|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |