"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"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.

Indeed. And the consequence of that is that what you call "vertical"
must somewhere on the ball be in the tangenial direction, that is
what is called horizontal.

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

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
...

"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.

Indeed. And the consequence of that is that what you call "vertical"
must somewhere on the ball be in the tangenial direction, that is
what is called horizontal.

No....the light is defined as always moving horizontally. Notice that it
doesn't matter how the earth is rotating we always call the direction of
motion of the light is horizontal. WRT the horizontal light the apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down). The null results of the MMX, KTX and the
Compton scattering experiments confirm this.

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Consider the moving ball again....if we define both sides of the ball is
moving vertically up then we are saying that the opposite sides of the ball
are mvoing in different directions. We know that is wrong because both sides
of the ball are moving in the same direction.

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the
MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

BTW I am having a discussion with Androcles on source independency of the
speed of light. You listed some experiments in another thread can you list
them again. Thanks

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
...

"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.

Indeed. And the consequence of that is that what you call "vertical"
must somewhere on the ball be in the tangenial direction, that is
what is called horizontal.

No....the light is defined as always moving horizontally. Notice that it
doesn't matter how the earth is rotating we always call the direction of
motion of the light is horizontal. WRT the horizontal light the apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down). The null results of the MMX, KTX and the
Compton scattering experiments confirm this.

Uh? :-)

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Consider the moving ball again....if we define both sides of the ball is
moving vertically up then we are saying that the opposite sides of the ball
are mvoing in different directions. We know that is wrong because both sides
of the ball are moving in the same direction.

In other words we know that it is wrong that the surface
of the ball and the Earth is moving in the vertical direction everywhere.

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

Which are parallel to the ground.

But we have settled it now, haven't we?
It is wrong that the Earth's surface is moving vertically everywhere.

What did you say the explanation of the MMX and the KTX was?


BTW I am having a discussion with Androcles on source independency of the
speed of light. You listed some experiments in another thread can you list
them again. Thanks

You will find them in the FAQ.

Paul

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

[snip]

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?


The word "vertically" has twice as many syllables as kenseto's neuron
can process. The probability that you can get a sensible answer from
him is approximately 0%.

"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
...

"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
...

No....the light is defined as always moving horizontally. Notice that it
doesn't matter how the earth is rotating we always call the direction of
motion of the light is horizontal. WRT the horizontal light the
apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down). The null results of the MMX, KTX and the
Compton scattering experiments confirm this.

Uh? :-)

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Consider the moving ball again....if we define both sides of the ball is
moving vertically up then we are saying that the opposite sides of the
ball
are mvoing in different directions. We know that is wrong because both
sides
of the ball are moving in the same direction.

In other words we know that it is wrong that the surface
of the ball and the Earth is moving in the vertical direction everywhere.

No.....we know that you were wrong in trying to link that vertical only
means vertically up. Again with the ball example: if the ball is moving from
left to right, the right side of the ball is moving to the right and we call
that direction as vertical up. The left side of the ball is moving to the
right and we call that direction as vertical down.

Notice that if we call the left side of the ball is moving vertical up too
that would mean that the left side is moving to the left by this definition.

IFrankly I don't see what is your problem. All parts of the ball is moving
in one direction. We are using two different terms to describe this
direction of motion from different parts of the ball. This is to avoid the
implication that different parts of the ball is moving in different
directions.

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the
MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

Which are parallel to the ground.

SO??

But we have settled it now, haven't we?

No...we have not settle anything. You keep on insisting that the surface is
moving only vertically up.

It is wrong that the Earth's surface is moving vertically everywhere.

It is the only correct interpretation. The earth's surface is moving
vertically up or down.

What did you say the explanation of the MMX and the KTX was?

The vertically up or vertically down motions are the only direction of
motion that can explain the null results of the MMX and KTX. Also it
explains the Compton shift experiment and why the speed of light is
isotropic.

Ken Seto

"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
...

"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.

Indeed. And the consequence of that is that what you call "vertical"
must somewhere on the ball be in the tangenial direction, that is
what is called horizontal.

No....the light is defined as always moving horizontally. Notice that it
doesn't matter how the earth is rotating we always call the direction of
motion of the light is horizontal. WRT the horizontal light the
apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down). The null results of the MMX, KTX and the
Compton scattering experiments confirm this.

Uh? :-)

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Consider the moving ball again....if we define both sides of the ball is
moving vertically up then we are saying that the opposite sides of the
ball
are mvoing in different directions. We know that is wrong because both
sides
of the ball are moving in the same direction.

In other words we know that it is wrong that the surface
of the ball and the Earth is moving in the vertical direction everywhere.

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the
MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

Which are parallel to the ground.

But we have settled it now, haven't we?
It is wrong that the Earth's surface is moving vertically everywhere.

What did you say the explanation of the MMX and the KTX was?


BTW I am having a discussion with Androcles on source independency of
the
speed of light. You listed some experiments in another thread can you
list
them again. Thanks

You will find them in the FAQ.

Paul
Gawd, you gotta be bored with that one... no fun at all.

"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"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
...

"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
...

No....the light is defined as always moving horizontally. Notice that it
doesn't matter how the earth is rotating we always call the direction of
motion of the light is horizontal. WRT the horizontal light the
apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down). The null results of the MMX, KTX and the
Compton scattering experiments confirm this.

Uh? :-)

Thus:
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

What do you mean by "Vertically up or down are just terms used"?

Consider the moving ball again....if we define both sides of the ball is
moving vertically up then we are saying that the opposite sides of the
ball
are mvoing in different directions. We know that is wrong because both
sides
of the ball are moving in the same direction.

In other words we know that it is wrong that the surface
of the ball and the Earth is moving in the vertical direction everywhere.

No.....we know that you were wrong in trying to link that vertical only
means vertically up. Again with the ball example: if the ball is moving from
left to right, the right side of the ball is moving to the right and we call
that direction as vertical up. The left side of the ball is moving to the
right and we call that direction as vertical down.

We call the direction perpendicular to the surface "vertical".
And the direction parallel to the surface is called horizontal.

The surface on the top of the ball is moving to right and we
call that horizontal.

But you are insisting that ALL points on the surface
are moving vertically, that is perpendicular to the surface.
How is it possible to fail to see how ridiculous this is?

Notice that if we call the left side of the ball is moving vertical up too
that would mean that the left side is moving to the left by this definition.

IFrankly I don't see what is your problem.

And THAT is as obvious as it is amazing.


All parts of the ball is moving in one direction.

Which means that unless your ball is a pancake,
only one point is moving vertically up, and one point
is moving vertically down.

We are using two different terms to describe this
direction of motion from different parts of the ball. This is to avoid the
implication that different parts of the ball is moving in different
directions.

But different points on the surface of the ball are moving in different angels
relative to the surface: vertically up, vertically down, horizontally one way,
horizontally the other way, and in every combination thereof.

Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the
MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

Which are parallel to the ground.

SO??

But we have settled it now, haven't we?

No...we have not settle anything. You keep on insisting that the surface is
moving only vertically up.

No
I insist that YOU are insisting that the surface is moving either
vertically up or down.
Which is blatantly impossible unless the Earth is a pancake.

It is wrong that the Earth's surface is moving vertically everywhere.

It is the only correct interpretation. The earth's surface is moving
vertically up or down.

Booom!

What did you say the explanation of the MMX and the KTX was?

The vertically up or vertically down motions are the only direction of
motion that can explain the null results of the MMX and KTX. Also it
explains the Compton shift experiment and why the speed of light is
isotropic.

Which means that since the Earth isn't exploding,
the only possible explanation is impossible.
You have a problem.

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
...

"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
...

No.....we know that you were wrong in trying to link that vertical only
means vertically up. Again with the ball example: if the ball is moving
from
left to right, the right side of the ball is moving to the right and we
call
that direction as vertical up. The left side of the ball is moving to
the
right and we call that direction as vertical down.

We call the direction perpendicular to the surface "vertical".
And the direction parallel to the surface is called horizontal.

The surface on the top of the ball is moving to right and we
call that horizontal.

You missed the point.I was trying to point out to you that vertical up and
down represent the same direction of motion.

But you are insisting that ALL points on the surface
are moving vertically, that is perpendicular to the surface.
How is it possible to fail to see how ridiculous this is?

The directional unit vector of motion of the surface is either vertical up
or vertical down wrt the horizontal light rays. What is so impossible about
that???

Notice that if we call the left side of the ball is moving vertical up
too
that would mean that the left side is moving to the left by this
definition.

IFrankly I don't see what is your problem.

And THAT is as obvious as it is amazing.


All parts of the ball is moving in one direction.

Which means that unless your ball is a pancake,
only one point is moving vertically up, and one point
is moving vertically down.

No... the directional unit vector is either vertical up or vertical down. on
all parts of the ball (earth).

We are using two different terms to describe this
direction of motion from different parts of the ball. This is to avoid
the
implication that different parts of the ball is moving in different
directions.

But different points on the surface of the ball are moving in different
angels
relative to the surface: vertically up, vertically down, horizontally one
way,
horizontally the other way, and in every combination thereof.

So what?? The light rays are always horizontal. So the surface is always
vertical wrt these light rays.


Ken Seto wrote:
| The null result is because the earth
| surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or
down)
| directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of
the
MMX,
| KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Is "the vertical (up or down) directions" as you have used it here
not perpendicular to the surface?

It is perpendicular wrt the always horizontal light.rays.

Which are parallel to the ground.

SO??

But we have settled it now, haven't we?

No...we have not settle anything. You keep on insisting that the surface
is
moving only vertically up.

No
I insist that YOU are insisting that the surface is moving either
vertically up or down.
Which is blatantly impossible unless the Earth is a pancake.

WRT the horizontal light rays the surface is moving either vertically up or
down. Notice that the light rays are defined as horizontal in all locations
of the earth.


It is wrong that the Earth's surface is moving vertically everywhere.

It is the only correct interpretation. The earth's surface is moving
vertically up or down.

Booom!

What did you say the explanation of the MMX and the KTX was?

The vertically up or vertically down motions are the only direction of
motion that can explain the null results of the MMX and KTX. Also it
explains the Compton shift experiment and why the speed of light is
isotropic.

Which means that since the Earth isn't exploding,
the only possible explanation is impossible.
You have a problem.

No...I don't have a problem. You have a problem. In any location on earth
the light rays are defined as moving horizontally. In order to get the null
results for the MMX and KTX the direction of motion of the apparatus wrt
these light rays must be vertical up or down.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

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

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...
Again with the ball example: if the ball is moving from
left to right, the right side of the ball is moving to the right and we call
that direction as vertical up. The left side of the ball is moving to the
right and we call that direction as vertical down.

We call the direction perpendicular to the surface "vertical".
And the direction parallel to the surface is called horizontal.

The surface on the top of the ball is moving to right and we
call that horizontal.

You missed the point.I was trying to point out to you that vertical up and
down represent the same direction of motion.

But you are insisting that ALL points on the surface
are moving vertically, that is perpendicular to the surface.
How is it possible to fail to see how ridiculous this is?

The directional unit vector of motion of the surface is either vertical up
or vertical down wrt the horizontal light rays. What is so impossible about
that???

Notice that if we call the left side of the ball is moving vertical up too
that would mean that the left side is moving to the left by this definition.

IFrankly I don't see what is your problem.

And THAT is as obvious as it is amazing.


All parts of the ball is moving in one direction.

Which means that unless your ball is a pancake,
only one point is moving vertically up, and one point
is moving vertically down.

No... the directional unit vector is either vertical up or vertical down. on
all parts of the ball (earth).

We are using two different terms to describe this
direction of motion from different parts of the ball. This is to avoid the
implication that different parts of the ball is moving in different
directions.

But different points on the surface of the ball are moving in different angels
relative to the surface: vertically up, vertically down, horizontally one way,
horizontally the other way, and in every combination thereof.

So what?? The light rays are always horizontal. So the surface is always
vertical wrt these light rays.

î
* *
* *
- * * -
- * * -
* *
* *
î

Every point on the surface of the northern hemisphere
moving vertically up,
Every point on the surface of the southern hemisphere
moving vertically down.

Don't put one leg on each side of the equator!

Boooom!

Paul

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

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

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

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...
Again with the ball example: if the ball is moving from
left to right, the right side of the ball is moving to the right and
we call
that direction as vertical up. The left side of the ball is moving
to the
right and we call that direction as vertical down.

We call the direction perpendicular to the surface "vertical".
And the direction parallel to the surface is called horizontal.

The surface on the top of the ball is moving to right and we
call that horizontal.

You missed the point.I was trying to point out to you that vertical up
and
down represent the same direction of motion.

But you are insisting that ALL points on the surface
are moving vertically, that is perpendicular to the surface.
How is it possible to fail to see how ridiculous this is?

The directional unit vector of motion of the surface is either vertical
up
or vertical down wrt the horizontal light rays. What is so impossible
about
that???

Notice that if we call the left side of the ball is moving vertical
up too
that would mean that the left side is moving to the left by this
definition.

IFrankly I don't see what is your problem.

And THAT is as obvious as it is amazing.


All parts of the ball is moving in one direction.

Which means that unless your ball is a pancake,
only one point is moving vertically up, and one point
is moving vertically down.

No... the directional unit vector is either vertical up or vertical
down. on
all parts of the ball (earth).

We are using two different terms to describe this
direction of motion from different parts of the ball. This is to
avoid the
implication that different parts of the ball is moving in different
directions.

But different points on the surface of the ball are moving in
different angels
relative to the surface: vertically up, vertically down, horizontally
one way,
horizontally the other way, and in every combination thereof.

So what?? The light rays are always horizontal. So the surface is always
vertical wrt these light rays.

î
* *
* *
- * * -
- * * -
* *
* *
î

Every point on the surface of the northern hemisphere
moving vertically up,
Every point on the surface of the southern hemisphere
moving vertically down.

Don't put one leg on each side of the equator!

Boooom!

This is stupid. Vertically up wrt the light rays is in the same direction as
vertically down wrt the light rays. So one leg on each side of the equator
would move in the same direction. So there is no boooom. I suggest that you
take time to learn some logic.

Ken Seto