A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interpreting the MMX null result



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old December 19th 06, 10:03 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

This is ridiculus: The detector detects the same relative velocity c from
different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?

You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.


You must have plenty to waste with your inability to understand
spectroscopy.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

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

Ads
  #342  
Old December 19th 06, 10:31 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 622
Default Interpreting the MMX null result


"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

This is ridiculus: The detector detects the same relative velocity c from
different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?

You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.


You must have plenty to waste with your inability to understand
spectroscopy.


Well, lets be serious here. What else do Seto have to do but post nonsense
on USENET? It is not as if he is trying to learn anything, reading books,
doing experiments or anything.


  #343  
Old December 19th 06, 10:32 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

In article ,
"T Wake" wrote:

You must have plenty to waste with your inability to understand
spectroscopy.


Well, lets be serious here. What else do Seto have to do but post nonsense
on USENET? It is not as if he is trying to learn anything, reading books,
doing experiments or anything.


Point taken ;-)

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

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

  #344  
Old December 20th 06, 05:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
jem[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message


...


kenseto wrote:




jem wrote:




kenseto wrote:




that


there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.


Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means


that

there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed


of

that motion is constant.



OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light


from

different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.


Where "the same relative motion" means ...?



This is ridiculus:


That's one of your few accurate statements (spelling aside).

The detector detects the same relative velocity c from
different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.


No, Seto. "Relative motion" doesn't necessarily mean "relative
velocity", however if that's what you want it to mean in your revised
mantra, then your mantra is still wrong, since the relative velocities
of the light along the 2 MMX paths are not the same (because they're at
least directionally different).

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?


You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.


*I'm* wasting *your* time, Seto? Did I waste your time by forcing you
to spend a dozen posts insisting on the correctness of your MMX mantra,
before you finally admitted it was wrong?

If, by some small chance, we can avoid spending another dozen posts
getting you to realize that your mantra term "relative motion" needs to
be replaced by "relative speed", then we can get back where we were some
12 posts ago, before I wasted so nuch of your time getting you to
recognize your mistakes.
  #345  
Old December 23rd 06, 05:09 PM posted to sci.physics.relativityo,sci.physics,sci.astro
jem[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message



...


kenseto wrote:




jem wrote:




kenseto wrote:




that


there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.



Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means



that

there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed



of

that motion is constant.




OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light



from

different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.



Where "the same relative motion" means ...?




This is ridiculus:



That's one of your few accurate statements (spelling aside).

The detector detects the same relative velocity c from

different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.



No, Seto. "Relative motion" doesn't necessarily mean "relative
velocity", however if that's what you want it to mean in your revised
mantra, then your mantra is still wrong, since the relative velocities
of the light along the 2 MMX paths are not the same (because they're at
least directionally different).

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?


You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.



*I'm* wasting *your* time, Seto? Did I waste your time by forcing you
to spend a dozen posts insisting on the correctness of your MMX mantra,
before you finally admitted it was wrong?

If, by some small chance, we can avoid spending another dozen posts
getting you to realize that your mantra term "relative motion" needs to
be replaced by "relative speed", then we can get back where we were some
12 posts ago, before I wasted so nuch of your time getting you to
recognize your mistakes.


You're so predictable, Seto - any time you find yourself too close to
recognizing that your world view is nonsense, you cover up your ears and
run away. Preserving delusions, as blatant as your's, isn't easy, is it?

  #346  
Old December 23rd 06, 06:06 PM posted to sci.physics.relativityo,sci.physics,sci.astro
jem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message



...


kenseto wrote:




jem wrote:




kenseto wrote:




that


there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.



Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means



that

there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed



of

that motion is constant.




OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light



from

different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.



Where "the same relative motion" means ...?




This is ridiculus:



That's one of your few accurate statements (spelling aside).

The detector detects the same relative velocity c from

different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.



No, Seto. "Relative motion" doesn't necessarily mean "relative
velocity", however if that's what you want it to mean in your revised
mantra, then your mantra is still wrong, since the relative velocities
of the light along the 2 MMX paths are not the same (because they're at
least directionally different).

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?


You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.



*I'm* wasting *your* time, Seto? Did I waste your time by forcing you
to spend a dozen posts insisting on the correctness of your MMX mantra,
before you finally admitted it was wrong?

If, by some small chance, we can avoid spending another dozen posts
getting you to realize that your mantra term "relative motion" needs to
be replaced by "relative speed", then we can get back where we were some
12 posts ago, before I wasted so nuch of your time getting you to
recognize your mistakes.


You're so predictable, Seto - any time you find yourself too close to
recognizing that your world view is nonsense, you cover up your ears and
run away. Preserving delusions, as blatant as your's, isn't easy, is it?



  #347  
Old December 23rd 06, 06:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
jem[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Interpreting the MMX null result

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message



...


kenseto wrote:




jem wrote:




kenseto wrote:




that


there is no relative motion between the detector and the light rays
from
different directions within the plane of the arms.



Outside of Setoland, my parrotic pen pal, isotropy in the MMX means



that

there IS relative motion between the detector and the light rays from
different directions within the plane of the arms, and that the speed



of

that motion is constant.




OK....you got me. I should have said that isotropy means that light



from

different directions in the plane of the arms have the same relative
motion
wrt the detector.



Where "the same relative motion" means ...?




This is ridiculus:



That's one of your few accurate statements (spelling aside).

The detector detects the same relative velocity c from

different direction. That's why the same relative motion means.



No, Seto. "Relative motion" doesn't necessarily mean "relative
velocity", however if that's what you want it to mean in your revised
mantra, then your mantra is still wrong, since the relative velocities
of the light along the 2 MMX paths are not the same (because they're at
least directionally different).

Kind of hard to define your terms when you don't know what you're
talking about, isn't it Seto?


You are an arsehole an dyou are wasting my time.



*I'm* wasting *your* time, Seto? Did I waste your time by forcing you
to spend a dozen posts insisting on the correctness of your MMX mantra,
before you finally admitted it was wrong?

If, by some small chance, we can avoid spending another dozen posts
getting you to realize that your mantra term "relative motion" needs to
be replaced by "relative speed", then we can get back where we were some
12 posts ago, before I wasted so nuch of your time getting you to
recognize your mistakes.


You're so predictable, Seto - any time you find yourself too close to
recognizing that your world view is nonsense, you cover up your ears and
run away. Preserving delusions, as blatant as your's, isn't easy, is it?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proper explanation for the MMX null result. kenseto Astronomy Misc 23 September 28th 06 10:58 PM
"Interpreting Astronomical Spectra", D. Emerson Greg Heath Astronomy Misc 0 August 29th 06 05:44 AM
Best novice result yet Spurs Dave UK Astronomy 0 May 11th 06 03:58 PM
Astronomy Course Result Sir Loin Steak UK Astronomy 1 September 18th 04 11:41 PM
Null test lens for a 30" F/4 mirror? Lawrence Sayre Amateur Astronomy 3 March 4th 04 06:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.