Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06

Title: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
[SEE ALSO THE LINK TO ANOTHER THREAD RE DEPALMA & RE PODKLETNOV]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg556848#msg556848


On KeelyNet Bill Whamond says that Walter Baumgartner said that Bruce dePalma got his anomalous gravity g results because a spinning ball centrifuges aether.  I agree that any spinning (or orbiting) mass centrifuges aether, but, Walter said that this will "increase the aether pressure impinging on the poles & decrease the ambient aether-pressure at the equator."  I reckon the opposite, i reckon that apparent g is increased near the equator & is lessened near the poles. http://www.keelynet.com/energy/centrifuge.htm   WB says……..

It is my suspicion and belief that dePalma is 'centrifuging aether'!  If aether exists, then obviously rotation will centrifuge it, just as happens with any other fluid subjected to rotation.  In 'classical' physics (as distinct from 'establishment' physics), aether has always been regarded as a fluid (along with water, oil, electricity and magnetism, etc.).
The 'dePalma Effect' explains why 'gravity' is greater at the earth's poles and less at the earth's equator. It also explains why Earth is flattened at the poles and bulged at the equator.  The 'establishment belief' that this is due to the difference in polar and equatorial radii is almost certainly wrong and is mistaking the effect (radii differences) for the real cause (aether pressure differential).
If dePalma is 'centrifuging aether', this will increase the aether pressure impinging on the poles and decrease the ambient aether-pressure at the equator.  This will also induce a partial aether vacuum above the poles and produce 'boundary layer reduction' of the aether enveloping the equator.

I don’t know what aetheric mechanism WB believes in, ie to create gravity, & to create his aether pressure, but i will briefly describe my mechanism (which is based on Conrad Ranzan's DSSU aether theory)(& Prof Reg Cahill's Process Physics dynamic space theory).

Aetherons (or aethons) form aether, the universal sub-quantum essence that creates all quantum things (ie every thing that we see or feel).  A vibration or spin of the aether creates free photons, that travel at a speed of c (300,000 kmps).  Free photons are the prime quantum particle or quasi-particle.  A free photon has a helical (probably) main body & has a length (probably one wave length) – it can bite its own tail to form a loop, which makes it a confined photon (Williamson). 

Aether is annihilated in a free photon & aether flows in to replace the lost aether.  The acceleration of the inflow (ie the converging streamlines) give us what we call gravity & mass.  A confined photon has much more mass than a free photon – annihilation is greater (explanation elsewhere).  Various forms of confined photons give us elementary particles (ie electrons & quarks etc). 

Aether flowing to Earth impacts Earth at Earth's escape velocity (11.2 kmps) -- the converging aetheric streamlines giving a 1/RR relationship.  There is a cosmic background aether wind blowing south to north throo Earth at 500 kmps approx 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, right ascension 4:30 hrs.  Gravity is not affected by a uniform flow of aether, gravity is due to acceleration of the flow -- therefore the uniform background wind can be ignored here – the gravity field is an aetheric acceleration field.

If accelerating aether accelerates an object near Earth then conversely a mechanically accelerated object must accelerate aether.  The ground near the Equator suffers a small outwards centrifugal force & hencely must give a small inwards acceleration of aether (ie in addition to any inwards gravitational acceleration of aether).  If extra aether is pulled in by every atom of spinning Earth (pulled in towards Earth's spin-axis) then logically the extra aether must be spat out near Earth's two poles.

Entering centrifuged aether must add to Earth's g, the entering aether accelerating per 1/R, whilst the gravity acceleration is per 1/RR.  The exiting centrifuged aether at the poles will not have much affect on g, because the exiting streamlines will tend to be parallel.

The centrifuged g is apparently much much weaker than the gravity g, which is a bit of a mystery.  Centrifugal g at the Equator is -0.3348% of gravity g at the Equator.  Lets assume that centrifuged g is +0.1348%.  If gravity g is 100.0000 m/s/s, then the measured g will be 99.8000 m/s/s.
 
The above three kinds of g must also apply to Earth's orbital motion with respect to the Sun & Moon & Milky Way etc.
Here above i have ignored that measured g is affected by ticking dilation, ie our clocks are affected by the the aether wind. The aether wind (V kmps) slows ticking in accordance with the Lorentz equation for gamma.  The greater the wind then the slower the ticking & hencely the greater the apparent g (ie measured g).  Here the ticking is not affected by the acceleration of aether, it is affected by the V of aether.
 
Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.   They don’t know about the aether wind & the centrifuged aether.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 28/11/2018 14:25:57
[HERE IS WHAT I WROTE IN A THREAD RE LIGO][CENTRIFUGING AETHER MIGHT BE THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF LOSS OF MOMENTUM IN THE HULSE TAYLOR BINARY]
Even before the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, it was observed that the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system experienced orbital decay at exactly the rate predicted by relativity if the system emitted energy in the form of gravitational waves: http://aspbooks.org/publications/328/025.pdf

Take a look at the fourth page of the document to see just how closely the data matches the predictions. An awfully convenient coincidence if gravitational waves do not exist. If gravitational waves don't exist, then what was carrying the energy of the system away to allow for such orbital decay and why did it exactly match gravitational wave predictions?
Yes good points. Firstly i think that the close matching to the theoretical GR GW losses is overstated - what with inexact numbers for distance masses etc etc.
I think that there are other reasons for the energy losses. (1) Tidal forces. (2) Photonic radiation. (3) Charge-electro-magnetic radiation. But not GW radiation. Some of (1)(2)(3) losses might not be associated with loss of orbital momentum & loss of orbital speed -- but much will. 
I havnt given this stuff much thort. Still thinking.

Centrifuging of aether (my pet subject) is i reckon a big cause of energy loss. (4) Aether is sucked in near the equator of a spinning star & consequently aether is pushed out near the two poles (however this spinning wouldnt much affect binary orbit).
(5) But, a similar sucking & pushing must happen due to orbital rotation. In this case aether is sucked in from the outside of a star to the inside (outside being the half of the outer surface with respect to the other star)(inside being the inner half of the surface, ie the half closest to the other star). And aether is consequently pushed out in two directions along the common orbit axis.
Centrifuging of aether is completely unknown by the science community, including aetherists (except of course that i know)(& praps one other guy).
Yes, i think that the orbital centrifuging of aether (5) is the missing ingredient re energy loss -- & (4) centrifuging due to spin might contribute indirectly.
But Einsteinian GWs do not exist, & hencely cant have any effect on a binary or on anything else.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 20:59:52
  [DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70551.msg515971#msg515971
There's been talk about the electric field around a rotating magnet and what causes the force on charged particles around rotating stars due to the magnetic field. Here's my take
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm
Please take a look. All comments welcome.  What do you think?  Note: I first started thinking about this when I heard talk of something called an N-machine. Some nut job named Bruce DePalma claimed he could create free energy with such a device. Nonsense. But I ordered his papers to see if I could see through his smoke as an exercise in open mindedness. It was well worth the effort because I learned of a very little known effect.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 21:07:44
[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg558196#msg558196
Antigravity > Other antigravity machines and devices
Bruce DePalma - Inertial Field Experiment        Pages: (1/1)
andros:
Stefan (et al),
You may recall me from the days I served as Bruce DePalma's personal secretary from 1988-1997.  Many years have passed since his untimely death, and I continue to be possessed by a sense of loyalty to his work and memory.
In short, I strongly encourage anyone in the field of science & technology to pursue the replication of this pioneering experiment conducted originally by DePalma:

Appendix 1 - 18 June 1975 Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object
(from: http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOfElectricalInduction.html)
Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.

The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.

In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od (odd) field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.

The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference. With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.
Figure 1 -- (see hyperlink below)
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/nature5.jpg
With the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.

Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.

The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.

Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.

Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.
Bruce DePalma
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 21:10:00
[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70764.msg517290#msg517290
I know that some people who post here don't like to consider that our current understanding of the laws of physics might be incomplete or even wrong. To me the idea of being wrong is wonderful. Its only then do we learn something truly extraordinary and exciting.

In 1990 I heard some nutcase named "Dr. Bruce DePalma" on the radio claiming to have built a free-energy device based on the homopolar generator. People were calling in claiming to have built them and they also claimed that they worked. There was a pamphlet you could get for $10 which they asserted explained the operation of it. I studied the philosophy of physics in college and one of the most important things that I took away from that course was to keep an open mind because sometimes there was something interesting in what was otherwise nonsense. And this turned out to be one of those times. While the pamphlet was rubbished base on a very poor understanding of electrodynamics I did learn that the relativistic electrodynamics of a rotating magnet was not widely talked about in the physics literature. And in some places where it was the author got it quite wrong. A good example is how an astronomy text I have explained the force on charged particles by a rotating neutron star. The explanation was entirely wrong. Since then I learned the correct physics and am better for off it.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 21:11:23
[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48271.msg414535#msg414535
 
I think it's nonsense. I'm reminded of Bruce DePalma's N-machine that was being discussed on talk radio in the early 1990's. It was supposed be a perpetual motion machine. It was a simple rotating magnetic with a copper plate attached to one end. It's also known as a homopolar generator and can be found in certain electrodynamics textbooks. Supposedly one needs to understand relativity to understand its operation. A favorite quote of mine is from a philosophy of science class I took as an undergrad which said that nonsense can have some surprising twists to it sometimes and can be entertaining in a certain sense. So with that in mind I came I looked into it. And sure enough I was entertained by it. I learned that on does indeed need a good grasp on relativistic electrodynamics to understand it.
I created a web page to describe the physics of the device at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/em/rotating_magnet.htm
But the claim that it was a perpetual motion machine was garbage. The author was a  fraud and the people who have web pages about it seem too afraid to respond to comments on them. But a lot of people called the radio station claiming that they worked and that implied that they were getting out more energy that was being put in. This is like your current subject. It too is crap.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 21:13:06
[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75755.msg563422#msg563422
My favorite favorite topic is the centrifuging of aether.  Centrifug gives one hit, it is for......
Centrifuging aether – is dePalma correct (by  mad aetherist). I mention it here merely for background info.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75539.msg560753#msg560753

In #4 of  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.0
Re: Have gravity modification experiments been conducted (by  mad aetherist)(split off from main board),
......... alancalverd makes a comment that to me is the most memorable of all the postings that i have seen in New Theories, alluding to a possible effect of the centrifuging of aether.  This effect is that aether is sucked in at the equator of a spinning body, & spat out axially near the two poles, the velocity of the aether inflow & outflow adding or subtracting from the background aetherwind, & hencely affecting the ticking of clocks near the axis of the spinning body, the V kmps of  the aetherwind being what needs to be inserted in the equation for the Lorentz gamma, to calculate ticking dilation. 

#4 might be the most important posting in all physics forums in 2018 worldwide.
It starts the way that most good new theories start, with a puzzle.  I dont see how Einsteinians could offer any sort of GR explanation.  And i doubt that anyone could offer a good electromagnetic explanation.  Centrifuging of aether explains it very well.  Anyhow, it looks like clocks should be well clear of gyros.  alancalverd says...........

The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.
But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years.
The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time.
Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!


For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is dePalma correct?
Post by: mad aetherist on 05/02/2019 21:35:30
[DEPALMA STUFF COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg556848#msg556848
The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.

But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years. The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time. Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 06/02/2019 06:32:06
 Appendix 1 18 June 1975
Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object
 
Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.
The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.
In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od (odd) field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.
The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference.

With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.
 
[link to image & article] https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOfElectricalInduction.html

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.
With the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.

Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.
The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.
Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.
Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.
 
Bruce DePalma
 
1) Eric Laithwaite, John S. Wolfe, Edward Delvers, Bruce dePalma
 
Appendix: Axial moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes, pendulum experiments demonstrating anisotropic inertia of a rotating body. (available from Bruce dePalma)
 
* Tewari has investigated the co-rotating Faraday homopolar motor. He calls it the Space Power Motor or SPM. The increased torque available when rotating is mitigated by a "slippage" which increases with rotational speed. Over a certain speed range the product of the two effects can result in a superior machine.
* Appendix 1 - "Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object"
Published as: "The Tuning Fork Experiment" in: "Is God Supernatural"
R. L. Dione, Bantam Book Pbl. Co., 1976
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 06/02/2019 06:51:24
In #8 notice that DePalma doesnt mention aether even tho he mentions aether in other sections of his articles.  In #8 he doesnt mention aetherwind, nor Lorentz Ticking Dilation.
It is interesting that he places the watch on the face of the clock.
The electric clock is supposedly not affected by the spinning disc, alltho he doesnt actually say that. The clock of course ticks in response to the frequency of the electricity, & that frequency is generated by the power company at a distant location.
DePalma says that the ticking dilation of the Accutron tuning fork watch depends on orientation, ie parallel to axis has less effect than perpendicular to axis. This smells fishy.  Orientation shouldnt make a difference, according to my centrifuging of aether theory & its effect on the aetherwind & based on the standard parameters of the oldendays Lorentz Ticking Dilation equation for gamma where V is the aetherwind (kmps). The ticking dilation is affected by the speed of the aetherwind not the velocity.  Lorentz Length Contraction of the tuning fork is of course affected by velocity, ie orientation of tuning fork makes a difference to the fork's actual length.  But i will think some more re this.

Ok i had a think.  I am starting to think that ticking dilation is more complex than i thort.  Mightbe the kind of clock has an effect on LTD. Still thinking.  I will be back.

For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2019 19:13:15
Do you believe the ether has mass?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 06/02/2019 23:16:01
Do you believe the ether has mass?
No, i think that aether doesnt have mass.  I reckon that  praether (praethons)(the fundamental essence) & aether (aethons)(an excitation of praether)(a process) are all sub-quantum, which means that they have no mass (by definition)(ie its a circular argument). But mass is difficult to define, i like to think of it as being the property of annihilating aether.

Aether (i will call it aether1) makes photons (aether2) & photons make confined photons (aether3)(electrons quarks etc) which make protons (aether4) & neutrons (aether4) which make atoms (aether5) etc. These five aethers are all processes (excitations) of praether, i could just as well have called them praether1 etc.

Aether2345 all contain aether1.  Aether345 all contain aether2.  Aether45 all contain aether3.  Aether5 contains aether4.  All aethers are a process or processes of praether, but praether doesnt sort of jump ahead over any intermediate process. But jumping aint necessarily critical, it aint excluded by some kind of Law.
 
Aether2345 are quantum, they have mass etc, because they all contain aether2, it is aether2 which annihilates aether1.  Aether2 is peculiar, it moves (propagates) through aether1 at a constant speed of c kmps. In other words aether2 is an annihilation of aether1 & that annihilation (which has a beginning point & an end point) propagates at c kmps.

Aether2 propagates at c kmps inside aether3 but here that propagation is in the form of a confined loop or loops.

Aether34567etc dont propagate, they move thro aether1 at any speed they like below c kmps (they dont move throo aether2 because aether2 cant move throo aether2).

Empty space doesnt exist because it is filled with praether. However there might be volumes of space that have no aether.  Aether1 is created in the center of each 200 million lightyear cosmic cell making up the infinite universe (see Ranzan's DSSU). And aether1 migrates to the edges of each cell & is annihilated along the way especially near edge where most mass is found & especially in blackholes.

Gravity is a process whereby aether1 flows into aether2 because aether1 is annihilated in aether2. The uniform flow of aether1 drags any & all aether2 but does not drag aether34567.  It doesnt actually drag aether2 because aether2 is a process inside aether1 (it is an annihilation of aether1) & it is a part of aether1 & hencely always moves exactly as aether1 moves (there is no slippage)(there is no need for any kind of drag).
However any acceleration of aether1 does drag aether34567.  In other words a uniform velocity of aether1 drags aether2 but not aether34567, but an acceleration of the flow of aether1 does drag aether34567 (& aether2).

The gravitational acceleration of aether1 is not an excitation process, it is a bulk flow kind of process, & we can call it aetherG (but i wont, i will call it gravity). 

Inertia acts in an opposite way to gravity. Here something forces aether34567 to accelerate, & the acceleration drags aether1, & hencely a force is required to accelerate aether34567.  We call this force inertia, & we can call this process  aetherI (but i wont, i will call it inertia).  Note that inertia is not the opposite of aetherG, i said that inertia acts in an opposite way to gravity, because inertia doesnt involve any annihilation of aether1.

We cant measure gravitational mass, we measure inertial mass.

Aether1 has no mass (which sort of answers your question) & therefore cannot exert a gravitational or inertial force, aether1 merely pulls or pushes aether3. Here aether2 does not contribute to the pull-push, aether2 goes along for the ride (aether2 has zero inertia)(it has neutral buoyancy if u like, like a hot air balloon in air). 

The pulling-pushing tween aether3 & other aether3 is by way of a continual back-forth reverberation of a pulse in aether1 that travels at over 20 billion c kmps.  The pulse is a change in the bulk flow of aether1. This means that aether1 briefly moves at over 20 billion c (or it means that praether briefly moves at over 20 billion c)(i will have a think).  This reverberation applies to both gravity & inertia.  It involves a 3 dimensional pulse traveling in all directions to-from all nearby aether3.  Therefore gravity & inertia cannot develop fully or quickly unless there is ample nearby aether3 in all directions.  I could i suppose give this reverberation a name, in which case it would be aetherR or aetherP (but i wont).

However aether2 (photons) can exert gravitational force on other aether2.  But aether2 does not possess inertia, nor can it participate in inertia, ie in inertial reverberation (it does participate, but it merely goes along for the ride).

I havnt mentioned charge-electro-magnetic radiation (static &/or dynamic). All such radiation consists of photaenos which are a tornadic excitation of praether, & which emanate at 5c kmps from the central helically propagating body of a photon (propagating at c kmps)(& at more than c kmps measured along the helix).  Photaenos make the diameter of a photon infinite (but we dont know the length of a photon).  Photaenos annihilate aether1, & hencely have mass, but dont possess inertia, nor participate in inertia (ie as per the central body)(the two "halves" making the whole photon)(aether2).

Neutrinos consist of two joined photons (two aether2's), one inside the other (u can do this with two helixes)(think of two coil springs) the photaeno fields cancel (being 180 deg apart), giving the neutrino its slippery nature. U could give a neutrino its own name, eg bi-aether2 or di-aether2.

So, aether (plain old aether)(aether1) does not have mass, because it does not annihilate aether (ie itself)(ie aether1). But there is a complication.  Ranzan believes in a contractile aether, an aether that annihilates itself. He finds this necessary to explain the 1/RR relationship of Newtonian gravitational attraction. Hencely Ranzan's aether (my aether1) has mass. But i dont know whether this kind of self annihilation gives ordinary mass or some peculiar kind of mass, & whether that mass participates in inertia.  Contractile aether means that the primary gravitational inflow creates its own secondary annihilation, which in a way means that gravity has its own mass, which possibly cant be attributed to any other mass.  This is a bit weird.  On the other hand Einstein did say that the bending of spacetime had its own mass. Anyhow i think that Ranzan's secondary mass is attributable to gravity not to aether.  So, aether (aether1) has no mass.

But this is a work in progress, & i will come back & try to fix some of the sloppy thinking & sloppy wording.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2019 07:28:54
Massless things are not affected by centrifugal forces.
You can't "centrifuge" them.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 07/02/2019 08:25:18
Massless things are not affected by centrifugal forces.  You can't "centrifuge" them.
In my aether theory there would be no such thing as centrifugal force with the spinning or orbiting of objects were it not for the action of massless aether. The Moon gives an outwards inertial force, which is resisted by an equal inwards force.  The inwards force here is due to gravity (elsewhere it might be due to tension in a cord). The outwards force is due to the inwards acceleration of the shape of the Moon's curved traject.  The inwards acceleration is similar to the ordinary linear acceleration of a car which we know exerts an inertial resistance force.  In both cases (the Moon & the car) the inertial drag is due to the resistance of aether to acceleration.  Aether doesnt resist uniform motion, ie constant velocity, but it resists acceleration, in this case the inwards acceleration of the Moon. 

Aether can provide the radial inertial resistance to the Moon's inwards acceleration two ways, (1) it can sit still, or (2) it can be dragged inwards in the direction of the acceleration.  If it is dragged then this can happen two ways, (2)(i) the dragging can be with zero slippage (the aether moves inwards with that exact acceleration), or (2)(ii) the dragging can involve a little or a lot of slippage (eg the aether might have an inwards acceleration of say 50% of the Moon's).
I prefer (2)(ii), a little or a lot of slippage. If there is slippage then aether is sucked in towards the axis of spin or orbit.
Looking now at the spinning Earth, aether is sucked in near Equator & hencely must be spat out axially near the two poles.  In between the aether veers throo 90 deg, somewhere inside Earth.

With DePalma's spinning wheel, the aether is spat out axially up & down (the axis of the wheel is vertical).  In the northern hemisphere the background aetherwind blowing throo Earth is blowing south to north, which in DePalma's lab will be mostly upwards.  The axial upwards spitting of the aether adds to the wind (V+v). Below the wheel the axial downwards spitting negates the wind (V-v).  Therefore (V+v) must have a bigger effect on gamma for Lorentz Ticking Dilation than does (V-v)And this is what DePalma says, he found the largest effect above the axis. But as i said before i am not sure why he said that a horizontal tuning fork had most effect. I am still thinking.

Ok i had a think.  The background aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth about 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis.  At some northern latitudes at some times of day the wind will be more horizontal than vertical. Therefore  that might have been the effect that DePalma unknowingly was measuring. 

I think that he might have got that kind of effect even if he had done the test with the wheel not spinning.  However there is a trap here, the background wind might have a similar effect on the frequency of the electricity from the power utility, even if the source is a long way away from DePalma's lab, ie the reference electric clock might be affected.  Still thinking.

For my explanation of why & how spinning objects might affect nearby clocks have a look at #25 on page 2 of this present thread.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2019 19:00:52
The ether is big and , at least in places, it's very near things that are big and dense. (Black holes if you believe in them; but stars will do if you don't).
So how come it doesn't collapse under its own gravity?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 07/02/2019 20:22:53
The ether is big and , at least in places, it's very near things that are big and dense. (Black holes if you believe in them; but stars will do if you don't). So how come it doesn't collapse under its own gravity?
I believe in BHs, stars so massive that almost zero photons have the speed to escape their gravity.  But i dont believe in Einsteinian BHs (stars so massive that their escape velocity is 300,000 kmps or more).  My BHs can be much less massive.

Aether is an excitation of praether the fundamental essence.  I assume that praether cant be annihilated, & cant collapse, & aint compressible, & fills space completely.  Somehow aether (a process) is annihilated in all mass (ie in all photons), meaning that the excitation of praether ends (the aethon dissappears).  So it doesnt need a lot of mass, just the minimum of mass will do the trick, by definition, because mass is the annihilation of aether.

Just how the aether is annihilated (the praether loses its excitation) has not been explained.  I dont think its because of its own gravity.   But there is some kind of associated collapse of aether, because aether flows in to replace the lost aether. This means that unexcited praether must have flowed out throo the incoming excited praether. More logically it means that the praether stays where it is, but that the excitations of the praether (aethr) move along inwards to a point where the excitations stop (end, disappear)(ie aether is annihilated).

Ranzan has a theory whereby in a BH (i cant remember whether Ranzan believes in Einsteinian BHs) there is an intermittent large-scale collapse (annihilation) of mass.  Mass is made of confined photons (free photons form a loop by biting their tail), so annihilation of mass means that confined photons form free photons.  I cant remember if Ranzan has an explanation whether the free photons are annihilated (returning to non-excited aether). But (non-excited) aether is being continuously annihilated inside every photon before during & after such collapse of mass.

Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2019 20:26:03
Aether is an excitation of praether the fundamental essence.
You are building a house of cards of nonsense there.
The rest of your post says "because magic"
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 07/02/2019 20:39:45
Aether is an excitation of praether the fundamental essence.
You are building a house of cards of nonsense there. The rest of your post says "because magic"
It makes sense to me.  And everything is magic untill explained.

Tell me what the Einsteinian house of cards looks like. No, let me guess. Hmmm, ok, lemeseenow, i dont see any Einsteinian house at all, i dont see any physical or mechanical explanations of the micro-world. Hmmmm, no cards to be seen.  Hmmmm, no magic to be seen.  Wow, thats brilliant, a genius.  Everything exists & happens without needing any micro explanations, now thats what i call real magic. 
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2019 20:53:54
And everything is magic untill explained.
Well, sort of...
But you are seeking to use magic as the explanation.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 07/02/2019 22:05:19
And everything is magic untill explained.
Well, sort of... But you are seeking to use magic as the explanation.
I am thinking that miracle might be a good word to bring in here.  But in any case science is all about finding explanations, to kill the magic, but u cant kill magic, it is replaced by magic at the next level (needing an even more difficult  explanation), hencely u merely shuffle magic along for the next guy to kill.

So when i propose "my" aether i usually posit things that happen but without explaining the more minor details (which are actually more major details).  I say "my" only because my aether is sure to be different in some way from the thousands of others.

But lets have a look at a little of Einstein's magic. The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray.  There are at least 2 bits of magic here. Firstly how can u or i see a photon as it moves along (in the carriage). If the explanation is that it is a ray consisting of many photons & the air is dusty & the progress of the ray shows in the dust (some of the photons end up going from dust to eye), then this gives rise to the magic of how do the dusty photons travel at infinite speed to the eye so that the observer can see the actual progress of the ray (not some kind of time delayed progress).
Anyhow, how do twin flashes or strokes of lightning happen simultaneously, wouldnt that take some sort of magic.  Why didnt Einstein bring in some sort of gifted meteorologist to explain.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2019 22:14:24
The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray. 
You do realise that, in a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not, don't you?
So the point isn't that the passenger actually can see the light in progress, but that IF he could see it ...
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 07/02/2019 22:27:53
The observer at the station can somehow see a ray of light emitted in the carriage & watches its progress & can see when an observer in the carriage sees the ray.
You do realise that, in a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not, don't you? So the point isn't that the passenger actually can see the light in progress, but that IF he could see it ...
Yes i am happy with that, u win this time.
Thought experiment -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,[1] Gedanken-Experiment,[2] or Gedankenerfahrung[3]) considers some hypothesis, theory,[4] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question:
"A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).
Examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


But it appears to me that all theory involves a thort-X.  In the case of ticking dilation there have been say 10 actual experiments that support LTD.  Only 3 of these involve an Einsteinian balance clock (ie at a macro scale)(DePalma)(Podkletnov)(Alan Calverd).  The remainder involve em effects at an atomic scale (ie using atomic clocks)(say 3 of the Hafele-Keating kind)(say 4 of the mountain top kind)(ignoring the many GPS atomic clock findings).

Remember that FitzGerald & Lorentz & Co used em considerations at an atomic & molecular level to posit LLC, & then jumped ahead & immediately accepted that thems kinds of micro effects must create LTD at all scales.

I am beginning to think that Einstein (& Lorentz) was wrong, i reckon that balance clocks (macro clocks) do not suffer a simple LTD.  Whereas praps (micro clocks) atomic clocks do.  I will have a think.
It means that biological aging probly suffers LTD pretty much according to gamma.  But macro tickings (based on macro inertia & springs & vibrations etc) are affected by LLC in very complicated ways, depending on orientation, ie depending on the velocity of the aetherwind, whereas ordinary simple LTD depends merely on the speed of the aetherwind.

When i have a look into all of this stuff i will of course be mindfull of the fact that LLC is not proven, it might be due to a length contraction, but i think that it might be due to a width expansion, or to a shape change based on a bit of both.  This will make my analysis difficult, but it will open up a lot more possibilities.  I will be back.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 09/02/2019 01:58:32
In #8 notice that DePalma doesnt mention aether even tho he mentions aether in other sections of his articles.  In #8 he doesnt mention aetherwind, nor Lorentz Ticking Dilation.
It is interesting that he places the watch on the face of the clock.
The electric clock is supposedly not affected by the spinning disc, alltho he doesnt actually say that. The clock of course ticks in response to the frequency of the electricity, & that frequency is generated by the power company at a distant location.
DePalma says that the ticking dilation of the Accutron tuning fork watch depends on orientation, ie parallel to axis has less effect than perpendicular to axis. This smells fishy.  Orientation shouldnt make a difference, according to my centrifuging of aether theory & its effect on the aetherwind & based on the standard parameters of the oldendays Lorentz Ticking Dilation equation for gamma where V is the aetherwind (kmps). The ticking dilation is affected by the speed of the aetherwind not the velocity.  Lorentz Length Contraction of the tuning fork is of course affected by velocity, ie orientation of tuning fork makes a difference to the fork's actual length.  But i will think some more re this.

Ok i had a think.  I am starting to think that ticking dilation is more complex than i thort.  Mightbe the kind of clock has an effect on LTD. Still thinking.  I will be back.
Most of us accept that LLC applies to the size & shape of objects at micro scales & macro scales, as per the theory (ie due to the effect of velocity on the electro forces in & tween atoms), & most of us accept that LTD applies to atomic clocks & happenings at a micro scale. 

But i now reckon that LTD doesnt apply to macro happenings (eg balance clocks, tuning forks, pendulums, & hour-glasses).  I now reckon that these suffer a TD of a different kind.

But thats only a half of it.  I now reckon that all macro clocks are affected by the velocity of the aetherwind not the speed of the wind.  The traditional concept of  LTD is that the ticking dilation is related to the speed of the aetherwind & that orientation doesnt matter, but i reckon that orientation is critical.
I will explain this in a future posting. See #25.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Paradigmer on 09/02/2019 05:56:40
Massless things are not affected by centrifugal forces.You can't "centrifuge" them.

Nope. As a matter of fact, it was scientifically proven in repeatable experiments that light can stir condensate of sodium atoms, and cause quantized vortices to manifest, and they definitely centrifuge.

Despite a N prize was awarded, the relevant authority still denounce Bose-Einstein Condensate as a state of matter, cited it defies the laws of thermodynamics.

I believe this got Richard Feynman rolling over in his grave: “Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true.”

We are still in a worst time.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2019 11:53:16
Nope. As a matter of fact, it was scientifically proven in repeatable experiments that light can stir condensate of sodium atoms, and cause quantized vortices to manifest, and they definitely centrifuge.
It may have escaped your notice, but sodium atoms have mass
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 09/02/2019 23:45:20
Further to my #22.   I now 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 natural frequency (absolute 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       1.00002782         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   

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, makes no difference to my TD.

According to Lorentz & Co (& according to Einstein) 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 (or in Einstein's case due to relative speed)(he said that the wind was superfluous), 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.   Nextly i will have a think about the TD suffered by a balance clock.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2019 14:15:12
DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec
He should get a better watch.
Obviously, a mechanical watch will struggle in some circumstances, notably if it's accelerating (that includes rotation or vibration)
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2019 14:18:45
My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.
That's interesting.
It seems to lead to a testable prediction.
Macro clocks and micro clocks will sometimes run at different rates.
So, for example the rotation of the earth shouldn't tally with atomic clocks.

How big a change do you predict?
A part in a million?
More?
Less?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Paradigmer on 10/02/2019 15:04:22
It may have escaped your notice, but sodium atoms have mass

Red herring fallacy, nice try.

Thanks to Einstein, your denial is futile. The involved authority after seeing the sh1t in the universal laws of thermodynamics, experimentally stirred by BEC in 2001, despite was in denial for more than seventy years (and apparently are still being denied by some), had already validated BEC is a state of matter, and it could interact with photons.

Disobeying the so called universal laws, BEC was experimentally demonstrated to be interacting with the intrinsically spinning massless photons, which effect their centrifugations in the BEC.

BTW, ever heard of a Bose-Einstein condensate of photons?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2019 16:37:56
Red herring fallacy, nice try.
No.
That won't do.
You need to give a reason; just saying "it's a fallacy" won't work here on a science page.
BTW, ever heard of a Bose-Einstein condensate of photons?
Yes
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09567
So?

This all seems an elaborate way to evade the issue. If the ether has mass it should collapse under its own weight.
If it does not, then it's not affected by centrifugal forces.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 10/02/2019 21:47:54
DePalma said that above the axle of his spinning wheel his tuning fork watch suffered a loss of  0.9 sec in 1000 sec
He should get a better watch.
Obviously, a mechanical watch will struggle in some circumstances, notably if it's accelerating (that includes rotation or vibration)
DePalma died in about 1999 i think.  Here is what Alan Calverd said about quartz watches in another thread. However i think that DePalma & Podkletnov used the older steel tuning forks kinds, but some of Alan's comments probly still apply.
Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)

A "modern precision wrist watch" keeps good time because it is worn on your wrist. The quartz oscillator is slightly temperature-sensitive and is calibrated for about 30 deg C. Vibration and even air pressure can alter the crystal frequency. If you compare it with a cesium frequency standard, it drifts all over the place and is therefore not a "measure"  but a reasonably adequate "indicator" of  time. Interestingly, however, the crystal frequency is independent of g.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 10/02/2019 22:51:42
My macro TD doesnt i think apply to micro clocks, but it applies to all macro clocks.
That's interesting. It seems to lead to a testable prediction. Macro clocks and micro clocks will sometimes run at different rates. So, for example the rotation of the earth shouldn't tally with atomic clocks. How big a change do you predict? A part in a million? More? Less?
Today i amended the numbers etc in my #25 (silly me had quoted numbers off a trash page of my Excel calcs). My numbers show that for a change in wind of 500 kmps a tuning fork clock (one kind of macro clock) can gain or looz 1 sec in 4 days depending on orientation of clock.  Whereas the traditional LorentzianTD says the gain or loss will be 1 sec in 8 days for all clocks, micro (eg atomic clocks) or macro, & LTD also says that direction aint relevant.

Lets accept that the aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth 20 deg off the spin-axis, RA 4:30.  And this is affected by Earth's 30 kmps orbit, & 0.4 kmps spin.  And lets accept that there is an aether inflow of 11.2 kmps at all points on Earth (11.2 is the escape velocity). And an aether inflow of 42 kmps towards the Sun at Earth's orbit (the escape vel). Plus there will be a kmps re the Moon's escape vel at Earth (cant be bothered looking it up).
 
It should be easy to measure the ticking rate of a quartz watch for various orientations, at a particular time of day & particular time of year (actually it wouldnt be easy because all of the measurements would have to be done in a few minutes). Bearing in mind that when i say various orientations i dont mean in just a 360 deg horizontal circle, no, u need to include the 360 deg of vertical circle.  However armed with the info re that there 500 kmps one can go straight to the needed theoretical direction, which will of course depend on time of day etc, & the latitude of your lab.

Now, if u orientate the fork in a certain direction & measure ticking & then reverse the fork (ie a 180 deg change) u will (according to my TD theory) always get the same ticking, ie no change.  According to my theory u need to compare tickings for orientations that are 90 deg apart. 
The potential max change in ticking is according to my numbers a factor of 1.000 002 782 (which is a gain of 1 in 359,501)(see L in my numbers) changing to a factor of 0.999 998 609 (a loss of 1 in 719,003)(see W). 
And that 1 in 719,003 changes to zero if u then spin the fork 90 deg around on its axis (ie see D).
Anyhow the max possible change tween L & W is 1 in 239,668 which is 1 sec in 2.77 days.

According to the traditional LTD a change in orientation of any clock (excluding pendulums of course) should give zero change in ticking.

Note that here above i am simply using the aetherwind blowing throo Earth, & changing the orientation of the watch.
Nextly one could measure what happens to ticking near a spinning wheel, ie to see if DePalma's measurements of changes in ticking make any sense (which they dont).
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2019 19:41:24
OK, so the changes you are talking about are more than 1 part in a million.
It's not clear exactly what you mean by a tuning fork, but you sometimes refer to a quartz watch.
So, If I get a quartz clock and connect a couple of wires to it so it  measures the rate of the flashing ":" in the middle of the display do you think the rate will change in a predictable way if I turn the clock through 90 degrees about some axis?
And do you think that the changes will be more than 1 part in a million?

Would you like to propose experimental details?
I'm not promising to do the experiment but I know that some people here work in electronics labs where measuring time to a part in 10^9 is commonplace and 1 part in 10^12 is perfectly possible.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 11/02/2019 23:18:54
OK, so the changes you are talking about are more than 1 part in a million.
It's not clear exactly what you mean by a tuning fork, but you sometimes refer to a quartz watch.
So, If I get a quartz clock and connect a couple of wires to it so it  measures the rate of the flashing ":" in the middle of the display do you think the rate will change in a predictable way if I turn the clock through 90 degrees about some axis?
And do you think that the changes will be more than 1 part in a million?

Would you like to propose experimental details?
I'm not promising to do the experiment but I know that some people here work in electronics labs where measuring time to a part in 10^9 is commonplace and 1 part in 10^12 is perfectly possible.
I would love it if someone could do the two experiments, firstly the simple one, & then the one needing a spinning wheel or disc or something.
Note that there are two separate Nobels on offer here, & i (the thinker) would be happy to share the 2 Nobels with the lowly lab technicians (workers).  It might be best to spread the two papers over two years, for tax reasons.

For the simple one what u would do is measure the rate of ticking of the tuning fork watch by rotating it gradually around in the plane of its tuning fork, the maximum & minimum tickings would according to my theory be found at orientations 90 deg apart.
But make it quick because the fixed lab clock used for comparison will itself suffer a gradual daily change in ticking, which u wont be able to measure without going to extra trouble (which i can help with if needed).
And u would of course have to do that in each of say 180 planes 1 deg apart, or just start off by trying 4 planes 45 deg apart.
If u find the critical plane & the two critical orientations i predict a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days.
The critical plane for the tuning fork will accord with the "plane" of the wind (crudely put), & one of the critical orientations will accord with the alignment of the wind.
If the result is null then that will show that my theory (that LTD has a special effect on macro clocks) is krapp.

Re ticking-Xs near a spinning wheel, these might give weak results, eg 1/100th of the first test. And might need to be corrected for the kinds of results found in the first test (two kinds of correction).
But no corrections would be needed if the watch were kept fixed & it is the wheel that is moved &/or re-orientated, if done fairly quickly.
If the first experiment mentioned above proves to be null, then the second experiment can nonetheless be carried out ok, because the two experiments are looking for two different effects.
I said that the watch can be fixed. But the orientation will affect the result, the strongest results will be found if the tuning fork is aligned parallel or anti-parallel to the wind (which blows about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30).

DePalma had some thorts, & would have been delighted if someone could do such experiments.........
Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.

Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.
Bruce DePalma
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Kryptid on 12/02/2019 00:10:15
I would love it if someone could do the two experiments

And if the results came up null?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 00:41:50
I would love it if someone could do the two experiments
And if the results came up null?
If the first X is null (ie a finding of no change in ticking) then that would show that my theory that LLC at a macro level affects TD of macro clocks is krapp.
A null result would in addition threaten the whole concept of an aetherwind, & the concept of an aether.

If the 2nd X is null then that would show that my theory re centrifuging of aether by spinning objects & orbiting objects is krapp.  It would also threaten the concept of an aether.

U might get a Null/Null or a Yes/Yes or a Null/Yes or a Yes/Null.  All four are i think possible.
A Yes/Yes would be very strong evidence for aether.
A Null/Null would be a concern but would not be strong evidence for no aether.

Its like this. The two Xs each are a test re the existence of two particular properties of aether that have been posited by me (& no-one else). A null result for either shows that my theory re that particular property is wrong. But it doesnt show that aether or aetherwind does not exist, it only shows that aether is a different animal to what i posited.

However if the two Xs or any one X give a positive result then not only would that be good evidence that the aether looks & smells like i said, it is at the same time good evidence that the aether exists.

The two effects (if they exist) have been overlooked for years partly because each tends to average itself out over the minutes or days or years.  They only raise their ugly heads in certain situations. 

[13feb2019] I can add that any such X is always of course evidence for or against the whole question of the existence of length contraction & ticking dilation.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2019 18:55:31
OK, say I get a test oscillator and set it running at (something close to) 10 MHz
And I get a frequency counter and connect it up so it reads 10MHz.
The frequency counter's pretty cheap. It has a quartz crystal oscillator in it and it compares the input frequency against that.
So, if something alters the frequency of the quartz  "clock" in the frequency counter, the reading will change.


Are you saying that if I turn the counter on its side or on its end the display will no longer read 10MHz because the frequency of th quartz oscillator in it will be affected by the ether wind?

Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 21:38:52
OK, say I get a test oscillator and set it running at (something close to) 10 MHz
And I get a frequency counter and connect it up so it reads 10MHz.
The frequency counter's pretty cheap. It has a quartz crystal oscillator in it and it compares the input frequency against that.
So, if something alters the frequency of the quartz  "clock" in the frequency counter, the reading will change.
Are you saying that if I turn the counter on its side or on its end the display will no longer read 10MHz because the frequency of the quartz oscillator in it will be affected by the ether wind?
Yes that would do the trick.
Fix the oscillator & measure its freq with the quartz counter whilst gradually rotating the counter firstly in the horizontal & then in the vertical & then other planes.
Actually, best to always rotate the counter in the plane of its quartz tuning fork if that can be identified.

I am not sure whether there might be some advantage (ie a stronger result) by repeating that with the oscillator fixed on other alignments, especially if the oscillator is some kind of tuning fork.  Hmmmm -- no, nothing gained i think.

Keep a record of the compass horizontal angle & the vertical angle.  And time of day.  And date.

One could also work out a different kind of scheme for checking the ticking near a spinning wheel-disc.  Here u would use just the counter.

But how does the quartz counter work?  Is there an inbuilt secondary frequency source inside (CPU)? It could be a problem, ie there might be the possibility of some kind of accidental automatic compensation giving a guaranteed null result.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2019 22:19:56
In principle, the frequency counter works like this (the details of the numbers etc may differ).
It has a quartz crystal (mounted in a temperature controlled oven if it's an expensive one) which "rings" at exactly 1 MHz
It also has a set of dividers that each give a single pulse output for every 10 pulses fed to their input.
The first of these is fed from the quartz  oscillator. So it produces an output at 100 KHz.
This 100 KHz  signal is then fed to another divider which produces an output of 10KHz
Another 4 dividers give a signal that is exactly 1 pulse per second.

That signal is used to start and stop another counter which counts the pulses of the input signal.
So, if the input signal is 12345 Hz  the clock is set to zero, then set counting pulses from the input for exactly 1 second, then that count, which would be 12345, is copied to the display.

Modern ones do have complicated computer driven tricks like automatic calibration to GPS etc.
But mine is old + simple.

How big a change in frequency should I expect?
You mentioned "a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days."
That's about 1 in 240,000
Would you expect that sort of change?
So, with the "best" (or worst) alignment one clock would differ from the other by about 4 parts in a million?
A change of about 40Hz if I was measuring a 10MHz signal?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 12/02/2019 22:55:05
In principle, the frequency counter works like this (the details of the numbers etc may differ).
It has a quartz crystal (mounted in a temperature controlled oven if it's an expensive one) which "rings" at exactly 1 MHz
It also has a set of dividers that each give a single pulse output for every 10 pulses fed to their input.
The first of these is fed from the quartz  oscillator. So it produces an output at 100 KHz.
This 100 KHz  signal is then fed to another divider which produces an output of 10KHz
Another 4 dividers give a signal that is exactly 1 pulse per second.

That signal is used to start and stop another counter which counts the pulses of the input signal.
So, if the input signal is 12345 Hz  the clock is set to zero, then set counting pulses from the input for exactly 1 second, then that count, which would be 12345, is copied to the display.

Modern ones do have complicated computer driven tricks like automatic calibration to GPS etc.
But mine is old + simple.

How big a change in frequency should I expect?
You mentioned "a difference equal to 1 sec in 2.77 days."
That's about 1 in 240,000
Would you expect that sort of change?
So, with the "best" (or worst) alignment one clock would differ from the other by about 4 parts in a million?
A change of about 40Hz if I was measuring a 10MHz signal?
Yes looks good.  According to my #25 if u happen to align the quartz tuning fork in the counter exactly parallel or anti-parallel to the 500 kmps aetherwind blowing throo Earth & if u then rotate the tuning fork in its plane by 90 deg, u should get a 1 in 240,000 change in frequency (no matter what alignment u fix the oscillator on).
If u rotate the quartz tuning fork in other than its plane then the change will be weaker, say 1 in 320,000 (i can work it out exactly).
But if u fail to initially align the centerline of the tuning fork exactly with or gainst the wind then the change will be weaker praps much weaker (it can be zero if unlucky).

If u always initially align the quartz tuning fork with Earth's spin-axis then u will never get a zero change, u will be 20 deg off the wind, & the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.

The manufacturers of frequency meters must of course be aware of this kind of problem.  They would have worked out long ago that there is a bad way to orientate a tuning fork in the meter, & a less bad way, but no good way.
The less bad way might be with the plane of the tuning fork horizontal.  But this would depend on the latitude of the lab, & of course nobody knows where the lab will be.  This must be a problem.  I think horizontal is the best bet, but if the tuning fork in your meter is found to be at a funny angle (ie not horizontal & not vertical) then that would indicate to me that they have given this a lot of thort but aint saying.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2019 07:35:26
The manufacturers of frequency meters must of course be aware of this kind of problem.
And they never mention it.
Does that suggest something to you?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 13/02/2019 08:17:37
The manufacturers of frequency meters must of course be aware of this kind of problem.
And they never mention it. Does that suggest something to you?
(1) If it aint a problem then my idea of there being a macro ticking dilation effect must be wrong. 
(2) Or they have a problem but have worked out a way of minimizing it, but dont mention it. 
(3) Or they have a problem & haven't found any kind of solution, & dont mention it.
(4) Or they dont know that they have a problem, but have an accidental built-in automatic fix.

If the plane of the tuning fork aint horizontal or vertical then they know.
If the tuning fork is in a vertical plane but if the centerline of the tuning fork aint horizontal or vertical then they know.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2019 19:21:42
The manufacturers of frequency meters must of course be aware of this kind of problem.
And they never mention it. Does that suggest something to you?
(1) If it aint a problem then my idea of there being a macro ticking dilation effect must be wrong. 
(2) Or they have a problem but have worked out a way of minimizing it, but dont mention it. 
(3) Or they have a problem & haven't found any kind of solution, & dont mention it.
(4) Or they dont know that they have a problem, but have an accidental built-in automatic fix.

If the plane of the tuning fork aint horizontal or vertical then they know.
If the tuning fork is in a vertical plane but if the centerline of the tuning fork aint horizontal or vertical then they know.
The smart money is on option 1.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2019 20:09:54
I did the experiment.
Reality doesn't agree with Mad aetherist.

Now, given that there's exactly the same "reasoning" behind his prediction of a change in clock rate with angle and all his other ramblings, we can discount them too.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 21/02/2019 22:09:16
I did the experiment. Reality doesn't agree with Mad aetherist.
Now, given that there's exactly the same "reasoning" behind his prediction of a change in clock rate with angle and all his other ramblings, we can discount them too.
Good, thanx for that, can u give some details.
But i am confused re the prediction re angle, i think that that was the main thrust of Exp 1. Or do u mean that u rotated the clock (freq counter) in the horizontal (& got no change in ticking), & that u havent yet rotated it in the verticals?

And then i made mention of a possible Exp 2 re ticking near a spinning disc/wheel.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2019 19:21:08
I rotated it about two perpendicular axes.
There was no change in the reading.

Exp 2- well, I did the experiment near the Earth...
How big a spinning wheel do you want?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2019 19:21:44
I rotated it about two perpendicular axes.
There was no change in the reading.

You have been shown to be wrong.
Accept it.

Exp 2- well, I did the experiment near the Earth...
How big a spinning wheel do you want?

Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/02/2019 21:39:40
I rotated it about two perpendicular axes.There was no change in the reading.
So u used a test oscillator fixing it on a table, & u used a freq counter to measure the oscillator ticking, & u rotated the FC in the horizontal, & also in a vertical, & u got no apparent change in freq for the oscillator.  Whereas i said that rotating the FC should give a change, because the freq of the tuning fork in the FC will be affected by length contraction of the tuning fork (ie LC affecting length & width & thickness of the quartz tuning fork) in the aetherwind blowing throo Earth. If so then that might mean that some of the following postulates are correct or wrong (wording is a bit sloppy).......

(1) There is no aetherwind & no aether.
(2a) There is aetherwind but there is no such thing as length contraction.
(2b) There is wind & LC but no ticking dilation.
(3) There is wind & LC but that it gives ticking dilation of the standard Lorentz kind only, not the kind of TD that i posited.
(4) I said that Lorentz TD probly applied to micro clocks (atoms), but not to macro clocks (eg tuning forks).
(5) I said that Lorentz LC probly affected the ticking of macro clocks in an ordinary LC way (as per your test).
(6) Lorentz TD is supposed to apply they said to micro & macro clocks equally.

Your test relates directly to (5), & indirectly to others. I left out that (5b) the frequency counter might have an inbuilt accidental or intentional self correction for the wind, praps by virtue of the angle of some circuitry or the CPU. Anyhow your test seems to rule out the existence of a macro ticking dilation of macro clocks (here a tuning fork). But i wouldnt mind knowing more detail.  What is the alignment etc of the tuning fork in the FC, is it horizontal, or vertical etc.
 
I dont think i ever mentioned it but it would be interesting to repeat that with FC fixed & the oscillator at different angles.

Anyhow i will have a think re all of this.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2019 00:49:40
I dont think i ever mentioned it but it would be interesting to repeat that with FC fixed & the oscillator at different angles.
I did that too- it's easy enough when you have the right kit- it's a matter of picking up one "box" and turning it or picking up the other.

Obviously, you are still wrong. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Now, just for a laugh, how big an effect would you expect from what sort of wheel?



Anyhow i will have a think re all of this.

Not really.
When I bought the clocks I used I had lots of options.
Those include this (expensive) one
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LFOCXO063815Bulk-Crystal-Oscillator-10-MHz-A-1ppb-Sinewave-15pF-5-Pin-36x27mm/123286856263?hash=item1cb4782247:g:52AAAOSw2IVbYuDU:rk:2:pf:1&frcectupt=true

And that is an off-the-peg oscillator that gives 10 MHz within 1ppb- that's better than a thousand fold less than you are pretending is possible
OK it's over Ł500, but that's not the point.
Your view would say it can't exist, but it does.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Paradigmer on 25/02/2019 06:25:13
Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.   They don’t know about the aether wind & the centrifuged aether.

The UVS atomic model suggests atom has intrinsic 2-axis hyperspheric spin at a factor of 2C speed, which completes a 720 degree turn in one integral cycle. The spinning axis at the rate of C and its factor, is in precession also at the rate of C and the factor. Therefore, an excited atom should radiate its signature EM waves isotropically with its centrifuging of aether in all directions.

This means no matter how you turn the crystal quartz, in x, y, or z axis, even with the influence of the said 500 km/s aether wind, its signature frequency would not change at all with all else remaining constant.

The Galilean lantern experiment with today's measurement technologies, should record a time dilation variation for light travelling in the direction (from point A to point B) and against the direction (from point B to point A) of the Milky Way traversing in the CMB reference frame.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2019 07:35:52
Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.
You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 25/02/2019 21:54:55
I dont think i ever mentioned it but it would be interesting to repeat that with FC fixed & the oscillator at different angles.
I did that too- it's easy enough when you have the right kit- it's a matter of picking up one "box" and turning it or picking up the other.
Obviously, you are still wrong. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
Now, just for a laugh, how big an effect would you expect from what sort of wheel?
Anyhow i will have a think re all of this.
Not really. When I bought the clocks I used I had lots of options. Those include this (expensive) one
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LFOCXO063815Bulk-Crystal-Oscillator-10-MHz-A-1ppb-Sinewave-15pF-5-Pin-36x27mm/123286856263?hash=item1cb4782247:g:52AAAOSw2IVbYuDU:rk:2:pf:1&frcectupt=true
And that is an off-the-peg oscillator that gives 10 MHz within 1ppb- that's better than a thousand fold less than you are pretending is possible. OK it's over Ł500, but that's not the point. Your view would say it can't exist, but it does.
Can u tell me the model of the oscillator & the clock (& any relevant speci's).
Are the crystals tuning forks?
And can u tell me what kinds of angles or tiltings were done?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 25/02/2019 22:04:11
Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.
You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.
Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g & G on the  surface of Earth. This is well known. I can look it up & start a new thread. 
My mention of this (in the OP i think) was because i reckon that one of the main problems (that they are ignorant of) is the aetherwind, plus the effect of the centrifuging of aether.
The aetherwind must affect LC & TD & upset their clocks etc, making their instruments erratic. Plus the changing aetherwind, changing during each day & season etc actually changes the value of g at any one location.
There is tonnes of stuff out there re this......
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf  This shows that orientation can make a 0.054% difference in G.  But i reckon that the effect is only partly on G, it is partly an effect on their clock etc (instruments).

Experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.
by Mikhail L. Gershteyn∗†, Lev I. Gershteyn†, Arkady Gershteyn†, Oleg V. Karagioz‡
∗Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NW16-189, 167 Albany St., Cambridge, MA02139, U.S.
† Insight Product Co., PO Box 35297, Brighton, MA 02135, U.S.
‡Tribotech division of National Institute of Aviation Technology
5-12 Pyrieva St.,Moscow 119285, Russia
Abstract
In 1687, Isaac Newton published the universal law of gravitation
stating that two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the
product of their masses and the inverse square of the distance. The constant
of proportionality, G, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. As the
precision of measurements increased the disparity between the values of G,
gathered by different groups, surprisingly increased [1-16]. This unique
situation was reflected by the 1998 CODATA decision to increase the
relative G uncertainty from 0.013% to 0.15 % [17]. Our repetitive
measurements of the gravitational constant (G) show that G varies
significantly with the orientation of the test masses relative to the system of
fixed stars, as was predicted by the Attractive Universe Theory [18,19]. The
distances between the test masses were in the decimeter range. We have
observed that G changes with the orientation by at least 0.054%




Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2019 20:11:05
Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g
Given that g depends on local geography, why would you expect them to get consistent measures of it?

It's like saying "Scientists have measured the temperature outside their window this morning and they got different results so there must be a problem with thermometers".

Why don't you learn some science before trying to criticise those who have?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 20:34:51
Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g
Given that g depends on local geography, why would you expect them to get consistent measures of it?
It's like saying "Scientists have measured the temperature outside their window this morning and they got different results so there must be a problem with thermometers".
Why don't you learn some science before trying to criticise those who have?
The main problem is the variation of big G.  However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 20:45:23
Oscillators & clocks can have ticking problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystals tend to suffer anomalies in their frequency/temperature and resistance/temperature characteristics, known as activity dips. These are small downward frequency or upward resistance excursions localized at certain temperatures, with their temperature position dependent on the value of the load capacitors.
Mechanical stresses also influence the frequency. The stresses can be induced by mounting, bonding, and application of the electrodes, by differential thermal expansion of the mounting, electrodes, and the crystal itself, by differential thermal stresses when there is a temperature gradient present, by expansion or shrinkage of the bonding materials during curing, by the air pressure that is transferred to the ambient pressure within the crystal enclosure, by the stresses of the crystal lattice itself (nonuniform growth, impurities, dislocations), by the surface imperfections and damage caused during manufacture, and by the action of gravity on the mass of the crystal; the frequency can therefore be influenced by position of the crystal.   Other dynamic stress inducing factors are shocks, vibrations, and acoustic noise. Some cuts are less sensitive to stresses; the SC (Stress Compensated) cut is an example. Atmospheric pressure changes can also introduce deformations to the housing, influencing the frequency by changing stray capacitances.


Some crystals aint tuning forks. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation[edit]   A crystal is a solid in which the constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are packed in a regularly ordered, repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions.
Almost any object made of an elastic material could be used like a crystal, with appropriate transducers, since all objects have natural resonant frequencies of vibration. For example, steel is very elastic and has a high speed of sound. It was often used in mechanical filtersbefore quartz. The resonant frequency depends on size, shape, elasticity, and the speed of sound in the material.
High-frequency crystals are typically cut in the shape of a simple rectangle or circular disk.
Low-frequency crystals, such as those used in digital watches, are typically cut in the shape of a tuning fork. For applications not needing very precise timing, a low-cost ceramic resonator is often used in place of a quartz crystal.
When a crystal of quartz is properly cut and mounted, it can be made to distort in an electric field by applying a voltage to an electrodenear or on the crystal. This property is known as electrostriction or inverse piezoelectricity. When the field is removed, the quartz generates an electric field as it returns to its previous shape, and this can generate a voltage. The result is that a quartz crystal behaves like an RLC circuit, composed of an inductor, capacitor and resistor, with a precise resonant frequency.
Quartz has the further advantage that its elastic constants and its size change in such a way that the frequency dependence on temperature can be very low. The specific characteristics depend on the mode of vibration and the angle at which the quartz is cut (relative to its crystallographic axes).[11] Therefore, the resonant frequency of the plate, which depends on its size, does not change much. This means that a quartz clock, filter or oscillator remains accurate. For critical applications the quartz oscillator is mounted in a temperature-controlled container, called a crystal oven, and can also be mounted on shock absorbers to prevent perturbation by external mechanical vibrations.


As i thort, resonators & clocks can use circuitry as a part of their resonance, & hencely this compromises my calculations of the macro ticking dilation effects of the varying aetherwind.--------------------------------
Adding capacitance across a crystal causes the (parallel) resonant frequency to decrease. Adding inductance across a crystal causes the (parallel) resonant frequency to increase. These effects can be used to adjust the frequency at which a crystal oscillates. Crystal manufacturers normally cut and trim their crystals to have a specified resonant frequency with a known "load" capacitance added to the crystal. For example, a crystal intended for a 6 pF load has its specified parallel resonant frequency when a 6.0 pF capacitor is placed across it. Without the load capacitance, the resonant frequency is higher.
Resonance modes[edit]
A quartz crystal provides both series and parallel resonance. The series resonance is a few kilohertz lower than the parallel one. Crystals below 30 MHz are generally operated between series and parallel resonance, which means that the crystal appears as an inductive reactance   
in operation, this inductance forming a parallel resonant circuit with externally connected parallel capacitance.
Any small additional capacitance in parallel with the crystal pulls the frequency lower. Moreover, the effective inductive reactance of the crystal can be reduced by adding a capacitor in series with the crystal. This latter technique can provide a useful method of trimming the oscillatory frequency within a narrow range; in this case inserting a capacitor in series with the crystal raises the frequency of oscillation. For a crystal to operate at its specified frequency, the electronic circuit has to be exactly that specified by the crystal manufacturer. Note that these points imply a subtlety concerning crystal oscillators in this frequency range: the crystal does not usually oscillate at precisely either of its resonant frequencies.
Crystals above 30 MHz (up to >200 MHz) are generally operated at series resonance where the impedance appears at its minimum and equal to the series resistance. For these crystals the series resistance is specified (<100 Ω) instead of the parallel capacitance. To reach higher frequencies, a crystal can be made to vibrate at one of its overtone modes, which occur near multiples of the fundamental resonant frequency. Only odd numbered overtones are used. Such a crystal is referred to as a 3rd, 5th, or even 7th overtone crystal. To accomplish this, the oscillator circuit usually includes additional LC circuits to select the desired overtone.


Orientation is a factor --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystals suffer from minor short-term frequency fluctuations as well. The main causes of such noise are e.g. thermal noise (which limits the noise floor), phonon scattering (influenced by lattice defects), adsorption/desorption of molecules on the surface of the crystal, noise of the oscillator circuits, mechanical shocks and vibrations, acceleration and orientation changes, temperature fluctuations, and relief of mechanical stresses. The short-term stability is measured by four main parameters: Allan variance (the most common one specified in oscillator data sheets), phase noise, spectral density of phase deviations, and spectral density of fractional frequency deviations. The effects of acceleration and vibration tend to dominate the other noise sources; surface acoustic wave devices tend to be more sensitive than bulk acoustic wave (BAW) ones, and the stress-compensated cuts are even less sensitive.
The relative orientation of the acceleration vector to the crystal dramatically influences the crystal's vibration sensitivity. Mechanical vibration isolation mountings can be used for high-stability crystals.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2019 21:44:04
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?

And, re all that stuff about crystals.
The frequencies do not change with orientation.
You can't argue against reality.
You predicted an effect.
That effect didn't exist.

Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2019 21:44:46
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?

And, re all that stuff about crystals.
The frequencies do not change with orientation in the way you said they would.
You can't argue against reality.
You predicted an effect.
That effect didn't exist.

Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 22:12:02
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?
What i wrote is ok, not a word needs changing. However little g is not the issue, & measurements of little g are complicated. Big G is the issue.
And, re all that stuff about crystals. The frequencies do not change with orientation. You can't argue against reality. You predicted an effect. That effect didn't exist.
Can u give some details of your test.
Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the " work" is done by the crystal.
Its not just that capacitor (which has a special use), its the rest of the newfangled specially added resonating circuitry. 
Why is such circuitry needed? Why indeed.
Anyhow are u sure your oscillator & clock have tuning forks?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2019 07:34:12
Why is such circuitry needed?
If you strike a tuning fork it "rings" for a short while- perhaps a minute.
If you want it to keep ringing, you have to keep striking it.
The circuitry effectively does that.
One thing it couldn't do- even in principle- is to check on ether drift.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
Its not just that capacitor (which has a special use)
The use is to trim the frequency by a few ppm.
It's nothing "special".
Again, this seems to be based on your lack of understanding.
Why not learn some science?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 01:10:40
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?
And, re all that stuff about crystals.
The frequencies do not change with orientation.
You can't argue against reality.
You predicted an effect.
That effect didn't exist.

Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.

Tests of relativity using  a microwave resonator -- Peter Wolf – 2002.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0210049.pdf

The vast majority of modern experiments that test LLI rely essentially on the stability of atomic clocks and macroscopic resonators [6, 7, 8, 9], therefore improvements in oscillator technology have gone hand in hand with improved tests of LLI. Our experiment is no exception, the 30 fold improvement being a direct result of the excellent stability of our cryogenic sapphire oscillator. Additionally its operation at a microwave frequency allows a direct comparison to a hydrogen maser which provides a highly stable and reliable reference frequency.....................
................We expect the main contributions to such effects to arise from temperature, pressure and magnetic field variations that would affect the hydrogen maser, the CSO and the associated electronics, and from tilt variations of the CSO which are known to affect its frequency. Measurements of the tilt variations of the CSO show amplitudes of 4.6 µrad and 1.6 µrad at diurnal and semi-diurnal frequencies. To estimate the tilt sensitivity we have intentionally tilted the oscillator by ≈ 5 mrad off its average position which led to relative frequency variations of ≈ 3 × 10−13 from which we deduce a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1 . This value corresponds to a worst case scenario as we expect a quadratic rather than linear frequency variation for small tilts around the vertical. Even with this pessimistic estimate diurnal and semi-diurnal frequency variations due to tilt do not exceed 3×10−16 and 1 × 10−16 respectively and are therefore negligible with respect to the statistical uncertainties..........
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 04:00:25
In my #25 & #31 & #33 i calculated that for a 500 kmps aetherwind & for the worst scenario for changing the angle of a tuning fork crystal clock one might get a change in ticking of 1 sec in 2.77 days. Wolf reports a calibration factor of 0.6*10^-11 sec per radian from the vertical.  This is a change of 1 sec in 1.9290 million days per radian.

However i dont know how he did that tilt test. For some orientations & angles & tilts it could be 1 sec in 1 million days, & at others it might be say 1 sec in 1000 days.  Did Wolf check every possible combination, i doubt it.

A simple single linear calibration factor for tilt is silly. A proper check would find that it depends on the angle of the aetherwind. Wolf & Co restrict their experiment to the horizontal, which should be ok & should still give a proper result, but even here the calibration factor (for their oscillator) will depend on time of day & season of year.
But what they really need is a second calibration factor for tilt of their cavity.
And a third calibration factor for the tilt of their lasers.
And more than that they need a calibration factor for the tilt of their experiment, ie for the combination of the oscillators & the cavities & lasers.  I can tell them this factor off the top of my head. For vacuum it is zero. For nearly vacuum (which is what they have) it is nearly zero.

What Wolf really needs is a better experiment. But i think his X could be ok, if the weak proper signal is not thrown out with the corrections & calibrations for tilt etc, or their diurnal & semi diurnal drifts or something, or by averaging.

My calcs were for a tuning fork. I dont know the basic equation for the longitudinal vibration of a cylindrical crystal (i think his sapphire is cylindrical). If i knew the equation i might be able to calc the expected max change in ticking, it would depend on stiffness.  The lateral stiffness of a vibrating floppy tuning fork compared to the longitudinal stiffness & vibration of a solid cylinder might be involve a factor of 10,000 or more.  Hencely a Lorentzian length contraction of the length of a cylindrical crystal might lead to a change in  ticking of 1 sec in praps 27,700 days compared to my calc for the LLC of the thickness of a tuning fork shaped crystal of 1 sec in 2.77 days.

And my numbers were for 500 kmps based on the full vector of the aetherwind.  The horizontal component of that vector might change by say 340 kmps (eg a change from 140 kmps to a max of 480 kmps during each day). This would much reduce the LLC & say double thems needed days.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 19:32:16
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong.
You said
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.

And now you are saying it's something like
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1

The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11

But you said it was 1 in 10^5

It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.

Why did you try to pretend that it was?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 19:33:53
A simple single linear calibration factor for tilt is silly.
That is entirely consistent with your introducing it.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 20:41:56
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.
And now you are saying it's something like
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1
The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11
But you said it was 1 in 10^5
It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.
Why did you try to pretend that it was?
U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.
U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 21:16:29
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.
And now you are saying it's something like
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1
The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11
But you said it was 1 in 10^5
It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.
Why did you try to pretend that it was?
U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.
U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.
I apologise for failing to time travel.
You are right.
I didn't take account of things you hadn't posted.

Once again, why are you pretending that's my fault?

Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:30:36
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.
And now you are saying it's something like
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1
The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11
But you said it was 1 in 10^5
It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.
Why did you try to pretend that it was?
U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.
U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.
I apologise for failing to time travel.
You are right.
I didn't take account of things you hadn't posted.
Once again, why are you pretending that's my fault?
Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
#43 Bored Chemist said..........
I did the experiment. Reality doesn't agree with Mad aetherist.
Now, given that there's exactly the same "reasoning" behind his prediction of a change in clock rate with angle and all his other ramblings, we can discount them too.

#45 Bored Chemist said......
I rotated it about two perpendicular axes. There was no change in the reading.

Exp 2- well, I did the experiment near the Earth...
How big a spinning wheel do you want?

#56 Bored Chemist said.........
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?
And, re all that stuff about crystals.
The frequencies do not change with orientation.
You can't argue against reality.
You predicted an effect.
That effect didn't exist.
Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:37:05
Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
U ignore that i pointed out that Wolf & Co mentioned a calibration factor for tilt of their crystal oscillator.
And by memory i think many authors of other similar twin cavity papers too had a correction for tilt.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 21:39:16
U will havta send Wolf your superior resonator. His suffers from problems with tilt.  He tilted his by 5 mrad off vertical. But u  say that your crystal oscillator merely laughs when tilted say 1000 mrad or even 3142 mrad.
You seem to have forgotten that it's your calculation which is wrong. You said
the expected change in frequency will be reduced from a max possible of 1 in 240,000 to say 1 in 320,000 or something.
And now you are saying it's something like
a tilt sensitivity of ≈ 6×10−17µrad−1
The angles I was talking about are of the order of 1 radian so the relative shift in frequency is about 1 in 10^11
But you said it was 1 in 10^5
It's really not my fault you got it wrong by a factor of a million or so.
Why did you try to pretend that it was?
U ignore my point that u said that tilt can have no effect, when Wolf & Co found a tilt effect.
U ignore my point that the Lorentzian LC effect on the thickness & hencely freq of lateral vibration of a tuning fork might be more than 10,000 times as strong as the weak LLC effect on length & hencely the freq of longitudinal vibration of a crystal.
I apologise for failing to time travel.
You are right.
I didn't take account of things you hadn't posted.
Once again, why are you pretending that's my fault?
Now stop being stupid and explain why nobody else has noticed these effects.
#43 Bored Chemist said..........
I did the experiment. Reality doesn't agree with Mad aetherist.
Now, given that there's exactly the same "reasoning" behind his prediction of a change in clock rate with angle and all his other ramblings, we can discount them too.

#45 Bored Chemist said......
I rotated it about two perpendicular axes. There was no change in the reading.

Exp 2- well, I did the experiment near the Earth...
How big a spinning wheel do you want?

#56 Bored Chemist said.........
However little g too seems to vary with time at any one location, in a different way to the expected daily etc variation, but i am rusty on the details, i would have to re-read that stuff. I might later  today.
Did it occur to you that you should have read up on it before posting nonsense?
And, re all that stuff about crystals.
The frequencies do not change with orientation.
You can't argue against reality.
You predicted an effect.
That effect didn't exist.
Incidentally the capacitance is fixed, and the effect is small- almost all the "work" is done by the crystal.

Congratulations.
You have highlighted reality in red.
It doesn't agree with what you said would happen.
Since you have now moved the goal posts by 6 orders of magnitude, the experiment which you agreed to no longer falls within the range of data you now want to look at.

That's still not my fault because it's still down to you.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2019 21:43:46
And by memory i think many authors
Yes, but you think stuff that's not real.
So we can safely ignore it.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 21:55:31
Congratulations.
You have highlighted reality in red.
It doesn't agree with what you said would happen.
Since you have now moved the goal posts by 6 orders of magnitude, the experiment which you agreed to no longer falls within the range of data you now want to look at.
That's still not my fault because it's still down to you.
Wolf & Co confirm that tilt can affect frequency.
I havnt mooved the goalposts. A macro mechanical analysis of any macro clock frequency will confirm what i said or will deny what i said.
A change of say 1 sec in 2.77 days might apply ok to a tuning fork crystal (as per my earlier calcs), but as i said u might need to increase that by a factor of over 10,000 for the change for the longi vibration of Wolf's cylindrical crystal. And if u like u can do the same kind of calcs for a balance wheel tick-tock.
My original point being that there are two kinds of ticking dilation. One is a micro TD, which will affect atomic clocks (as per the Lorentz gamma).  And the other is a macro TD, which will not affect the macro clocks as per gamma -- it affects macro clocks as per their equation for vibration, that freq changing in accordance with the Lorentzian length contraction of any critical dimension (here we use gamma to get the LLC).
Now Wolf & Co's change in ticking will either accord with simple LTD, in which case i my clever theory is wrong.
Or Wolf & Co's change in ticking will accord with the relevant macro change, in which case i should get a Nobel.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 22:08:49
And by memory i think many authors
Yes, but you think stuff that's not real.
So we can safely ignore it.
I am talking bout all of the authors & papers re orthogonal cavities giving a null result.
There are lots of them. I read some. I printed hardcopies of about 6 ovem. They might all have an allowance for tilt.

I dont know of any authors or papers agreeing with my underlying idea re how tilt can affect macro clocks. But as i say there are plenty that agree that tilt has an effect.

Of course tilt can possibly affect macro ticking (of crystals etc) in many ways not related to my underlying idea. But u havnt mentioned that. U are still in phase one of the mafia menu -- denial. The next phase is where u accept that there is an effect, but show that it is due to other things, not aetherwind.  The next phase is where u accept that the effect is related to gamma, but say that it is Einstein's gamma, & u invoke a complicated recipe of SR & GR & virtual mass etc etc to explain, including using an observer far away looking at what a local observer must be seeing, based on a train hitting a chest in a lightning storm.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2019 19:16:34
I havnt mooved the goalposts.
Previously, you said an experiment would give a frequency change of about 1 in 250,000.
Now you are saying it will be about a in 1,000,000,000,000.

That's moving the goal posts.
A macro mechanical analysis of any macro clock frequency will confirm what i said or will deny what i said.
I did that experiment.
It denied what you said.

You can stop now.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 20:28:39
I havnt mooved the goalposts.
Previously, you said an experiment would give a frequency change of about 1 in 250,000. Now you are saying it will be about a in 1,000,000,000,000.  That's moving the goal posts.
A macro mechanical analysis of any macro clock frequency will confirm what i said or will deny what i said.
I did that experiment. It denied what you said. You can stop now. 
I did not move the goalposts.
I havnt seen any details of your X. Is your oscillator a tuning fork or solid crystal.
Wolf agrees with me (as do others).
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2019 20:35:27
tuning fork or solid crystal.
Tuning fork oscillators are made from solid crystals, so your question makes no sense.

http://www.nkg.com.hk/pdf/NKG-TIT_TuningForkCrystals.pdf
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 21:01:30
tuning fork or solid crystal.
Tuning fork oscillators are made from solid crystals, so your question makes no sense. http://www.nkg.com.hk/pdf/NKG-TIT_TuningForkCrystals.pdf
The equation for the frequency of a crystal shaped like a tuning fork is on Wiki. And so too i guess the equation for the frequency of a solid crystal (cuboid or cylindrical). The ratio might be praps over 10,000, but could be 1,000,000 if u use a small cuboid (compared to a long fork).
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2019 21:59:22
The crystals- whatever shape they are- are of the order of a few milimetres across and vibrate (in the particular case of the ones I used)  10,000,000 times a second.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 22:41:30
The crystals- whatever shape they are- are of the order of a few milimetres across and vibrate (in the particular case of the ones I used)  10,000,000 times a second.
My notes tell me that steel tuning forks gave 360 Hz, & quartz crystal tuning forks gave 32,768 Hz, & later in 2010 gave 262,144 Hz, & later came solid crystals which gave any frequency u like if small enough.
It looks to me that u have a solid crystal. Tuning fork crystals probly aint made over 32,768 -- yours is say 300 times faster.  Or if that there 262,144 Hz referred to a tuning fork then yours is 40 times faster. Anyhow i think u have a solid crystal, using longitudinal vibration, or shear vibration, or something, but not tuning fork vibration.  So the macro ticking change in your oscillator might be as i said over 10,000 times less than for a macro tuning fork oscillator.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2019 06:52:29
  So the macro ticking change in your oscillator might be as i said over 10,000 times less
How unfortunate that you waited till it was too late before you said that
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 06:58:49
  So the macro ticking change in your oscillator might be as i said over 10,000 times less
How unfortunate that you waited till it was too late before you said that.
No it wasnt too late, u said it was a tuning fork. Is it a tuning fork?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2019 18:58:57
It's a lump of stuff that you hit and it rings.
How do you define "tuning fork"?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 21:24:12
It's a lump of stuff that you hit and it rings.How do you define "tuning fork"?
A tuning fork has two identical arms like an extended horseshoe but with the arms straight & parallel. The paperwork that came with your oscillator will probly say if its a tuning fork kind etc. 
But if it is a tuning fork kind but the frequency is not based on the simple tuning fork equation but is based on some kind of overtone etc then that would change the relevant equation.  In any case the proper generic equation should involve 3 dimensions, ie L W D.  But one dimension (the most critical dimension) would be better than nothing. Here i dont mean the actual mm of the crystal, i dont need to know that, i need to know whether it is L or W or D, & even here i dont need to know that, i need to know the power X^p of at least the one critical dimension, ie whether p is -1 or 1 or 2 or something else.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 01:09:41
The paperwork that came with your oscillator will probly say if its a tuning fork kind etc. 

LOL
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:18:36
The paperwork that came with your oscillator will probly say if its a tuning fork kind etc. 
LOL
Why not look it up on their website.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 01:20:59
The paperwork that came with your oscillator will probly say if its a tuning fork kind etc. 
LOL
Why not look it up on their website.
Because I got it from some cheapo site via  ebay.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Thebox on 23/03/2019 01:28:36
the centrifuged aether.

It is not a centrifugal aether !

The interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of the space-time energy binary field is expanding by the  applied external force from outer space   . The process involved is the transitional state of energy , high energy to lower energy state position .

The interwoven 5 dimensional binary interior field being the carrier of traversing energy ,
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:47:26
the centrifuged aether.
It is not a centrifugal aether !
The interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of the space-time energy binary field is expanding by the  applied external force from outer space. The process involved is the transitional state of energy , high energy to lower energy state position .
The interwoven 5 dimensional binary interior field being the carrier of traversing energy ,
All of that might be perfectly true, but it appears that somehow time & ticking got left behind, it might be sitting somewhere between outer space & the manifold.
For sure the space-time energy binary field is expanding, & this must happen with any spinning wheel including DePalma's wheel, but i say that it is the aether that is (applying that there external force from outer space by) centrifuging itself.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 12:55:09
the centrifuged aether.

It is not a centrifugal aether !

The interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of the space-time energy binary field is expanding by the  applied external force from outer space   . The process involved is the transitional state of energy , high energy to lower energy state position .

The interwoven 5 dimensional binary interior field being the carrier of traversing energy ,
None of that actually makes any sense
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:37:50
the centrifuged aether.
It is not a centrifugal aether !
The interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of the space-time energy binary field is expanding by the  applied external force from outer space. The process involved is the transitional state of energy , high energy to lower energy state position .
The interwoven 5 dimensional binary interior field being the carrier of traversing energy ,
All of that might be perfectly true, but it appears that somehow time & ticking got left behind, it might be sitting somewhere between outer space & the manifold.
For sure the space-time energy binary field is expanding, & this must happen with any spinning wheel including DePalma's wheel, but i say that it is the aether that is (applying that there external force from outer space by) centrifuging itself.
The force at work is simple thermodynamics and the transitional state of field energy , 

4d0beaa8f06bb82cbc3f786f3634d420.gif

Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:39:18
the centrifuged aether.

It is not a centrifugal aether !

The interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of the space-time energy binary field is expanding by the  applied external force from outer space   . The process involved is the transitional state of energy , high energy to lower energy state position .

The interwoven 5 dimensional binary interior field being the carrier of traversing energy ,
None of that actually makes any sense
Like I've told you before Mr Chemist , you don't understand physics .  Perhaps you should stick to being a Chemist although that is far more complex than physics .

Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 12:59:16
The force at work is simple thermodynamics and the transitional state of field energy , 

As usual, that's word salad.

Like I've told you before Mr Chemist , you don't understand physics . 
That's not what my exam results said.
What did yours say?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Thebox on 24/03/2019 13:04:26
The force at work is simple thermodynamics and the transitional state of field energy , 

As usual, that's word salad.

Like I've told you before Mr Chemist , you don't understand physics . 
That's not what my exam results said.
What did yours say?
Exam results only means you have remembered what they told you to remember or you would fail .  Do you really think having a piece of paper makes you smart in some way or makes your understanding of physics any better than mine ?

I've advanced physics , I understand better than you .  Take this up with me in the 5d model thread , why not let yourself learn something for once .
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 13:32:43
Do you really think having a piece of paper makes you smart in some way or makes your understanding of physics any better than mine ?
No.
It's the other way round.
I think that being smart makes me have good exam results and gets me the bit of paper.

Is there any evidence that you are not an idiot?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 10:41:34
OK,  I came across some chap quartz crystals on eBay.
So I bought some  + dissolved the packaging from one.
Here's a picture. It's not easy to take a good photograph but that's a mm scale next to it. it's anbouth 1 mm by 5mm and about 0.5mm thick
It nominally oscillates at 32768 Hz.

What effect on that frequency would you expect from the ether wind?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 06:46:27
OK,  I came across some chap quartz crystals on eBay.
So I bought some  + dissolved the packaging from one.
Here's a picture. It's not easy to take a good photograph but that's a mm scale next to it. it's about 1 mm by 5mm and about 0.5mm thick.
It nominally oscillates at 32768 Hz.
What effect on that frequency would you expect from the ether wind?
Yes the prongs look to be 3mm long by 0.44mm thick by u say 0.5mm wide.
Anyhow the macro  ticking dilation would be as per my #25 on page 2 (copy below). This applies to all tuning forks of plain design.  Beware, what i called D (depth) i probly should hav called W (width).
My calcs show how many days would be needed for the ticking to lose 1 sec, based on a change in the aetherwind of 500 kmps blowing along L (the length of the tuning fork), or blowing along W, or along D (no change in ticking).
The apparent change in aetherwind would be carried out by rotating the tuning fork by say 90 deg to a new angle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to my #22.   I now 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 natural frequency (absolute 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       1.00002782         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   

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, makes no difference to my TD.

According to Lorentz & Co (& according to Einstein) 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 (or in Einstein's case due to relative speed)(he said that the wind was superfluous), 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.   Nextly i will have a think about the TD suffered by a balance clock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2019 07:30:26
I will think about how to measure it.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 10:54:04
I will think about how to measure it.
A few things. As i hav sayd before, my numbers are based on a change of 500 kmps.  U kood get this size of change in a lab if u firstly found the alignment of the aetherwind. And this will be swinging around during a sidereal day. 
And the problem is the fixed lab clock. The ticking of the lab clock will be changing during the day, if it is a macro clock. But if it is a micro clock, an atomic clock, then its ticking rate will be almost uniform during a  day, varying slightly due to the changing size of the aetherwind (direction aint important for a micro clock), & varying slightly due to the changing gravity (due mainly to the direction to the Sun)(the angle of the micro clock aint important)(the angle to the Sun is important, koz of Earth's spin)(its an Einsteinian thing).
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2019 19:13:00
Do you realise that you can measure the frequency of a watch crystal (to a precision equivalent to a second in 8 days) in a few seconds?
I can, in principle, measure the frequency in several different orientations in under a minute.
The Earth's path through the ether doesn't change much in a minute.
Even better I can compare the frequency of two crystals mounted at right angles (so the "tuning forks" look like a C and a U)
If I turn the pair of crystals round there should be relative changes in frequency if the path through the ether matters.
That change should be easy to measure.

What will you do if/ when my experiment shows no change in frequency with orientation?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
Do you realise that you can measure the frequency of a watch crystal (to a precision equivalent to a second in 8 days) in a few seconds?
I can, in principle, measure the frequency in several different orientations in under a minute.
The Earth's path through the ether doesn't change much in a minute.
Even better I can compare the frequency of two crystals mounted at right angles (so the "tuning forks" look like a C and a U).
If I turn the pair of crystals round there should be relative changes in frequency if the path through the ether matters.
That change should be easy to measure.
What will you do if/ when my experiment shows no change in frequency with orientation?
Ok but it haztabe an old style tuning fork crystal clock.  Turn it to all angles in the horizontal & vertical & in between, to find the orientation that makes the biggest difference.

The lab  reference clock needs to be fixed. Preferably it would be an atomic clock. But any accurate clock would do.

As u say, a slow longish term experiment would be problematic koz of spin-orbit gravity changes & spin-orbit aetherwind changes, which might affect the two clocks differently. Atomic clocks aint affected by orientation, but macro clocks are (eg tuning forks).

If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error. For example if they used 3 crystals instead of 1, & fixed the 3 at 90deg to each other, then their ave ticking wouldnt change with orientation.

If such an  experiment duznt show the kind of ticking dilation that i claim then either i am wrong or there aint no such thing as length contraction.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2019 07:28:10
Do you realise this sort of thing
haztabe
As u say
koz
duznt
makes you look stupid?

Anyway, as I said, I took the sort of crystal they use in digital watches and washed away the packaging.
There's only 1 tuning fork.
So stuff like this
For example if they used 3 crystals instead of 1, & fixed the 3 at 90deg to each other, then their ave ticking wouldnt change with orientation.
is a fantasy.

These watches have been around since (at least ) the 70s but the microelectronic technology needed to determine orientation  WRT  Earth's gravity (never mind the rest of the Universe) is much newer.
So we know that this "
If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error.
is also impossible.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 31/05/2019 00:42:35
These watches have been around since (at least ) the 70s but the microelectronic technology needed to determine orientation  WRT  Earth's gravity (never mind the rest of the Universe) is much newer.
So we know that this "
If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error.
is also impossible.
What micro electronic technology? A fishing sinker on a string would do the trick. I fail to see why (in silly standard science) some clocks might need to know which way is up. Am i missing something?
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2019 07:25:30
I fail to see why (in silly standard science) some clocks might need to know which way is up. Am i missing something?
In reality, they don't.
But, in your bizzare world where they have to take account of the ether wind, they need to know what direction that wind is blowing.
The first step in that process would be to establish which way is up.

What micro electronic technology? A fishing sinker on a string would do the trick.
You think there's room for a plumb line and a mechanism to measure and allow for its position  in a wristwatch?

No, there is plainly not.
So there's no way that any watch could do what you said it would.
This "If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error." is delusional.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 31/05/2019 11:31:29
I fail to see why (in silly standard science) some clocks might need to know which way is up. Am i missing something?
In reality, they don't.
But, in your bizzare world where they have to take account of the ether wind, they need to know what direction that wind is blowing. The first step in that process would be to establish which way is up.
What micro electronic technology? A fishing sinker on a string would do the trick.
You think there's room for a plumb line and a mechanism to measure and allow for its position  in a wristwatch? No, there is plainly not. So there's no way that any watch could do what you said it would.
This "If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error." is delusional.
Yes ok in that case i go along with the need to know the direction etc of the aetherwind & of gravity. In  the sense that a good clock should have a sticker with its rated orientation re aetherwind & gravitational potential (or elevation or something). But it would be better if the clock had an auto correction built in.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2019 18:13:33
In  the sense that a good clock should have a sticker with its rated orientation re aetherwind
And yet they don't.
Don't you understand how good clocks are?
This -clearly macroscopic- clock keeps much better time than you  say is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock

(And if anyone wins the lottery and wants to buy me a present, I'd really like one of those clocks.)
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 01/06/2019 00:49:20
In  the sense that a good clock should have a sticker with its rated orientation re aetherwind
And yet they don't. Don't you understand how good clocks are?
This -clearly macroscopic- clock keeps much better time than you  say is possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortt%E2%80%93Synchronome_clock
(And if anyone wins the lottery and wants to buy me a present, I'd really like one of those clocks.)
Yes they do. The Shortt pendulum clock now has sticker saying that the clock is sensitive to gravity, ie the orientation of Sun & Moon, ie the size & direction of the aetherwind, just like i sayd.........
[WIKILEAKS] Recent accuracy measurement
In 1984 Pierre Boucheron studied the accuracy of a Shortt clock preserved at the US Naval Observatory.[3][18] Using modern optical sensors which detected the precise time of passage of the pendulum without disturbing it, he compared its rate to an atomic clock for a month. He found that it was stable to 200 microseconds per day (2.31 ppb), equivalent to an error rate of one second in 12 years, far more accurate than the 1 second per year that was previously measured. His data revealed the clock was so sensitive it was detecting the slight changes in gravity due to tidal distortions in the solid Earth caused by the gravity of the Sun and Moon.[19]


I could make an Excel table to calculate the effect of aetherwind on a pendulum. It wouldnt be simple, koz the pendulum changes angle every swing (plus u have the + or - kmps of each swing).  The max effect would be when the wind blew straight along the pendulum at the end of one swing, in which case the length contraction would be a max, & then the LC would be a min at the end of the opposit swing.  The time for the first half of the swing would be different to the time in the 2nd half. This swing timing defect wouldnt show up in ordinary calibrations (& they probly knew that).

They said slight changes in gravity. Yes, that is a half of the answer. It is due to Einstein's potential energy gravity stuff, ie its affect on LC of the pendulum. But the other half involves the velocity of the aetherwind, & i wouldnt call this a gravity thing, gravity is due to the acceleration of the aetherwind, LC is due to the velocity at that instant.

The problem with pendulum clocks is related to the problem with big G. Varyus  teams around the world report values for big G varying by up to 0.7%. Big G at any one location also varys with time. They dont know why. I do know.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2019 01:02:39
orientation of Sun & Moon, i
The moon....
But the Moon's in orbit around us- not the other way.
It makes sense for any hypothetical  effect of the ether to vay on a daily or yearly basis because those are teh periodicities with which we make or way through the universe.
But the Moon pretty much just swings round us.
So, the fact that those clocks record the effect of tides, but not of the year, shows that you are wrong.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 01/06/2019 01:26:16
orientation of Sun & Moon, i
The moon.... But the Moon's in orbit around us- not the other way.
It makes sense for any hypothetical  effect of the ether to vay on a daily or yearly basis because those are teh periodicities with which we make or way through the universe.
But the Moon pretty much just swings round us. So, the fact that those clocks record the effect of tides, but not of the year, shows that you are wrong.
Yes having had another think about it u are correct here. Pendulums are affected by the plumbline, ie by any change in the vertical (due to Moon etc).  And this will also hav a  tidal component, or 2 or more tidal components, including the changing shape of solid Earth (tides), & the changing shape etc of surface water (tides), & changing shape of atmosphere (tides).

Changes in plumb being a different & additional effect to the LC effects that are the main question.  And changes in plumb probly only really come up in that way with pendulums & not with other clocks.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2019 11:32:09
The big effect of the moon is that the tides pull the Earth's surface up towards it (jusa as they do with the sea).
That takes the clock further from the centre of the Earth and that reduces the local value of the acceleration due to gravity.
That, in turn, messes with the clock.

No need to invoke relativity or ether.
(There are relativistic effects, but they are small)
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 01/06/2019 12:57:54
The big effect of the moon is that the tides pull the Earth's surface up towards it (just as they do with the sea).
That takes the clock further from the centre of the Earth and that reduces the local value of the acceleration due to gravity.
That, in turn, messes with the clock. No need to invoke relativity or ether. (There are relativistic effects, but they are small).
Yes i go along with most of that. Distance from center of Earth is a factor, but this must be trumped by the nett gravity due to Moon & Sun, which is paramount.
Actually, there is a subtle effect here (that only i know). The nett gravity is not really the answer. The answer is the overall gravity, ie the total or gross gravity. This means that u need to add all gravitational potential energys, to find the new speed of light at that location (in general accord with Einstein's idea).

Here i need to add one more explanation (that only i know), that u & i might talk of the speed of light, but the speed of light has allmost zero to do with any thing in physics, what we are really talking about, whether we know it or knot, is the speed of em  radiation, ie the speed of photaenos, not the speed of light. In the Lorentz gamma, c is the speed of photaenos, not light (but uzually i am too lazy to bother mentioning)(but today i have mentioned)(& i can explain, but today i am too lazy)(but i have explained in other threads)(search "photaeno").
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 02/06/2019 00:20:45
Speaking of ground tides, here is some wordage of mine from another thread re Courvoisier's work (one of my heroes) ..............................

Courvoisier of course discovered Earth's ground tide, here i mean the ground tide due to Lorentz Length Contraction, this is a twice per sidereal day thing, Lorentz LC changes the Earth's shape, Earth is flattened square to the aetherwind, the shape doesnt change but what changes is that (because Earth's spin-axis is at 20 deg or even 23 deg to the wind) the theusofa gets closer & later further from the spin-axis during each sidereal day, as theusofa moves throo the Lorentz LC's flattening.
 
The Lorentz LC-tide is in addition to the Moon-tide, the Moon-tide too affects Earth's shape due to centrifugal force etc, & here the tidal flattening is on a different angle to the Lorentz LC-flattening & has two lumps whereas the Lorentz LC-flattening has no lumps (but theusofa thinks there are two lumps due to Earth's misaligned spin-axis). Courvoisier simply used a very accurate plumbbob line to measure the Lorentz LC-tide (& the Moon-tide). A genius. He measured the aetherwind about 8 different ways, ie using different kinds of experiments. I will look for details later.
 
By the way, the Lorentz LC-tide must be a reason for Mercury's 43 arcsec per century advance of perihelion. U heard it hear first. Einstein's GR reason is of course complete krapp. Its the Sun's Lorentz LC-tide not Mercury's, Mercury has almost zero spin & thusly almost zero Lorentz LC-tide, but the Sun has a whopper.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 02/06/2019 00:42:36
orientation of Sun & Moon, i
The moon....
But the Moon's in orbit around us- not the other way. It makes sense for any hypothetical  effect of the ether to vay on a daily or yearly basis because those are teh periodicities with which we make or way through the universe.
But the Moon pretty much just swings round us. So, the fact that those clocks record the effect of tides, but not of the year, shows that you are wrong.
Mention of the Moon of course brings us back full circle to the topic of this thread, the centrifuging of aether.
Aether is sucked in to Earth due to Earth's spin (due to centrifugal inertia). This is in addition to aether being sucked in to Earth due to the annihilation of aether in mass (giving us proper gravity).
In addition aether is sucked in to the Earth & the Moon due to the Moon's orbit (due to centrifugal inertia).

The velocity of the centrifuged aether inflow affects length contraction.
The acceleration of the centrifuged aether inflow affects apparent gravity (it is a pseudo gravity), & it adds to proper gravity.

But u  can get the gist of this stuff if u read my OP & some of the replys eg #11 #12  #13 etc on page1.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/06/2019 09:52:42
here is some wordage of mine from another thread
And it wasn't convincing the first time.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: mad aetherist on 03/06/2019 03:32:31
here is some wordage of mine from another thread
And it wasn't convincing the first time.
But even Einsteinians like yourself must believe that the Earth's shape is affected by length contraction due to Earth's spin (ie in addition to ordinary centrifugal strains & tidal effects).

Here the Einsteinian LC would result in a shape that was symmetrical about the axis.
The aetherist LC would result in a shape that was not symmetrical about the axis, due to the aetherwind blowing at say 20  deg off the axis. Therefore some strange things happen to little g & big G & a few other things during each sidereal day, in addition to some strange things happening during each year.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/06/2019 19:11:36
But even Einsteinians like yourself must believe that the Earth's shape is affected by length contraction due to Earth's spin
And every time I try to measure them I run into a problem.
My ruler contracts to exactly the extent needed to compensate.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2019 20:35:47
Just to let folk know; I'm still thinking about doing the experiment with tuning fork shaped quartz crystals.

I doubt anyone is taking bets on the outcome.
Title: Centrifuging aether is DePalma correct Podkletnov
Post by: EddieSWog on 08/06/2019 21:34:29
The permeability and permittivity of space are most likely dependent on the underlying random quantum foam/carrier of the electromagnetic field. Many aether theories exist, which have been discredited, because they are trying to detect a none randomly orientated permanent medium, which will give differing results if measured from different angles. A completely randomly orientated aether with constant pressure only existing momentarily in the form of quantum froth, is workable and would not be detected by the Michelson Morley experiment. Defining the aether, as quantum foam/froth which either allows photons to pass, or be absorbed and reemitted as they pass through the electromagnetic field/quantum foam is workable.  If I read you right above, this is where you are headed YES/NO ? EDIT the around MASSES would the electromagnetic medium density be reduced as in Cahills approach with Quantum foam inflow.
Title: Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/06/2019 22:07:14
Defining the aether, as quantum foam/froth which either allows photons to pass, or be absorbed and reemitted as they pass through the electromagnetic field/quantum foam is workable. 
It may be workable. Is it helpful?
Does it offer a solution to any outstanding problems?