The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).

  • 116 Replies
  • 8973 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #80 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"?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #81 on: 22/03/2019 21:24:12 »
Quote from: 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"?
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #82 on: 23/03/2019 01:09:41 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 21:24:12
The paperwork that came with your oscillator will probly say if its a tuning fork kind etc. 

LOL
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #83 on: 23/03/2019 01:18:36 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 01:09:41
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 21:24:12
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #84 on: 23/03/2019 01:20:59 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:18:36
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 01:09:41
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 21:24:12
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #85 on: 23/03/2019 01:28:36 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
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 ,
Logged
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #86 on: 23/03/2019 01:47:26 »
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2019 01:28:36
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #87 on: 23/03/2019 12:55:09 »
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2019 01:28:36
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
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
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #88 on: 24/03/2019 12:37:50 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:47:26
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2019 01:28:36
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
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

Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #89 on: 24/03/2019 12:39:18 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 12:55:09
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2019 01:28:36
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06
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 .

Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #90 on: 24/03/2019 12:59:16 »
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:37:50
The force at work is simple thermodynamics and the transitional state of field energy , 

As usual, that's word salad.

Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:39:18
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?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #91 on: 24/03/2019 13:04:26 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 12:59:16
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:37:50
The force at work is simple thermodynamics and the transitional state of field energy , 

As usual, that's word salad.

Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 12:39:18
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 .
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #92 on: 24/03/2019 13:32:43 »
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 13:04:26
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?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #93 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?

* quartz fork.jpg (34.68 kB, 407x343 - viewed 167 times.)
« Last Edit: 03/05/2019 10:44:48 by Bored chemist »
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #94 on: 29/05/2019 06:46:27 »
Quote from: 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 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: 29/05/2019 06:54:45 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #95 on: 29/05/2019 07:30:26 »
I will think about how to measure it.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #96 on: 29/05/2019 10:54:04 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/05/2019 07:30:26
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).
« Last Edit: 29/05/2019 10:57:37 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #97 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?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline mad aetherist (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 820
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #98 on: 29/05/2019 23:44:18 »
Quote from: 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?
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.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2019 23:46:23 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21425
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: Centrifuging aether -- is DePalma correct? (& Podkletnov).
« Reply #99 on: 30/05/2019 07:28:10 »
Do you realise this sort of thing
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
haztabe
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
As u say
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
koz
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
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
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
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 "
Quote from: mad aetherist on 29/05/2019 23:44:18
If the manufacturers are smart they might have incorporated some kind of remedial circuitry to compensate for the "known" orientation-error.
is also impossible.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.244 seconds with 76 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.