| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 09:38:31 AM |
| Object: |
Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:48:34 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:HbyPg.4813$L15.368@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
ROTFLOL......the runts of the SRians got no relevant comments so they came
out in force attacking me.....shrug.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
19 Sep 2006 08:10:02 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:HbyPg.4813$L15.368@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
ROTFLOL......the runts of the SRians got no relevant comments so they came
out in force attacking me.....shrug.
Rather than attack you, I asked you a simple question about a numerical
result stemming from your theory. This is the second time you've
ignored the request. <shrug>
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 11:04:21 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto's immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:34:16 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9szPg.149566$FQ1.125423@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto's immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:33:49 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9szPg.149566$FQ1.125423@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto's immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
Wacko, wacko
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:29:32 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9szPg.149566$FQ1.125423@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:34:48 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9szPg.149566$FQ1.125423@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
wacko, wacko, keep eating it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:41:31 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the 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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Interesting comment from a kook who claims that that SR is a
subset of his own crank "theory".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 09:49:31 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 10:01:43 AM |
|
|
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
You are a idiot runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 10:06:19 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
You are a idiot runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never) . Keep eating it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:33:12 PM |
|
|
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158591978.908268.72240@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX)
is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This
means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and
the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations
is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in
my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
You are a idiot runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never) . Keep eating it.
Hey ***** head if I have the resources to do the experiments I wouldn't be
wasting my time talking to idiot like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Ken Seto - King Moron |
18 Sep 2006 05:12:39 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
if I have the resources to do the experiments I wouldn't be
wasting my time talking to idiot like you.
Then you have nothing, so shut up and continue eating what you have
been eating all along.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 11:13:16 AM |
|
|
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
He never will, he can't even figure out which
direction is "up".
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:37:35 PM |
|
|
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eemfpq$vge$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is
in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
He never will, he can't even figure out which
direction is "up".
George
You are an idiot runt of the SRians:
Definition for a runt of the 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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 12:32:52 PM |
|
|
George Dishman wrote:
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
He never will, he can't even figure out which
direction is "up".
George
Ha,ha,ha. The best!
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 01:19:26 PM |
|
|
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158600772.179375.78130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX)
is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is
in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
He never will, he can't even figure out which
direction is "up".
George
Ha,ha,ha. The best!
I can even prove it - read this and if still in doubt
look back over the somewhat rambling thread, messages
9 through 20.
http://tinyurl.com/odf8b
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 05:01:13 PM |
|
|
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eemn4m$4ok$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158600772.179375.78130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158590971.282006.290760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX)
is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This
means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and
the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations
is
in
the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in
my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Did you run the experiment, wacko? Not yet? Then go away, come back
when you have results (meaning never)
He never will, he can't even figure out which
direction is "up".
George
Ha,ha,ha. The best!
I can even prove it - read this and if still in doubt
look back over the somewhat rambling thread, messages
9 through 20.
http://tinyurl.com/odf8b
It proved that you are an idiot. That's all...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 11:02:43 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
What is the difference in absolute speed at the two endpoints (source
and detector) that you derive from the measured Pound-Rebka shift?
Proposed Experiments designed to support the above interpretations is in the
paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
18 Sep 2006 11:01:07 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
Not really.
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
A "proper explanation" would tell us why it is isotropic horizontally.
After all, this came as a rather big surprise when their paper first
came out.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Yes. But a computation in GR shows this is not detectable even for an
instrument a million times more sensitive than Brillet and Hall. And, of
course, experimentally it is completely impossible to construct an
interferometer that is sufficiently rigid while rotating in a vertical
plane. Indeed, Brillet and Hall ascribed their ~few parts in 10^15
systematic error primarily to a rotation axis off vertical by a few
MICROradians.
So while this effect is indeed predicted by GR, it is not feasible to
measure it experimentally, by many orders of magnitude.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
19 Sep 2006 08:45:07 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7YJPg.3128$e66.2279@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
Not really.
Yes really.
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is
isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
A "proper explanation" would tell us why it is isotropic horizontally.
After all, this came as a rather big surprise when their paper first
came out.
When they performed the experiment SR has not yet been invented. The
postulates of SR say that the speed of light is isotropic
horizontally.....in his 1905 paper Einstein said: tAB=tBA...remember?
IRT also posits that the speed of light is isotropic horizontally. It says
that the speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Also IRT posits that any frequency shift (gravitational or doppler) is due
to the different speed of the incoming light.
You can look up IRT in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
BTW why do I have to explain why what the postulate of SR says? Seems to me
I recall that you SRians said that you guy don't answer the why question.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means
that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Yes. But a computation in GR shows this is not detectable even for an
instrument a million times more sensitive than Brillet and Hall. And, of
course, experimentally it is completely impossible to construct an
interferometer that is sufficiently rigid while rotating in a vertical
plane. Indeed, Brillet and Hall ascribed their ~few parts in 10^15
systematic error primarily to a rotation axis off vertical by a few
MICROradians.
This is nonsense....you can modified the MMX as follows:
1. eliminate the granite slap.
2. the two right angled stiff arms are mounted on a sleeve bearing.
3. the source and the eye piece are also mounted on the sleeve bearing.
Thes modifications should confirm the Pound and Rebka results.
So while this effect is indeed predicted by GR, it is not feasible to
measure it experimentally, by many orders of magnitude.
Again this is nonsense. This experiment I proposed in the following link
will definitely be capable of measuring it experimentally.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
19 Sep 2006 09:07:53 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
This is nonsense....you can modified the MMX as follows:
1. eliminate the granite slap.
2. the two right angled stiff arms are mounted on a sleeve bearing.
3. the source and the eye piece are also mounted on the sleeve bearing.
Thes modifications should confirm the Pound and Rebka results.
So while this effect is indeed predicted by GR, it is not feasible to
measure it experimentally, by many orders of magnitude.
Again this is nonsense. This experiment I proposed in the following link
will definitely be capable of measuring it experimentally.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Then run it. Until then, shut up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proper explanation for the MMX null result. |
28 Sep 2006 04:58:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:01:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Proper explanation for the MMX null result:
Not really.
1. The null result of the MMX is due to that the speed of light is isotropic
HORIZONTALLY.
A "proper explanation" would tell us why it is isotropic horizontally.
After all, this came as a rather big surprise when their paper first
came out.
2. If the plane of the light rays (the right angled arms of the MMX) is
oriented vertically then non-null result will be observed. This means that
the speed of light is not isotropic in the vertical direction. This
interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments and the
predicted gravitational red shift in the vertical direction by GRT.
Yes. But a computation in GR shows this is not detectable even for an
instrument a million times more sensitive than Brillet and Hall. And, of
course, experimentally it is completely impossible to construct an
interferometer that is sufficiently rigid while rotating in a vertical
plane. Indeed, Brillet and Hall ascribed their ~few parts in 10^15
systematic error primarily to a rotation axis off vertical by a few
MICROradians.
So while this effect is indeed predicted by GR, it is not feasible to
measure it experimentally, by many orders of magnitude.
Light speed is source dependent.
.....hence the null result.
Simple eh?
Tom Roberts
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
(another world-shattering announcement coming soon)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
