Interpreting the MMX null result

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

KenSeto

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:09:14 GMT
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.

KenSeto


Ken, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties
along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

The speed of light is indeed isotropic, but how does one prove that it
is in fact invariant as well?

That is the question that the non-SRians appear to be struggling with.
Newtonian physics (e.g., BaTh) also postulates isotropic lightspeed.

--
#191,
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

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

In article ,
"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.

KenSeto


Ken, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties
along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

Idiot runt

"Eppur si muove"

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html

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

"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.

KenSeto


Ken, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties
along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

Idiot runt

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.

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html

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

Yawn...
****ed again, trying to save face with the lightweights, ewill?

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
|

"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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:09:14 GMT
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.

KenSeto


Ken, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical properties
along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

The speed of light is indeed isotropic, but how does one prove that it
is in fact invariant as well?

Do the MMX with the plane of the light rays oriented vertically or perform
the experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf



That is the question that the non-SRians appear to be struggling with.
Newtonian physics (e.g., BaTh) also postulates isotropic lightspeed.

--
#191,
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer

wrote
on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:44:26 GMT
:
Yawn...
****ed again, trying to save face with the lightweights, ewill?

You're the heavyweight here; you explain Pound Rebka.


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
|





--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:44:26 GMT
| :
| Yawn...
| ****ed again, trying to save face with the lightweights, ewill?
|
| You're the heavyweight here; you explain Pound Rebka.

Do your own homework, I'm tired. Seven years of battling ****wits takes its
toll.
There are more interesting (to me) aspects of physics to discuss than Worms.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/rephoton.gif

Androcles



|
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
| ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| #191,
| Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
| void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
|
| --
| Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|