Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz Ticking Dilation?

[crawler]

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.

[Sithri]

How does a tuning fork act as a clock? Density width, materials made with, etc. all effect the vibration of the tuning fork.

[crawler]

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?

[Sithri]

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.

[crawler]

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.

[Sithri]

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.

[crawler]

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]

Einstein made the same time dilation mistake as Lorentz (plus Einstein made lots of other time dilation mistakes). In On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies (1905) Einstein said....

If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tvv/cc second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock [7] at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.
[7] Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded.

Einstein didnt actually say that a balance clock would suffer the exact TD dealt with in that equation, but it is clear enuff that that was his meaning. As detailed in my earlier postings on this thread Einstein (& Lorentz)(& everybody else) was wrong. Macro clocks do not suffer TD in accordance with the Lorentz equation for gamma. They suffer ticking dilation in accordance with the effects of length contraction, & this TD will vary for each kind of clock, & will depend also on orientation (contrary to Einstein & Lorentz). However gamma might be ok for the TD suffered by an atomic clock.

Actually elsewhere i have explained that the equation for gamma for the ticking dilation for atomic clocks is wrong because it doesnt account for the slowing of light & em processes near mass. Here Einstein has been ignored, & paradoxically here Einstein was for once on the right track (altho for the wrong reasons), light is indeed slowed near mass, & hencely the equation for gamma needs to be based on VV/c'c' not VV/cc (c' being the reduced speed of light at that location)(in vacuum). But this needs its own thread.

And the V kmps to be used for ticking dilation (& for length contraction), is the kmps of the velocity of the aetherwind. Einstein said that his V in his gamma was the relative speed (for TD), a silly theory (giving us the twins contradiction).

[fencewalker]

dilation only occurs if the speed of light is a maximum. u could write the same equation using the speed of sound if u want to try claiming sound is a maximum speed.
also einstein's postulates (assumptions) contradict each other.
find run ze cao on youtube. he also says more words than necessary, an ugly modern trend, but he points this out.
one assumption is that physics operates the same no matter the reference frame, the other assumption is that physics works differently as u approach the speed of light.
gamma factor is based on IF c is max, i wouldn't use it as the basis of any argument.

[crawler]

dilation only occurs if the speed of light is a maximum. u could write the same equation using the speed of sound if u want to try claiming sound is a maximum speed.
also einstein's postulates (assumptions) contradict each other.
find run ze cao on youtube. he also says more words than necessary, an ugly modern trend, but he points this out.
one assumption is that physics operates the same no matter the reference frame, the other assumption is that physics works differently as u approach the speed of light.
gamma factor is based on IF c is max, i wouldn't use it as the basis of any argument.

Yes the Lorentz equation for gamma for length contraction haznt been prooven. Firstly the equation hasnt been prooven. Secondly whether there is a length contraction (or expansion) in the direction of motion, or whether a width expansion square to the motion, or a combination of expansion & contraction (ie FitzGerald's idea) haznt been prooven.

But i dont understand what u mean when u say IF c is max. The way i use V in gamma is that V is the kmps of the aetherwind blowing throo the object. And i assume LC along that vector.
And i use c" for the value of c in gamma. Where c" is the reduced value of c when near mass, ie due to gravitational potential (Einstein's only good idea).

Strangely the only relativity thing that has been shown to be true is the use of gamma for the ticking dilation of atomic clocks at varyus heights. Here the theoretical analysis of the experimental results haz been largely stuffed up, they should have used c" & V, but they used c & v, v being the escape velocity at that height. But they still got fairly good numbers nonetheless.
They would get a shock if they tried it in the southern hemisphere. There the aetherwind V is greater at greater elevation, in the northern hemisphere V is lesser at greater elevation -- whereas the gravitational potential is lesser at greater elevation in both hemispheres.

[fencewalker]

i don't understand ur point of view, i hope that's ok. i was looking stuff up on lorentz transformations, so BEFORE i saw ur response, i wrote this in my journal, i think it better explains what i was saying...
***
What speed will allow me to age at half the rate of someone standing still?

This site… https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~mcmillan/rqpdf ... tivity.pdf

has B(eta) = v/c = √(1 – (t’/t)²) and they have t = 2t’, B = .866

so as long as i go .866 of a maximum speed, i will get there in half the time.
This is not dependent on what that maximum speed is.
I can just as easily say the maximum speed is 10 MPH, so if I wanted to go 10 miles in 30 minutes of my time, I need to move at 8.66 MPH.
This is ridiculous. I just move at 20 MPH, lorentz transformation does not prove einstein’s maximum speed of light, it just shows the math IF c were a maximum.
***

[crawler]

i don't understand ur point of view, i hope that's ok. i was looking stuff up on lorentz transformations, so BEFORE i saw ur response, i wrote this in my journal, i think it better explains what i was saying... ***
What speed will allow me to age at half the rate of someone standing still?
This site… https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~mcmillan/rqpdf ... tivity.pdf
has B(eta) = v/c = √(1 – (t’/t)²) and they have t = 2t’, B = .866
so as long as i go .866 of a maximum speed, i will get there in half the time.
This is not dependent on what that maximum speed is.
I can just as easily say the maximum speed is 10 MPH, so if I wanted to go 10 miles in 30 minutes of my time, I need to move at 8.66 MPH.
This is ridiculous. I just move at 20 MPH, lorentz transformation does not prove einstein’s maximum speed of light, it just shows the math IF c were a maximum. ***

This is the way i look at that stuff.
Einsteinian relativity is krapp. It is based on V being relative speed or relative velocity which is krapp.
Einsteinian gamma has zero to do with Lorentzian gamma, where V is the aetherwind (or at least it is in neoLorentzian relativity)(Lorentzian relativity being based on a static aether)(neoLorentzian being based on a non-static aether).
We put c in gamma, but c has zero to do with the speed of light or the max speed of light, c is the speed of em radiation, ie photaenos, which might moov at say 5c in the nearfield.
It is ok to talk of aging, but not ok to talk of time dilation koz there is no such thing as time, except for the present instant, which is universal.
It is not ok to talk of someone standing still, u must refer to the aetherwind blowing throo that someone, ie u must refer to the absolute reference frame.
And u must talk of the absolute aging, ie in the absolute ref frame, koz aging is different in every frame, koz the aetherwind affects the observer's ticking etc.

[ja7tdo]

Neither time nor space extends.
There is no ether.

The cause of the change in time indicated by atomic clocks is the density of neutrinos.

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283.pdf

This is a paper that states that neutrino density affects beta decay.
The neutrino also affects the atomic clock.

[crawler]

Neither time nor space extends. There is no ether.
The cause of the change in time indicated by atomic clocks is the density of neutrinos.
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283.pdf
This is a paper that states that neutrino density affects beta decay. The neutrino also affects the atomic clock.

Thanx for the link to that paper by Jenkins etal. The paper in general supports the very old findings made by Shnoll, & does not obviate the aetherwind & aether turbulence explanation of Reg Cahill. U can find about 10 papers re The Shnoll Effect. Neutrinos (if they exist) have nothing to do with it.

Jenkins etal are ignorant Einsteinians & do not mention Shnoll, which makes them liars as well as ignorant.

[Cargo]

What's an ordinary clock? Springs, Weights, SunDials, Atoms?

Time is irrelevant anyway. After all, if we can assume the Now is real, then the time it is here, is the same time every where. Right Now, it may be 3PM Earth UTC, and if I was on Pluto right now, it would also be exactly 3PM Earth UTC.

And if, by whatever method, I traveled from Pluto to Earth, in 10 minutes. It would then be 3:10 on Earth, 3:10 on Pluto, and I spent 10 minutes telling you about it.