Interpreting the MMX null result

"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.

We can only go by what the experimental data says. The Pound and Rebka
experiments said that the speed of light is not isotropic vertically.

In article .com,
"oriel36" wrote:

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 bet you could turn a discussion about the decreasing fat content of
digestive biscuits over the last two decades round to being Newtons
fault.

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

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

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

"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.

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?

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

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.

So what about the fact there are several FT spectrometers operating in
space, away from the earth?

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

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

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

Dear kenseto:
....
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.

What you claim is that horizontal time (and distance) is different from
vertical time (and distance). And satellites "visible" near the
horizon are communicating on the *local* horizontal axis... to points
on the Earth.

Your "naivete" has led you to believe the one man's horizontal, is
horizontal over the whole path. That is a problem with absolutes...
they are intolerant of the gyrations you will now have to force them
through.

David A. Smith

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?

Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
not trying to detect the absolute motion of the apparatus at each
location? It is trying to detect the isotropy of the speed of light in
each horizontal location.

kenseto wrote:

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?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
not trying to detect the absolute motion of the apparatus at each
location? It is trying to detect the isotropy of the speed of light in
each horizontal location.


This certainly is puzzling. Is it now your position that the MMX
apparatus does NOT have absolute motion in the vertical direction?

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

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.

So what about the fact there are several FT spectrometers operating in
space, away from the earth?

So what about it? How is that related to the MMX performed on earth?


Ken Seto

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

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?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
not trying to detect the absolute motion of the apparatus at each
location? It is trying to detect the isotropy of the speed of light in
each horizontal location.


This certainly is puzzling. Is it now your position that the MMX
apparatus does NOT have absolute motion in the vertical direction?

No.....the vertical MMX detects the anisotropy of the speed of light in
the vertical direction. The anisotropy of the speed of light can be
interpreted that the apparatus is in a state of absolute motion wrt the
local vertical light rays.