Interpreting the MMX null result

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:07:49 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"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

No. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that the operation of these
instruments is consistent with your claim.

I'm just pointing out that the MMX configuration has operated in
reference frames beyond the surface of the Earth and at some
significant velocities.

My analysis will be ready when it's ready. I still have to contact the
instrument teams to ensure I'm interpreting their sensitivity
specifications correctly.

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"

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer

wrote
on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:47:47 GMT
:

"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

I was hoping for something a little more illuminating than that, but a
weblink would be acceptable.

In any event, both Sagnac and Pound-Rebka disprove SR.


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
|




--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }

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

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.

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

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

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

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
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.

Ken can't say two things without creating three separate
contradictions.


--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

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

--
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 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:47:47 GMT
| :
|
| "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
|
| I was hoping for something a little more illuminating than that, but a
| weblink would be acceptable.
|
| In any event, both Sagnac and Pound-Rebka disprove SR.

Ok, that's true, but Pound-Rebka was a GR test anyway.
Since you are now into actual measurement, SR claims

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must
go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

There is no significant difficulty in placing a caesium clock at the edge of
McMurdo Sound.
That little ****er Einstein didn't think anyone would reach the
South pole that easily when he said that in 1905, let alone take a clock:
1902

Captain Scott, UK, leads his first Antarctic expedition to reach the South
Pole, with Ernest Shackleton and Edward Wilson. They are forced to turn back
two months later having reached 82 degrees south, suffering from snow
blindness and scurvy.


Nowadays comparing clocks is easy, we have GPS.
Ask the idiot troll Roberts and he'll say the GR effect exactly offsets the
SR
effect and mutter "geoid", he's a bull****ting ******* that wants you to
think he's knowledgeable, then he'll tell you to study "Spacetime Physics".
In seven years I've never once seen Roberts attempt any data, and
Dork Van de ****head can't even draw a decent diagram on his own
web site.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
"We use 3 inertial reference frames"
"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years "
5 =10?
And this is from the fumble mumbler himself, "Home is where the farts blow".

To make the twin pair o' dorks work, instantaneously jump
the origin of the frame to turnaround, it won't work by changing
the sign of v.
tau = (t+vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

The faster you go the longer it takes to arrive, and that moron
is too stupid to see it.

Until you have the balls to tell him he's a **** you may as well
condone the Taliban and Al Qeada as well, Einsteinism is a terrorist
religion with bullies for its priests.

Sam Wormley wrote:
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.

How you do this day in and day out is quite amazing and far from
criticising anyone,I applaud your ability to create a fictional story
out of Newton's agernda and talk for 100 years about it,not just the
relativists but everyone.

I think relativity is great for highlighting what Newton actually did
wrong but there seems to be no momentum in the direction of actually
correcting the matter which amounts to a geometrical principle applied
to astronomy.There is nothing too difficult in spotting that Newton
does not recognise how the orbital motions of the planets around the
Sun are seen from an orbitally moving Earth thereby negating the
needless framehopping to the Sun ('absolute space ' in his lingo).

The good news is that everyone gets a clean slate with excellent 21st
century observations to work with.I suspect that most would lounge
around in trhe well worn arguments which have existed since Newton's
highly 'creative' ad hoc solution for planetary motion forced into the
Ra/Dec system by way of terrestial ballistics.

In article . com,
"Eric Gisse" wrote:


Ken can't say two things without creating three separate
contradictions.

Thats a hell of a feat

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

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

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

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?

"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

"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message
. net...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:07:49 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ):


"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

No. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that the operation of these
instruments is consistent with your claim.

You made the blanket statement that these orbiting Michelson Interferometers
will refute what I claimed. So it is up to you to support your statements.
BTW what I claimed is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments.

I'm just pointing out that the MMX configuration has operated in
reference frames beyond the surface of the Earth and at some
significant velocities.

So what?? How is that refute my claim that the vertical MMX will give
non-null result?

My analysis will be ready when it's ready. I still have to contact the
instrument teams to ensure I'm interpreting their sensitivity
specifications correctly.

So you made blanket statements without experimental support?

Ken Seto