A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interpreting the MMX null result



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 18th 06, 04:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the
apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the
horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using
the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This
conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift
(gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this
interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not
mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all
the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane
of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give
non-null result with respect to these local light rays.
Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are
described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute
Motion" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto


  #2  
Old November 19th 06, 04:02 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Cygnus X-1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:07:42 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):

The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the
apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the
horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using
the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This
conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift
(gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this
interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not
mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all
the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane
of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give
non-null result with respect to these local light rays.
Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are
described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute
Motion" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto



This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson
interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the
Earth and one orbiting L1.

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

  #3  
Old November 19th 06, 04:26 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

Cygnus X-1 wrote:
This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson
interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the
Earth and one orbiting L1.


References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of
their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY
interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are,
what their experimental programs are, etc.


Tom Roberts
  #4  
Old November 19th 06, 05:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

Dear Tom Roberts:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count)
three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying
in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1.


References, please. Or at least tell me their names or
the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal
investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is
actually true, what their results are, what their
experimental programs are, etc.


I haven't followed the thread, so I am not saying these have
anything to do with what Cygnus X-1 is talking about...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD005322.shtml
ENVISAT

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17451435
SWIFT

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/windii.asp
WINDII

Spacelab had SITE and WAMDII, don't know if they ever flew

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/15/12/009
.... a paper discussing a proposal ...

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Wh...CESEGMENT?l=en
IASI

http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_S...xperiment.html
ACE-FTS

EO3-GIFTS is supposed to go up in 2007-2009

COROT goes up in December

FIRAS and COBE, of course...
http://grus.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ngst/michelson.html

NASA-TIMED
http://www.timed.jhuapl.edu/WWW/comm..._factsheet.pdf
.... not sure if it qualifys...

Getting bored, and Google won't accept more than 10 keywords...
;)

HTH

David A. Smith


  #5  
Old November 19th 06, 05:12 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
[bunch of references]


Thanks. My google searches only found proposed missions, not any real ones.


Tom Roberts
  #6  
Old November 19th 06, 06:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

Dear Tom Roberts:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
[bunch of references]


Thanks. My google searches only found proposed
missions, not any real ones.


You are welcome.

I had two google sessions open. One used "michelson
interferometer satellite", and as I found missions I'd add the
"-COBE", "-FIRAS", etc. to the search phrase to bring new ones to
the top.

In the second window, I would bring a promising "candidate" from
the first session and use that name and add "launch"... within a
couple of screens I could have whether the launch was successful
or not.

I noticed the Japanese are planning a really extensive
satellite-based interferometer experiment (size 1+km) looking for
GR effects, but it doesn't launch for more than 10 years.
Thermal effects will be really problematic.

Good luck and good hunting.

David A. Smith


  #7  
Old November 19th 06, 06:30 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Cygnus X-1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:19:47 -0500, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote
(in article ):

Dear Tom Roberts:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count)
three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying
in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1.


References, please. Or at least tell me their names or
the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal
investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is
actually true, what their results are, what their
experimental programs are, etc.


I haven't followed the thread, so I am not saying these have
anything to do with what Cygnus X-1 is talking about...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD005322.shtml
ENVISAT

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17451435
SWIFT

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/windii.asp
WINDII

Spacelab had SITE and WAMDII, don't know if they ever flew

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/15/12/009
... a paper discussing a proposal ...


http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Wh...METSAT_Polar_S
ystem/
Space_Segment/DF_METOP_SPACESEGMENT?l=en
IASI


http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_S...iteAtmospheric
Chemis
tryExperiment.html
ACE-FTS

EO3-GIFTS is supposed to go up in 2007-2009

COROT goes up in December

FIRAS and COBE, of course...
http://grus.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ngst/michelson.html

NASA-TIMED
http://www.timed.jhuapl.edu/WWW/comm..._factsheet.pdf
... not sure if it qualifys...

Getting bored, and Google won't accept more than 10 keywords...
;)

HTH

David A. Smith



Good, I seem to have caught most of them.

MIPAS on EnviSat:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/

WINDII on UARS (not sure if this is still operating)
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GS...RS_WINDII.html

SOHO/MDI operating at L1.
http://soi.stanford.edu/
You can get orbital info on SOHO he
http://sscweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...r_graphics.cgi

I was reworking the Michelson analysis to deal with some Biblical
Geocentrism claims. I've been examining the instrument sensitivity if
significant changes in the data would result as they moved if you
define some fixed frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

Note that imagers based on this configuration are called Fourier
transform spectrographs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier...m_spectroscopy

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

  #8  
Old November 19th 06, 08:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default Interpreting the MMX null result


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:19:47 -0500, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote
(in article ):





Good, I seem to have caught most of them.

MIPAS on EnviSat:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/

WINDII on UARS (not sure if this is still operating)
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GS...RS_WINDII.html

SOHO/MDI operating at L1.
http://soi.stanford.edu/
You can get orbital info on SOHO he
http://sscweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...r_graphics.cgi

I was reworking the Michelson analysis to deal with some Biblical
Geocentrism claims. I've been examining the instrument sensitivity if
significant changes in the data would result as they moved if you
define some fixed frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment


So your claim that the orbiting michelson interferometers refute my
interpretations of the null result of the MMX is incorrect.....right?

Ken Seto



Note that imagers based on this configuration are called Fourier
transform spectrographs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier...m_spectroscopy

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"



  #9  
Old November 27th 06, 03:44 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

Cygnus X-1 wrote:
[references to Michelson Interferometers on spacecraft]


Thanks. I was wondering if any of these could be turned into a test of
SR. They cannot. They use a Michelson interferometer with variable arm
lengths to generate an "interferogram", which is a high-resolution
Fourier transform of the input spectrum. I had not realized the
instrument could do that.

Different missions use the resulting spectrum for different purposes.
For instance, SWIFT uses an Ozone line to both measure the concentration
of Ozone in the atmosphere, and to measure the wind via Doppler shift
(hence the need for a high-resolution spectrum).

Again, thanks.


Tom Roberts
  #10  
Old November 19th 06, 09:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Sorcerer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default Interpreting the MMX null result


"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
| Cygnus X-1 wrote:
| This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson
| interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the
| Earth and one orbiting L1.
|
| References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of
| their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY
| interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are,
| what their experimental programs are, etc.


It doesn't matter whether it's actually true or not, this is PHYSICS, not
math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant.
Ref: om





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proper explanation for the MMX null result. kenseto Astronomy Misc 23 September 28th 06 10:58 PM
"Interpreting Astronomical Spectra", D. Emerson Greg Heath Astronomy Misc 0 August 29th 06 05:44 AM
Best novice result yet Spurs Dave UK Astronomy 0 May 11th 06 03:58 PM
Astronomy Course Result Sir Loin Steak UK Astronomy 1 September 18th 04 11:41 PM
Null test lens for a 30" F/4 mirror? Lawrence Sayre Amateur Astronomy 3 March 4th 04 06:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.