| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2006 09:27:36 AM |
| Object: |
Unfication of Physics |
The paper in the following link describes a new model of the universe called
Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of relativity
call IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the eqautations
of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. Also Model
Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity call DTG. The equations of
DTG and IRT resolve all the problematic cosmological observations such as
the rotational curves of the galaxies, the accelerated expansion of the far
reached regions of the universe, the anormalous paths of travel of Pioneer
10 and 11 and the perceived horizon problem of the universe.
Model Mechanics is based on the existence of absolute motion. Experiments to
determine the magnitude and direction of absolute motion on earth are also
included in the link.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Also please visit my website. There are other interesting papers on Model
Mechanics in this site.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006home.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 04:35:03 PM |
|
|
HeadUpHisAss Ken Seto wrote:
<irrelevant ***** rantings snipped>
Ken Seto
So you think that you have a Theory of Universal Nothing? we agree,
*****. Now, *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 04:57:28 PM |
|
|
"dda1" <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150925703.093440.252080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
HeadUpHisAss Ken Seto wrote:
<irrelevant ***** rantings snipped>
Ken Seto
So you think that you have a Theory of Universal Nothing? we agree,
*****. Now, *****.
Don't sit on the fence. Tell the runt-Seto what you really think of him.
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 06:58:19 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"dda1" <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150925703.093440.252080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
HeadUpHisAss Ken Seto wrote:
<irrelevant ***** rantings snipped>
Ken Seto
So you think that you have a Theory of Universal Nothing? we agree,
*****. Now, *****.
Don't sit on the fence. Tell the runt-Seto what you really think of him.
:-)
ha-ha-ha. Ok : " I wish he never had children. specimens like him
should be castrated".
Howzat?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
22 Jun 2006 01:04:23 PM |
|
|
"dda1" <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150934299.318425.284660@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"dda1" <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150925703.093440.252080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
HeadUpHisAss Ken Seto wrote:
<irrelevant ***** rantings snipped>
Ken Seto
So you think that you have a Theory of Universal Nothing? we agree,
*****. Now, *****.
Don't sit on the fence. Tell the runt-Seto what you really think of him.
:-)
ha-ha-ha. Ok : " I wish he never had children. specimens like him
should be castrated".
Howzat?
Better. You need to work on letting your feelings out more. Really tell the
k00ks how much you.... care... for them...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 09:31:10 AM |
|
|
In article <sHcmg.62594$mh.10188@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The paper in the following link describes
nothing
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 10:01:00 AM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:210620061531107179%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
In article <sHcmg.62594$mh.10188@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The paper in the following link describes
nothing
You are 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: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
21 Jun 2006 10:05:30 AM |
|
|
In article <Madmg.79350$P2.60631@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:210620061531107179%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
In article <sHcmg.62594$mh.10188@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
The paper in the following link describes
nothing
You are 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
And you're a mindless crank with no idea of what he's attacking, merely
thinking he is on the fast track to knowledge..
*PLONK* Cranky boy
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
22 Jun 2006 06:22:04 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on the existence of absolute motion. Experiments to
determine the magnitude and direction of absolute motion on earth are also
included in the link.
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
22 Jun 2006 08:30:02 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:Uf2dneQ1eod84AfZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
Model Mechanics is based on the existence of absolute motion.
Experiments to
determine the magnitude and direction of absolute motion on earth are
also
included in the link.
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Sure....every object in the universe is in a state of absolute motion.....no
exception. The state of absolute motion of a clock determines the rate of
passage of clock seconds of the clock. That's why an observer will see
clocks moving wrt him can run fast or slow compared to his clock. Also the
state of absolute motion of a ruler will affect it light path length. That's
why an observer will see identical ruler to have light path length longer or
shorter than the light path length of his own ruler.
Ken Seto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
22 Jun 2006 03:45:06 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Sure....every object in the universe is in a state of absolute motion.....no
exception.
If I were in one, how would I measure the direction and magnitude of
my absolute motion?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
22 Jun 2006 03:57:35 PM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:PLSdne1_CNBKnAbZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Sure....every object in the universe is in a state of absolute
motion.....no
exception.
If I were in one, how would I measure the direction and magnitude of
my absolute motion?
Do the experiment in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
23 Jun 2006 01:00:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:57:35 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:PLSdne1_CNBKnAbZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Sure....every object in the universe is in a state of absolute
motion.....no exception.
If I were in one, how would I measure the direction and magnitude of
my absolute motion?
Do the experiment in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
[1] OK, I orient the experiment in the more or less usual position, with
the light ray parallel to the Earth's surface, pointing west. For
simplicity, I will specify the Tropic of Cancer during the summer
solstice, with the sun directly overhead. Assuming a perfectly circular
Earth orbit with an orbital speed of 10^-4 c, a rotational speed of about
and further assuming that the Sun is perfectly still with respect to the
Universe's center, how much error would your experiment be able to
tolerate before your results become completely unusable? Also, what are
the possible sources of error? For example, shutter speed and first
photon wavelength might be an issue.
[2] The Sun is actually moving around the Galactic core. Estimates vary
but the usual suggested speed is about 10^-3 c. How would this affect the
results, and by how much?
[3] Would it matter whether the ray is going eastward, westward,
northward, or southward, and by how much?
[4] Now move the experiment to the diametrically opposite point of the
Earth (Tropic of Capricorn, local midnight), and repeat [1]-[3]. How much
would the results be affected?
[5] In the case of [4] there might also be a second order effect since the
point of the Earth at the night side is just a smidge farther away from
the Sun than the day side. What, if any, effect would this have on the
experiment?
[6] The Moon is well known to influence tides. How much influence would
it have on the experiment?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
23 Jun 2006 08:09:18 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:57:35 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:PLSdne1_CNBKnAbZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
Could a ship in intergalactic space have absolute motion?
Sure....every object in the universe is in a state of absolute
motion.....no exception.
If I were in one, how would I measure the direction and magnitude of
my absolute motion?
Do the experiment in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the direction of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is vertical and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my proposed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments.
[1] OK, I orient the experiment in the more or less usual position, with
the light ray parallel to the Earth's surface, pointing west. For
simplicity, I will specify the Tropic of Cancer during the summer
solstice, with the sun directly overhead. Assuming a perfectly circular
Earth orbit with an orbital speed of 10^-4 c, a rotational speed of about
and further assuming that the Sun is perfectly still with respect to the
Universe's center, how much error would your experiment be able to
tolerate before your results become completely unusable? Also, what are
the possible sources of error? For example, shutter speed and first
photon wavelength might be an issue.
[2] The Sun is actually moving around the Galactic core. Estimates vary
but the usual suggested speed is about 10^-3 c. How would this affect the
results, and by how much?
[3] Would it matter whether the ray is going eastward, westward,
northward, or southward, and by how much?
[4] Now move the experiment to the diametrically opposite point of the
Earth (Tropic of Capricorn, local midnight), and repeat [1]-[3]. How much
would the results be affected?
[5] In the case of [4] there might also be a second order effect since the
point of the Earth at the night side is just a smidge farther away from
the Sun than the day side. What, if any, effect would this have on the
experiment?
[6] The Moon is well known to influence tides. How much influence would
it have on the experiment?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
25 Jun 2006 04:00:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
[quoted text muted]
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the direction of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is vertical and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my proposed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments.
OK; how about performing the experiment during a different time of day or
a different season of the year?
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horizontal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seriously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MMX, and
that means it was at about N 41° 28', give or take, latitude. Assuming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be off by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". I drop a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as well.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbiting the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vertical" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 09:00:10 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
[quoted text muted]
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the direction of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is vertical =
and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my proposed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments.
OK; how about performing the experiment during a different time of day or
a different season of the year?
Sigh....does the Pound and Rebka experiments give different results for
the direction of absolute motion at different season of the year? The
answer is no..... the direction of absolute motion remains vertical at
all seasons. My proposed experiments will definitely be able to confirm
this conclusion.
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horizontal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seriously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MMX, and
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude. Assuming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be off by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". I drop a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as well.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbiting the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vertical" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
=20
--=20
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 09:29:37 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
[quoted text muted]
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the direction =
of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is vertica=
l and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my proposed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and Rebka
experiments.
OK; how about performing the experiment during a different time of day =
or
a different season of the year?
Sigh....does the Pound and Rebka experiments give different results for
the direction of absolute motion at different season of the year? The
answer is no..... the direction of absolute motion remains vertical at
all seasons. My proposed experiments will definitely be able to confirm
this conclusion.
Note that one would *expect* that the Pound and Rebka experiments would
give different results for different seasons. The reason is, of course,
that the ether is presumed not to move, and that the Earth moves
through it in different directions (and in fact at different speeds) at
different seasons.
This would normally be conclusive evidence that interpreting the
Pound-Rebka result as evidence for absolute motion would be a serious
error. Seto, however, is not normal.
PD
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horizontal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seriously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MMX, and
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude. Assumi=
ng
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be off by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". I drop=
a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as well.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbiting the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vertical" =
in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 09:50:05 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
[quoted text muted]
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the directio=
n of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is verti=
cal and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my proposed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and Reb=
ka
experiments.
OK; how about performing the experiment during a different time of da=
y or
a different season of the year?
Sigh....does the Pound and Rebka experiments give different results for
the direction of absolute motion at different season of the year? The
answer is no..... the direction of absolute motion remains vertical at
all seasons. My proposed experiments will definitely be able to confirm
this conclusion.
Note that one would *expect* that the Pound and Rebka experiments would
give different results for different seasons. The reason is, of course,
that the ether is presumed not to move, and that the Earth moves
through it in different directions (and in fact at different speeds) at
different seasons.
Ah....but the direction of absolute motion of the detector is NOT wrt
the earth's surface. It is wrt the direction of motion of the light
ray. If the direction of absolute motion of the detector is in the same
direction as the light ray then you will get frequency shift....as in
the case of the Pound and Rebks experiments. If the direction of
absolute motion of the detector is perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the light ray then you will not get frequency shift....as in
the case of the MMX experiments. Different season has no effect on how
you define the direction of motion of the light ray.
Ken Seto
This would normally be conclusive evidence that interpreting the
Pound-Rebka result as evidence for absolute motion would be a serious
error. Seto, however, is not normal.
PD
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horizonta=
l).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seriously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MMX, a=
nd
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude. Assu=
ming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be off =
by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". I dr=
op a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as well.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbiting =
the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vertical=
" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 10:24:36 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" < > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.23.05.36.36.902416@earthlink.net...
[quoted text muted]
Ghost:
As usual....you use observed relative motion to define the direct=
ion of
absolute motion. On earth the direction of absolute motion is ver=
tical and
this is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiments and my propo=
sed
experiments are designed to verify the results of the Pound and R=
ebka
experiments.
OK; how about performing the experiment during a different time of =
day or
a different season of the year?
Sigh....does the Pound and Rebka experiments give different results f=
or
the direction of absolute motion at different season of the year? The
answer is no..... the direction of absolute motion remains vertical at
all seasons. My proposed experiments will definitely be able to confi=
rm
this conclusion.
Note that one would *expect* that the Pound and Rebka experiments would
give different results for different seasons. The reason is, of course,
that the ether is presumed not to move, and that the Earth moves
through it in different directions (and in fact at different speeds) at
different seasons.
Ah....but the direction of absolute motion of the detector is NOT wrt
the earth's surface. It is wrt the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
If the direction of absolute motion of the detector is in the same
direction as the light ray then you will get frequency shift....as in
the case of the Pound and Rebks experiments. If the direction of
absolute motion of the detector is perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the light ray then you will not get frequency shift....as in
the case of the MMX experiments. Different season has no effect on how
you define the direction of motion of the light ray.
Ken Seto
This would normally be conclusive evidence that interpreting the
Pound-Rebka result as evidence for absolute motion would be a serious
error. Seto, however, is not normal.
PD
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that th=
ey
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horizon=
tal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seriou=
sly
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MMX,=
and
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude. As=
suming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be of=
f by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". I =
drop a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as well.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbitin=
g the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some su=
ch,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vertic=
al" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably fi=
nd
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 01:25:42 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
Note that one would *expect* that the Pound and Rebka experiments wou=
ld
give different results for different seasons. The reason is, of cours=
e,
that the ether is presumed not to move, and that the Earth moves
through it in different directions (and in fact at different speeds) =
at
different seasons.
Ah....but the direction of absolute motion of the detector is NOT wrt
the earth's surface. It is wrt the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
If the direction of absolute motion of the detector is in the same
direction as the light ray then you will get frequency shift....as in
the case of the Pound and Rebks experiments. If the direction of
absolute motion of the detector is perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the light ray then you will not get frequency shift....as in
the case of the MMX experiments. Different season has no effect on how
you define the direction of motion of the light ray.
Ken Seto
This would normally be conclusive evidence that interpreting the
Pound-Rebka result as evidence for absolute motion would be a serious
error. Seto, however, is not normal.
PD
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in that =
they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almost
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as horiz=
ontal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that seri=
ously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the MM=
X, and
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude. =
Assuming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertical
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will be =
off by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic". =
I drop a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someone=
in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as wel=
l=2E
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orbit=
ing the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or some =
such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "vert=
ical" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probably =
find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 01:43:18 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:09:18 +0000, kenseto wrote:
Note that one would *expect* that the Pound and Rebka experiments w=
ould
give different results for different seasons. The reason is, of cou=
rse,
that the ether is presumed not to move, and that the Earth moves
through it in different directions (and in fact at different speeds=
) at
different seasons.
Ah....but the direction of absolute motion of the detector is NOT wrt
the earth's surface. It is wrt the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
If the direction of absolute motion of the detector is in the same
direction as the light ray then you will get frequency shift....as in
the case of the Pound and Rebks experiments. If the direction of
absolute motion of the detector is perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the light ray then you will not get frequency shift....as in
the case of the MMX experiments. Different season has no effect on how
you define the direction of motion of the light ray.
Ken Seto
This would normally be conclusive evidence that interpreting the
Pound-Rebka result as evidence for absolute motion would be a serio=
us
error. Seto, however, is not normal.
PD
Ken Seto
Miller's experiments (a variant of MMX) were interesting in tha=
t they
showed (with much controversy) that the Earth *was* moving almo=
st
vertically through space time (if one takes the Ecliptic as hor=
izontal).
However, I'm not aware of anyone taking his results all that se=
riously
today. In any event, a monument in Cleveland commemorates the =
MMX, and
that means it was at about N 41=B0 28', give or take, latitude.=
Assuming
one takes a measurement at 6 AM in Cleveland and finds a vertic=
al
direction (relative to the Ecliptic), a 6 PM measurement will b=
e off by
almost 83 degrees, just because of the Earth's rotation.
It is also possible to define "vertical" as "along a geodesic".=
I drop a
ball. It travels vertically, pretty much by definition. Someo=
ne in
Australia also drops a ball; it travels vertically for him as w=
ell.
Someone out in space with several satellites simultaneously orb=
iting the
Earth (unless one postulates neutrino-ray communications or som=
e such,
going through the Earth) observes these events as well. Is "ve=
rtical" in
the same direction here? The space-bound observer will probabl=
y find
"vertical" to be towards the Sun.
So...which is it?
[quoted text muted]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 02:00:20 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 05:06:23 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Round, Ken. The earth is round, like a basketball.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 05:38:04 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151359583.205713.118870@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the
Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that
it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction
of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion,
you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for
different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However,
there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion.
Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray
in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then
there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of
the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a
single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth
is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray
horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I
shine
a light ray vertically.
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute
motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the
light
ray.
Round, Ken. The earth is round, like a basketball.
Sometimes, the simplest statements are the funniest. The beauty of
the humor of your's lies in "like a basketball". The more thought
given to it, the funnier it becomes.
"Them bikes be like WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
27 Jun 2006 09:50:42 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
Round, Ken. The earth is round, like a basketball.
So? It appears that you still don't understand that the direction of
absolute motion of the detector is wrt the direction of motion of the
local light rays. This means that vertical or horizontal directions on
different locations on earth have different meanings. That's why you
can't compare the resulting vertical directions directly. In any case
the experiments in the following link will be able to reveal the
direction of absolute motion on each location:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
26 Jun 2006 11:04:56 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
PD
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
27 Jun 2006 09:40:23 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
That's the reason why you physicists are a bunch of runts. The
direction of absolute motion of the detector is wrt the direction of
motion of the local light rays. Vertical or horizontal directions on
different locations on earth have different meaning in the light
carrying ether and therefore you can't assume that the resulting two
vertical directions of your experiments are at right angle wrt each
other. In any case My proposed experiments in the following link will
difinitely be able to detect the direction of absolute motion in each
experimental location. So all your naive ranting is pointless.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
27 Jun 2006 10:19:55 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Precisely. The light ray is vertical with respect to the Earth's
surface in the Pound-Rebka experiment in every instance that it is run,
regardless of the season. Because of the change in direction of the
light ray relative to the ether due to the seasonal motion, you would
expect a different result from the Pound-Rebka experiment for different
seasons, if the shift were due to absolute motion. However, there is no
change in the result with the season, and this normally would
disincline one to attribute the effect to absolute motion. Seto,
however, is not normal.
Precisely that you don't understand what absolute motion means.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light ray in the
ether. If a detector sees frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray. The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
Which object do you have in mind here?
This is certainly not what physicists mean when they say absolute
motion.
For example, the center of the Earth is presumed to indicate a single
reference point, and at any one instant, the center of the Earth is
presumed to have a *single* value of absolute motion.
But according to your definition, if I shine a light ray horizontally,
the center of the earth has a different absolute motion than if I shine
a light ray vertically.
This is not according to me. It is according to your naive
understanding of absolute motion. According to me is as follows:
If a detector detects frequency shift of a light ray then there is
absolute motion of the detector in the direction of motion of the light
ray.
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
That's the reason why you physicists are a bunch of runts.
This might account for why your proposal was returned with so few
comments.
You apparently use the word "absolute motion" to mean something
completely different than what Galileo meant, what Newton meant, what
Einstein meant, and what every physicist on the planet means by the
term.
This doesn't seem to bother you. You talk about SR assuming something
about absolute motion, and you say classical mechanics is wrong about
absolute motion, but you're using a different meaning of that term than
what physics means by it.
It's as though you're talking about feathers on elephants and why the
theory of evolution is completely wrong about how feathers appeared on
elephants. Scientists would point out to you that evolution doesn't say
anything about how feathers appeared on elephants and moreover
elephants don't have feathers. And then you would reply that elephants
are defined as large aquatic birds with black and white coloring, and
say that scientists don't know what they're talking about if they say
elephants don't have feathers.
You're out of touch, Ken. Disconnected. Nothing you say has any bearing
on physics, because you don't understand the meaning of basic terms.
PD
The
direction of absolute motion of the detector is wrt the direction of
motion of the local light rays. Vertical or horizontal directions on
different locations on earth have different meaning in the light
carrying ether and therefore you can't assume that the resulting two
vertical directions of your experiments are at right angle wrt each
other. In any case My proposed experiments in the following link will
difinitely be able to detect the direction of absolute motion in each
experimental location. So all your naive ranting is pointless.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
27 Jun 2006 10:37:16 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
That's the reason why you physicists are a bunch of runts.
This might account for why your proposal was returned with so few
comments.
You apparently use the word "absolute motion" to mean something
completely different than what Galileo meant, what Newton meant, what
Einstein meant, and what every physicist on the planet means by the
term.
Hey idiot.....all past experiments to detect absolute motion is based
on the assumption that absolute motion is wrt the light ray. The MMX
tried to detect absolute motion of the apparatus wrt the light rays.
Ken Seto
PD
The
direction of absolute motion of the detector is wrt the direction of
motion of the local light rays. Vertical or horizontal directions on
different locations on earth have different meaning in the light
carrying ether and therefore you can't assume that the resulting two
vertical directions of your experiments are at right angle wrt each
other. In any case My proposed experiments in the following link will
difinitely be able to detect the direction of absolute motion in each
experimental location. So all your naive ranting is pointless.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
27 Jun 2006 04:13:48 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
That's the reason why you physicists are a bunch of runts.
This might account for why your proposal was returned with so few
comments.
You apparently use the word "absolute motion" to mean something
completely different than what Galileo meant, what Newton meant, what
Einstein meant, and what every physicist on the planet means by the
term.
Hey idiot.....all past experiments to detect absolute motion is based
on the assumption that absolute motion is wrt the light ray.
Uh, not it's not. As I said, you are using a different meaning to the
word "absolute motion" that what others use.
The MMX
tried to detect absolute motion of the apparatus wrt the light rays.
No it didn't. I don't know where you got that idea. It tried to measure
the motion of the apparatus with respect to a stable and absolutely
stationary ether. It did this by attaching the apparatus to the earth
and letting the earth move in different directions through the ether.
You didn't know this?
Elephants don't have feathers, either, by the way.
PD
Ken Seto
PD
The
direction of absolute motion of the detector is wrt the direction of
motion of the local light rays. Vertical or horizontal directions on
different locations on earth have different meaning in the light
carrying ether and therefore you can't assume that the resulting two
vertical directions of your experiments are at right angle wrt each
other. In any case My proposed experiments in the following link will
difinitely be able to detect the direction of absolute motion in each
experimental location. So all your naive ranting is pointless.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
The center of the Earth can have only ONE value of absolute motion at a
given instant.
Your definition of absolute motion says it can have any number of
values of absolute motion simultaneously.
That is not a physically sensible definition of absolute motion.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
28 Jun 2006 08:23:11 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
The problem with this is that if I do a Pound-Rebka experiment on the
equator and a Pound-Rebka experiment at the north pole (or one in
England and one in Newfoundland), and detect a shift in both places at
the same time, you would be forced to conclude that the absolute motion
of the detector is going two different directions at once, 90 degrees
from each other.
^
|
|
------->
That is something that most physicists find to be a repulsive behavior
of absolute motion. Absolute motion should not point in two directions
at once.
That's the reason why you physicists are a bunch of runts.
This might account for why your proposal was returned with so few
comments.
You apparently use the word "absolute motion" to mean something
completely different than what Galileo meant, what Newton meant, what
Einstein meant, and what every physicist on the planet means by the
term.
Hey idiot.....all past experiments to detect absolute motion is based
on the assumption that absolute motion is wrt the light ray.
Uh, not it's not. As I said, you are using a different meaning to the
word "absolute motion" that what others use.
No my definition of absolute motion is the same as everybody's.
The MMX
tried to detect absolute motion of the apparatus wrt the light rays.
No it didn't. I don't know where you got that idea. It tried to measure
the motion of the apparatus with respect to a stable and absolutely
stationary ether.
You are a simple minded idiot.....the assumption of the MMX is that the
light rays are being transmitted by the stationary ether at a constant
velocity. So any motion of the apparatus wrt the light rays means
absolute motion of the apparatus in the stationary ether.
It did this by attaching the apparatus to the earth
and letting the earth move in different directions through the ether.
You didn't know this?
Attaching to the earth means nothing. Different location on earth have
different hroizontal and vertical directions.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
