Interpreting the MMX null result

In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

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?

Speed and direction of absolute motion wrt what?


As you're propounding absolute motion, you tell us.


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?

NO.....if the MMXZ detected isotropy then it is perpendicular to the plane
frined by the arms of the MMX.

There was no anisotropy detected. You misunderstand gravitational
redshift. You claim your theory is a superset of relativity yet it does
not contain an invariant c.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in

message

news

In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72,
Sam Wormley wrote:



kenseto wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21...


kenseto wrote:



hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the

MMX


experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of

light


is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays.


Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical

properties


along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction,
particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one.


The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical

in

every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works.

Ken Seto

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every
location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion
of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in
relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction......
NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is
performed.



Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which

motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in
reality
it's attached?

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in

message

news

In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72,
Sam Wormley wrote:



kenseto wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21...


kenseto wrote:



hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the

MMX


experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of

light


is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays.


Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical

properties


along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction,
particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one.


The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical

in

every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works.

Ken Seto

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every
location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion
of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in
relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction......
NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is
performed.



Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which

motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in
reality
it's attached?

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in

message

news

In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72,
Sam Wormley wrote:



kenseto wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21...


kenseto wrote:



hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the

MMX


experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of

light


is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays.


Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical

properties


along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction,
particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one.


The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical

in

every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works.

Ken Seto

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every
location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion
of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in
relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction......
NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is
performed.



Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which

motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in
reality
it's attached?

jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:

"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in

message

news

In article PX58h.287652$1i1.147137@attbi_s72,
Sam Wormley wrote:



kenseto wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:eC48h.152118$aJ.116599@attbi_s21...


kenseto wrote:



hey idiot there is no need for the transformation equations in the

MMX


experiment. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of

light


is isotropic in the horizontal plane of the light rays.


Seto, the speed of light is isotropic, i.e., equal physical

properties


along all axes--horizontal, vertical, cockeyed, etc.

More puzzling is why it would not be isotropic in one direction,
particularly one whose designation is a purely arbitrary one.


The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical

in

every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works.

Ken Seto

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of every
location on Earth be in a different direction than the absolute motion
of every other location on Earth, while no two of those locations are in
relative motion? Is that just the way Nature works too?


Another puzzling question is: Why can't you understand that the MMX is
testing the isotropy of the speed of light at the horizontal direction......
NOT the absolute motion of the earth at each location where the MMX is
performed.



Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which
it's attached?

motion is relative as light is to the beholder so why not in reality?

In article om,
"visual word" wrote:

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which

motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in
reality

Because what you're saying is a crap metaphor and has no analogy to
reality

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

kenseto wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote:

The other puzzling question is: Why gravitational potential is vertical
in
every location on earth? The answer: that's the way nature works.

There's a world of difference in your two statements.

There is no difference if you accept the fact that gravity potential os the
result of different state of absolute motion in different heights.....the
different states of absolute motion at different heights cause the frequency
shift and thus the anisotropy of the speed of light at different heights.

Ken Seto

you mean why does gravity (which is created by mass) pull at other mass
objects?

T Wake wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
T Wake wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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.

I am still stunned after reading that mess and then trying to decipher
the thought processes that produced it.

I find its easier if you assume _no_ thought processes took place.

Good idea, that would be certainly less painful as well.

Don't talk to me about pain. Like an idiot I looked at Jeff Relf's
photograph. I don't think I can ever close my eyes again.

I'm turning the computer off _now_.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article om,
"visual word" wrote:

Another puzzling question is: how can the absolute motion of each MMX
apparatus be different than the absolute motion of the ground to which

motion is relative as light is to the beholder and so why not in
reality

Because what you're saying is a crap metaphor and has no analogy to
reality

But he/she/it is stuck in a posting loop, so it must have deep meaning.

sean wrote:
I ve done a few correct simulations of sagnac which show indisputably
that light travelling at c relative to the source will still give a
path difference and fringe shift when the setup rotates.

Then you make other assumptions, probably about how light reflects off
moving mirrors, that differ from the usual ones. The usual assumption is
that Snell's law holds in the rest frame of the mirror, and such
ballistic theories are refuted by the Sagnac measurements.


It was an
incorrect conclusion to say that only relativity can explain the sagnac
results.

Nobody ever made such a "conclusion".

In science we test theories, and the Sagnac experiment is consistent
with the predictions of SR. Yes, it is also consistent with the
predictions of other theories. But other than GR and theories equivalent
to SR, no other theory remains unrefuted when one looks at ALL of the
experiments.


In fact sagnac and gps can be explained by classical wave
theory as well or better than relativity,..

Not at all. For instance, "classical wave theory" has no way to predict
the variation in clock rates with altitude that are observed in the GPS.


Tom Roberts