"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light


If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN) then
the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be equal
and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as moving
down.

2. What if the apparatus is not moving up or down?

In a stationary aether theory all objects are moving in it.

3. Are you saying that there is no contraction?

Yes ....no contraction. However, the light path length of a rod is dependent
on the state of absolute motion of the rod.

For a detail description of this aether, please read the following link:

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light


If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN) then
the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be equal
and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?
2. What if the apparatus is not moving up or down?
3. Are you saying that there is no contraction?

Sorry I sent the previous post without including the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto

"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN) then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Paul

kenseto wrote:
[...]
If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as moving
down.

The "absolute vertical direction" again ! Very funny !

I suppose you consider the earth to be flat...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other side is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the same
diirection. shrug

Ken Seto

"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other side is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the same
diirection. shrug

Ken, you have said that half of the surface of the Earth
is moving vertically up and the other half of the surface
is moving vertically down.
Vertical is perpendicular to the surface.
The Earth is roughly spherical.
Did you think it was like a pancake?

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
of the surface that is moving vertically up, and the other
leg on the half of the surface that is moving vertically down?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other side is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the same
diirection. shrug

Ken, you have said that half of the surface of the Earth
is moving vertically up and the other half of the surface
is moving vertically down.
Vertical is perpendicular to the surface.
The Earth is roughly spherical.
Did you think it was like a pancake?

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
of the surface that is moving vertically up, and the other
leg on the half of the surface that is moving vertically down?

Paul

Make a wish? ;-)

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or
DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the
re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will
be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other side
is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the same
diirection. shrug

Ken, you have said that half of the surface of the Earth
is moving vertically up and the other half of the surface
is moving vertically down.
Vertical is perpendicular to the surface.
The Earth is roughly spherical.
Did you think it was like a pancake?

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
of the surface that is moving vertically up, and the other
leg on the half of the surface that is moving vertically down?

Sigh ......consider a ball moving in the aether. Let's define the leading
side of the ball (the side that is moving away from the center of the ball)
is defined as vertical up. Then the lagging side of the ball (the side that
is moving toward the center of the ball) is defined defined as vertical
down. NOTICE that both of these defined directions of motion are in the same
direction. If you still can't comprehend this I give up.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or
DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the
re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will
be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other side
is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the same
diirection. shrug

Ken, you have said that half of the surface of the Earth
is moving vertically up and the other half of the surface
is moving vertically down.
Vertical is perpendicular to the surface.
The Earth is roughly spherical.
Did you think it was like a pancake?

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
of the surface that is moving vertically up, and the other
leg on the half of the surface that is moving vertically down?

Sigh ......consider a ball moving in the aether. Let's define the leading
side of the ball (the side that is moving away from the center of the ball)
is defined as vertical up. Then the lagging side of the ball (the side that
is moving toward the center of the ball) is defined defined as vertical
down. NOTICE that both of these defined directions of motion are in the same
direction. If you still can't comprehend this I give up.

Notice also that for the side of the ball, vertically is in
the tangential direction.

So your explanation is that the guy will have his left foot moving
"vertically up" which is in the horizontal direction to the left,
and his right foot is moving "vertically down" which also is
in the horizontal direction to the left.
If the guy had a Michelson interferometer in front of him,
would it move vertically up and down in the horizontal
direction to the left?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or
DOWN)
then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the
re-combining
mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms
will
be
equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?

If we define one dirtection of absolute motion of the earth in a
stationary
aether as moving up then the other side of the earth is defined
as
moving
down.

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
that is moving vertically up, and the other leg on the half
that is moving verically down?

Yet Another case of inability to comprehend!!!
How stupid.....if one side is defined as vertical up and the other
side
is
defined as vertical down this means that the earth is moving in the
same
diirection. shrug

Ken, you have said that half of the surface of the Earth
is moving vertically up and the other half of the surface
is moving vertically down.
Vertical is perpendicular to the surface.
The Earth is roughly spherical.
Did you think it was like a pancake?

So what happens to the guy who has one leg on the half
of the surface that is moving vertically up, and the other
leg on the half of the surface that is moving vertically down?

Sigh ......consider a ball moving in the aether. Let's define the
leading
side of the ball (the side that is moving away from the center of the
ball)
is defined as vertical up. Then the lagging side of the ball (the side
that
is moving toward the center of the ball) is defined defined as vertical
down. NOTICE that both of these defined directions of motion are in the
same
direction. If you still can't comprehend this I give up.

Notice also that for the side of the ball, vertically is in
the tangential direction.

It doesn't matter. The whole ball is moving in the same direction.

So your explanation is that the guy will have his left foot moving
"vertically up" which is in the horizontal direction to the left,
and his right foot is moving "vertically down" which also is
in the horizontal direction to the left.
If the guy had a Michelson interferometer in front of him,
would it move vertically up and down in the horizontal
direction to the left?

Vertically up or down are just terms used--on different parts of the
ball--to describe the same direction of absolute motion of the ball. The two
sides of the ball have no relative motion between them. These terms are used
to explain to you that all the earth's surface is not moving vertically up
and causing it to explode as you were claiming. Notice that this is
completely different than your exploding earth theory. In your theory, the
muons are surrounding the earth and the earth is rushing to meet these
decaying muons in different directions. The consequence of this assertion is
that the earth is exploding. :-)

Ken Seto