|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote: 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? As you're propounding absolute motion, you tell us. 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. There was no anisotropy detected. You misunderstand gravitational redshift. You claim your theory is a superset of relativity yet it does not contain an invariant c. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
jem wrote: kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72, Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21... kenseto wrote: hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the MMX experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays. Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc. More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction, particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one. The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical in every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works. Ken Seto Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too? Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction...... NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is performed. Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in reality it's attached? |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
jem wrote: kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72, Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21... kenseto wrote: hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the MMX experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays. Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc. More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction, particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one. The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical in every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works. Ken Seto Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too? Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction...... NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is performed. Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in reality it's attached? |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
jem wrote: kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72, Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21... kenseto wrote: hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the MMX experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays. Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc. More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction, particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one. The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical in every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works. Ken Seto Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too? Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction...... NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is performed. Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in reality it's attached? |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
jem wrote: kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72, Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21... kenseto wrote: hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the MMX experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays. Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc. More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction, particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one. The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical in every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works. Ken Seto Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too? Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction...... NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is performed. Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which it's attached? motion is relative as light is to the beholder so why not in reality? |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article om,
"visual word" wrote: Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in reality Because what you're saying is a crap metaphor and has no analogy to reality -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
kenseto wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical in every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works. There's a world of difference in your two statements. There is no difference if you accept the fact that gravity potential os the result of different state of absolute motion in different heights.....the different states of absolute motion at different heights cause the frequency shift and thus the anisotropy of the speed of light at different heights. Ken Seto you mean why does gravity (which is created by mass) pull at other mass objects? |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
T Wake wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message ... T Wake wrote: "Art Deco" wrote in message ... Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , "kenseto" wrote: Every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Therefore 589 nm is a universal constant for wavelength of sodium. Since there is nothing that can change the wavelength of sodium light during transit therefore any Doppler or Gravtational red shift is due to varying speed of light of incoming light. The fact that you can use your grating to measure a different wavelength for the incoming light merely means that you are defining a new wavelength for a new light source in your frame. You really do have a pretty crap level of physics don't you? I have never met someone so adamant they know better, ironic since you know less. I am still stunned after reading that mess and then trying to decipher the thought processes that produced it. I find its easier if you assume _no_ thought processes took place. Good idea, that would be certainly less painful as well. Don't talk to me about pain. Like an idiot I looked at Jeff Relf's photograph. I don't think I can ever close my eyes again. I'm turning the computer off _now_. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article om, "visual word" wrote: Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in reality Because what you're saying is a crap metaphor and has no analogy to reality But he/she/it is stuck in a posting loop, so it must have deep meaning. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
sean wrote:
I ve done a few correct simulations of sagnac which show indisputably that light travelling at c relative to the source will still give a path difference and fringe shift when the setup rotates. Then you make other assumptions, probably about how light reflects off moving mirrors, that differ from the usual ones. The usual assumption is that Snell's law holds in the rest frame of the mirror, and such ballistic theories are refuted by the Sagnac measurements. It was an incorrect conclusion to say that only relativity can explain the sagnac results. Nobody ever made such a "conclusion". In science we test theories, and the Sagnac experiment is consistent with the predictions of SR. Yes, it is also consistent with the predictions of other theories. But other than GR and theories equivalent to SR, no other theory remains unrefuted when one looks at ALL of the experiments. In fact sagnac and gps can be explained by classical wave theory as well or better than relativity,.. Not at all. For instance, "classical wave theory" has no way to predict the variation in clock rates with altitude that are observed in the GPS. Tom Roberts |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:54 AM |