A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #1  
Old November 18th 06, 04:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 06:12 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 06:36 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 09:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,378
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 11:33 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
G. L. Bradford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 11:36 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 ,
"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  
Old November 19th 06, 04:02 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Cygnus X-1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 04:26 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 05:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 09:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Sorcerer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default 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

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 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.