 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / April 2005Doable Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion
The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute motion: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf > The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute motion: http://www.hp.com/execcomm/inview/february02/images/feb02_unde1.jpg Right. Dirk Vdm In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:43:01 GMT <98Pae.72656$xy7.4886625@phobos.telenet-ops.be>: >> The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute motion: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Oddly appropriate, that. :-)  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Oddly appropriate, that. :-) Ghost is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR. Ken Seto ken seto is a runt of the cranks. Definition for a runt of the cranks: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know they are a crank. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with themselves. Ken Seto is a runt of the cranks In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:54:13 GMT <93Rae.799$fh.574@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel >> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ken Seto Oh no, not that! Anything but that! I'm skeered! Rescue me, Sam, Al, Dirk; I've been tagged.... :-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A few questions for you. [1] Assume, for the purposes of this question, that the Milky Way Galaxy (or the black hole in the middle thereof) is in fact motionless with respect to the absolute center (unlikely, of course, but possible), that the Sun is orbiting at about 50,000 light-years from this center at a speed of approximately 10^-3 c, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun at 10^-4 c, and rotating at the equator at 1.5 * 10^-6 c. Give a latitude/longitude of the location of the experiment, then calculate the 2-D (x-axis: time of year, y-axis: delta-time variation) time-curves as the experiment is performed, once an hour, over the course of a year. BTW, the Michelson Morley memorial fountain is in Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, approximate latitude 41 degrees, 28 minutes North, longitude 81 degrees 37 minutes West. (Wow. A reason to visit Cleveland! Who would've thought? :-) ) [2] Assume, for the purposes of this question, that the Milky Way is in fact moving with some other velocity, and construct a 3-dimensional graph over the course of a year (x-axis: time, y-axis: assumed velocity, z-axis: delta-time variation). [3] Calculate the possible error in your measurements. For example, the error in Galileo's shutter lanterns is probably around 0.2 second and might have been 30 km (100 light-microseconds) apart. This could lead to lightspeeds anywhere from +300 km/s to -300 km/s (the latter occurring if the assistant opened the shutter too early). There are also issues regarding the Airy radius (which is 1/2 the light wavelength; visible light is around 500 nm or 5 * 10^-7 m) and the dimensions of your slit, which are for some reason unspecified. There are also issues on how fast your shutters open and close during the course of the measurements -- or perhaps you'd prefer simply cutting off current to the light source? Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Oh no, not that! Anything but that! I'm skeered! > Rescue me, Sam, Al, Dirk; I've been tagged.... Seto is insignificant--Why bother with him? He is not capable of learning. There has never been a prediction of special relativity that was contradicted by an observation. SR is empirically correct. For some reason this sticks in Seto's craw--probably because Seto has *failed* to learn physics. Since he is insignificant, why bother with him? He's just a runt among posters to this newsgroup. Insignificant! > :-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > close during the course of the measurements -- or perhaps you'd > prefer simply cutting off current to the light source? ken seto wants to be a runt of the cranks. Definition for a runt of the cranks: A moron who thinks that they have even half a clue what they are talking about. An idiot who doesn't know they are a crank. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what she was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with their own crank ideas. Ken Seto is trying to grow up to be a runt of the cranks > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Oh no, not that! Anything but that! I'm skeered! > Rescue me, Sam, Al, Dirk; I've been tagged.... Finally! ConKentulations! Dirk VDm In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:14:37 GMT <1%Tae.72903$1z6.4969526@phobos.telenet-ops.be>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Finally! > ConKentulations! Oh....does that mean I now have to learn the secret handshake? :-) (Do I have to prove I'm a man first?) [*] > Dirk VDm [*] OK, I have a copy of _Discworld_ on my one system. There are times I feel like Rincewind here... Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> >> >> The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute > >> > motion: http://www.hp.com/execcomm/inview/february02/images/feb02_unde1.jpg > >> >> > Right. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> Oh no, not that! Anything but that! I'm skeered! > >> Rescue me, Sam, Al, Dirk; I've been tagged.... Go learn some real physics. Ken Seto > Go learn some real physics. > > Ken Seto > Interesting advice coming from a physics fumbler and registered crank! http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net > > Go learn some real physics. > > > > Ken Seto Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR. Ken Seto > > In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel > > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Ken Seto this from kenseto! hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahhahahaahahahahahahahahha In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:26:35 GMT <fe6be.930$fh.551@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel >> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Go learn some real physics. Define "real physics". And you didn't answer my question. What is your expected time deltas over the course of a year? > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Oh no, not that! Anything but that! I'm skeered! > Rescue me, Sam, Al, Dirk; I've been tagged.... If you dont want to be tagged then go learn some real physics. > :-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > motionless with respect to the absolute center (unlikely, > of course, but possible), This is a bogus assumption. Everything in the universe are in a state of absolute motion. This is an assumption of the Standard Big Bang model. >that the Sun is orbiting at > about 50,000 light-years from this center at a speed of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > variation) time-curves as the experiment is performed, > once an hour, over the course of a year. You based your line of reasoning on a false assumption. Everything in the universe are in a state of absolute motion. The absolute motion of an object is that motion of the object wrt light. Your use of the orbiting motion of the earth around the sun as reference for absolute motion is bogus. > BTW, the Michelson Morley memorial fountain is in > Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, > approximate latitude 41 degrees, 28 minutes North, > longitude 81 degrees 37 minutes West. (Wow. A > reason to visit Cleveland! Who would've thought? :-) ) So?? > [2] Assume, for the purposes of this question, that the Milky > Way is in fact moving with some other velocity, and construct > a 3-dimensional graph over the course of a year (x-axis: time, > y-axis: assumed velocity, z-axis: delta-time variation). Hey idiot you can't use other object as reference for absolute motion. Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > [3] Calculate the possible error in your measurements. For example, > the error in Galileo's shutter lanterns is probably around > 0.2 second and might have been 30 km (100 light-microseconds) > apart. This could lead to lightspeeds anywhere from > +300 km/s to -300 km/s (the latter occurring if the assistant > opened the shutter too early). Galileo's shuttle laterns indeed....we are in the year 2005. Now do you see why I call you a runt of the SR experts? >There are also issues regarding > the Airy radius (which is 1/2 the light wavelength; visible [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > close during the course of the measurements -- or perhaps you'd > prefer simply cutting off current to the light source? Hey idiot....the beams are continuous. Go learn some real physics. Ken Seto > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. Crank Seto gives us his definition of "Absolute motion". So what are the ramifications? Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero. Hmmm... Seto, can you clear this up for me? > > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hmmm... Seto, can you clear this up for me? It may be tough for a runt like you to understand but here goes: The speed of light is a constant math ratio in the horizontal plane 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. In order to measure the absolute motion of the earth you must orient the MMX apparatus with the plane of the arms in the vertical direction (the direction of absolute motion on earth).....or do the experiment described in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf Ken Seto >>>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Hmmm... Seto, can you clear this up for me? Seto--you haven't addressed this question about Albert and Henry as it relates to your definition of "Absolute motion", in which you stated, "Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light". Let me repeat: Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero. Your definition of "Absolute motion" seems nonsensical to me and I'm asking you to clarify your position. > >>>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as > non zero. Sigh...they measure the light from the lightning bolt to be doppler shifted differently. That's evience that they are in a different states of absolute motion. Ken Seto >>>>>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ken Seto Not the right answer to the *question* at hand, Seto. Doppler shift only effects the wavelength, not the speed of light. Go watch these, Seto: http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html ==> http://www.learner.org/vod/login.html?pid=611 ==> http://www.learner.org/vod/login.html?pid=613 These are at a fairly fundamental level and my help you, Seto. > >>>>>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Not the right answer to the *question* at hand, Seto. Doppler shift > only effects the wavelength, not the speed of light. Different Doppler shifts are evidences that the observers are at different states of absolute motion wrt light. The wave length of light does not change. Ken Seto >>>>>>>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Ken Seto Doppler shift results from *relative* motion between source and observer Seto. You can demonstrate this in the lab with one moving and one stationary (with respect to the observer) light bulbs. You can do the same with one moving observer and light bulb and one stationary light bulb, etc. .... >> Different Doppler shifts are evidences that the observers are at >> different states of absolute motion wrt light. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can do the same with one moving observer and light bulb and one > stationary light bulb, etc. His definitions of relative and absolute motion preclude such an experiment. You have to do HIS railroad car experiment because BY DEFINITION you can't measure it any other way. Not enough clocks and OWLS vs TWLS make it impossible. On the otherhand, you and I can go into the lab, mount an LED on a spinning disk, measure the doppler shift of the light coming from the LED, measure the time of flight of the photons emitted by the LED, and we will know, after running our experiment at different rotation speeds, that the doppler effect is due to shifts in wavelength/frequency and that the photon speed is independent of source velocity. But by his definitions of speed, wavelength, relative and absolute, we will end up proving nothing to him. Amazing, isn't it? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > ..... > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Amazing, isn't it? Apparently, that's why they call Seto the runt of the untutored. You would think Seto embarrassed enough to go learn some physics, or at least walk away from making such a fool of himself. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:b_abe.15011$c24.6996 @attbi_s72: .... He still thinks that the leading edge of the light pulse will miss the detector. That fails to explain why other photons in the light pulse hit the detector. The first photons fall faster? Later photons fall slower? The experimentors don't line up the apparatus so that the entire pulses are detected? I don't follow his logic. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:b_abe.15011$c24.6996 > @attbi_s72: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I don't follow his logic. There is none to follow, he just isn't aware of the applicability of aberration. George > > Not the right answer to the *question* at hand, Seto. Doppler shift > > only effects the wavelength, not the speed of light. > > Different Doppler shifts are evidences that the observers are at different > states of absolute motion wrt light. > The wave length of light does not change. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Ken Seto are you stoned? you need to visit www.getafuckingcluemoron.com In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:29:55 GMT <D97be.950$fh.883@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a > clock second co-moving with the rod. What, precisely, is the definition of a "light path length of rod", relative to the more standard measurement definition? In other words: I am moving with the rod. I measure the rod using a standardized metric-stick. I then whip out a trusty laser beam unit/interferometer and have it -- somehow -- count the wavelengths between it and a conveniently-attached mirror on the other end of the rod. Since I'm moving with the rod all lightspeeds are c and the wavelength of the laser is known, making for a very convenient and highly accurate method of measurement. How does one determine the "light path length" of this rod? How does one measure the "absolute time [interval] for a clock second co-moving with the rod"? > In order to measure the absolute motion of the earth you must > orient the MMX apparatus with the plane of the arms in the > vertical direction (the direction of absolute motion on > earth).....or do the experiment described in the following link: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf So one must measure the absolute motion of the Earth by knowing the absolute motion of the Earth? My head is beginning to hurt. Fortunately, there is a way out; assume that the MMX can be arbitrarily oriented and that one can compensate for gravitational effects if necessary. Not that it would make all that much difference. > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What, precisely, is the definition of a "light path length of rod", > relative to the more standard measurement definition? Light path length of a rod is when you use light-second to measure the length of a physical rod. > In other words: I am moving with the rod. I measure the rod > using a standardized metric-stick. I then whip out a trusty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How does one determine the "light path length" of this rod? You measure the time it takes light to traverse the rod and multiply the flight time with c to get the light path length. > How does one measure the "absolute time [interval] for a > clock second co-moving with the rod"? The observer can define his clock second is also a defined absolute second. He then use SR/GR (or IRT) to determine the clock time interval in the observed frame for a defined absolute second. > > > In order to measure the absolute motion of the earth you must > > orient the MMX apparatus with the plane of the arms in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So one must measure the absolute motion of the Earth by knowing > the absolute motion of the Earth? My head is beginning to hurt. Idiot....My experiment is designed to measure the absolute motion of the distant clock wrt light. The MMX can't measure the absolute motion of the apparatus because the direction of absolute motion of the apparatus is in the vertical direction. In order for the MMX to detect absolute motion the plane of the arms must be oriented vertically. In that case different orientations of the arms will give different light path lengths and thus the non-null result. Ken Seto In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:34:31 GMT <HzTbe.9224$dh.6140@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> In sci.physics, kenseto >> <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Light path length of a rod is when you use light-second to measure the > length of a physical rod. OK. So how do I get a "light-second"? Is it the same as an ordinary second, or is it merely the length traversed by light during 1 second (i.e., 299792458 m)? Also, where do I get the second? Do I get it from a local clock, or the absolute basis clock? The results will be different if the two clocks are moving, and possibly even when they are not (if there's a space-bending planet such as Earth nearby, for instance :-) ). >> In other words: I am moving with the rod. I measure the rod >> using a standardized metric-stick. I then whip out a trusty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You measure the time it takes light to traverse the rod and multiply the > flight time with c to get the light path length. OK. Would there be any reason to think either one of the following? [1] Lightspeed is not c, either relative to the source (and the observer standing next thereto) or the bounceback mirror at the end of the rod. [2] The light path length is not the same as the standard length, assuming both are measured by the stationary observer using an absolutely rigid idealized meter stick. >> How does one measure the "absolute time [interval] for a >> clock second co-moving with the rod"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to determine the clock time interval in the > observed frame for a defined absolute second. Erm, I'm confused here. There *is* no absolute second (unless one defines it; e.g. the tick of a clock in the non-inertial frame rotating with Greenwich, England might be one possibility). One inertial frame is as good as any other in SR, ane one frame is as good as any other in GR, if the equations are done correctly (the main issue is combining the velocities correctly). >> > In order to measure the absolute motion of the earth you must >> > orient the MMX apparatus with the plane of the arms in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of absolute motion of the apparatus is in the vertical > direction. Even if the apparatus is tilted vertically with respect to the Earth's surface, or one waits several hours? Try this simple experiment, in the shower. Orient your nose so that it's aligned with the droplets (i.e., the nose is vertical as far as the water is concerned). Now turn your head to the side so that the water falls on, say, your whorl [*] or your ear. Is your nose still vertical with respect to the droplets? If you don't like water in your ear, :-), get two pencils (golf pencils are probably best, as they're short, but almost anything sticklike will do) and a 12" globe (the exact size isn't that important), and hold one pencil somewhere above the globe, pointing to its center, while holding the other on the globe, so that they're parallel (both are "vertical"). Now carefully rotate the globe about 30 degrees or so (30 degrees = 2 hours), still holding the second pencil on the same point of the globe (e.g., if one picked Greenwich initially, keep it over Greenwich) and still pointing towards the globe's center, rotating with the globe. Are the two pencils still parallel? You can of course define the E-component of the photon as horizontal, and the M-component vertical, if you like, or vice versa, and polarize the light appropriately in the course of the MMX experiment, but the literature doesn't mention this (though mirrors do tend to polarize the light -- of course that only makes a difference *after* the light hits the mirror; the first part of the lightpath is not polarized). > In order for the MMX to detect absolute motion the > plane of the arms must be oriented vertically. In that case > different orientations of the arms will give different > light path lengths and thus the non-null result. Actually, GR intervenes, giving MMX a non-null result, if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately, practical limitations preclude an effective experiment (the mirrors get out of alignment because of compressional stresses). MMX *can* be done on a rotating platform, however. AIUI, the results yield a positive result (because of the rotation). > Ken Seto [*] assuming one has sufficient hair, the whorl might be construed as the bit the hair "spins" around, though it depends on one's do. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > Crank Seto gives us his definition of "Absolute motion". > So what are the ramifications? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hmmm... Seto, can you clear this up for me? kenseto cant answer this. all he can do is produce garbage and then point to other places for the information. if he had a fraction of an idea what he was talking about he could plug in the numbers and make this work. kenseto hasnt even achieved runt status yet. In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:47:38 GMT <_x6be.936$fh.30@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > If you dont want to be tagged then go learn some real physics. I took two quarters of QM in college. Is that real enough for you? :-P BTW: any particular reason you're not using Maxwell's Equations? >> :-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This is a bogus assumption. Everything in the universe are in a state of > absolute motion. This is an assumption of the Standard Big Bang model. If everything is in absolute motion there has to be a basispoint. If you want, assume a certain motion relative thereto. Or are you adding additional dimensions to the problem, such that the E-M fields are in the 5th and 6th dimensions or something, and therefore always perpendicular (vertical) to the three spatial dimensions, by definition? Or what? >>that the Sun is orbiting at >> about 50,000 light-years from this center at a speed of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is that motion of the object wrt light. Your use of the orbiting motion of > the earth around the sun as reference for absolute motion is bogus. Who says it's a reference? I'm asking what the absolute reference of the Earth is to *it*, whatever your reference is. >> BTW, the Michelson Morley memorial fountain is in >> Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So?? It's a convenient basis-point to start the computations with my admittedly flawed assumptions. >> [2] Assume, for the purposes of this question, that the Milky >> Way is in fact moving with some other velocity, and construct [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hey idiot you can't use other object as reference for absolute motion. > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. So *every* object is moving vertically with respect to a light quanta? >> [3] Calculate the possible error in your measurements. For example, >> the error in Galileo's shutter lanterns is probably around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Galileo's shuttle laterns indeed....we are in the year 2005. > Now do you see why I call you a runt of the SR experts? I at least have an estimated error. Do you? I want to know what your estimated deltas will be. All you say is that they're non-zero. That's about as useful as saying "well, it'll take some time greater than zero to travel from New York to Cleveland, since they're a distance greater than zero apart". >>There are also issues regarding >> the Airy radius (which is 1/2 the light wavelength; visible [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hey idiot....the beams are continuous. Go learn some real physics. Not after you chop them up. BTW: what's your shutter speed? Are you postulating a mechanical shutter here, liquid crystal, rotating polarizer, what? > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> >> >> The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute > >> > motion: http://www.hp.com/execcomm/inview/february02/images/feb02_unde1.jpg > >> [1] Assume, for the purposes of this question, that the Milky Way > >> Galaxy (or the black hole in the middle thereof) is in fact [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If everything is in absolute motion there has to be a basispoint. No it doesn't "has to be a basis-point. > If you want, assume a certain motion relative thereto. Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. Ken Seto > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > > Ken Seto Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero. Your definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! > > Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > > > > Ken Seto Wormy is a 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR. Ken Seto > Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant > lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero. Seto's definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:xP6ce.22712$c24.15727 @attbi_s72: > Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant > lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Seto's definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! Absolutely. His absolute is always wrt the light source, except when it is in a gravity field, in which case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has said. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:xP6ce.22712$c24.15727 > @attbi_s72: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Absolutely. ROTFLOL....you don't know sh.t. > His absolute is always wrt the light source, except when it is in a gravity > field, in which case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think he has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap >> Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in news:xP6ce.22712$c24.15727 >> @attbi_s72: .... > > Seto's definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! >> >> Absolutely. > > ROTFLOL....you don't know sh*t. That was a pun, Sun! >> His absolute is always wrt the light source, except when it is in a > gravity >> field, in which case it is wrt vertical. At least that is what I think >> he > has >> said. Did I get close on how you define things? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap << Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero >> This is completely consistant with a clock that *goes* as it is *judged*. http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html ...but KenSeto can't answer questions about that without citing Freddie Fumble's leading edges, sighing alot, and resorting to name calling. ;-) Sue... > Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant > lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his > motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c. Yet Albert > and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as > non zero. Hey idiot runt....I answered this before. The two observers will see different doppler shift of the same light source and this means that they are in a different state of absolute motion. Go learn some real physics and logic before you argue with me. Ken Seto >> Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant >> lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ken Seto Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c, independent of the Doppler shift of the lighning bolt spectrum. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c, independent of the Doppler shift of the lighning bolt spectrum. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero and their Dopper data can be used to determine there relative velocity with respect to eachy other. The speed of light is constant for all observers, Seto. There is no absolute time or space. No absolute state of motion or rest. It's all relative. Special Relativity is empirically correct. There have never been a Predition of Special Relativity that was contradicted by a obsrvation. Seto make blunder after blunder--his thinking is based of misconceptions and flawed logic... and it's not just the Michelson and Morley experiment. Immortal fumbles http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be Crank registrations http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net At first I thought you were just misguided... but I now see that you are truly a stooopid runt with no hope of being educated. Now probably just trolling for attention. +------------+ +---------------------------------------------+ | PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS | | DO NOT | | LIKE SETO -- THEY DRY | | FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK | | DA | | | | TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ | +------------+ +---------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / > >> Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant > >> lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > absolute time or space. No absolute state of motion or rest. It's all > relative. Wormy is a 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR. Ken Seto > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant lightning bolt at c, independent of the Doppler shift of the lightning bolt spectrum. Henry, standing on the ground measures his motion from the same distant lightning bolt at c, independent of the Doppler shift of the lightning bolt spectrum. Yet Albert and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as non zero and their Dopper data can be used to determine there relative velocity with respect to eachy other. The speed of light is constant for all observers, Seto. There is no absolute time or space. No absolute state of motion or rest. It's all relative. Special Relativity is empirically correct. There have never been a Predition of Special Relativity that was contradicted by a obsrvation. Seto make blunder after blunder--his thinking is based of misconceptions and flawed logic... and it's not just the Michelson and Morley experiment. Immortal fumbles http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be Crank registrations http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net At first I thought you were just misguided... but I now see that you are truly a stooopid runt with no hope of being educated. Now probably just trolling for attention. +------------+ +---------------------------------------------+ | PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS | | DO NOT | | LIKE SETO -- THEY DRY | | FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK | | DA | | | | TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ | +------------+ +---------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:34:29 GMT <pNbce.946$Eg.366@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> Albert (riding on a train) measures his motion from a distant >> lightning bolt at c. Henry, standing on the ground measures his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are in a different state of absolute motion. Go learn some real physics and > logic before you argue with me. And how much shift would they see? Assume Albert is stationary with respect to the bolt, and Henry is moving away from the bolt at speed v. Keep in mind that the light must travel from the translated co-ordinate at speed c to the moving observer's origin in order for the moving observer to see it. SR: lambda = (1 + v/c) * gamma BaT: lambda = (1 + v/c) Now, let's put the light source on a little trolley car, such that Henry is motionless with respect to the lightsource, and the lightsource is receding from Albert at the same speed v. SR: lambda = (1 + v/c) * gamma BaT: lambda = (1 + v/c) (The wavelengths when the moving observer is approaching the bolt I will leave to the interested reader. :-) One interesting subproblem is *two* lighting bolts, equidistant from Albert and Henry at the time of the flash, minus the time it would take the flash to traverse the distance from each bolt to Albert.) As for "real physics"...I'm still waiting for your error estimates on your experiments, and some assumptions allowing for those estimates (e.g., what is your lightsource wavelength?). There is also the issue of the width of your slit, which is apparently not specified (you do specify two diameters for your aperature, namely 20mm and 3mm, if memory serves). > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >> Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Henry measure their motion with respect to each other as > non zero. Even simpler, stand a brick on the ground. _ | | | | | | ------------------- I wonder what the value is for its absolute velocity vector? Let's figure out the direction of the vector first: Shine a torch on the brick from the left ... _ | | ==<| -> | | | | ------------------- ... and the absolute velocity of the brick is from right to left "wrt the light". Shine a torch on the brick from the right ... _ | | | | <- |>== | | ------------------- ... and the absolute velocity of the brick is from right to left "wrt the light". So Ken's definition leaves the direction of the absolute motion of the brick undefined. Then we have to consider the magnitude of the velocity. In a frame moving at c with the light, longitudinal distances become zero and so to durations, so in the "wrt the light" the magnitude is 0/0, which is of course undefined. Ken's definition leaves the magnitude of the absolute motion of the brick undefined. > Your definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! That sums it up quite nicely. George > >> Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. > >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > ... and the absolute velocity of the brick > is from right to left "wrt the light". Go learn some real physics before arguing with me. On earth the direction of absolute motion wrt light is in the vertical direction. This is supported by all the past MMXs and KTXs. Also it is supported by the fact that grvitational red shfit is in the vertical direction and this too is caused by the absolute motion in the vertical direction wrt light. If you want to find the direction of absolute motion with the MMX apparatus you must orient the plane of the arms in the vertical direction. > So Ken's definition leaves the direction of > the absolute motion of the brick undefined. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the light" the magnitude is 0/0, which is > of course undefined. The magnetude of absolute motion wrt light must be experimentally determined by doing my proposed experiments. BTW you don't know sh.t. Ken Seto >> >> Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Go learn some real physics before arguing with me. No need, I only need to use your own definition quoted at the top of this post. What you need to learn is how to subtract vectors. You said "Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light." "wrt" means "with respect to" which means that, according to your definition, the "absolute motion" of the brick is the velocity it has if expressed it in a coordinate system which has the light as its origin. Since the brick is at rest in the frame I described, just subtract the vectors. > On earth the direction of > absolute motion wrt light is in the vertical direction. That assertion conflicts with your definition since subtracting the horizontal vector describing the motion of the light from the zero magnitude vector of the brick gives you a horizontal result. Use x, y, z axes with z vertical and light in the diagrams above moving along the x axis: (0, 0, 0) - (c, 0, 0) = (-c, 0, 0) or for the second diagram (0, 0, 0) - (-c, 0, 0) = (c, 0, 0) Of course we should really use the Lorentz Transforms but if you knew any maths, you would know that is impossible. > This is supported by > all the past MMXs and KTXs. If that is true then your definition is wrong since it gives a horizontal result, no z axis component in either case. > .... BTW you don't know sh.t. I see again you are incapable of defending your claims, just more crude attempts at an insult. Try learning how to add and subtract vectors before arguing with _anybody_ in a science group, you will need that ability if you ever start trying to learn physics. George In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:34:49 GMT <tRYbe.21920$WI3.17060@attbi_s71>: >> Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Your definition of "Absolute motion" is nonsensical! Fortunately, the question is easily resolved as Albert and Henry will not measure the same wavelength. :-) Of course, if "absolute motion" is the motion of an object wrt light, and one assumes that lightspeed is c only for those objects absolutely still with respect to some sort of absolute basispoint, then one has the rigid luminiferous aether theory, which has already been disproved by MMX. One has to twist time and space in order for lightspeed to be c everywhere -- and SR and GR do just that, with astounding consistency (and sometimes astonishing results). If one assumes lightspeed is c only relative to the source (frictionless aether/BaT/emissive theory), one gets a slightly more consistent but still problematic theory, yielding some interesting theoretical results that are, however, as yet unobserved. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. kenseto is the runt of internet cranks the runt of internet cranks cant even generate his own mad comments. good nigth kenseto > kenseto is the runt of internet cranks > the runt of internet cranks cant even > generate his own mad comments. Jerk face here is a 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR. Ken Seto ken seto is a runt of the cranks. Definition for a runt of the cranks: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. A prick who cant come up with replies but constantly posts a sh.t little saying he thinks makes himself look clever but is actually a joke. An idiot who doesn't read other peoples posts and really doesnt know they are a crank. 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 sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with themselves. Ken Seto is a runt of the cranks At least the "SR priests" will reply with an insult instead of ignoreing a question from someone who actually downloads the paper and ask a question. "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:5qOae.778$fh.757@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... > The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute motion: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf << Fig 4 Current physics says that AE is the path that light follows to the upper mirror and the angle of this path is depended on the length AC that is depended on the speed of the light clock. >> Page 2 http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf Where did "current physics" publish this morsel and why do you suppose "current phyisics" tried to design a clock that *goes* as it is *judged* ? Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html Sue... At least the "SR priests" will reply with an insult instead of ignoreing a question from someone who actually downloads the paper and ask a question. > The following link describes doable experiments to detect absolute motion: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf << Fig 4 Current physics says that AE is the path that light >follows to the upper mirror and the angle of >this path is depended on the length AC that is >depended on the speed of the light clock. >> Page 2 > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf >Where did "current physics" publish this morsel and why >do you suppose "current phyisics" tried to design a clock >that *goes* as it is *judged* ? The runts of the SR experts in this NG have been asserting this for years. Also it is described in most text books. Specifically Page 958 of the the text book "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday/Resnick Third Edition. The reason why "current physics" assert such a light clock is because Einstein made the bogus assumption in his 1905 paper that the leading edge of a light beam...(the first photon in a train of photons)....will hit the target in the same frame regardless of the state of motion of the frame. This assumption is not only bogus. It also violates the Uncertainty Principle. Ken Seto > nothing of value kenseto is a runt of a crank. he knows less than he lets on and is actually stupider than people give him credit. he knows so little that his only response is to trot out a tired little paragraph calling his latest detractor a runt of sr. kenseto hasnt even evolved to the troll level of crackpot on newsgroups. his opinions are worthless and when he grows up he wants to be a runt. kenseto is the runt of sci.astro and hasnt learned to wash himself properly yet. i think he is in love with louise savian. > Also it is described in most text books. Specifically Page 958 of the the > text book "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday/Resnick Third Edition. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto Quoting from "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday/Resnick "The speed measured for the radiation emitted by these fast moving sources was, within experimental error, just c, as Einstein's second postulate predicts". > > Also it is described in most text books. Specifically Page 958 of the the > > text book "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday/Resnick Third Edition. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sources was, within experimental error, just c, as Einstein's > second postulate predicts". Hey idiot runt....that's because the speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. Ken seto Ken Seto Is this the description you refer to ? http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm#time BIBLIOGRAPHY 7. Halliday, D. & Resnick, R. (1966). Physics Parts I & II Combined Edition, New York, Wiley Sue... > Is this the description you refer to ? > http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm#time The above link doesn't work in my computer. Go to any text book that shows the light clock thought experiment. Ken Seto > BIBLIOGRAPHY > 7. Halliday, D. & Resnick, R. (1966). Physics Parts I & II > Combined Edition, New York, Wiley > > Sue... >>Is this the description you refer to ? >>http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm#time > > The above link doesn't work in my computer. Go to any text book that shows > the light clock thought experiment. Come on, Seto, the link is just an html web page! Try http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm and scroll down to the section on "Time Dilation" If you can post to newsgroups, you can see web pages! You're not one of those chicken sh.ts are you, Seto? > >>Is this the description you refer to ? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Try http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm > and scroll down to the section on "Time Dilation" OK I was able to get it the second try. But what is your point? It shows exactly what I show in my link. Ken Seto >>>>Is this the description you refer to ? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ken Seto Sue is asking you, "Is this the description you refer to ?" Now that we have an example of "current physics" [and possibly a better tuned web browser ] third try is the charm. :-) [Where did "current physics" publish this morsel and ] http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm why do you suppose "current physics" tried to design a clock that *goes* as it is *judged* ? Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html Sue... Googles script engine must be having it's period.... or it doesn't know what to do with a period. http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html Sue... >Now that we have an example of "current physics" [and >possibly a better tuned web browser ] third try is the >charm. :-) >[Where did "current physics" publish this morsel and ] >http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_space_continued.htm I was able to get it after a fourth try. It shows exactly what I show in my link. >why >do you suppose "current physics" tried to design a clock >that *goes* as it is *judged* ? Because Einstein asserted that the leading edge of a light ray (the first photon in a train of photons) will hit the target. The only way that can happen is that the light ray follows a diagonal path in the moving frame. As it turns out the diagonal path is the radius of the light sphere generated at the source. That's why the derived math using the diagonal path came out OK. BTW, Einstein's assertion violates the Uncertainty Principle. Ken Seto << Einstein asserted that the leading edge of a light ray (the first photon in a train of photons) will hit the target. >> Einstein said that ? Shhhhhh keep quiet. It looks like you got the credit: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22leading+edge+of+a+light+ray%22+&btnG=Goo gle+Search Results 1 - 3 of about 4 for "leading edge of a light ray" . (0.52 seconds) Sue... > << Einstein asserted that the leading edge of a light ray (the first > photon in a train of photons) will hit the target. >> > > Einstein said that ? Shhhhhh keep quiet. It looks like you got > the credit: Sigh....I said that the leading edge of the light ray will miss the target due to the absolute motion of the target. SR assumes that the leading edge of the light ray will hit the target. Read the post carefully. Ken Seto http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22leading+edge+of+a+light+ray%22+&btnG =Google+Search > Results 1 - 3 of about 4 for "leading edge of a light ray" . (0.52 > seconds) > > Sue... > the leading edge of the light ray will miss the target > due to the absolute motion of the target. This statement is nonsense! Rubbish! You have no understanding! <<Sigh....I said that the leading edge of the light ray will miss the target due to the absolute motion of the target. SR assumes that the leading edge of the light ray will hit the target. Read the post carefully. >> I think perhaps you are rather lonely in that belief. Light explores all paths. Go make faces in front of a mirror if you doubt it. http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html Sue... > <<Sigh....I said that the leading edge of the light ray will miss the > target [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Light explores all paths. > Go make faces in front of a mirror if you doubt it. All the MMXs and KTXs done so far support what I said. Grvatational red shfit in the vertical direction also support what I said. My proposed experiment will definitly be able to show that I am right. Ken Seto > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html > > Sue... If you compare one thing Einstein never said, to another thing he never said and claim one statement does not support the other, I wouldn't be one to demand any further proof. IMHO you should blow the experiment funds on a big party. :-) Sue... > If you compare one thing Einstein never said, to another thing > he never said and claim one statement does not support the other, I > wouldn't be one to demand any further proof. sigh....all the SR math is based on the idea that the leading edge of a light ray will hit the target. It seems that you don't know what you are talking about. > IMHO you should blow the experiment funds on a big party. :-) Fortunately your opinion doesn't count. Ken Seto << It seems that you don't know what you are talking about. >> Why should I ? You evade every question asked. Google is no help: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22leading+edge+of+a+light+ray%22&btnG=Goog le+Search Sue... > << It seems that you don't know what you are talking about. >> > > Why should I ? You evade every question asked. You had two questions and I answered them. Ken Seto > > << It seems that you don't know what you are talking about. >> > > > > Why should I ? You evade every question asked. k You had two questions and I answered them. s Indeed you did... and in commonly understandable terms. Results 1 - 10 of about 4,940 for "invisible pink unicorn". (0.21 seconds) Results 1 - 3 of about 4 for "leading edge of a light ray". (0.06 seconds) Sue... > Ken Seto > > > << It seems that you don't know what you are talking about. >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Results 1 - 10 of about 4,940 for "invisible pink unicorn". (0.21 seconds) > Results 1 - 3 of about 4 for "leading edge of a light ray". (0.06 seconds) Idiot. > > "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message > news:c3sbe.1063$fh.594@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Results 1 - 10 of about 4,940 for "invisible pink unicorn". (0.21 seconds) > > Results 1 - 3 of about 4 for "leading edge of a light ray". (0.06 seconds) K: Idiot. S: Now that is a term used in relativity that I am familiar with. I equate it to a white flag. ;-) If you go back and compare the two URL's and try to answer my question you might not have to use it again... or reinvent the wheel. Sue... In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:49:27 GMT <rNqbe.1061$fh.1010@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: >> If you compare one thing Einstein never said, to another thing >> he never said and claim one statement does not support the other, I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > light ray will hit the target. It seems that you don't know what you are > talking about. As opposed to ... what? >> IMHO you should blow the experiment funds on a big party. :-) > > Fortunately your opinion doesn't count. > > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > As opposed to ... what? As oppose to a correct ether theory that predicts that the leading edge of a light ray will miss the target due to the absolute motion of the target. My proposed experiment is designed to detect this absolute motion. Ken Seto >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > target. My proposed experiment is designed to detect this absolute > motion. Is the leading edge going to hit above or below the detector? What happens if you use a ccd detector array? You should detect the 'off target' leading edge of the 'ray' at a different location on the array, but you should still detect it. Much simpler experiment than your rail-road cars. What makes you think that when the experimenters line up the apparatus, it does not compensate for and 'drop or rise'? The experiment is usually run several times. Why do you think they consistently miss seeing the leading edge of the 'ray' of light? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message