kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message ...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message

...



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
.. .





kenseto wrote:






"jem" wrote in message

...



Again the MMX is not designed to detect absolute motion of the earth.

It


is



designed to detect the isotropy or anistropy of the speed of light.



Don't worry about what the MMX is designed to test - just answer the
one-word questions.

So then it must be the case that *all* MMX devices which are attached

to

the surface of the Earth, share the same absolute motion (i.e. speed

and

direction) at their points of attachment. Right?


Speed and direction of absolute motion wrt what?

Speed and direction wrt anything.


????????????

Confused? No matter. The question is whether the motion is shared by
all MMX attachment points, and either it is or it isn't - what it's
expressed wrt is irrelevant.


But you SRians said: All motions are relative.

Don't concern yourself with what SR says either - I want you to address
what *you* said.

If you want to find out the direction of absolute motion of a spatially
separated clock you must do the experiments in the following link.....the
MMX is not designed to do that:\
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Stick to the question you were asked - no clocks were mentioned.

*You* said all points on the surface of Earth share the same absolute
motion. So that must mean that all MMX devices that are attached to the
surface of Earth, also share the same absolute motion, at their points
of attachment. Right?

And BTW, what do you think that shared motion could mean, other than
that at each instant all those points are moving at the same speed and
in the same direction?



And the absolute motion shared by the source and detector has always
been perpendicular to the plane defined by the arms of the MMX

devices.

Right?


NO.....if the MMXZ detected isotropy then it is perpendicular to the

plane


frined by the arms of the MMX.


and just how do you think that differs from what I said?


Her's what I meant to say:
1. if the MMX gives null result that means that the speed of light is
isotropic in the plane of the arms.
2. If the MMX gives non-null rsult, that means that the speed of light

is

anistropic in the plane of the arms.


You said MMX hasn't produced a non-null result because the absolute
motion of the MMX apparatus has been in the direction perpedicular to
"the light rays" (i.e. the plane defined by the arms of the apparatus).
Changed your mind about that?


No I didn't change my mind.
1. If the apparatus is in a state of relative motion wrt the light rays you
get non-null result.
2. If the apparatus is not in a state of relative motion wrt the light rays
you get null result.

How do you suppose something could not be "in a state of relative
motion" wrt a light ray? Give an example of something that's not moving
wrt a light ray.


This is different than what you were trying to say: That the MMX

apparatus

is moving in a specfic direction wrt anything.

FYI - at any particular time, the MMX apparatus is moving in a specific
direction wrt *everything*.