#131
|
|||
|
|||
The MMX Revisited
kenseto wrote: "Bob Cain" wrote in message ... wrote: If the MMX is performed in space the orientation of the plane of the light rays that gives the null result I will call it horizontal and the orientation that gives the non-null result I will call it vertical. What is the basis of your assumption that in space such an orientation will exist? If, on earth, you find a _null_ result when the perpendicular to the plane of the light rays passes through the earth's center, no matter when and no matter where you do such a measurement (as has been the case experimentally for more than a century), what direction could the earth possibly be moving through your fixed matrix (ether?) The MMX can only give null or non-null result. Null result means that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane of its light rays. Non-null result means that there is absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane of its light rays. Ok so far. That's all you can conclude from the MMX. Nothing about the motion of the whole earth. If the apparatus is attached to the earth it shares its motion at that point and whatever can be said of the motion of the apparatus can also be said of the motion of that bit of the earth. To be moving along that perpendicular in every experiment can only imply a) that the earth is moving in all directions at once, or This is a faulty conclusion. Sure is. b) that the "absolute" motion of the earth changes direction every time such an experiment is done to accommodate the orientation, or The MMX result does not say how the earth moves in the E-Matrix. Why not? It is attached to it. If MMX says anything about the motion of the apparatus it says the same thing about that to which it is attached. c) that there is no ether to measure "absolute" motion relative to. This can be settled by doing the experiments in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf Straw man. Until you dismiss the logical objections to your thought in a rational fashion there is absolutely no reason to do such an experiment no matter what you might think it demonstrates. Whatever the result, the conclusion you would draw would almost certainly bear no resemblance to that which would be drawn by others as demonstrated by your idiosyncratic conclusions about what MMX demonstrates. Continually linking to it to in answer to challenges does your argument no good whatsoever. Ken Seto a) is self contradictory, b) is absurd and we are left with c) as the only plausible implication. These cocnclusion is based on your naive understanding of the MMX result. LOL! Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
The MMX Revisited
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "Bob Cain" wrote in message ... wrote: If the MMX is performed in space the orientation of the plane of the light rays that gives the null result I will call it horizontal and the orientation that gives the non-null result I will call it vertical. What is the basis of your assumption that in space such an orientation will exist? If, on earth, you find a _null_ result when the perpendicular to the plane of the light rays passes through the earth's center, no matter when and no matter where you do such a measurement (as has been the case experimentally for more than a century), what direction could the earth possibly be moving through your fixed matrix (ether?) The MMX can only give null or non-null result. Null result means that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane of its light rays. Non-null result means that there is absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane of its light rays. Ok so far. That's all you can conclude from the MMX. Nothing about the motion of the whole earth. If the apparatus is attached to the earth it shares its motion at that point and whatever can be said of the motion of the apparatus can also be said of the motion of that bit of the earth. OK....that bit of the earth is in a stater of absolute motion parallel to the plane of the MMX light rays. But the plane of the light rays is changing in orientation in the E-Matrix continuously. That means that there is no definite direction of motion for that bit of the earth as a whole in the E-Matrix. To be moving along that perpendicular in every experiment can only imply a) that the earth is moving in all directions at once, or This is a faulty conclusion. Sure is. b) that the "absolute" motion of the earth changes direction every time such an experiment is done to accommodate the orientation, or The MMX result does not say how the earth moves in the E-Matrix. Why not? It is attached to it. If MMX says anything about the motion of the apparatus it says the same thing about that to which it is attached. c) that there is no ether to measure "absolute" motion relative to. This can be settled by doing the experiments in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf Straw man. Until you dismiss the logical objections to your thought in a rational fashion there is absolutely no reason to do such an experiment no matter what you might think it demonstrates. Whatever the result, the conclusion you would draw would almost certainly bear no resemblance to that which would be drawn by others as demonstrated by your idiosyncratic conclusions about what MMX demonstrates. Continually linking to it to in answer to challenges does your argument no good whatsoever. So a doble experiment to detect absolute motion is a straw man???? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of a straw man? shrug Ken Seto |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pluto Revisited, 2004/7/7 UT | Dave Mitsky | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | July 8th 04 03:18 PM |
MER Raw Image Naming System - revisited | mlm | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 2nd 04 04:59 PM |
Gay astronauts: Revisited | Jon Young | History | 4 | November 24th 03 12:55 PM |
The Drake Equation Revisited: Part I | Jason H. | SETI | 40 | October 9th 03 07:40 AM |
Free Aug.26 CA conf. w/Drake,Ward,Grinspoon re Drake Equation Revisited | Jason H. | SETI | 2 | August 26th 03 10:03 AM |