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

"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