Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby crawler » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:48 pm

I calculate the macro ticking dilation for a tuning fork.
The velocity of the aetherwind blowing throo a tuning fork contracts the dimension parallel to the wind by the LLC gamma where gamma is (1-VV/cc)^0.5. For 500 kmps gamma is 0.999 998 609.
The equation for the frequency of a tuning fork says that freq is possibly affected by five things....

Length. Freq is proportional to 1/LL. If L shortens to XL (where X is gamma) then we can say that F1 is proportional to 1/XX which is X^(-2).
Width. Freq is proportional to the width W of each of the two prongs, if the wind blows across the width in the plane of the width then W narrows to WX & we can say that F2 is proportional to X^(1).
Depth. The wind can contract the depth D by X, but the depth does not affect freq.
In LWD above i have ignored the base that joins the two prongs, a thin base will affect the above.
Density. Freq is proportional to the density of the steel of the fork per (density)^(-0.5) & for any & all directions of the wind the density increases by X & we can say that F3 is proportional to X^(-0.5).
Young's Modulus. Freq is proportional to E per E^(0.5) & if we assume that E is proportional to the density then for any & all directions of the wind we can say that F4 is proportional to X^(0.5).

F1234 all depend on the orientation of the fork in relation to the wind. There are say three cardinal winds, along L, across W, & across D, & each wind will have its own values for F1234. And the resultant change in frequency for each wind is proportional to the product F1*F2*F3*F4 for that wind. The background wind blows throo Earth at say 500 kmps. The fork's real (or true) natural frequency is realized when the wind is zero kmps. A 500 kmps wind will according to my calculations give an actual frequency as per the following table.

kmps ....... gamma X ...... f1 ...... f2 ...... f3 ...... f4 .. f1*f2*f3*f4 .... f1*f2*f3*f4 ........ days for 1sec
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... X^-2 .. X^0.5 .. 1.00 .. X^0.5 .. X^-2 ........ 1.002004869 ... L ... 4.16 gain
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 ... 1.00 ... X^1 ... X^0.5 .. X^1 ......... 0.999998609 ...W ... 8.32 loss
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 ... 1.00 ... 1.00 .. X^0.5 .. X^0.5 ....... 1.000000695 .. D .. 16.64 gain

DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of 0.9 sec in 1000 sec (ie 16.67 minutes). My calculations show it takes days to lose or gain 1 sec if the wind is 500 kmps (ie c/600), & i calculate that DePalma's wheel had to have produced a wind of 10,000 kmps (ie c/30), which is not believable. I doubt that a spinning wheel can produce an axial aetherwind of any more than say 10 kmps or 100 kmps tops.
DePalma said that the watch lost most time when orientated as per W. But my calcs show that L has most effect, & this is a gain not a loss. Note that L can be towards the wheel or away, it makes no difference to my TD.

According to Lorentz & Co the fork (& every other kind of macro clock)(except pendulum etc) is slowed by only gamma (ie X^1) for any & all directions of wind, ie they would agree with a loss of 1 sec in 8.32 days in every case.
But their ticking dilation is LTD, whereas mine might be called TD. TD depends on........
(1) the kind of clock (tuning fork, balance wheel, pendulum etc), & it depends on
(2) the design of the clock (size & dimensions), & it also depends on
(3) the orientation of the clock in the wind (or if u like u can say that it depends on the velocity of the wind).

LTD applies only to micro clocks, eg atomic clocks. My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby Sithri » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:46 pm

How does a tuning fork act as a clock? Density width, materials made with, etc. all effect the vibration of the tuning fork.
Sithri
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby crawler » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:35 am

Sithri wrote:How does a tuning fork act as a clock? Density width, materials made with, etc. all effect the vibration of the tuning fork.
I aint sure, but there must be a mechanical cog fitted in there somewhere in the older clocks with steel forks.

And according to DePalma the nearness to a spinning object affects vibration. In particular the exact location & orientation relative to the spin-axis. I think DePalma blames some kind of odd inertial field.
I am told that this effect might affect clocks located close to gyros on instrument panels in planes.
Solution, redesign the panel layout.

And according to me the orientation relative to the aetherwind affects the vibration of a tuning fork. The wind blows at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30. This orientation problem probly aint a worry if the clock is moved around a lot. It might be a worry if the clock spends day after day in one orientation, as for clocks in some planes that are parked in the same spot etc in the same hangar.
Solution, change the orientation around 180 deg after each flight.
Earth's daily spin will to a large extent average out most of the daily change in aetherwind direction & aetherwind magnitude. But nonetheless there will be a residual effect if u dont do as i say. Supposed accuracies of a fraction of a second per year might be compromised. But of course Bulova & Omega are not aware of any of this, because they only employ Einsteinians, because skools churn out Einsteinians only (i think i can smell one now).

But i hope that u aint insinuating that good clocks of any kind must not have any density or widths or materials?
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby Sithri » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:37 pm

Just as Michelson & Morely got a null result, LIGO is grasping at straws to make a positive result out of noise, and LIGO is basically a super Michelson & Morely interferometer. Thus, there is no aether wind.
Sithri
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby crawler » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:13 pm

Sithri wrote:Just as Michelson & Morely got a null result, LIGO is grasping at straws to make a positive result out of noise, and LIGO is basically a super Michelson & Morely interferometer. Thus, there is no aether wind.
The 1887 MMX & all proper MMXs were not & are not null. LIGO cant be an MMX because an MMX needs a dielectric (Cahill), eg air. A vacuum MMX gives only a 3rd order fringeshift, ie nearnuff null, & that 3rd order fringeshift for LIGO happens very slowly over 24 hrs (ie it doesnt register). The aetherwind has been measured by say 15 different scientists using say 15 different methods tween 1887 & today.

But in my OP the numbers are wrong, here are the correct numbers.
Density. Freq is proportional to the density of the steel of the fork per (density)^(0.5) & for any & all directions of the wind the density increases by X & we can say that F3 is proportional to X^(0.5).
Young's Modulus. Freq is proportional to E per E^(0.5) & if we assume that E is proportional to the density then for any & all directions of the wind we can say that F4 is proportional to X^(-0.5).

kmps ....... gamma X ...... f1 ...... f2 ...... f3 ...... f4 .. f1*f2*f3*f4 .... f1*f2*f3*f4 ........ days for 1sec
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... X^-2 .. X^0.5 .. 1.00 .. X^-0.5 .. X^-2 ........ 1.000002782 ... L ... 4.16 gain
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 .. X^0.5 ... X^1 ... X^-0.5 .. X^1 ......... 0.999998609 ...W ... 8.32 loss
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 .. X^0.5 ... 1.00 .. X^-0.5 .. 1.00 ........ 1.000000000 .. D .. no effect.
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby Sithri » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:52 pm

crawler wrote:
Sithri wrote:Just as Michelson & Morely got a null result, LIGO is grasping at straws to make a positive result out of noise, and LIGO is basically a super Michelson & Morely interferometer. Thus, there is no aether wind.
The 1887 MMX & all proper MMXs were not & are not null. LIGO cant be an MMX because an MMX needs a dielectric (Cahill), eg air. A vacuum MMX gives only a 3rd order fringeshift, ie nearnuff null, & that 3rd order fringeshift for LIGO happens very slowly over 24 hrs (ie it doesnt register). The aetherwind has been measured by say 15 different scientists using say 15 different methods tween 1887 & today.

But in my OP the numbers are wrong, here are the correct numbers.
Density. Freq is proportional to the density of the steel of the fork per (density)^(0.5) & for any & all directions of the wind the density increases by X & we can say that F3 is proportional to X^(0.5).
Young's Modulus. Freq is proportional to E per E^(0.5) & if we assume that E is proportional to the density then for any & all directions of the wind we can say that F4 is proportional to X^(-0.5).

kmps ....... gamma X ...... f1 ...... f2 ...... f3 ...... f4 .. f1*f2*f3*f4 .... f1*f2*f3*f4 ........ days for 1sec
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... X^-2 .. X^0.5 .. 1.00 .. X^-0.5 .. X^-2 ........ 1.000002782 ... L ... 4.16 gain
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 .. X^0.5 ... X^1 ... X^-0.5 .. X^1 ......... 0.999998609 ...W ... 8.32 loss
500.00 ... 0.999998609 ... 1.00 .. X^0.5 ... 1.00 .. X^-0.5 .. 1.00 ........ 1.000000000 .. D .. no effect.


Doesn't it seem that a MMX interferometer in vacuum would be better suited to detect aether wind than in air? If I wanted to detect an aether wind,I wouldn't go to the top of a mountain with air because that would simply detect the aether shift of the air as opposed to the actual warping of aether in a vacuum. In other words, at the top of a mountain the aether is less dense due to its lesser density of air. This is probably due to the electric permittiity and magnetic permeability of the medium. Likewise, at the bottom of a basement it would detect antoher different aether shift if it isn't in a vacuum. If we are to detect an aether wind, the LIGO would be sure of it, as it is exactly the same as MM but with a vacuum. The fact that the LIGO detects changes in wavelength of that of the size of a proton, it would see radical and huge changes all the time; however, their methods of detection make pictures out of what would normally be noise.
Sithri
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

Unread postby crawler » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 pm

Sithri wrote:Doesn't it seem that a MMX interferometer in vacuum would be better suited to detect aether wind than in air? If I wanted to detect an aether wind,I wouldn't go to the top of a mountain with air because that would simply detect the aether shift of the air as opposed to the actual warping of aether in a vacuum. In other words, at the top of a mountain the aether is less dense due to its lesser density of air. This is probably due to the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability of the medium. Likewise, at the bottom of a basement it would detect another different aether shift if it isn't in a vacuum. If we are to detect an aether wind, the LIGO would be sure of it, as it is exactly the same as MM but with a vacuum. The fact that the LIGO detects changes in wavelength of that of the size of a proton, it would see radical and huge changes all the time; however, their methods of detection make pictures out of what would normally be noise.
No u can google Prof Reginald T Cahill, he has about 40 papers (2002 to 2017) re the aether & the aetherwind (which he calls quantum foam)(& dynamic space). He explains that an MMX needs air to give a 2nd order fringeshift. LIGO uses vacuum & can only detect a 3rd order MMX fringeshift at best.

And google Demjanov, he did a twin-media MMX in 1970 using air & carbon di-sulphide to give a 1st order MMX fringeshift. His English translation came out in about 2010.
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests