Interpreting the MMX null result

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"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.

i always assume that no thought
processes are taking place. only
thoughts think that thinking is
taking place.

"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.

uselessnet is the morphed
version of pipeline.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:50:02 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:18:27 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:37:54 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:33:22 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):



Considering that this is one test that would be insisted by almost
any
competent reviewer of your theory, I insist on it not for me. You
need
it for your own credibility.

Again, why would anyone use your theory if you can't demonstrate that
it meshes seamlessly with existing observations?

Then don't use it. I am not going to jump through hoops for you. In
any
case
you physicists are too indoctrinated to accept any new idea .....come
hell
or high water.

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?

Considering the number of 'new ideas' proposed by everyone from
geniuses to cranks, how would *you* suggest we screen them?

But you made the blanket statement that my new idea won't work without any
supporting evidence for your assertion.

Largely by experience with what does work and why. Specific details
below.

You don't have to screen all new ideas. You pick the new ideas which you
think that have the best possibility of success. Also you pick the new ideas
that can explain the problems of current theories. Model Mechanics is such a
candidate.

Some researchers with established track records of discoveries get some
preferential treatment, but they are still subjected to review and
experimental validation (or at least theoretical consistency).

Mr. Seto, do YOU have an established track record of discoveries? Any
patents or other inventions? Why should we give your claim more weight
than others?

These rules are designed for runt like you. I don't have to follow them
since I don't depend on the establishment to make a living.

I worked my way through undergraduate education doing business
consulting in IT. Often I was called in to troubleshoot and develop
audit systems. Many times the problems I was asked to solve were the
result of arrogant idiots who thought the company 'checks and balances'
didn't apply to them.

It would cost billions just to test all the cranks that post to the
sci.physics.* and sci.astro.* newsgroups.

It would be stupid to test all proposed theories.

The advocates of a 'new idea' have to make the minimum effort of
*explictly* demonstrating that their theories generate results
consistent with well-studied scenarios.

Model Mechanics does this and more.

Not really, see details below.


Sure I have.....the equations of IRT are converted from SRT equations.
Any
observations or experiments that agree with SRT will agree with IRT.
After
all SRT is a subset of IRT.

Per your earlier post, you claim your 'new idea' is a simple
substitution, replacing quantities like velocity, etc. with
wavelengths and frequencies:

c=Faa*Lambda
relative veocity v=lambda(Faa-Fab)
gamma=Faa/Fab
1/gamma=Fab/Faa

Ken, what are the frequencies, Faa and Fab, of the two STEREO
spacecraft (http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/where.shtml) currently moving
in orbit between the Earth and the Moon, on its way to a heliocentric
orbit?

Faa and Fab are frequency measurements make by observer A of a standard
light source (eg sodium) in the A and B frame.
Obviously if you want to do any calculations using IRT equations you need to
have periodic Fab data.

You're saying we can't compute the trajectories of these spacecraft
without additional data????!! That would certainly be news to the
flight dynamics people who computed these trajectories and are
monitoring these spacecraft.

Current theory produces these trajectories (subject to considerable
testing over the past ~50 years of spaceflight) without any additional
data.

Question: What do we gain in using your theory? It certainly isn't
very practical for doing spaceflight.

How do we get this Fab data? Do we have to launch a bunch of
spacecraft to various locations to do the measurements? If so, then
you're stuck with a problem. If you can only use your theory in places
we can reach by spacecraft, then we have no real way to apply it beyond
the solar system.

Question: You claim your theory explains cosmic acceleration, but you
also say you can't compute the STEREO trajectories without explicitly
measuring Fab. Since we can't measure Fab in the distant cosmos, how
can you claim that?

We know how to get the spacecraft velocity in conventional theory. How
do we get Faa and Fab to use your model?

If your theory were a true simple substitution, then it could reproduce
exactly the same as SR - no more.

However, you do these odd redefinitions of gamma (which is velocity
dependent in SR) and relative velocity which will alter those
calculations. So the answers is no, it will not reproduce the exact
same results as SR in those cases. And YOU have to demonstrate that it
still works in those cases.

I did not redefine gamma. In SR:
f'=f_o(1/gamma)
f'=Fab
f_o=Faa
Therefore Gamma=Faa/Fab and 1/gamma=Fab/Faa

No. Gamma=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). That is it's 'definition' in SR. You've
redefined it so it's a *subset* of SR. Note the section on Doppler &
aberration in Einstein's paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...html#SECTION22


Your equation is a special case of the Doppler formula where phi=pi/2
so cos(phi)=0 - when the object is moving transverse to the
line-of-sight. You essentially LOSE most of your directional
information.

But then, that was obvious from the start. You define:

relative veocity v=lambda(Faa-Fab)

Velocity is a *VECTOR*, generally represented by 3-components.
Frequency is a SCALAR, a single component. Your theory intrinsically
looses most directional information.

At best, your theory might work in a universe with one spatial and one
temporal dimension. Not very useful in our minimum of 3-d + time
universe.

That's the condensed introduction to how I know your theory is useless.
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"

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:




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

Do all locations on Earth simultaneously share the same absolute motion
or do some locations have different absolute motion than other

locations?


All locations on earth share the same absolute motion.

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?


But the MMX is designed only to test the isotropy of the speed of light.

and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of


light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs.


Anistropy of the speed of light is caused by the source and the detector
have different states of absolute motion.


And the reason that no previous MMX has detected anisotropy is because
the source and detector have always shared the same absolute motion.

Right?

Sure.....but vertical MMX will detect anisotropy because the two light rays
are emanated from the reflecting mirrors at different heights (thus
different state of absolute motion)

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?


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?

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?

"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:50:02 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:18:27 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:37:54 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:33:22 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):




Considering the number of 'new ideas' proposed by everyone from
geniuses to cranks, how would *you* suggest we screen them?

But you made the blanket statement that my new idea won't work without
any
supporting evidence for your assertion.

Largely by experience with what does work and why. Specific details
below.

It seems that your experience is limited. You don't seem to know the term
gamma means.


You don't have to screen all new ideas. You pick the new ideas which you
think that have the best possibility of success. Also you pick the new
ideas
that can explain the problems of current theories. Model Mechanics is
such a
candidate.

Some researchers with established track records of discoveries get some
preferential treatment, but they are still subjected to review and
experimental validation (or at least theoretical consistency).

Mr. Seto, do YOU have an established track record of discoveries? Any
patents or other inventions? Why should we give your claim more weight
than others?

These rules are designed for runt like you. I don't have to follow them
since I don't depend on the establishment to make a living.

I worked my way through undergraduate education doing business
consulting in IT. Often I was called in to troubleshoot and develop
audit systems. Many times the problems I was asked to solve were the
result of arrogant idiots who thought the company 'checks and balances'
didn't apply to them.

But I don't work for any company.

It would cost billions just to test all the cranks that post to the
sci.physics.* and sci.astro.* newsgroups.

It would be stupid to test all proposed theories.

The advocates of a 'new idea' have to make the minimum effort of
*explictly* demonstrating that their theories generate results
consistent with well-studied scenarios.

Model Mechanics does this and more.

Not really, see details below.


Sure I have.....the equations of IRT are converted from SRT equations.
Any
observations or experiments that agree with SRT will agree with IRT.
After
all SRT is a subset of IRT.

Per your earlier post, you claim your 'new idea' is a simple
substitution, replacing quantities like velocity, etc. with
wavelengths and frequencies:

c=Faa*Lambda
relative veocity v=lambda(Faa-Fab)
gamma=Faa/Fab
1/gamma=Fab/Faa

Ken, what are the frequencies, Faa and Fab, of the two STEREO
spacecraft (http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/where.shtml) currently moving
in orbit between the Earth and the Moon, on its way to a heliocentric
orbit?

Faa and Fab are frequency measurements make by observer A of a standard
light source (eg sodium) in the A and B frame.
Obviously if you want to do any calculations using IRT equations you
need to
have periodic Fab data.

You're saying we can't compute the trajectories of these spacecraft
without additional data????!! That would certainly be news to the
flight dynamics people who computed these trajectories and are
monitoring these spacecraft.

Sure you can compute the trajectories of these spacecrafts by setting the
periodic values of Fab. To ensure your spacecraft follows the course you
charted you accelerate the craft to these preset periodic Fab values.


Current theory produces these trajectories (subject to considerable
testing over the past ~50 years of spaceflight) without any additional
data.

Question: What do we gain in using your theory? It certainly isn't
very practical for doing spaceflight.

How do we get this Fab data?

See post by PD below.

We know how to get the spacecraft velocity in conventional theory. How
do we get Faa and Fab to use your model?

How do you get the spacecraft velocity without using the SR assumpition that
the speed of light is c? Doesn't the radar work as follows:
velocity=lambda(f_o - f')?????

If your theory were a true simple substitution, then it could reproduce
exactly the same as SR - no more.

IRT is not just a simple substitution of SR. It also says
1. that wavelength of a standard light source is a universal constant.
2. that the observer's clock can really run fast or slow compared to the
observed clock.
3. that doppler shift or gravitational red shift is due to that the source
and the detector are in different state of absolute motion.
4. that the speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as
follows:
light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
5. That relative velocity between two objects A and B is the vector
difference of the vector component of A absolute motion and the vector
component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B.
6. That there is no physical length contraction. However the light path
length of identical rulers can be longer or shorter compared to the
observer's light path length.
7. There are more differences.
The result is that IRT is a complete theory of motion. It includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT its equations are valid in all
environment....including gravity. IOW, IRT has an unlimited domain of
applicability.

However, you do these odd redefinitions of gamma (which is velocity
dependent in SR) and relative velocity which will alter those
calculations. So the answers is no, it will not reproduce the exact
same results as SR in those cases. And YOU have to demonstrate that it
still works in those cases.

I did not redefine gamma. In SR:
f'=f_o(1/gamma)
f'=Fab
f_o=Faa
Therefore Gamma=Faa/Fab and 1/gamma=Fab/Faa

No. Gamma=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

You are wrong. Gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).
It appears that you need to go back to school and learn basic physics.

That is it's 'definition' in SR. You've
redefined it so it's a *subset* of SR. Note the section on Doppler &
aberration in Einstein's paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...html#SECTION22


Your equation is a special case of the Doppler formula where phi=pi/2
so cos(phi)=0 - when the object is moving transverse to the
line-of-sight. You essentially LOSE most of your directional
information.

Any object can be said to be moving transversly wrt the observer. Fab is
defined as the mean frequency value for that object.

But then, that was obvious from the start. You define:

relative veocity v=lambda(Faa-Fab)

Velocity is a *VECTOR*, generally represented by 3-components.
Frequency is a SCALAR, a single component. Your theory intrinsically
looses most directional information.

Wrong....frequency*wavelength is also a vector. So the directional
information is maintained.

At best, your theory might work in a universe with one spatial and one
temporal dimension. Not very useful in our minimum of 3-d + time
universe.

Wrong....it works in 3-d+time universe.

Ken Seto
__________________________________________________ __________________

PD:
Don't be ridiculous. When I measure the wavelength, I don't have to
know that it is a sodium source at all.
For example, if I have a source of some kind (I don't know what) and I
want to measure the wavelength, I shine the light through a diffraction
grating that has, say, 5,113 lines per centimeter. This I can do with a
ruler, and it tells me that the line spacing is d = 1.956E-4 cm. When I
do this, I measure with a protractor that this light is bent through an
angle of theta = 18.583 degrees. I also know that for *any* kind of
grating, and *any* kind of wave, regardless of source, regardless of
wave speed, regardless even of the kind of wave it is, that lambda =
d*sin(theta). (This is important: This formula holds whether the wave
is light, or sound in air or in water, or deBroglie matter waves, or
whatever.It is derived not from anything from SR but from the work of
Huygens 350 years ago, and it is *still* just as valid as it ever was.)

From this I determine that the wavelength is 623.30 nm. Keep in mind
that I don't have any idea what the source is, whether the source is
moving away or toward us or neither, nor what the speed of the wave is.
I nevertheless know what the wavelength is. I've just measured it with
a ruler and a protractor and knowing how waves of any kind behave in a
grating.

Now normally what I would do is to look up in a table of elements and
look for wavelengths that match up with this measurement, because each
element has a "fingerprint" of wavelengths that are unique to them.
Sadly, when I do this, I don't find *any* element that has a wavelength
of 623.30 nm.

But what I *do* recall is that when I was using the protractor, there
was *another* spectral line nearby at 18.603 degrees. This, following
the same calculation as above, results in a *measured* wavelength of
623.93 nm. Now, this line isn't anywhere in the catalog of elemental
spectral lines either, so it at first seems that I don't know what the
source is. I looks to be a completely new element.

But I notice in my reference table that there is a pair of lines that
has the same *ratio*. They are lines at 588.995 nm and 589.59 nm, which
*could* be this pair of lines if they were both shifted by a factor of
5.83%. Since this is the *only* pair of lines in the whole elemental
table that have this spacing, I say that I've discovered what element
was radiating this light. This is the first moment I've been able to
identify what element was the source of the light, long after I
measured the wavelength. It is indeed sodium, I claim, shifted by
5.83%. But you'll notice that my measured wavelength has not changed a
bit. The *measured* value of that (shifted sodium, I claim) light is
*still* 623.30 nm.
And when I look up what I did last week with my frequency-measuring
device, I find that the frequency was *measured* to be 4.8098E14 Hz.
Notice that I knew nothing about the source then, either.

Ken Seto:
Stop right here.....once you identified the source as sodium usng the
measured wavelength 623.30 nm of the incoming light, you then use the
observer's sodium wavelength (the universal wavelength for sodium 589nm) to
figure out the speed of the incoming light as follows:
c'= (Universal sodium wavelength 589nm)(measured incoming frequency
4.8098E14 Hz)

Remember that there is nothing during the transit of light that can change
the wavelength. The observed freuquency shift is due to the absolute motion
of the source or the observer wrt the light waves in the ether. This is
demonstrated clearly with the following example:
1. There is a source that generates water wave on the surface of a pond at a
rate
of N waves/sec.
2. You are in a boat moving toward the source and you detected (N+n)
waves/second.
3. The wavelength (lambda) of the water wave remains the same whether you
are stationary with the source or moving towartd or away from the source.
4. The speed of arrival of the water waves is calculated as follows:
Speed of arrival of water waves=lambda(N+n)/second.

__________________________________________________ _________

"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.

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

The result is that IRT is a complete theory of motion. It includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT its equations are valid in all
environment....including gravity. IOW, IRT has an unlimited domain of

Stupidity?

--

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:




"jem" wrote in message
locations?


All locations on earth share the same absolute motion.

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?


But the MMX is designed only to test the isotropy of the speed of light.

and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of


light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs.


Anistropy of the speed of light is caused by the source and the
detector
have different states of absolute motion.


And the reason that no previous MMX has detected anisotropy is because
the source and detector have always shared the same absolute motion.

Right?

Sure.....but vertical MMX will detect anisotropy because the two light
rays
are emanated from the reflecting mirrors at different heights (thus
different state of absolute motion)

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?


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?


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.

end of whatever!!!!!!!!

end of story