|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote: Hey idiot ....detected CHANGE in energy is due to the source and the detector have different potentials. Change in velocity is real if the wavelength is hold constant. The wavelength is not constant - gravitational RED SHIFT! -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: In the MMX the light source rotates as the apparatus is rotated. Any fringe shift (non-null result) as the apparatus is rotated means the speed of light is anisotropic in the plane of the light rays and no fringe shift (null result) as the apparatus is rotated means that speed of light is anisotropic in that plane of the light rays. There is no anisotropy. That is the point. It is your inability to understand what Pound and Rebka showed. The Pound and Rebka experiments show that gravitational red shift in the vertical direction. Gravutational red shift is due to anisotropy of the speed of light. Anisotropy of the speed of light is due to the source and the detector in different heights are in different state of absolute motion. No they show the CHANGE in energy due to interaction with a gravitational potential - no change in velocity! Hey idiot ....detected CHANGE in energy is due to the source and the detector have different potentials. Change in velocity is real if the wavelength is hold constant. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Cygnus X-1 wrote: Perhaps you would volunteer to be on that crew testing a trajectory computation with your theory for the first time? He,he,he Knowing Ken the above reminds me of a true story: After WWII, in a Balkan country ravaged by the Allied bombings firstly and by the German bombings in the latter stages of the war most of the railway bridges were destroyed. After the war, the railway ministry launched a reconstruction program. One engineer came up with the idea of skipping rebuilding the bridges altogether. - "Just build a ramp on each side of the opening, have the locomotive accelerate enough and the train will jump from one side to the other". The other engneers were rightfully horrified by the idiocy of the idea. But the proponent had a lot of clout and there were some other politcal reasons involved so no one dared to speak out. The minister in charge was not a fool, he summoned on of the mechanics professors from the university: -"Would this idea work?" asked the minister. -"Sure it will work" answered the old professor. "I suggest that we test it first. We put the proponent on the locomotive plate, next to the fireman. Accelerate the locomotive and have the fireman jump out when the speed is not too high. The locomotive with the idea proponent in it should complete the experiment". There was a deadly silence when the professor finished. The proponent was never heard from thereafter. End of story Now, can we find a locomotve to put Ken Seto on? |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: Hey idiot ....detected CHANGE in energy is due to the source and the detector have different potentials. Change in velocity is real if the wavelength is hold constant. The wavelength is not constant - gravitational RED SHIFT! Every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Therefore 589 nm is a universal constant for wavelength of sodium. Since there is nothing that can change the wavelength of sodium light during transit therefore any Doppler or Gravtational red shift is due to varying speed of light of incoming light. The fact that you can use your grating to measure a different wavelength for the incoming light merely means that you are defining a new wavelength for a new light source in your frame. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: All locations on earth share the same absolute motion. and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs. Anistropy of the speed of light is caused by the source and the detector have different states of absolute motion. Explain how you can state that "All locations on earth share the same absolute motion." I assume that all locations are of the same height. In that case all locations will have the same state of absolute motion. and "Anistropy of the speed of light is caused by the source and the detector have different states of absolute motion." When the MMX is performed vertically the two light rays were emanated from the reflecting mirrors at different heights as the apparatus is rotated and this is the cause of the anisotropy of the speed of light. Also this is the reason why a vertical MMX will see fringe shift as the apparatus is rotated. If the source and detector are on earth.... -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message . net... On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:18:27 -0500, kenseto wrote (in article ): "Cygnus X-1" wrote in message . net... On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:37:54 -0500, kenseto wrote (in article ): "Cygnus X-1" wrote in message . net... On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:33:22 -0500, kenseto wrote (in article ): Considering that this is one test that would be insisted by almost any competent reviewer of your theory, I insist on it not for me. You need it for your own credibility. Again, why would anyone use your theory if you can't demonstrate that it meshes seamlessly with existing observations? Then don't use it. I am not going to jump through hoops for you. In any case you physicists are too indoctrinated to accept any new idea .....come hell or high water. There's "New Ideas" and then there's "New Ideas that Work". How do you know that my new idea won't work?? What observations or experiments refute my new idea? Considering the number of 'new ideas' proposed by everyone from geniuses to cranks, how would *you* suggest we screen them? But you made the blanket statement that my new idea won't work without any supporting evidence for your assertion. You don't have to screen all new ideas. You pick the new ideas which you think that have the best possibility of success. Also you pick the new ideas that can explain the problems of current theories. Model Mechanics is such a candidate. Some researchers with established track records of discoveries get some preferential treatment, but they are still subjected to review and experimental validation (or at least theoretical consistency). Mr. Seto, do YOU have an established track record of discoveries? Any patents or other inventions? Why should we give your claim more weight than others? These rules are designed for runt like you. I don't have to follow them since I don't depend on the establishment to make a living. It would cost billions just to test all the cranks that post to the sci.physics.* and sci.astro.* newsgroups. It would be stupid to test all proposed theories. The advocates of a 'new idea' have to make the minimum effort of *explictly* demonstrating that their theories generate results consistent with well-studied scenarios. Model Mechanics does this and more. Sure I have.....the equations of IRT are converted from SRT equations. Any observations or experiments that agree with SRT will agree with IRT. After all SRT is a subset of IRT. Per your earlier post, you claim your 'new idea' is a simple substitution, replacing quantities like velocity, etc. with wavelengths and frequencies: c=Faa*Lambda relative veocity v=lambda(Faa-Fab) gamma=Faa/Fab 1/gamma=Fab/Faa Ken, what are the frequencies, Faa and Fab, of the two STEREO spacecraft (http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/where.shtml) currently moving in orbit between the Earth and the Moon, on its way to a heliocentric orbit? Faa and Fab are frequency measurements make by observer A of a standard light source (eg sodium) in the A and B frame. Obviously if you want to do any calculations using IRT equations you need to have periodic Fab data. We know how to get the spacecraft velocity in conventional theory. How do we get Faa and Fab to use your model? If your theory were a true simple substitution, then it could reproduce exactly the same as SR - no more. However, you do these odd redefinitions of gamma (which is velocity dependent in SR) and relative velocity which will alter those calculations. So the answers is no, it will not reproduce the exact same results as SR in those cases. And YOU have to demonstrate that it still works in those cases. I did not redefine gamma. In SR: f'=f_o(1/gamma) f'=Fab f_o=Faa Therefore Gamma=Faa/Fab and 1/gamma=Fab/Faa Ken Seto |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: The experiment has been in progress since the start of recorded history, Seto - the Earth retains its shape - different locations on its surface don't move in different directions. Hey idiot....I didn't say that different locations on earth move in different directions. I said that all locations on earth are in a state of absolute motion Do all locations on Earth simultaneously share the same absolute motion or do some locations have different absolute motion than other locations? All locations on earth share the same absolute motion. So then it must be the case that *all* MMX devices which are attached to the surface of the Earth, share the same absolute motion (i.e. speed and direction) at their points of attachment. Right? and this causes the isotropy and anistropy of the speed of light detected by the horizontal and vertical MMXs. Anistropy of the speed of light is caused by the source and the detector have different states of absolute motion. And the reason that no previous MMX has detected anisotropy is because the source and detector have always shared the same absolute motion. Right? And the absolute motion shared by the source and detector has always been perpendicular to the plane defined by the arms of the MMX devices. Right? |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote: Every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Therefore 589 nm is a universal constant for wavelength of sodium. Since there is nothing that can change the wavelength of sodium light during transit therefore any Doppler or Gravtational red shift is due to varying speed of light of incoming light. The fact that you can use your grating to measure a different wavelength for the incoming light merely means that you are defining a new wavelength for a new light source in your frame. You really do have a pretty crap level of physics don't you? I have never met someone so adamant they know better, ironic since you know less. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote: When the MMX is performed vertically the two light rays were emanated from the reflecting mirrors at different heights as the apparatus is rotated and this is the cause of the anisotropy of the speed of light. Also this is the reason why a vertical MMX will see fringe shift as the apparatus is rotated. WRONG WRONG WRONG -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , "kenseto" wrote: Every observer measures his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Therefore 589 nm is a universal constant for wavelength of sodium. Since there is nothing that can change the wavelength of sodium light during transit therefore any Doppler or Gravtational red shift is due to varying speed of light of incoming light. The fact that you can use your grating to measure a different wavelength for the incoming light merely means that you are defining a new wavelength for a new light source in your frame. You really do have a pretty crap level of physics don't you? I have never met someone so adamant they know better, ironic since you know less. You are a runt of the SRians: Definition for a runt of the SR SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto |
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 |