[mad aetherist (OP)]

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..........

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

A simple single linear calibration factor for tilt is silly.

That is entirely consistent with your introducing it.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

And by memory i think many authors

Yes, but you think stuff that's not real.
So we can safely ignore it.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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).

[Bored chemist]

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

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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).

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

  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

[mad aetherist (OP)]

  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?