Interpreting the MMX null result

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

Hey idiot here's how the MMX on earth works. Does the FTS in space works the
same? The answer is no.
The single light ray is splitted into two rays and these two light rays are
then recombined to give the characteristic light and dark fringes. When the
light rays are isoropic you will get null result (no fringe shift) as the
apparatus is rotated. When the light rays are anistropic you will get
non-null result (fringe shift) as the apparatus is rotated.

But they work on the same principles. If you ascribe a change in one,
then the other must change.

And lay off the idiot comments Ken, it makes you look worse then you are.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message

...

kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message

...


kenseto wrote:


"The MMX and the Pound and Rebka experimental results led me to

conclude

that the direction of absolute motion is perpendicular to the
defined
horizontal light rays."


What I said here is not wrong. I assigned the frequency shift in the
vertical direction is due solely on the part of the absolute motion
of

the


apparatus. However, it is more valid to assign the shift to the

anisotropy


of the speed of light in the vertical direction.



The "horizontal light rays" that you're talking about are those

produced

by an MMX apparatus in which the light paths are parallel to the

ground.

That means (since you haven't been able to figure it out for
yourself) that the "direction of absolute motion" must also be
perpendicular to the ground to which the apparatus is attached.

Capisce?


The reason why I now assign the shift is due to the anisotropy of the

speed


of light is to get rid of your inability to comprehend. Furthermore
anisotropy of the speed of light means that the apparatus is in a
state

of


absolute motion.

And, in keeping with the standard practice of having to continuously
repeat the point of the argument for you, it means that the state of
absolute motion of every location on Earth's surface is different, so
it's "puzzling" that no two such locations are in relative motion.


No it does not mean that.

Look, Seto. You said,

"The MMX and the Pound and Rebka experimental results led me to conclude
that the direction of absolute motion is perpendicular to the
defined horizontal light rays."

and then you commented on that statement by saying,

"What I said here is not wrong."

and now you're avoiding the issue, apparently since you've finally
realized how ludicrous it is. It's about time.


I explained to you many times. Apparently you have comprehension
problem.
The only way to resolve this is by doing the vertical MMX.



The experiment has been in progress since the start of recorded history,
Seto - the Earth retains its shape - different locations on its surface
don't move in different directions.

Hey idiot....I didn't say that different locations on earth move in
different directions. I said that all locations on earth are in a state of
absolute motion and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of
light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs.

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

Hey idiot....I didn't say that different locations on earth move in
different directions. I said that all locations on earth are in a state of
absolute motion and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of
light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs.

And how exactly does the earth move - what is the form of this
"absolute" motion...

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

So this is not the same as the MMX on earth. When the MMX is rotated the
light source is also being rotated.
The operation of the MMX is as follows:
The single light ray is splitted into two rays and these two light rays are
then recombined to give the characteristic light and dark fringes. When the
light rays are isoropic you will get null result (no fringe shift) as the
apparatus is rotated. When the light rays are anistropic you will get
non-null result (fringe shift) as the apparatus is rotated.

Ken Seto

The principle is not only the same, it would also detect any
anisotropies local to that area of space.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:


"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in
message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:


I made no such claim. I claim that if the MMX is performed in space:
the
speed of light will be found to be isotropic in some specfic
direction
and
other directions will give anisotropic.

Which, as I repeat, is not bourne out from space basis spectroscopy.

Idiot.

Nice to see you cant refute me.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ctrometer.html

"A Fourier transform spectrometer (abbreviated FTS) is a Michelson
interferometer with a movable mirror. By scanning the movable mirror
over some distance, an interference pattern is produced that encodes the
spectrum of the source (in fact, it turns out to be its Fourier
transform ). Fourier transform spectrometers have a multiplex advantage
over dispersive spectral detection techniques for signal, but a
multiplex disadvantage for noise."

"In its simplest form, a Fourier transform spectrometer consists of two
mirrors located at a right angle to each other and oriented
perpendicularly, with a beamsplitter placed at the vertex of the right
angle and oriented at a 45° angle relative to the two mirrors. Radiation
incident on the beamsplitter from one of the two "ports" is then divided
into two parts, each of which propagates down one of the two arms and is
reflected off one of the mirrors. The two beams are then recombined and
transmitted out the other port. When the position of one mirror is
continuously varied along the axis of the corresponding arm, an
interference pattern is swept out as the two phase-shifted beams
interfere with each other."

So this is not the same as the MMX on earth. When the MMX is rotated the
light source is also being rotated.
The operation of the MMX is as follows:
The single light ray is splitted into two rays and these two light rays are
then recombined to give the characteristic light and dark fringes. When the
light rays are isoropic you will get null result (no fringe shift) as the
apparatus is rotated. When the light rays are anistropic you will get
non-null result (fringe shift) as the apparatus is rotated.

Ken Seto



The single light ray is splitted into two rays and these two light rays
are
then recombined to give the characteristic light and dark fringes. When
the
light rays are isoropic you will get null result (no fringe shift) as
the
apparatus id rotated. When the light rays are anistropic you will get
non-null result (fringe shift) as the apparatus is rotated.

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:


Hey for the last time...the MMX doesn't say how the earth is moving. It says
that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal direction and
anistropic in the vertical direction.

But you say and I quote " I said that all locations on earth are in a
state of absolute motion "

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

Hey idiot....I didn't say that different locations on earth move in
different directions. I said that all locations on earth are in a state
of
absolute motion and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed
of
light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs.

And how exactly does the earth move - what is the form of this
"absolute" motion...

Hey for the last time...the MMX doesn't say how the earth is moving. It says
that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal direction and
anistropic in the vertical direction.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

And as I note above, your definition of 'vertical' is ambiguous.

Comments like this is the reason why I call you an idiot.

No - your own comments are why you are an idiot, Ken. Your knowledge of
modern physics is pitiful.

You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto


--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

There's "New Ideas" and then there's "New Ideas that Work".

How do you know that my new idea won't work?? What observations or
experiments refute my new idea?

One big clue is your misunderstanding about spectroscopy, your inability
to explain why this has not been detected by space based interferometers
plus your inability to realise gravitational redshift != a change in c

Hey idiot.....what has not been detected by space based interferometer? All
I said is that null result of the MMX means that the speed of light is
isotropic in the plane of the light rays and non-null rsult of the MMX means
that the speed of light is anisotropic in the plane of the light rays.

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:


You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

You've provided nothing of any substance. And when its pointed out you
don't understand gravitational redshift, or SR - you resort back to form
with this. You've got some perverted idea about redshift and the
equivalence principle and composed this absolute abortion of a website
on it.

So please keep insulting me. I consider insults from cranks as a high
compliment.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com