cleveland and got the same result Miller did for Mt. Wilson, the statistical significance of the result would be the immediate implication. Shankland's laughable contention that the result had something to do with one corner of the room being warmer, or something to do with anything about the labs, which were totally different in Cleveland and Mt. Wilson, would be shown yet again for the absurdity that it is. The data sheets are just tricky enough that it is impossible to have someone who does not understand the experiments, to be entering the data. Especially in these early 19221924 data, there are variations in format, for example which row is the nondetrended summed columns, and which are sums of + or sums of  or Miller's approximate detrended sums? There were a possibly significant number of column summation errors. One page even was missing one of its 16 columns. Many pages were inapplicable because they were Miller's side experiments designed to find out just how much an uneven heating of the room, or various schemes for shielding the interferometer, would affect the result. Some pages were cut off and I had to deduce the time and date by comparing with consecutive pages. A robot can't do it. Someone knowledgeable had to scrutinize it page by page and make every data entry judiciously. It had to be "custom made" work, not "mass production" work. This might actually be my finished results. I've somewhat augmented the data now, by adding in the April 1927 Cleveland experiments, but adding them into the data pool didn't change the outcome much. Over the years, I've wasted so much time submitting things to the mainstream journals only to be told by the editor or even by some anonymous office boy, that he wasn't even going to send it for peer review. So they're not really peer reviewed journals, because a few "peers" might get to see what is published, but the "peers" don't even get to see what the editor dictatorially rejects. So, since to my knowledge there are no hardcopy alternative journals to which any university library subscribes, electronic publication on alternative websites, whether or not they call themselves journals, is all there is going to be. If you would like to publish any or all of these emails on your Orgone Research website, please be my guest! That may well be the only publication that there is, besides my posting them to the messageboard of www.metaresearch.org (website of the late Dr. Van Flandern) which is the de facto journal in which I publish all my work.  Joe Keller
July 15, 2013:
Dear Thomas, Pierre, James, In 2004 I didn't realize that detrending was important and it was Thomas Goodey then who insisted that it was, thereby averting disaster. The importance of detrending can be seen, for example by looking up in a table of integrals, the integral of x * sin(2*x) from pi to pi and seeing that it is nonzero (because both factors are "odd" functions). So, thanks Thomas! Another way to recognize this truth is to recall that Fourier analysis applies only to periodic functions, not linear ones. I augmented my data by including the April 1927 Cleveland data. This comprised an additional 20 sets for a total now of 64+20=84 sets, though the increment in turns was more, because these April 1927 sets almost always had 20 turns, whereas the 19221924 sets averaged less than 15 turns. Again I searched the northern hemisphere of the celestial sphere on the coarse 5x5 degree grid (with appropriately larger right ascension increments at high declinations). This time I then refined the result by searching on a 1x1 degree box centered at the best coarse value and extending to the surrounding coarse grid points. The largest positive correlation coefficient was +0.27705 for Right Ascension 208, Declination +74 (or equivalently RA 28, Decl 74). Because longitude lines are so close together at high latitude, this is only a few degrees from the direction Miller found from the Mt. Wilson data. Making the usual normal approximation, and recalling that for the correlation coefficient, n = 2*84 = 168 now, because of independent sine and cosine terms, this is significant at sigma = 3.65. Also, it implies an apparent ether drift speed of 11.82 km/sec, not much different from the speeds Miller found at Mt. Wilson, or from what he found in Cleveland using more rudimentary analyses. However, the largest correlation coefficient in absolute value, was a negative correlation, 0.36205 for RA 47, Decl 14 (or equivalently RA 227, Decl 14). This is significant at sigma = 4.87 ( p = 5 * 10^(7) onetailed) which is hugely more significant than sigma = 3.65 ( p = 1.3 * 10^(4) onetailed) and more significant even than the largest absolute correlation found with the 19221924 data alone, 4.74 (on the original coarse grid, but with the augmented data I found 4.86 even on that same coarse grid). The implied apparent ether drift speed is 11.06 km/sec. The location, RA 227, Decl 14, lies on the ecliptic near the center of the constellation Libra. In the 1990s, the Cornell Univ. astronomy group, in an article discussing what even mainstream astronomers have dubbed in journal titles to be "the other ether drift", i.e. the "Cosmic" Microwave Background dipole, published a graph showing that the redshifts of the seemingly most distant galaxies imply that relative to them we have on average almost the same speed and direction as our apparent Cosmic Microwave Background motion, which is toward a point south of Leo. The graph shows that if progressively nearer galaxies are studied, the Sun's apparent motion relative to these, smoothly changes until, for the nearest statistically meaningful subset of galaxies (the Virgo Cluster) this motion equals the wellknown "Virgo Infall" [correction by JK July 16: the Sun's apparent motion equals the Virgo Infall plus the Sun's apparent galactic orbital motion; the Virgo Infall itself is a motion of the Milky Way toward Virgo at about 300 km/sec, superimposed on the uniform Hubble recession.]. It is plausible that the direction of Miller's ether drift, apparently toward Libra, is relative to the ether immediately at hand, while the Virgo Infall amounts to the direction relative to the ether of the nearest large galaxy cluster and the apparent motion implied by the CMB dipole gives the direction relative to the ether at infinity. From Libra to Virgo to Leo is a short, smooth curve.
It is suggestive, that the best positivecorrelation direction, and best absolutecorrelation direction, differ by 91 (or 89) degrees. One can confirm using elementary mathematics, that if the true motion is toward (using round numbers) RA 180, Decl 0, and the number of waves along the telescope arm aimed in this direction were to decrease rather than increase (i.e., negative correlation, opposite of the change assumed by Maxwell, Michelson, Miller) then there will as a byproduct be a positive (cos(theta))^2 correlation of the number of waves in the telescope arm, with the aiming of the telescope arm in the direction of the ecliptic pole. Specifically, let's consider latitude 41deg N (i.e. Cleveland) at sidereal times 0h, 6h, 12h, 18h, using 23deg as Earth's obliquity. By trigonometry (and a little spherical trigonometry) one sees that in units of (v/c)^2/2*(number of waves), the actual effect on the difference in number of waves between telescope arm and cross arm [with the telescope arm pointed north  JK] is
0.4304, 1, 0.4304, 1
while the expected effect assuming the Maxwell theory and a drift toward the ecliptic pole, is
0.3300, 0.9045, 0.3300, 0.1922
and the correlation coefficient of these two series, is +0.5377. That is, if the experiments are evenly distributed in sidereal time, then the true, negative correlation coefficient should result in a byproduct positive correlation coefficient that is about 0.54 times as large, and somewhat reassuringly we find indeed that 0.277/0.362 = 0.765.
 Joe Keller 
Joe Keller 
Posted  15 Jul 2013 : 18:29:10 What follows is a sequence of five emails to fellow scientists, about my recent work analyzing Dayton Miller's ether drift data.
July 11, 2013:
Dear Thomas (Goodey)(cc: Pierre Fuerxer who also responded to my group email), Great quote from Kipling about the unforgiving nature of machines; we see a lot of farm machinery injuries around here, not so much as in the past mainly because there is less child labor, but still a lot. Also, I was able to download your map of the drift vectors and the possibly related astronomical vectors, no problem with either the attachment or the backup attachment. Well done map! Great to have such a clearly laid out map with the precise numerical data in an inset table. While it is eye catching that Miller's Mt. Wilson vector is so much closer to the normal to Luna's orbit normal vector than to anything else, still there was little correlation between the change in Miller's Mt. Wilson drift vector at his four epochs, and the change in Luna's orbit normal vector. And to be significant at the 1% level without any such correlation, Miller's drift vector would have to be 10x closer to Luna's orbit normal vector than to, say, the normal to the invariant plane. Of course many things are not statistically significant, yet are true. I lost the data file part of my program (floppy disk and hard drive both went bad over the years) but I remembered enough to rewrite the whole program with convenient included DATA statements and explanatory REM statements, and just finished today. The program's mathematical analysis is much more competent than what I did in 2004. It includes Miller's Cleveland experiments (all with the steel interferometer) 19221924. I haven't had time to input the data from Miller's 19271929 Cleveland work or the small amount of somewhat difficult to redact work notes that he did with Morley with the steel interferometer in Cleveland in 1905. I hope to email the whole program to you and Pierre next time I get to the university and can get to a computer with a floppy drive & good email & document processing hookup. One thing I am finding that I didn't quite wrap my brain around back in 2004 when I did this: it seems that the positive correlation of "longer telescope arm path" with a direction roughly toward the poles of the ecliptic, is merely a mathematical byproduct of a stronger correlation, a negative one. This negative correlation is roughly parallel to the CMB dipole, i.e. the alleged cosmic motion of the Sun. It is as if, yes, the wavetrain contracts so there are more waves per micron, but also the interferometer contracts more than the wavetrain. After all, the electron shell matter of the interferometer is essentially a wavetrain itself, though of shorter wavelength. However it is not Fitzgerald contraction in which the interferometer arm and the light wavetrain contract perfectly equally (i.e. "space contraction" relativistic baloney). It is a dispersion phenomenon in which the interferometer arm contracts slightly more, hence the correlation with the fringe shifts is negative, not positive as Maxwell, Michelson & Miller expected. I did write about this on the messageboard of www.metaresearch.org (the website of the late Dr. Van Flandern) several years ago. My results "hot off the presses" today (this email is my first announcement to anyone): Best fitting constant space direction of ether drift: RA 40, Decl +10 (from hemispheric search to nearest 5 degrees) (or equivalently RA 220, Decl 10) correlation coefficient between observed and expected second harmonic coefficients is 0.4005 (yes, negative) approximating sigma = 4.74 standard deviation units of significance Among directions giving a positive correlation, the best is RA 210, Decl +65 but the correlation coeff is merely +0.3435, sigma = +4.00 These data comprise 64 of what Miller called "experiments", each on one page of the notebook, typically comprising 10 to 20 turns of the interferometer (some 1923 experiments were excluded because they were Miller's test of a heat lamp effect which clearly swamped everything else). The correlation coefficient is for 64*2 = 128 items because of the cos(2*theta) and sin(2*theta) coefficients. Sigma = 4.00 is highly significant but sigma = 4.74 is much more so. Would you please forward this to Jim DeMeo? Without him we would be nowhere on this, but I misplaced his email address and this library is closing.  Joe Keller
July 12, 2013:
To: Thomas Goodey, Pierre Fuerxer, James DeMeo Dear sirs: This is the BASIC program I spoke of yesterday. With the help of the student at the computer help center at Iowa State University (just down the hall from where Thomas and I worked together that long ago February night in 2004) I was able to cut and paste it about half a page at a time from the BASIC language command prompt window into an email to myself, then remove the myriad unwanted headers and word processing characters that had been inserted. It was almost as much work as retyping the program. I've checked it hastily but can't guarantee that there are no errors from this copying process. For that matter, I haven't had time to double check my data entry and can't guarantee that there are no errors there, either. Remarkably, in 2004 I found several column sum errors on Miller's notebook pages, almost all of them very small, marked those on my copies of the pages, rechecked those errors during these last few days and found that I had been correct in every case. To reiterate and add to what was in my email yesterday, this program analyzes only what I analyzed in 2004, namely Miller's 19221924 steel interferometer experiments in Cleveland. I intend to augment the data to include the similar 19271929 experiments, which also were by Miller with the steel interferometer in Cleveland. The program determined that if restricted to positive correlation coefficients (i.e. sign of fringe shift what was expected by Maxwell, Michelson & Miller) the best is RA 210, Decl +65 and the correlation coeff is +0.3435, sigma = +4.00
but my best fitting constant space direction of ether drift is: RA 40, Decl +10 (from hemispheric search to nearest 5 degrees) (or equivalently RA 220, Decl 10) correlation coefficient between observed and expected second harmonic coefficients is 0.4005 (yes, negative) approximating sigma = 4.74 standard deviation units of significance. Sigma = 4.00 is highly significant but sigma = 4.74 is much more so.
So, the apparent ether drift in a direction approximating perpendicular to the ecliptic, seems to be merely a mathematical byproduct of the main effect, which is an ether drift roughly approximating parallel or antiparallel to the CMB dipole. This makes the ether drift much more credible.
Not only the negative sign, but also the small magnitude (I find about the same magnitudes Miller did) can be explained as a dispersion phenomenon: the speed of light at visible light frequency is higher than at frequencies comparable to the electron waves in the atoms of the steel arm. So, it amounts to an overcompensating FitzGerald contraction, not any distortion of space itself.
 Joe Keller
 From: josephkeller100@hotmail.com To: josephkeller100@hotmail.com; josephckeller@gmail.com Subject: program pasted from commmand prompt Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:47:44 0500
<! .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P { padding:0px; } .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage { fontsize:12pt; fontfamily:Calibri; } > REM Program name "DMCLEV.BAS", by Joseph C. Keller, Roland Iowa May 2004 REM Redone by JC Keller June 30  July 2013 because "text" data file lost. REM The new program is much more capable than the old. REM The program is written in BASIC, Microsoft "QBASIC" circa 1993 vintage REM and runs on a 1993 vintage Intel 486 (prePentium) IBM computer. REM "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time REM to do it over."  Jack Bergman writing in a book of humor REM DATA lines are Dayton Miller's Cleveland data from 19221923: REM in GoodeyKeller page numbering of Miller notebook REM (obtained by James DeMeo from the Case Archives) pp. 00830135. REM Goodey & Keller numbered the pages, working with the assistance REM of hired students in the lobby of the REM Iowa State Univ. Memorial Union, Feb. 2004 at Goodey's suggestion. REM pp. 00830095 titled "Cleveland, Ohio April, 1922" REM subtitled "5 sets, 71 turns"
REM & pp. 00950135 titled "Cleveland, Ohio Aug 23Sep 4, 1923" REM subtitled "39 sets, 477 turns" though I use only [18 sets, 263 turns] REM & omit 21 of these 39 because they were tests of the REM effect of heater(s) (or "three electric bulbs" on p=119) in the room. REM In 1923 the 18 2nd harmonic displacements calculated by Miller for the REM experiments without heaters were REM 6,8,18,9,17,18,12,4,8,8,10,6,4,4,4,10,3,5 REM & the 21 with heaters were REM 97,77,10,73,122,118,31,77,85,135,54,12,22,14,78,61,19,22,42,83,72 REM where the smaller heater effects were correlated with thermal shielding. REM So the heater effect swamped all other effects and those experiments REM must be omitted. REM & pp. 01360179 titled "Cleveland, Ohio June 27July 26, 1924" REM subtitled "42 sets, 598 turns"; I use [41 seets, 587 turns] because REM p=156 is missing a column
REM Miller's Index, p. 005, lists other epochs for which there were REM steel interferometer data at Cleveland; I confirmed these as REM present in the notebook, though it is mostly devoted to Mt. Wilson data REM (not only the MarApr 1925, JulAug 1925, Sep 1925 & Feb 1926 epochs REM discussed in Miller's Physical Review article, but also considerable REM Apr 1921 & Sep 1924 epochs with the steel interferometer @ Mt. Wilson) REM (1905 are MorleyMiller) REM July 1905 (48 turns, p. 041) REM Oct 1905 (127 turns, pp. 038040) REM Nov 1905 (55 turns, p. 042) REM Apr 1927 (20, 400 turns) REM Aug 1927 (41, 820 turns) REM SepOct 1929 (11 sets, 220 turns)(Cleveland 1927 & 1929 are pp. 9771054) REM Program finds best fit ether drift vector in space REM A few pages are cut off, requiring a little guesswork about exact times; REM I'll note this as arises. REM setting constants REM setting numerical constants PRINT : PRINT : pi# = ATN(1) * 4: pi180# = pi# / 180 REM sum of squares of 19, 29,...,169 jv0# = 1496  2 * 9 * 136 + 16 * 9 ^ 2 REM setting astronomical constants REM tropical yr 1960 from Newcomb linear formula cited by Clemence 1946 yr# = 365.242195#: yrinv# = 1 / yr# REM Julian date of 0h Jan 1 1992 jd0# = 2448622.5# REM JD of J2000.0 i.e. 12h Jan 1 2000 jd00# = 2451545 REM setting geographic constants REM estimated geographic latitude & longitude of Miller's lab at Case latcase# = 41.5056# * pi180#: longcase# = 81.6083# * pi180# cscase# = COS(latcase#): sncase# = SIN(latcase#) REM The location in Cleveland 19221924 was the "Physical Laboratory", REM (presumably not the temporary building used by Morley & Miller in 1905  REM which was at 285 m alt in East Cleveland). REM The "Physical Laboratory" would have been on the main campus therefore REM about 41 deg 31' lat and 81 deg 33'30" long REM In 1927 the interferometer was moved from Mt. Wilson to the Case campus REM about 690 ft alt, 41 deg 30'20" lat and 81 deg 36'30" long REM so these coordinates will be assumed for 19221924 & 19271929 REM at the risk of a 3' longitude error for 19221924. REM physical and time constants REM speed of light in km/s clight# = 2.997925# * 10 ^ 5 REM number of lightwaves in usual interferometer path according to Miller nwv# = 112 * 10 ^ 6 REM Greenwich sidereal time in radians REM for 0h GMT Jan 1 1992 per 1992 World Almanac REM given to nearest 0.1sec = 1.5" stime0# = (1 * 15 + 6 / 4 + 39.6# / 240) * pi180# REM dimensioning variables DIM shift(200, 27) AS DOUBLE: DIM c(17) AS DOUBLE: DIM s(17) AS DOUBLE DIM sh(200, 2) AS DOUBLE REM read, standardize and Fourier analyze Miller's data REM using Miller's column sums GOSUB 9000 REM find correlation with Fourier components expected for each of a REM grid of ether drift directions on the J2000 celestial sphere GOSUB 7000 REM print results GOSUB 5000 END
REM find cross product v1 cross v2 = v3 1000 x3# = y1# * z2#  z1# * y2# y3# = z1# * x2#  x1# * z2# z3# = x1# * y2#  y1# * x2# RETURN 5000 PRINT "The constant ether drift directions giving the largest " PRINT "correlation coefficients, in absolute value, between " PRINT "the expected (Maxwell ether drift theory) and " PRINT "observed (according to column sums of Miller Cleveland experiments) " PRINT "second harmonic coefficients of the fringe shifts, are " PRINT "in J2000 celestial coordinates:" PRINT "RA, Declination, corr coeff, sigma" PRINT : PRINT lat1; " "; lon1; " "; cc1#, PRINT .5# * LOG((1 + cc1#) / (1  cc1#)) * SQR(nn  3) PRINT : PRINT lat2; " "; lon2; " "; cc2#, PRINT .5# * LOG((1 + cc2#) / (1  cc2#)) * SQR(nn  3) PRINT : PRINT lat3; " "; lon3; " "; cc3#, PRINT .5# * LOG((1 + cc3#) / (1  cc3#)) * SQR(nn  3) PRINT "Estimated speeds 1,2,3 in ether, km/sec :" PRINT speed1#, speed2#, speed3# PRINT "Number of data pairs = number of experiments x 2, i.e. "; PRINT nn RETURN REM search grid of ether drift directions on J2000 celestial sphere 7000 PRINT "Checking Declination "; inc = 5: q = 0 sv# = 0: sy# = 0: cc1# = 0: cc2# = 0: cc3# = 0 lat1 = 1001: lat2 = 1002: lat3 = 1003: lon1 = 0: lon2 = 0: lon3 = 0 speed1# = 0: speed2# = 0: speed3# = 0 FOR lat = 0 TO 90 STEP 5 PRINT lat; " "; IF lat = 60 THEN LET inc = 10 IF lat = 70 THEN LET inc = 15 IF lat = 80 THEN LET inc = 30 IF lat = 90 THEN LET inc = 360 decdrift0# = lat * pi180# FOR lon = 0 TO 359 STEP inc radrift0# = lon * pi180#: sw# = 0: su# = 0: sx# = 0 FOR I = 1 TO counter IF q = 0 THEN GOSUB 7500 GOSUB 7600 x1# = shift(I, 22): y1# = shift(I, 23): z1# = shift(I, 24) x3# = shift(I, 25): y3# = shift(I, 26): z3# = shift(I, 27) h1# = xdrift# * x1# + ydrift# * y1# + zdrift# * z1# h3# = xdrift# * x3# + ydrift# * y3# + zdrift# * z3# REM expected column sum amplitude is REM proportional to speed squared x no. of turns magh# = (h1# ^ 2 + h3# ^ 2) * shift(I, 18) REM ph# = arctan(h3# / h1#) REM Use identity cos(2*(thph))=cos(2*th)*cos(2*ph)+sin(2*th)*sin(2*ph) REM g1=cos(2*ph) & g3=sin(2*ph)
tn# = h3# / h1#: den# = 1 / (1 + tn# ^ 2) g3# = 2 * tn# * den#: g1# = (1  tn# ^ 2) * den# REM Find quantities proportional to expected Fourier coeffs of fringe shifts exps1# = magh# * g1#: exps3# = magh# * g3# REM Find correlation coeff of these with actual fringe shifts sx# = sx# + exps1# + exps3# su# = su# + exps1# ^ 2 + exps3# ^ 2 IF q = 0 THEN GOSUB 7700 sw# = sw# + exps1# * sh(I, 0) + exps3# * sh(I, 1) NEXT I q = 1 coa# = nn * sw#: cob# = sx# * sy# coc# = nn * su#: cod# = sx# ^ 2 coe# = nn * sv#: cof# = sy# ^ 2 corrcoeff# = (coa#  cob#) / SQR((coc#  cod#) * (coe#  cof#)) GOSUB 7800 NEXT lon: NEXT lat RETURN
REM subroutine to find vert. (unit normal to reference spheroid) at Cleveland REM in celestial RA & Dec & xyz coords (v2 vector) of the equinox of date REM & then north (v1) & east (v3) unit ground vectors 7500 jd# = shift(I, 17): t# = (jd#  jd0#) * (1 + yrinv#) raclev# = t# * 2 * pi# + stime0#  longcase# REM for those with times cut off and guessed, REM will improve it by changing to Miller's written sidereal time IF p = 90 THEN LET raclev# = (4 * 15 + 25 / 4) * pi180# z2# = sncase#: x2# = COS(raclev#) * cscase#: y2# = SIN(raclev#) * cscase# ra1# = raclev# + pi#: z1# = cscase# x1# = COS(ra1#) * sncase#: y1# = SIN(ra1#) * sncase# GOSUB 1000 shift(I, 22) = x1#: shift(I, 23) = y1#: shift(I, 24) = z1# shift(I, 25) = x3#: shift(I, 26) = y3#: shift(I, 27) = z3# RETURN REM subroutine to find trial ether drift vector in coords of equinox of date
REM per "rigorous" formula in 1990 Astronomical Almanac 7600 jd# = shift(I, 17): t# = (jd#  jd00#) / 36525 zetaa# = .64062# * t# + 8 / 10 ^ 5 * t# ^ 2 za# = zetaa# + 22 / 10 ^ 5# * t# ^ 2 tha# = .55675# * t#  12 / 10 ^ 5 * t# ^ 2  1 / 10 ^ 5 * t# ^ 3 sn# = COS(radrift0# + zetaa#) * SIN(tha#) * COS(decdrift0#) sn# = sn# + COS(tha#) * SIN(decdrift0#) cs# = SQR(1  sn# ^ 2): decdrift# = ATN(sn# / cs#) sn# = SIN(radrift0# + zetaa#) * COS(decdrift0#) / COS(decdrift#) cs# = COS(radrift0# + zetaa#) * COS(tha#) * COS(decdrift0#) cs# = (cs#  SIN(tha#) * SIN(decdrift0#)) / COS(decdrift#) radrift# = ATN(sn# / cs#) IF radrift# < 0 THEN LET radrift# = radrift# + pi# IF radrift0#  radrift# > .1 THEN LET radrift# = radrift# + pi# zdrift# = SIN(decdrift#): cs# = COS(decdrift#) xdrift# = COS(radrift#) * cs# ydrift# = SIN(radrift#) * cs# RETURN
REM For first drift vector only, find actual shift sums for corr coeff calc 7700 sy# = sy# + sh(I, 0) + sh(I, 1) sv# = sv# + sh(I, 0) ^ 2 + sh(I, 1) ^ 2 RETURN REM save largest, or most positive, three correlation coeffs 7800 cc# = corrcoeff# REM GOTO 7806 REM find largest correlation coeff of either sign IF ABS(cc#) > ABS(cc1#) THEN GOTO 7810 IF ABS(cc#) > ABS(cc2#) THEN GOTO 7820 IF ABS(cc#) > ABS(cc3#) THEN GOTO 7830 RETURN REM find most positive correlation coeff 7806 IF cc# > cc1# THEN GOTO 7810 IF cc# > cc2# THEN GOTO 7820
IF cc# > cc3# THEN GOTO 7830 7808 RETURN 7810 cc3# = cc2#: cc2# = cc1#: cc1# = cc# lat3 = lat2: lon3 = lon2: lat2 = lat1: lon2 = lon1: lat1 = lat: lon1 = lon GOSUB 7850 speed3# = speed2#: speed2# = speed1#: speed1# = speed# GOTO 7808 7820 cc3# = cc2: cc2# = cc# lat3 = lat2: lon3 = lon2: lat2 = lat: lon2 = lon GOSUB 7850 speed3# = speed2#: speed2# = speed# GOTO 7808 7830 cc3# = cc# lat3 = lat: lon3 = lon GOSUB 7850
speed3# = speed# GOTO 7808 REM The bestfit slope is the bestfit 2nd harmonic amplitude REM that would occur if the REM velocity vector were such that Maxwell would predict amplitude = 1 REM ("1" = 0.1 wavelength in Miller's data recording shorthand) REM so the equation is REM 1/4*(v/c)^2*nwv*10 = slope 7850 speed# = clight# * SQR(ABS((coa#  cob#) / (coc#  cod#)) * 4 / nwv# / 10) RETURN REM Read, standardize, and Fourier analyze data REM c(j) & s(j) are coeffs to convolve fringe shifts REM with cos & sin(2*azimuth), resp. 9000 rt2inv# = 1 / SQR(2): c(1) = 1: c(9) = 1: s(3) = 1: s(11) = 1 c(5) = 1: c(13) = 1: s(9) = 1: s(1) = 1
c(3) = 0: c(11) = 0: c(7) = 0: c(15) = 0 s(7) = 0: s(15) = 0: s(11) = 0: s(3) = 0: c(17) = c(1): s(17) = s(1) FOR I = 2 TO 16 STEP 2 c(I) = (c(I  1) + c(I + 1)) * rt2inv# s(I) = (s(I  1) + s(I + 1)) * rt2inv# NEXT I counter = 0 FOR I = 1 TO 200 READ y, mo, d, hr, min, n, p IF n = 0 THEN GOTO 9090 IF y < 1922 OR y > 1924 THEN PRINT "?! data error" counter = counter + 1 IF y = 1922 THEN LET jd# = jd0#  70 * 365  17 IF y = 1923 THEN LET jd# = jd0#  69 * 365  17 IF y = 1924 THEN LET jd# = jd0#  68 * 365  17 IF mo = 4 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 90 IF mo = 6 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 151 IF mo = 7 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 181 IF mo = 8 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 212 IF mo = 9 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 243 IF y = 1924 AND mo > 2 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 1 REM p=89 & p=91 reveal that turn rate was about 40 turns/35 min REM so if one time is given it likely was the start rather than midpoint IF p = 89 OR p = 91 OR p = 177 THEN GOTO 9010 jd# = jd# + n / 2 * 35 / 40 / 1440 GOTO 9020 9010 IF p = 89 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 25 / 2 / 1440 IF p = 91 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 10 / 2 / 1440 IF p = 177 THEN LET jd# = jd# + 45 / 2 / 1440 9020 shift(I, 17) = jd# + d  1 + hr / 24 + min / 1440 shift(I, 18) = n: shift(I, 19) = p: js = 0 FOR j = 1 TO 16 READ jx REM (+) fringe shift is that which would occur with longer telescope arm. REM Use of only half the mirrors reverses the sign of the expected shift?? REM IF p < 91 THEN LET jx = jx REM p=86,88 explicitly & p=89,90 implicitly used only half usual pathlength; REM will correct for this: IF p < 91 THEN LET jx = jx * 2 REM p=90 has top of copy cut off; p=89 or p=90 might need doubling. REM p=91 explicitly used usual ("16 reflections") pathlength. js = js + jx: shift(I, j) = jx NEXT j jm = js / 16 REM reduce to zero mean FOR j = 1 TO 16 shift(I, j) = shift(I, j)  jm NEXT j REM detrend using best fit line REM ju = 0 jw = 0 FOR j = 1 TO 16 REM ju = ju + shift(i, j) ^ 2 jw = jw + shift(I, j) * (j  9) NEXT j REM Best fit line is through (0,0) & has slope equal to REM correlation coefficient * std deviation of ordinate / std dev abscissa REM slope# = jw / SQR(ju * jv0#) * SQR(ju / jv0#) slope# = jw / jv0# FOR j = 1 TO 16 shift(I, j) = shift(I, j)  slope# * (j  9) NEXT j NEXT I 9090 nn = counter * 2 PRINT "Miller's column sum data have been read and standardized." PRINT "nn = "; nn GOSUB 9100 RETURN REM Fourier analyze data 9100 FOR I = 1 TO counter sc# = 0: ss# = 0 FOR j = 1 TO 16 sc# = sc# + shift(I, j) * c(j) ss# = ss# + shift(I, j) * s(j) NEXT j shift(I, 20) = sc# / 16 / (1 / 2): shift(I, 21) = ss# / 8 REM redundant variable below is to enhance array access speed sh(I, 0) = shift(I, 20): sh(I, 1) = shift(I, 21) NEXT I PRINT "Miller's data have been Fourier analyzed." RETURN
REM Format of data: REM time of each turning session in yr,mo,d,hr,min (Eastern Std. Time) REM n = number of turns of interferometer REM p = experiment's GoodeyKeller pagination number in Miller's notebook REM I use Miller's nondetrended column sums, REM omitting the last column REM which is redundant except for its bottom entry. REM Rather than use Miller's detrending, I'll detrend using a bestfit line REM for each experiment page. REM 1922 data DATA 1922,4,14,14,45,10,86 DATA 100,74,56,49,63,90,112,129,119,107,107,106,105,100,98,97 DATA 1922,4,17,14,25,6,88 DATA 42,38,38,42,44,48,60,69,70,63,56,50,52,61,62,64 DATA 1922,4,17,17,0,28,89 DATA 12,10,4,15,26,46,72,92,90,79,64,44,28,15,16,21 DATA 1922,4,18,16,30,25,90 REM for p=90, must guess civil time (page cut off) but will REM replace with Miller's sidereal time REM in subroutine getting sidereal times from JD's DATA 243,258,302,338,367,369,333,309,305,323,323,320,296,284,265,258 DATA 1922,4,19,15,50,12,91 DATA 9,15,8,12,42,52,47,52,52,75,112,136,132,107,60,20 REM 1923 data DATA 1923,8,23,13,30,11,97 REM minor addition error in col. 11 corrected DATA 31,31,28,23,22,20,22,24,30,27,24,21,17,9,4,12 DATA 1923,8,24,16,45,12,98 DATA 42,47,52,56,56,58,52,47,47,48,55,51,48,45,47,48 DATA 1923,8,25,9,40,18,99 REM Miller notes "Increasing telescope arm increases reading." REM This sentence also appears for p=100,101,103,104,106,108112,118 REM & of 1923 experiments, only p=126 has (ambiguously) contrary statement. DATA 4,18,40,55,59,56,39,20,12,10,18,26,28,21,14,12 DATA 1923,8,25,12,0,13,100 DATA 3,7,13,18,20,20,10,3,6,5,9,16,14,19,21,23 DATA 1923,8,27,11,20,9,101 DATA 53,47,42,30,43,54,63,71,73,73,76,78,82,91,97,90 REM on p=102, Miller notes "Heater placed at azimuth 4" REM so this experiment is omitted DATA 1923,8,27,15,10,6,103 DATA 19,24,28,31,30,21,19,18,20,22,20,18,13,11,11,17 DATA 1923,8,27,15,30,24,104 REM "Light shielded by cardboard" REM Many experiments in this part say they had a little shielding of some sort REM but only the most thoroughly shielded will be quoted. DATA 215,193,176,167,168,182,198,209,214,213,212,222,235,240,238,226 REM on p=105, Miller notes "Heater placed at Az. 2." REM so this experiment is omitted also DATA 1923,8,28,11,45,12,106 DATA 13,10,8,6,0,1,4,6,8,12,10,10,12,12,11,14 DATA 1923,8,28,14,20,16,107 REM "...interferometer shielded from heat by cardboard" DATA 196,192,189,191,197,206,212,212,217,214,223,212,215,215,217,212 DATA 1923,8,28,15,30,12,108 DATA 56,60,62,60,58,56,56,57,58,60,60,60,60,59,59,63 DATA 1923,8,29,9,0,11,109 DATA 39,35,37,39,37,45,45,50,49,47,44,42,39,43,46,49 DATA 1923,8,30,9,30,22,110 DATA 69,77,82,80,82,83,82,77,81,84,88,86,84,83,84,93 DATA 1923,8,30,10,0,11,111 DATA 69,74,75,79,80,81,78,75,78,78,78,79,80,79,81,87 DATA 1923,8,30,10,30,22,112 DATA 17,24,24,24,21,23,19,17,18,21,18,15,14,15,17,20 DATA 1923,8,30,15,40,22,113 DATA 64,67,67,65,66,65,66,66,69,73,76,75,70,69,70,72 REM p=114117 have "Heater"(s) & are omitted DATA 1923,8,31,9,0,8,118 REM minor addition error in 4th col. corrected DATA 29,28,30,36,38,43,44,44,40,38,38,37,34,39,41,38 REM on p=119 Miller notes "3 electric bulbs at Az 4" REM so though less powerful than a "heater", this experiment also omitted. REM p=120123 have "Heater"; will be omitted. DATA 1923,9,1,9,30,20,124 REM Miller notes "Glass and steel of all arms covered." REM minor sum error col. 1 corrected DATA 214,214,214,213,213,211,208,208,213,215,216,214,211,207,207,209 REM p=125 has "Heater" and though "Glass and steel of all arms covered" REM will be omitted. REM p=126134 have "Heater" & are omitted DATA 1923,9,4,16,30,14,135 REM minor errors summing cols. 24 corrected DATA 82,85,86,85,85,83,82,84,88,89,89,87,84,81,82,84 REM 1924 Cleveland data DATA 1924,6,27,14,5,8,138 REM Miller notes "Increasing readings, +, always means REM increased length of telescope arm" REM sign of column 7 corrected DATA 3,8,0,2,6,10,14,9,4,8,4,15,21,27,17,23 DATA 1924,6,27,15,0,10,139 DATA 119,117,125,126,127,129,131,131,132,129,133,135,141,147,146,139 DATA 1924,6,28,10,45,14,140 DATA 40,42,50,54,54,54,55,56,53,58,66,75,77,76,73,69
DATA 1924,6,30,10,0,19,141 DATA 31,26,38,47,66,68,56,58,59,64,75,93,101,92,71,57 DATA 1924,7,1,11,40,10,142 DATA 117,109,100,111,118,120,103,108,105,115,139,150,154,155,144,134 DATA 1924,7,1,16,45,9,143 REM Miller's #46 DATA 2,10,14,20,22,22,21,19,14,12,14,18,20,21,14,12 DATA 1924,7,1,12,0,10,144 REM Miller's #45 DATA 35,48,52,51,37,40,48,55,55,45,24,8,2,3,8,19 DATA 1924,7,5,8,40,12,145 REM top of page cut off; time deduced by comparing with other sidereal times DATA 104,99,86,74,64,88,117,125,117,111,101,98,95,106,121,137 DATA 1924,7,5,9,39,11,146 REM as for p=145 DATA 86,85,77,67,72,72,84,99,108,102,89,80,70,74,79,88 DATA 1924,7,5,10,10,12,147 DATA 132,128,121,125,136,138,126,127,118,123,138,140,151,148,149,150 DATA 1924,7,5,11,45,10,148 DATA 94,96,99,102,107,108,105,96,96,98,105,111,116,120,116,111 DATA 1924,7,7,10,45,10,149 DATA 18,19,19,17,17,16,17,20,17,17,14,11,10,10,13,19 DATA 1924,7,7,11,40,20,150 DATA 151,149,145,143,142,142,140,137,142,146,157,167,195,180,173 DATA 1924,7,7,14,30,20,151 DATA 18,25,32,38,37,34,33,31,29,23,19,11,4,0,14,27 DATA 1924,7,7,14,45,20,152 DATA 109,105,103,103,105,107,102,100,99,104,112,12,127,129,121,112 REM minor addition error 1st col. corrected DATA 61,55,48,40,40,37,44,47,52,50,50,39,36,35,55,76 DATA 1924,7,8,22,30,14,158 DATA 27,22,19,15,12,11,9,13,17,19,16,9,9,10,18,32 DATA 1924,7,9,9,0,20,159 DATA 168,170,173,167,162,155,156,161,165,167,174,178,172,174,175,189 DATA 1924,7,9,14,25,10,160 DATA 55,57,56,55,54,58,57,59,60,61,63,67,69,71,68,64 DATA 1924,7,9,14,35,10,161 DATA 3,3,1,2,3,2,2,0,6,7,8,5,3,1,5,8 DATA 1924,7,9,14,55,20,162 DATA 16,15,13,11,9,12,14,19,19,18,17,14,12,12,15,23 DATA 1924,7,10,10,5,11,163 DATA 143,143,147,150,152,150,153,158,159,161,162,162,160,162,166,172 DATA 1924,7,10,11,20,10,164 DATA 8,6,7,7,10,12,10,11,11,6,6,10,13,14,13,7 DATA 1924,7,10,20,16,30,165 DATA 160,166,170,178,180,182,183,181,178,184,195,203,209,211,203,191 DATA 1924,7,10,17,40,9,166 REM minor addition errors cols. 14,8,9 corrected DATA 27,26,28,29,33,32,36,33,32,35,37,41,47,49,47,40 DATA 1924,7,22,17,0,20,167 DATA 60,69,70,68,65,63,63,64,63,66,65,64,64,64,64,70 DATA 1924,7,23,9,40,10,168 DATA 6,4,5,11,18,23,22,20,19,17,17,16,1,3,4,7 DATA 1924,7,23,14,25,10,169 DATA 25,23,17,14,9,8,12,16,22,26,33,38,39,36,34,32 DATA 1924,7,23,17,10,11,170 DATA 10,10,11,11,11,10,11,12,17,22,23,23,24,24,26,27 DATA 1924,7,24,9,0,10,171 DATA 14,15,21,22,22,19,16,13,15,15,17,18,18,18,14,13 DATA 1924,7,24,14,35,10,172 DATA 7,8,8,8,10,10,13,16,17,17,18,19,21,22,25,29 DATA 1924,7,24,15,40,20,173 DATA 30,30,31,31,31,33,33,35,34,35,35,35,33,33,35,45 DATA 1924,7,24,17,0,20,174 DATA 1924,7,24,17,0,20,174 DATA 96,96,90,81,75,70,68,68,75,82,81,80,81,86,94,106 DATA 1924,7,24,23,40,10,175 DATA 3,8,10,10,9,8,8,8,8,8,8,7,7,7,7,9 DATA 1924,7,25,10,0,10,176 DATA 54,54,54,55,56,56,57,58,58,58,58,60,60,60,60,64 DATA 1924,7,26,3,40,27,177 REM addition errors cols. 2,4,7 corrected
DATA 142,149,151,152,151,155,169,176,181,185,189,189,190,198,212,222 DATA 1924,7,26,4,30,29,178 DATA 71,73,73,70,69,74,80,90,102,104,106,107,110,114,130,146 DATA 1924,7,26,9,30,12,179 REM minor addition errors cols. 1,3,14 corrected DATA 72,71,65,62,60,55,58,65,68,72,71,69,64,64,67,76 DATA 0,0,0,0,0,0,0

Larry Burford 
Posted  25 Jun 2013 : 13:39:39 Jim,
Models are obviously not perfect. And that lack of perfection can lead to frustration. But the real world is very big and complicated and in order to think about it and talk about it we we have to break it down into 'bite sized' chunks that are intended to be less complex. We call them models. Or theories. Or guesses. Or ideas. (If our frustration becomes large enough, we have more names for them ...)
And then we live with them and their imperfections. Until we can come up with something better.
Of course, sometimes the new better thing is not really better.
Sigh.
LB 
Larry Burford 
Posted  24 Jun 2013 : 18:10:07 By the way, we do not make up things like the electron and the proton. There really is something there. We can actually touch them. And when we do it HURTS! Sometimes enough to kill.
But we do make up the models we use to think about them and talk about them. I suspect that it is these models, and in particular our models of the electron rather than the electron itself, that you are complaining about.
LB 
Larry Burford 
Posted  24 Jun 2013 : 18:09:07 The proton is only a vehicle to carry the protonic charge much like several made up items in common use these days. And proton charge doesn't obey thermal laws for very simple reasons  mainly charge is energy and thermodynamics is a study of the interplay of energy and matter (aka ATOMS, lots of them, big wads of them).
If you try to apply the laws of thermodynamics to a small wad of atoms or to individual subatomic particles then you are using the thermodynamic models incorrectly.
LB 
Jim 
Posted  24 Jun 2013 : 13:23:20 Dr Joe, Chemistry uses moles of molecules as a base and the gas constant in SI units. Boltzmann divided the gas constant by the mole number. So, using the Boltzmann Constant should allow your equation. My issue is not that at allI am saying the electron is only a vehicle to carry the electronic charge much like several made up items in common use these days. And electric charge doesn't obey thermal laws for very simple reasonsmainly charge is energy and thermodynamics is a study of the interplay of energy and matter(AKA protons) 
Joe Keller 
Posted  20 Jun 2013 : 21:43:06 quote: Originally posted by Larry Burford
[Joe Keller] "... an electron at this radius r from the Sun, would have, if heated to the CMB temperature, ..."
[Jim] "... So then the issue is does the electron obey thermal laws? ..."
...For individual particles, temperature and especially heat are not well defined properties. ...
LB
Yes, what you say is true and I stand corrected here. I recall now that in my undergrad Harvard course in chemical thermodynamics, Prof. Leonard Nash, then head of the chemistry dept., always was careful to speak of "ensembles" rather than individual particles, when discussing temperature. 
Larry Burford 
Posted  20 Jun 2013 : 20:42:46 [Joe Keller] "... an electron at this radius r from the Sun, would have, if heated to the CMB temperature, ..."
[Jim] "... So then the issue is does the electron obey thermal laws? In my world the electron is not real and does not obey any laws(why should it?). It is a scfi idea that is deeply embedded in physical theory and the cause of much confusion ..."
For individual atoms and molecules the propety of temperature does not have the same meaning as it has for larger accumulations of mass. For the latter it is a measure of how fast and hard the particles are vibrating and banging into each other. For the former it is essentially an alternate measure of velocity.
This is even more so for individual sub atomic particles. Jim is right to question whether electrons "obey thermal laws" (not in the way we normally interpret them) but for the wrong reason (electrons are as real as protons  we can weigh them both, and make them do things according to any number of laws).
For individual partcles, temperature and especially heat are not well defined properties.
***
As long as Joe understands this distinction, he is not in trouble theorywise when he talks of 'heating' an electron to some 'temperature'. It is fairly common usage in some parts of particle physics, because it can make solving some problems easier.
But because of the potential for confusion, he should be careful to mention this when talking to a lay audience. It is kind of like when relativists divide time by the speed of light, call it a 'spacelike' dimension and then create a 4D spacetime model of the universe. It works mathematically, and some problems can be solved with less effort  even if you count the work needed to translate the answer into a useful format (3D space plus 1D time) for building something based on your results.
But they ought to be more careful about explaining things to lay audiences. And in this context a 'lay audience' can be anyone not working in their specific subspeciality.
LB

Joe Keller 
Posted  13 Jun 2013 : 16:54:23 Seven crop circles in Italy, one in France, three in England, imply Aug 9, 2013
1. A crop formation was reported at Modena (Finale Emilia) in Italy on June 9, 2013. Near a paved highway, it is thought to have appeared during the previous night of June 89. The New Moon occurred June 8 at 16h GMT.
This was one of several crop circles that already this spring have been reported in Italy. Maybe the circlemakers cannot wait for sufficiently tall crops to appear in England.
The five disks inside the large circle, signify the first five Full Moons Feb '13 through Jun '13, which occur between Luna's most southerly and most northerly ecliptic latitudes. Luna's maximum northerly ecliptic latitude, geocentric, of date, for the month, occurs at Feb 10, 06:48 GMT whereas Luna's minimum illuminated fraction (i.e. New Moon) occurs at almost exactly the same time, at 07:20 GMT. Thus the first Full Moon occurring after, rather than before, the maximum southerly latitude, is the Full Moon of 21h GMT Feb 25. The rightmost disk of the crop formation (as the formation is shown in most of the drawings and aerial photos online) is the disk just inside the large circle at the end where there are no disks outside the circle. This disk signifies the Full Moon of Feb 25.
The outermost disk, of the three outside the large circle on the left, would signify the Full Moon of September 2013. That is the last Full Moon before the equinox.
If a New Moon could occur 5 1/2 draconic months = 5.5*27.2122 = 149.67d after the Feb 10 New Moon, it would occur at the most southerly latitude for the month. Instead, five synodic months = 5*29.5306 = 147.65d. That is, the time period between the New Moons of Feb and July, symbolized by the string of five Full Moons within the large circle, is two days too short. Maybe it would have been more obvious to put six disks inside the large circle, but six synodic months = 6*29.5306 = 177.18d slightly exceeds 6.5 draconic months = 6.5*27.2122 = 176.88d. It was perhaps decisive, that the circlemakers wished to emphasize not the position of Luna's orbit six months after the Feb New Moon, but rather a position of Luna's node when the Sun lay near the node.
The April 25 20:07 GMT Full Moon in the center, occurs at a small southern latitude 1.008deg & longitude 215.87. The May 25 04:10 Full Moon to its left, is next nearest the ecliptic, at a slightly larger northern latitude, +1.555deg & longitude 243.98. Within the large circle, the sizes of the disks signify the closeness of the Full Moons to the ecliptic, with their diameters roughly inversely proportional to their latitudes. The latitude ratio is 1.555/1.008 = 1.543. Using Luna's orbital inclination 5.145deg, the ratio of their longitude distances from the node would be arcsin(1.555/5.145)/arcsin(1.0008/5.145) = 1.557.
The diameter ratio (according to my screen measurements from the 1st, 4th & 5th aerial photos at cropcircleconnector.com on Aug 8, both major and minor apparent axes, giving six estimates 1.54,1.625,1.57,1.56,1.61,1.55) is 1.576 +/ 0.009 SEM. This is confirmed by the measurements printed on the map on the "ground shots" page for this crop circle at cropcircleconnector.com: 8.70/5.50 = 1.582 +/ 0.010 rms implied rounding error. Combining mine and his with equal weight gives 1.579 +/ 0.008, differing from the foregoing theory by about 3 sigma at least. So possibly the circle designers were encoding the interpolated time ((May 25 04:10)*1 + (Apr 25 20:07)*1.579) / (1+1.579) = May 7 05:07. Luna lies on its ascending node Apr 26 14:06.5 at longitude 226.8344 and its descending node May 9 19:12.6 at longitude 46.8668 = 226.8668  180. Interpolation gives the ascending node at May 7 05:07, as 226.8605. The sun lies at longitude 226.8605  90 = 136.8605, at Aug 9 06:54. Remarkably, another interpolation scheme, interpolation in longitude according to the longitude distance of the April & May Full Moons from the node, give the same result to the nearest minute.
At this time, Mars is at long 107.8154, lat +0.7825, and Jupiter is at long 99.7007, lat 0.1533. For reference in part 2, this difference in longitude of Mars & Jupiter is 8.115deg.
2. The difference in longitude, 8.115deg, is shown on a previous crop formation reported June 6 at Barbiano Lugo near Ravenna. The diameters of the three circles given by online sources amount to 9m, 16m, and 300/pi = 95.5 m (i.e. circumference 300m). I confirmed this: despite the oblique view, one can measure the circles' diameters assuming that the farm vehicle tram tracks are equally spaced. I use the ninth photo from the top at www.fainzashiatsu.it; this is the only aerial photo on that page which appears on my browser. I find that the small circle is about 6/15 of one tram space, the midsize circle about 10/15, and the big circle about 4 + 5/10 + 6/15 = 4.90 tram spaces; the ratio of these diameters is
1:1.67:12.25
which, considering the crudity of the measurement, is as close as can be expected to
1:1.88:11.86
which is the ratio of the sidereal orbital periods
Earth:Mars:Jupiter
and it is these periods by which these planets seem to be identified in the crop formation. Likewise the diameters prominent on the Italian website give 9:16:95.5 which is
1:1.78:10.61
also a good match. A diagram on the Italian page gives more precise diameters 8.70:14.30:87.90 which is
1:1.64:10.10
a good match yet again.
With my protractor on the circle diagram on that page, measuring by eye from the centers of the circles, I find that the angle MarsEarthJupiter is about 9deg. The most magnified aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com gives a break angle for the centers of the small & midsize circles and the junction of the midsize and large circles, uncorrected, of
arctan(9.3/72.9) = 7.3deg
but the axis ratio of the midsize circle in this photo is 54/76, with the ellipse axes rotated about 13 & 6deg from the broken line, so an approximate correction for the oblique view gives break angle
arctan(9.3/72.9*(1 + 22/54*(1  2*sin(6)))) = 9.575deg
from which the JupiterEarthMars angle is found by the Law of Sines to be
arcsin(sin(9.575)*(11.862+1.881)/(11.862+2*1.881+1)) = 7.90deg
near the theoretical 8.115deg. The angle 7.90deg occurs Aug 8.8130.
3. A third crop formation was reported June 8 near Cava Manara in Italy. New Moons occur at about 15.5h GMT June 8 and about 22h Aug 6; the latter date is 2.37d prior to the date indicated by the other two crop formations above. The two central disks of the Cava Manara formation, signify the June & July New Moons, or the July & August New Moons, or in any case, two synodic Lunar months. The two pairs of arcs between these New Moons signify the extra two days. For more precision, let us consider the large crescent. Its sagittal depths from the tips of its horns, are 52 & 75mm on my screen. This signifies a time of (7552)/75 / 4 synodic months = 2.19d, only 0.18d different from the date indicated by the other two formations.
4. On June 20, fifty days before Aug 9, a crop formation was reported at Cisterna di Latina, Italy. This crop formation signifies the number 50, three different ways:
#1: On the aerial photo at cropcircleconnector.com (same as the Earthfiles photo) I measured the diameters of the inner rim of the inner and the outer rim of the outer circles, along the long axis of the apparent ellipse due to the oblique view. One must take care to measure to the top of the crop, that is, to the line between standing crop and shade at the shady side, and to the line between the standing crop and the sun at the sunny side. The ratio fo these diameters, on two measurements, I found to be 49.45:60 and 50:60. I also found that the spaces between the small halfdisks on the outer rim, are, approximately if not exactly, twice the diameters of those small halfdisks. Thus assuming that the circumference of the outer rim is 20*(1+2) = 60 units, the circumference of the inner rim is 60*49.7/60 = 49.7 units +/ 0.3 SEM, where presumably each unit (diameter of a small halfdisk) represents one day.
#2: If the large rings represent one synodic month and the small halfdisks represent one day, then the formation represents 29.53 + 20 = 49.53d.
#3: The Platonic solid with the most faces is the icosahedron, with 20. The number of faces + edges for this solid, is 20 + 20*3/2 = 50.
5. A "vesica piscis" (pair of congruent circles each with its center on the circumference of the other) crop formation was reported at Enna, Sicily, June 16. June 16 is 54 days before Aug 9. Two sidereal months is
27.3217 * 2 = 54.6434 d
but the actual result is closer to 54 than to 55. My most precise determination of the "doomsday" time, is 06:54 GMT Aug 9, from formation (1) above. Luna's longitude (geocentric, with equinox of date) then, is the same as Jun 15 19:24, for a difference of 54.4792d. The apparent Right Ascension is the same Jun 15 19:41, for a difference 54.4674d.
The "vesica piscis" arrangement emphasizes the congruence of the circles, therefore suggesting sidereal months. Sidereal months are more equal than synodic months, because of Luna's eccentricity. Furthermore, Aug 9 is a date at which the sidereal month is especially constant. Let's measure the sidereal month as the time from August back to July when Luna's apparent Declination (geocentric, equinox of date, per JPL online ephemeris) was the same. By this definition, the sidereal month lengthens by 35 minutes between 0h Aug 8 & 0h Aug 11. Interpolating with a cubic curve through 0h Aug 8, 9, 10 & 11, I find that the rate of increase almost becomes zero (i.e., the length of the sidereal month almost becomes constant, increasing at only 0.304 seconds/hour) at the inflection point Aug 9 18:04 GMT. This may be the equality to which the vesica piscis refers.
6. The crop formation reported July 1 in Cavallo Grigio, Italy (east of Turin) amounts to a sequence of binary numbers equal to 11, 4, 11, 12, 10, 11, 11, 7. Not only is there a narrow line of demarcation between each fourdigit binary number, the (two sets of) eight large triangles around the perimeter also emphasize that there are eight numbers. Naturally the small line segments would signify 0 and the much more prominent disks signify 1. The special triangle marked with six seemingly random small triangles, signifies the starting point. We shall see that these six triangles symbolize the six visible planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus. The single triangle near the third number and the double triangle near the sixth number mark for us the direction of increasing time and also the direction of increasing value to the places of these base2 numbers. We also shall see that another purpose of these marks is to give extra value to those two numbers.
There are six visible planets and the sidereal month is about 27 days. So, Luna is in conjunction with a visible planet on average about once every 27/6 = 4.5 days. The sum of the eight binary numbers is 77; if they signify halfdays, then they average 77/2/8 = 4.8 days, so maybe they signify conjunctions of Luna with a planet. Let's check this, because July 1.0 + 77/2 days = August 8.5.
According to a webpage of the TAU Astronomy Club ( http://astroclub.tau.ac.il ) the interval 0h GMT Jun 20 2013 to 0h GMT Aug 13 2013 contains ten conjunctions of Luna with the six visible planets Mercury through Uranus:
1) Mars Jul 6 11:56 GMT 2) Jupiter Jul 7 02:55 3) Mercury Jul 8 11:45 4) Venus Jul 10 18:21 5) Saturn Jul 16 23:31 6) Uranus Jul 27 19:16 7) Jupiter Aug 3 21:32 8) Mars Aug 4 09:37 9) Mercury Aug 5 06:20 10) Venus Aug 9 22:46
Indeed Jul 1.0 + 11/2 d = Jul 6.5 is conjunction (1). Conjunction (1) + 4/2 d = Jul 8.5 is conjunction (3). Like conjunction (3), conjunction (9) is with Mercury. Conjunction (9) is 7/2 days before Aug (5.3 + 3.5) = Aug 8.8, almost Aug 9.
The third number is 11, but the prominent small single triangle near it, perhaps increases its value, signifying a unit in the next place, 16, giving 27. Conjunction (3) + 27/2d = Jul 22.0, near the only planetplanet conjunction in the relevant interval:
A) MarsJupiter Jul 22 06:49 = Jul 22.284
Using the next binary number of the formation, Jul 22.0 + 12/2 = Jul 28.0 is near conjunction (6) which is at Jul 27.803. The next numbers, 10,11,11, summed give Jul 28.0 + (10+11+11)/2d = Aug 13.0. If the prominent small double triangle signifies 16, the net result is Aug 13.0  16/2d = Aug 5.0 which is near conjunction (9), Aug 5.264.
7. Finally there is the Jul 4 crop formation near Sarrebourg in Moselle, France. The large disk within a concentric ring, signifies not the 7h GMT Jul 8 New Moon, but rather the next New Moon, that of 22h Aug 6. That is, the next New Moon after the upcoming one.
The four smaller disks to one side, signify days after the Aug 6 New Moon. The three small disks to the other side, signify a gap of three intervening days Jul 5,6,7 between the crop formation's appearance Jul 4 and the Jul 8 New Moon. The break angle between the two opposing rows of disks might signify the 29.5/365*360 = 29deg traveled in one synodic month.
The arc implies that something will happen almost two days after the New Moon of (minimum MoonSungeocentric Earth angle) Aug 6 21:53. The one aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is quite oblique but I estimate roughly that the arc touches the small disk 30 degrees from its end, i.e. (1cos(30))/2 = 0.067d before the end of that second day. So the implied time is about
Aug 6.912 + 2  0.067 = Aug 8.845
which agrees with the Aug 8.8 deduced in section 6 above.
8. The crop formation reported July 6 near Avebury, England, depicts level curves of the logarithm. The rings become unusually narrow to tell us we should measure to the centers of the ring boundaries, then wide so we cannot fail to notice the rings. Measuring on the screen to the centers of the ring boundaries, along the major axis of the moderately oblique aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com, I find that the largest ring is almost exactly 4x the diameter of the smallest, which in turn is almost exactly 4x the diameter of the central button. So the inner ring signifies the number 1, the outer ring the number 4. The distance between rings is proportional to the diameter of the ring, so if the rings are "level curves" of a surface, then 1 / (dy/dr) is proportional to r, that is dy/dr = a/r, so y is a logarithm function. The abscissas of the rings are 1 = 4^(0/8), 4^(1/8), 4^(2/8),...,4^(8/8). Regardless of the base of the logarithms, the ratio of the last ordinate to the next to last, is 8/7, and this number is the message of the formation.
One mean synodic month * 8/7, is
29.5306 * 8/7 = 33.7493d
Local midnight (minimum solar elevation) occurs July 6 00:12 GMT; this time + 33.7493d = Aug 8.7576. However, the New Moon to New Moon geocentric synodic month July 08 06:48 Aug 06 2013 21:54 is 29.6292d, which gives Aug. 8.8702.
There is a double entendre in this crop formation. What about sidereal months instead of synodic, and from sunrise July 6 rather than midnight? For this option, consider the convexity of the logarithm, specifically the ratio of its integral from 1 to 4, to the area under the line from (1,0) to (4,ln(4)). Again, this ratio is independent of the base of the logarithms, and equals
(4*ln(4)4 + 1)/(0.5 * ln(4) * (41)) = 1.22397
Using the mean sidereal month 27.3217d, and sunrise 04:06 GMT Jul 6 gives
Jul 6.1708 + 27.3217*1.22397 = Aug 8.6117.
9. The crop circle reported at Bienate, near Milan, Italy July 3. I use the "outstretched" photo version on cropcircleconnector.com. The axis ratio of the large disk, I measure as 2.53; this is used as a multiplier for the tangents, to estimate the actual angles.
The large disk represents the Sun, the middle disk Venus, and the small disk Luna. The point at the head of the flaglike hook at lower right, is the geocentric observer. Measuring from the centers of the ellipses, the angle between the observerLunaVenus line and the VenusSun line, I find as 63deg, correcting for obliqueness to 36.3deg. This isn't too different from the SunEarthVenus angle Aug 10.0: 34.6deg.
More precisely, the diagram signifies the conjunction of Luna & Venus; their longitudes are equal Aug 9 22:04 GMT. The flaglike hook represents a change in Luna's angle relative to Venus, measured on the screen as 24deg and corrected for obliquity to 18.9deg. This is the LunaVenus longitude difference at Aug 8.255, or, if Luna's & Venus' position at the time of conjunction is used as the reference, then it is the longitude difference at Aug 8.405.
10. The crop formation reported Aug 1 at Milk Hill in Wiltshire, England, amounts to a direction marker. Its cross formation suggests that it is a direction relative to one of the cardinal directions NSEW. The axis ratio of the aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is 3.148 as I measure on my screen. With straightedge and protractor I find that the arrow is 10deg clockwise from the major axis of the large circle's apparent ellipsoid, and that the tramlines (tractor tracks) are 10deg counterclockwise from it. Multiplying the tangents of these angles by the correction factor 3.148 gives 40 & 29deg, resp.
So, according to my measurement on my screen and a rough correction for the obliqueness of the photo, the arrow is 904029 = 21deg from perpendicular to the tramlines. Measuring degrees in an average sidereal Lunar orbit, this angle past the August New Moon corresponds to
Aug 6.9125 + 27.3217 * 21/360 = Aug 8.506
and for a synodic Lunar orbit
Aug 6.9125 + 29.5306 * 21/360 = Aug 8.635.
11. The formation reported July 15 at All Cannings, Wiltshire, England can be analyzed just as #10, and gives the same angle, 69 deg, by my measurement, thus the same predicted times. This formation has threefold symmetry and hence three times as many interpretations, however. On the other hand, its aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is less oblique so perhaps my angle estimates are more accurate.
Relationship to other dates. Aug 9, 2013 is 305 days after Oct 8, 2012. The numbers 305 & 365 have a special quadratic relationship:
305 = 5*61 in prime factors 365 = 5*73 in prime factors and
61^2 = 2 modulo 73
Besides Oct 8, 2012, the other "doomsday" date I had identified from crop circles, was Feb 17, 2013, 173 days before Aug 9. Note the similar quadratic relationship (173 is prime):
173^2 = 1 modulo 73
Oct 8 is 132 days before Feb 17 and
132 = 12 * 11 11^2 = 1 modulo 61
Organizing this, let's say that Oct 8 is A, Feb 17 is B, Aug 9 is C. Let's define the distance AB as the largest prime factor of the difference in days BA, etc. Let's define one year as 73, the largest prime factor of 365. Then
AB^2 = 1 mod AC i.e. mod 61 BC^2 = 1 mod 73 AC^2 = 2 mod 73
To complete the pattern, I need a date "O" such that
OB^2 = 1 or 2, mod AC i.e. mod 61
Let O = the beginning of the Mayan Long Count:
B  O = 5200*360 + (Feb 17  Dec 23) = 1872056 = 8*234007
where I use the alternative Dec 23 end for the Long Count. The prime number 234007 = 61*3836 + 11 so
OB^2 = 234007^2 = 11^2 = 1 mod 61
This is evidence not only for the coherent planning of crop formations to indicate the dates Oct 8, 2012, and Feb 17 & Aug 9, 2013, but also to indicate Dec 23, 2012 as the correct end of the Long Count. 

