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
  #241  
Old November 28th 06, 09:42 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:

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  
Old November 28th 06, 09:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 29th 06, 12:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default 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  
Old November 29th 06, 03:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 29th 06, 03:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 29th 06, 03:50 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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  
Old November 29th 06, 04:34 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
...

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  
Old November 29th 06, 06:55 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:

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  
Old November 29th 06, 06:55 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:

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  
Old November 29th 06, 10:24 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default 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

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 01:46 PM.


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.