Interpreting the MMX null result

Cygnus X-1 wrote:
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"

Pity you will never get the Newtonian celestial sphere geometrical joke
at the core of all this -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

The way axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into
orbital motion to an aether is a thousand times more enthralling than
the fables which are recycled here over and over again.

I genuinely thought that at least one person would be relieved to
actually understand what Isaac was doing with his absolute/relative
definitiions but apparently geometry is not among a mathematician's
strongest point.

The problem is that none of you are Christians,the intuitive
intelligence which affirms or rejects concepts based on physical
considerations does not exist or is substituted with undisciplined
guesswork.Allowing the celestial cycles and from there to celestial
structure dictates the satisfying outcome of our curiousity .

"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
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

My interpretations for the MMX is that the null result is due to the
isotropy of the speed of light in the horizontal plane of the light rays and
that the MMX will give non-null result (anisotopy of the speed of light) if
the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically. Are you saying that
there are Michelson interferometers flying around that will refute these
interpretatons? If so how?

Ken Seto

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

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

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"

"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"

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:36:28 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
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


Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth?

The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different
locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions.



If they are not relevant, why did you write,

I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not
relative.

"This conclusion is
supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational
potential) in the vertical direction"?

Because that's what the experimental data show.

Like geesey, you obviously enjoy making a fool of yourself.

The MMX null result simply shows that light speed is source dependent.

Idiot......

Art Deco wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

The problem is that none of you are Christians,the intuitive
intelligence which affirms or rejects concepts based on physical
considerations does not exist or is substituted with undisciplined
guesswork.Allowing the celestial cycles and from there to celestial
structure dictates the satisfying outcome of our curiousity .

Nice word salad. BTW -- do you know Andy Chunk?


Sorry about your severe reading disability,I suspect you may think that
Newton's explicit rejection of an aether in 1704 is also a word salad
but then again,it is not my problem -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no
solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." NEWTON

So you have a really funny situation where Newton rejects aether but
relativity forces aether back on Newton in order to reject it all over
again.Sorry about the word salad but whatever salad that is going
inside your heads I do think it must be the most cheesy salad ever
created.

I well understand what the 'genius' of relativity was and it had
everything if you planned to have a fixed star universe but then
galaxies and galactic rotation showed up.In short,there is a high
probability that the solar system's galactic orbital motion in one
direction around the galactic axis conditions orbital heliocentric
motion in some way but to begin considering that you have to let go of
local solutions such gravity wells and other exotic nonsense.












--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:24:54 GMT
:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:36:28 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
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


Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth?

The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different
locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions.



If they are not relevant, why did you write,

I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not
relative.

"This conclusion is
supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational
potential) in the vertical direction"?

Because that's what the experimental data show.

Like geesey, you obviously enjoy making a fool of yourself.

The MMX null result simply shows that light speed is source dependent.

Idiot......


No, H. Wilson's correct *IF* one assumes the Galilean transformation.
MMX shows that lightspeed is always c, relative to the source. It
disproved the rigid aether hypothesis.

(Other experiments indicate lightspeed is c relative to the destination
as well, even if the source is in fact moving.)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

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

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:52:10 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:24:54 GMT
:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:36:28 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
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


Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth?

The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different
locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions.



If they are not relevant, why did you write,

I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not
relative.

"This conclusion is
supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational
potential) in the vertical direction"?

Because that's what the experimental data show.

Like geesey, you obviously enjoy making a fool of yourself.

The MMX null result simply shows that light speed is source dependent.

Idiot......


No, H. Wilson's correct *IF* one assumes the Galilean transformation.
MMX shows that lightspeed is always c, relative to the source. It
disproved the rigid aether hypothesis.

(Other experiments indicate lightspeed is c relative to the destination
as well, even if the source is in fact moving.)

What other experiments Ghost?

Have a look at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe if you want to see how
stupid your theory is. It 's just an aether theory anyway.


--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.