Interpreting the MMX null result

kenseto wrote:

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
...




Seto, I've asked you 3 times to tell me what you mean when you say two
things share the same relative motion, and each time I've repeated your
response word-for-word and asked you to confirm it, and each time you've
changed it. Is there an end to this process?


NO....


...A and B are two things and O is the observer:


A measures B to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vab
B measures A to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vba.
Vab is not equal to Vba because the passage of a clock second in A's

frame


does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame.

O measures A to have a relative velocity of Voa.
O measures B to have a relative velocity of Vob.
Voa=Vob because they have the same value.


Do you seriously think that answers the question: "What does it mean for
two objects to share the same relative motion"?


Share the same relative motion wrt what?

Why are you asking me? It's your terminology. It's wrt *each other* -
as in your claim:

"If the [MMX] apparatus is not in a state of relative motion wrt the
light rays you get null result."

In that sentence you've referred to the state of relative motion of one
thing (MMX apparatus) wrt another thing (light ray). So for the 5th
time, what does it *mean* for something to be (or not be) in a state of
relative motion wrt something else?


Sigh....light is not a thing.

Don't be ridiculous - no non-thing has a name.

If the apparatus measures light from
different directions to be isotropic in the plane of the light rays
then there is no relative motion between the apparatus and the light
rays in that plane.

Does every mention of "MMX" or "light" trigger a Pavlovian repeat of
your mantra? Look Seto, your if-then mantra means nothing at all until
you define what's meant by the then clause.

Outside of Setoland, an obvious inference, that most everyone above the
age of 6 would recognize, is that "no relative motion between two
things" implies no change in distance between those things. Since
that's obviously not the case for the MMX apparatus and the light that
it generates and detects, either Setoland has its own definition for "no
relative motion between two things" or, what's much more likely, there
is no definition, and the mantra is just a collection words that you
thought sounded good.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Seto. Fill in the blank below
with the definition, if there is one - or with yet another rendition of
the mantra, if there isn't.

There is no relative motion between A and B if and only if ____________.

If the apparatus measures anisotropy in the plane
of the light rays then there is relative motion between the apparatus
and the light rays in thta plane.



Ken Seto

To answer that question, you need to provide the criteria by which it
can be determined whether or not two things are in the same state of
relative motion.

E.g., A is in a state of relative motion wrt B if and only if
______________.


Your latest response lists two different procedures. The first
procedure has two objects measuring each other's velocity (as if rocks
(e.g.) could measure velocity),


The two thing can be observers.

and the two thing can be rocks.


and the other has your enigmatic
observer measuring the object velocities (presumably relative to the
observer, whoever or whatever that may be), and coming to the more than
obvious conclusion that the velocities are equal "because they have the
same value" (duh).


So what is your problem?

Getting you to produce a coherent definition.


The two objects is measure to have the same

relative motion wrt the observer.

Always?

Do you perhaps mean that *if* the relative velocities of two things wrt
"the observer" are measured to be the same, then the two things share
the same state of relative motion?


How are those procedures supposed to relate to the question you were

asked?

You asked a meaning question....that's why.

I ask how, you answer why. Earth to Seto, Wake up!

Ken Seto

"jem" wrote in message ...
kenseto wrote:

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
...




Seto, I've asked you 3 times to tell me what you mean when you say two
things share the same relative motion, and each time I've repeated
your
response word-for-word and asked you to confirm it, and each time
you've
changed it. Is there an end to this process?


NO....


...A and B are two things and O is the observer:


A measures B to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vab
B measures A to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vba.
Vab is not equal to Vba because the passage of a clock second in A's

frame


does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame.

O measures A to have a relative velocity of Voa.
O measures B to have a relative velocity of Vob.
Voa=Vob because they have the same value.


Do you seriously think that answers the question: "What does it mean
for
two objects to share the same relative motion"?


Share the same relative motion wrt what?

Why are you asking me? It's your terminology. It's wrt *each other* -
as in your claim:

"If the [MMX] apparatus is not in a state of relative motion wrt the
light rays you get null result."

In that sentence you've referred to the state of relative motion of one
thing (MMX apparatus) wrt another thing (light ray). So for the 5th
time, what does it *mean* for something to be (or not be) in a state of
relative motion wrt something else?


Sigh....light is not a thing.

Don't be ridiculous - no non-thing has a name.

If the apparatus measures light from
different directions to be isotropic in the plane of the light rays
then there is no relative motion between the apparatus and the light
rays in that plane.

Does every mention of "MMX" or "light" trigger a Pavlovian repeat of
your mantra? Look Seto, your if-then mantra means nothing at all until
you define what's meant by the then clause.

Outside of Setoland, an obvious inference, that most everyone above the
age of 6 would recognize, is that "no relative motion between two
things" implies no change in distance between those things. Since
that's obviously not the case for the MMX apparatus and the light that
it generates and detects, either Setoland has its own definition for "no
relative motion between two things" or, what's much more likely, there
is no definition, and the mantra is just a collection words that you
thought sounded good.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Seto. Fill in the blank below
with the definition, if there is one - or with yet another rendition of
the mantra, if there isn't.

There is no relative motion between A and B if and only if ____________.

Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means that
there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms.
Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane of
the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

If the apparatus measures light from
different directions to be isotropic in the plane of the light rays
then there is no relative motion between the apparatus and the light
rays in that plane.

Does every mention of "MMX" or "light" trigger a Pavlovian repeat of
your mantra? Look Seto, your if-then mantra means nothing at all until
you define what's meant by the then clause.

Outside of Setoland, an obvious inference, that most everyone above the
age of 6 would recognize, is that "no relative motion between two
things" implies no change in distance between those things. Since
that's obviously not the case for the MMX apparatus and the light that
it generates and detects, either Setoland has its own definition for "no
relative motion between two things" or, what's much more likely, there
is no definition, and the mantra is just a collection words that you
thought sounded good.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Seto. Fill in the blank below
with the definition, if there is one - or with yet another rendition of
the mantra, if there isn't.

There is no relative motion between A and B if and only if ____________.

Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means that
there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms.
Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane of
the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.

But there was never a first time, so how can it be the last?

"jem" wrote in message ...

Hi Jem!

There you are!


Spirit

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message ...

kenseto wrote:


jem wrote:


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:





"jem" wrote in message
. ..




Seto, I've asked you 3 times to tell me what you mean when you say two
things share the same relative motion, and each time I've repeated

your

response word-for-word and asked you to confirm it, and each time

you've

changed it. Is there an end to this process?


NO....



...A and B are two things and O is the observer:



A measures B to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vab
B measures A to have a relative velocity wrt him of Vba.
Vab is not equal to Vba because the passage of a clock second in A's

frame



does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame.

O measures A to have a relative velocity of Voa.
O measures B to have a relative velocity of Vob.
Voa=Vob because they have the same value.


Do you seriously think that answers the question: "What does it mean

for

two objects to share the same relative motion"?


Share the same relative motion wrt what?

Why are you asking me? It's your terminology. It's wrt *each other* -
as in your claim:

"If the [MMX] apparatus is not in a state of relative motion wrt the
light rays you get null result."

In that sentence you've referred to the state of relative motion of one
thing (MMX apparatus) wrt another thing (light ray). So for the 5th
time, what does it *mean* for something to be (or not be) in a state of
relative motion wrt something else?


Sigh....light is not a thing.

Don't be ridiculous - no non-thing has a name.

If the apparatus measures light from

different directions to be isotropic in the plane of the light rays
then there is no relative motion between the apparatus and the light
rays in that plane.

Does every mention of "MMX" or "light" trigger a Pavlovian repeat of
your mantra? Look Seto, your if-then mantra means nothing at all until
you define what's meant by the then clause.

Outside of Setoland, an obvious inference, that most everyone above the
age of 6 would recognize, is that "no relative motion between two
things" implies no change in distance between those things. Since
that's obviously not the case for the MMX apparatus and the light that
it generates and detects, either Setoland has its own definition for "no
relative motion between two things" or, what's much more likely, there
is no definition, and the mantra is just a collection words that you
thought sounded good.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Seto. Fill in the blank below
with the definition, if there is one - or with yet another rendition of
the mantra, if there isn't.

There is no relative motion between A and B if and only if ____________.


Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means that
there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms.

Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means that
there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed of
that motion is constant.

Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane of
the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.

Outside of Setoland, "explain" and "repeat" aren't synonyms.

Spirit of Truth wrote:
"jem" wrote in message ...

Hi Jem!

There you are!


Spirit

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!



Hi Spirit, it's been a while - I figured you'd lost interest in the fast
lane.

"jem" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


jem wrote:


kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means
that
there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms.

Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means that
there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed of
that motion is constant.

OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light from
different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative motion
wrt the detector.

Ken Seto

Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane
of
the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.

Outside of Setoland, "explain" and "repeat" aren't synonyms.

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message

...

kenseto wrote:



jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:



Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means

that

there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms.

Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means that
there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed of
that motion is constant.


OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light from
different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative motion
wrt the detector.

Where "the same relative motion" means ...?


Ken Seto

Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane

of

the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.

Outside of Setoland, "explain" and "repeat" aren't synonyms.

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message


...

kenseto wrote:



jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:




"jem" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:



Hey idiot....we were talking about the MMX. Isotropy in the MMX means


that

there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.


Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means that
there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed of
that motion is constant.



OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light from
different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.


Where "the same relative motion" means ...?

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?



Ken Seto

Anisotropy in the MMX means that there is relative motion between the
detector and the light rays from different directions within the plane


of

the arms.
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you.


Outside of Setoland, "explain" and "repeat" aren't synonyms.

"jem" wrote in message
...
jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message


...

kenseto wrote:



jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:



that

there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.


Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means
that
there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed
of
that motion is constant.



OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light
from
different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.


Where "the same relative motion" means ...?

This is ridiculus: The detector detects the same relative velocity c from
different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?

You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.