I aint sure, but there must be a mechanical cog fitted in there somewhere in the older clocks with steel forks.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.
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.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.
crawler wrote: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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.fencewalker wrote: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.
This is the way i look at that stuff.fencewalker wrote: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. ***
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.ja7tdo wrote: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.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests