|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the
apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72... kenseto wrote: The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth? The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71... kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72... kenseto wrote: The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth? The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions. If they are not relevant, why did you write, I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not relative. "This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction"? Because that's what the experimental data show. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:36:28 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71... kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72... kenseto wrote: The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth? The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions. If they are not relevant, why did you write, I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not relative. "This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction"? Because that's what the experimental data show. Like geesey, you obviously enjoy making a fool of yourself. The MMX null result simply shows that light speed is source dependent. QED. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"kenseto" wrote in message . .. "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:qnH7h.241862$FQ1.165522@attbi_s71... kenseto wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:7uF7h.285935$1i1.44275@attbi_s72... kenseto wrote: The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto Horizontal with respect to what? The spinning Earth? The directions of horizontal or vertical are not relative. Different locations on earth have different horizontal and vertical directions. If they are not relevant, why did you write, I didn't say that they are not relevant. I said that they are not relative. "This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction"? Because that's what the experimental data show. Not needed. The Principle of Uncertainty does the job just fine. The absolute of position is that every point (without exception) of an infinite Universe is the exact, absolute, fixed center of the Universe. The ground zero (0) of local or foreground universe, leaving non-locality, in this case the remotest background Universe, such as "c = Unity = 1," the absolute of velocity (therefore the 'out of bounds' of all relative -- all finite -- velocities ('v'). Independent of all of local or relative velocities, Even 'anti-velocity velocity' (?) if you prefer). Motion is anything between the two absolutes, relatively speaking. Except overall, as the third metric of three, it has no absoluteness of its own. Except generally speaking (where completely unspecified: archetypically: stereotypically: indeterminate), there is no such thing as absolute motion. Gravitational redshifting in local foreground universes is probably based upon the universal constant of gravity, 'G', the non-localizable archetypical (the stereotypical). Remote background Universe stuff such as "G = Unity = 1," the absolute of gravity, therefore the 'out of bounds' of all relative -- all finite -- gravities ('g'). Independent of all local or relative gravities. "Anti-gravity gravity" (?) if you prefer. Enter 'verticality'? Enter 'vacuum' or 'void'? Enter 'deep space'? Enter 'Multiverse'? Any sense of 'vertigo' yet? Any sense of 'vacuum' or 'void' yet? Any sense of 'chaos' or 'disorder' yet? Any sense of 'float' yet? Any sense of 'early', 'primitive', 'primal', 'primordial', 'primeval', 'primary', 'fundamental', 'non-local', 'remote', 'background', 'wild', 'frontier', Universe (U, versus u) yet? Any sense of "Unity" (U, versus u) yet? Any sense of 'Horizon' yet? Of 'Merger' yet? Of "One" ('1') yet? Of Singularity (versus Plurality) yet? Of archetypical or stereotypical yet? Of 'anti' yet? Of 'All' (as in "Cosmic All", or "All Mankind," or "All Life") yet? Of "absolute" yet? Of 'independency' yet? Of "not relative" yet? The holy trinity of "absolute" are 'infinite', 'infinitesimal', and 'universal constancy'. The odd man out is 'finite'. Regarding "finite," 'infinite' being relatively indistinguishable from '1'; 'infinitesimal' being relatively indistinguishable from '0'; 'universal constancy' (all universal constants) being relatively indistinguishable from 'independency' .. . . thank God! GLB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"G. L. Bradford" wrote: Any sense of 'vertigo' yet? Any sense of 'vacuum' or 'void' yet? Any sense of 'chaos' or 'disorder' yet? Any sense of 'float' yet? Any sense of 'early', 'primitive', 'primal', 'primordial', 'primeval', 'primary', 'fundamental', 'non-local', 'remote', 'background', 'wild', 'frontier', Universe (U, versus u) yet? Any sense of "Unity" (U, versus u) yet? Any sense of 'Horizon' yet? Of 'Merger' yet? Of "One" ('1') yet? Of Singularity (versus Plurality) yet? Of archetypical or stereotypical yet? Of 'anti' yet? Of 'All' (as in "Cosmic All", or "All Mankind," or "All Life") yet? Of "absolute" yet? Of 'independency' yet? Of "not relative" yet? I'm getting the sense you're an idiot. -- Thermodynamics claims another crown! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:07:42 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ): The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 "They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, what their experimental programs are, etc. Tom Roberts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Dear Tom Roberts:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... Cygnus X-1 wrote: This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, what their experimental programs are, etc. I haven't followed the thread, so I am not saying these have anything to do with what Cygnus X-1 is talking about... http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD005322.shtml ENVISAT http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17451435 SWIFT http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/windii.asp WINDII Spacelab had SITE and WAMDII, don't know if they ever flew http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/15/12/009 .... a paper discussing a proposal ... http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Wh...CESEGMENT?l=en IASI http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_S...xperiment.html ACE-FTS EO3-GIFTS is supposed to go up in 2007-2009 COROT goes up in December FIRAS and COBE, of course... http://grus.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ngst/michelson.html NASA-TIMED http://www.timed.jhuapl.edu/WWW/comm..._factsheet.pdf .... not sure if it qualifys... Getting bored, and Google won't accept more than 10 keywords... ;) HTH David A. Smith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... | Cygnus X-1 wrote: | This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson | interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the | Earth and one orbiting L1. | | References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of | their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY | interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, | what their experimental programs are, etc. It doesn't matter whether it's actually true or not, this is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant. Ref: om |
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 |