What seems to have been overlooked in all of these discussions is that our
yardstick is composed of matter. this matter is, in turn, of composed of
particles (nuclei containing 99.95% percent of the particles mass which are
separated from each other by distances which are 10^6 times their diameters. In
order for the yardstic to hold together those particles must have:
1:- A means of measuring their separation.
2:- A means of comparing that separation with its nominal value.
3:- A means of applying a force to correct any error in their separation.
(These requirements are basic to all processes, they are not the writer's
invention, so let;s not hear about them.)

The current orthodoxy asserts that the forces between atoms are generated y the
exchange of "virtual photons" (whatever thehell they are) and, in so doing,
asserts that atoms must reposition themselves so as to maintain the LOCALLY
observed velocity of light constant, hence the "shringage of yardsticks".
Similarly, the frequency of the resonances which are used to measure time is
dependant both on the stiffness of the inter atomic bond and the relationship
between mass and energy given by E=M*C^2.

From the preceeding, the otherwise mysterious effects associated with STR and
LET follow:
1:- Matter uses the locally observed velocity of light to determine its size.
2:- Clocks use the locally observed velocity of light to determine their rate
of measuring time.
3:- Information cannot propagate (by normal means) faster than the velocity of
light.

Put the last three statements together and STR and MME immediately follow with
LET as a special cas solution of STR.

The subject is not very difficult but it has been made so by needless
mathematical obfuscation.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results are as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is contracted
by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion of
the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong. The correct
interpretation is
as
follows:
1. There exits a stationary aether.
2. The direction of absolute motion of the earth in this
stationary
aether
is in the vertical (UP or DOWN) direction. This sentence appears
to be
self
contradictory. It is not. If one side of the earth is defined as
vertical
up
then the other side of the earth is defined vertical down.
However,
these
two directions of motion (vertical up and verticle down) are in
the
same
direction in the stationary aether.
3. This means that the light path length from the mirrors at the
ends
of
the
horizontal arms to the re-combining mirror will remain the same
for
all
the
orientations of the horizontal arms. That's why the null result
for
both
the
MMX and KTX.

There is a proposed experiment to test the validity of this
interpretaion
and it is outlined in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto
You've forgotten the truly correct one, Ken.

The null result of MMX is entirely due to the velocity of light
bullets
(photons) being constant with respect to the source. No magical
length
contractions or anything like that. Just like two marbles that are
released
together, follow different paths along guiding chutes and arrive
together,
and it just doesn't matter which way the apparatus is turned, or if
it
takes
place on an airplane, or anything like that. They'll go on arriving
together
time and time again if they are released together. Of course, if you
blow
some wind over them, they won't. One will be slowed more than the
other.
So
no aether wind for light, either. Hence no aether. Simple, isn't it?
Androcles

Wrong....your magic light bullets should have a speed of c+v or c-v
relative to the observer but they are not. So it is not that simple
after
all.:-)
Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c.

Are you sure about that?
Are you sure c+0 is not -c?
After all, since sqrt(1) can be -1 and sqrt(1) can be 1,
we can have
c + 0 = c
= 1 * c
= sqrt(1) * c
= (-1) * c
= -c
You see, c+0 has two answers: c and -c

Dirk Vdm
Note the above clear example of the argument of a troll, sticking its nose
in where it wasn't invited.
Does it occur to you, dirtbag, that lying to make your pathetic jokes is
extremely unethical? Nowhere have I ever said "Logic is utter gibberish",
but you, scumbag, have chosen to maliciously quote me as saying that. You
are a pathetic liar, not to be believed by anyone, and the only reply you
can expect if you answer one of my posts again is this one.
Androcles.

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c.

Are you sure about that?
Are you sure c+0 is not -c?
After all, since sqrt(1) can be -1 and sqrt(1) can be 1,
we can have
c + 0 = c
= 1 * c
= sqrt(1) * c
= (-1) * c
= -c
You see, c+0 has two answers: c and -c

Dirk Vdm
Note the above clear example of the argument of a troll, sticking its nose
in where it wasn't invited.
Does it occur to you, dirtbag, that lying to make your pathetic jokes is
extremely unethical? Nowhere have I ever said "Logic is utter gibberish",
but you, scumbag, have chosen to maliciously quote me as saying that. You
are a pathetic liar,

You mean like in
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Chuckle.html
Title: "Desperately wrong, no way out... so let's chuckle a bit."

Dirk Vdm

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results are as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is contracted
by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion of
the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong. The correct
interpretation
is
as
follows:
1. There exits a stationary aether.
2. The direction of absolute motion of the earth in this
stationary
aether
is in the vertical (UP or DOWN) direction. This sentence appears
to
be
self
contradictory. It is not. If one side of the earth is defined as
vertical
up
then the other side of the earth is defined vertical down.
However,
these
two directions of motion (vertical up and verticle down) are in
the
same
direction in the stationary aether.
3. This means that the light path length from the mirrors at the
ends
of
the
horizontal arms to the re-combining mirror will remain the same
for
all
the
orientations of the horizontal arms. That's why the null result
for
both
the
MMX and KTX.

There is a proposed experiment to test the validity of this
interpretaion
and it is outlined in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto
You've forgotten the truly correct one, Ken.

The null result of MMX is entirely due to the velocity of light
bullets
(photons) being constant with respect to the source. No magical
length
contractions or anything like that. Just like two marbles that are
released
together, follow different paths along guiding chutes and arrive
together,
and it just doesn't matter which way the apparatus is turned, or if
it
takes
place on an airplane, or anything like that. They'll go on arriving
together
time and time again if they are released together. Of course, if you
blow
some wind over them, they won't. One will be slowed more than the
other.
So
no aether wind for light, either. Hence no aether. Simple, isn't it?
Androcles

Wrong....your magic light bullets should have a speed of c+v or c-v
relative to the observer but they are not. So it is not that simple
after
all.:-)

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

When the observer is moving wrt the source he still measures the light
from
the source to be c. How do you explain that?

Ken Seto
Err... I guess I can't explain it, Ken. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to
tell me in what experiment that rather remarkable occurrence took place, or
describe to me how anyone managed to approach the source with any velocity
significantly large enough to be able to make the determination measurable.
Shall we say 0.001% of the speed of light? That's just 300,000,000
meters/second times 0.00001= 3,000 m/s, or roughly 10,000 km/hour. Hmm...
London to San Francisco in an hour. I don't think Concorde could manage
that, do you?
Tell you what I do think, Ken. I think that nobody has ever actually
measured the speed of light from a moving source anywhere on this planet. I
think you are making that one up, Ken.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Michelson Morley experiment,
with fringe shifts and all that good stuff. In which case the observer ISN'T
moving with respect to the source, is he?


Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c. So they DO have a speed of c+v after
all. It's just that in MMX, v happens to be zero. I thinks that's pretty
simple, don't you?
The rolling marbles have a velocity of u, and if you move along one of
the
chutes with one it will have a velocity of u-v, or zero, with respect to
you, and you'll stay alongside it. Stand still and it's velocity with
respect to you will be once again be 'u'. There's nothing magic about
it.
All matter is composed of molecules or individual atoms with electrons,
all
visible light is emitted by individual electrons falling to a lower
energy
state, hence all visible light is comprised of individual photons and
they
don't need any aether to transport them. They are self supporting
electomagnetic phenomena, the magnetic field collapsing and producing an
electric field, which in turn collapses to produce a magnetic field, ad
infinitum. they ar packets of constant energy that cannot be created or
destroyed, only converted to or from some other form, which can be mass.
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (aether)? Yes, according
to
you.
But you can't detect it, can you? Magical things happen, like the
apparatus
shrinking along its length. At least, that's what Lorentz said (Dover,
pp
3 - 7).
Androcles

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results are
as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is
contracted
by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion of
the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong. The correct
interpretation
is
as
follows:
1. There exits a stationary aether.
2. The direction of absolute motion of the earth in this
stationary
aether
is in the vertical (UP or DOWN) direction. This sentence appears
to
be
self
contradictory. It is not. If one side of the earth is defined as
vertical
up
then the other side of the earth is defined vertical down.
However,
these
two directions of motion (vertical up and verticle down) are in
the
same
direction in the stationary aether.
3. This means that the light path length from the mirrors at the
ends
of
the
horizontal arms to the re-combining mirror will remain the same
for
all
the
orientations of the horizontal arms. That's why the null result
for
both
the
MMX and KTX.

There is a proposed experiment to test the validity of this
interpretaion
and it is outlined in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto
You've forgotten the truly correct one, Ken.

The null result of MMX is entirely due to the velocity of light
bullets
(photons) being constant with respect to the source. No magical
length
contractions or anything like that. Just like two marbles that are
released
together, follow different paths along guiding chutes and arrive
together,
and it just doesn't matter which way the apparatus is turned, or
if
it
takes
place on an airplane, or anything like that. They'll go on
arriving
together
time and time again if they are released together. Of course, if
you
blow
some wind over them, they won't. One will be slowed more than the
other.
So
no aether wind for light, either. Hence no aether. Simple, isn't
it?
Androcles

Wrong....your magic light bullets should have a speed of c+v or c-v
relative to the observer but they are not. So it is not that simple
after
all.:-)

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

When the observer is moving wrt the source he still measures the light
from
the source to be c. How do you explain that?

Ken Seto
Err... I guess I can't explain it, Ken. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to
tell me in what experiment that rather remarkable occurrence took place,
or
describe to me how anyone managed to approach the source with any velocity
significantly large enough to be able to make the determination
measurable.
Shall we say 0.001% of the speed of light? That's just 300,000,000
meters/second times 0.00001= 3,000 m/s, or roughly 10,000 km/hour. Hmm...
London to San Francisco in an hour. I don't think Concorde could manage
that, do you?
Tell you what I do think, Ken. I think that nobody has ever actually
measured the speed of light from a moving source anywhere on this planet.
I
think you are making that one up, Ken.

I didn't make up anything. They measured the speed of light from a decaying
peon moving at .999c and they found the speed of that
light is still c.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Michelson Morley experiment,
with fringe shifts and all that good stuff. In which case the observer
ISN'T
moving with respect to the source, is he?

I proved to you that your ballistic model for light is not valid. Therefore
it is not valid for use to explain the MMX null result.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results are as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is contracted by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion of the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong.

But your theory has LET and SR as subsets, so your theory
is wrong:
| DRT includes SR/LET as subsets and its equations
| are valid in all environments--including gravity.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=d...+author%3Aseto
How sad.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: I see nothing wrong with sr-let being subsets of a theory, but
Ken can't rationally claim that for his theory.

Why not? My theory includes both LET and SR.

For LET:
The LET assertion of length contraction is replaced with the longer light
path length of a moving rod while a rod remains the same length physically
in all frames.

For SR:
1.The speed of light is not a universal constant as asserted by SR. It is a
constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458 m) /the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
2. The SR assertion of apparent length contraction is replaced with the
longer light path length of a moving rod.

Ken Seto

xxein: So you say. Now use your theory to show the special relation
of R=2M. If you can manage that, then go to R=3M and show it. Maybe,
then, somebody can take your stuff seriously.

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in
message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results
are
as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is
contracted
by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion
of
the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong. The correct
interpretation
is
as
follows:
1. There exits a stationary aether.
2. The direction of absolute motion of the earth in this
stationary
aether
is in the vertical (UP or DOWN) direction. This sentence
appears
to
be
self
contradictory. It is not. If one side of the earth is defined
as
vertical
up
then the other side of the earth is defined vertical down.
However,
these
two directions of motion (vertical up and verticle down) are
in
the
same
direction in the stationary aether.
3. This means that the light path length from the mirrors at
the
ends
of
the
horizontal arms to the re-combining mirror will remain the
same
for
all
the
orientations of the horizontal arms. That's why the null
result
for
both
the
MMX and KTX.

There is a proposed experiment to test the validity of this
interpretaion
and it is outlined in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto
You've forgotten the truly correct one, Ken.

The null result of MMX is entirely due to the velocity of light
bullets
(photons) being constant with respect to the source. No magical
length
contractions or anything like that. Just like two marbles that
are
released
together, follow different paths along guiding chutes and arrive
together,
and it just doesn't matter which way the apparatus is turned, or
if
it
takes
place on an airplane, or anything like that. They'll go on
arriving
together
time and time again if they are released together. Of course, if
you
blow
some wind over them, they won't. One will be slowed more than
the
other.
So
no aether wind for light, either. Hence no aether. Simple, isn't
it?
Androcles

Wrong....your magic light bullets should have a speed of c+v or
c-v
relative to the observer but they are not. So it is not that
simple
after
all.:-)

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

When the observer is moving wrt the source he still measures the light
from
the source to be c. How do you explain that?

Ken Seto
Err... I guess I can't explain it, Ken. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to
tell me in what experiment that rather remarkable occurrence took place,
or
describe to me how anyone managed to approach the source with any
velocity
significantly large enough to be able to make the determination
measurable.
Shall we say 0.001% of the speed of light? That's just 300,000,000
meters/second times 0.00001= 3,000 m/s, or roughly 10,000 km/hour.
Hmm...
London to San Francisco in an hour. I don't think Concorde could manage
that, do you?
Tell you what I do think, Ken. I think that nobody has ever actually
measured the speed of light from a moving source anywhere on this
planet.
I
think you are making that one up, Ken.

I didn't make up anything. They measured the speed of light from a
decaying
peon moving at .999c and they found the speed of that
light is still c.
Was it a Mexican peon, by any chance? And who might 'they' be? Come on now,
let's have your understanding of this wonderful event. How was the clock
started, what distance was the pion measured over, what signal was used to
stop the pre-synchronized clock at the other end of the drag strip, how were
the clocks synchronized, how fast did that signal travel between the clocks,
etc., etc. If you want to have a bash at relativity, shouldn't you at least
know the blunders they make when they make these ridiculous claims? Don't
you know that relativists are notorious at inventing experiments that prove
what they want to prove?

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Michelson Morley experiment,
with fringe shifts and all that good stuff. In which case the observer
ISN'T
moving with respect to the source, is he?

I proved to you that your ballistic model for light is not valid.
Therefore
it is not valid for use to explain the MMX null result.

Ken Seto

Proved? To me? I saw you make an argument that I refuted, but I saw no
proof.
Oh dear... do you think that if you say it, that's a proof? Sorry, you are
not going to convince anyone that way. And look, you've snipped as well,
without saying why. Perhaps you lost it accidentally. I'll put it back for
you so that you have a chance to answer it. Come on now, read it and provide
a proof of what is wrong with it.

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c. So they DO have a speed of c+v after
all. It's just that in MMX, v happens to be zero. I thinks that's pretty
simple, don't you?
The rolling marbles have a velocity of u, and if you move along one of the
chutes with one it will have a velocity of u-v, or zero, with respect to
you, and you'll stay alongside it. Stand still and it's velocity with
respect to you will be once again be 'u'. There's nothing magic about it.
All matter is composed of molecules or individual atoms with electrons, all
visible light is emitted by individual electrons falling to a lower energy
state, hence all visible light is comprised of individual photons and they
don't need any aether to transport them. They are self supporting
electomagnetic phenomena, the magnetic field collapsing and producing an
electric field, which in turn collapses to produce a magnetic field, ad
infinitum. they ar packets of constant energy that cannot be created or
destroyed, only converted to or from some other form, which can be mass.
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (aether)? Yes, according to
you.
But you can't detect it, can you? Magical things happen, like the apparatus
shrinking along its length. At least, that's what Lorentz said (Dover, pp
3 - 7).
Androcles

"xxein" wrote in message
m...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Correct Interpretation of the MMX and KTX Null Results.

The current interpretations of the MMX and KTX null results are as
follows:
1. The LET interpretation:
The arm that is parallel to the direction of motion is contracted
by
an
appropriate amount and thus cancels out the effect of motion of
the
earth
through the aether.

2. The SR interpretation:
There is no aether and the speed of light is isotropic.

Both of these interpretations are wrong.

But your theory has LET and SR as subsets, so your theory
is wrong:
| DRT includes SR/LET as subsets and its equations
| are valid in all environments--including gravity.

http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=d...+author%3Aseto
How sad.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: I see nothing wrong with sr-let being subsets of a theory, but
Ken can't rationally claim that for his theory.

Why not? My theory includes both LET and SR.

For LET:
The LET assertion of length contraction is replaced with the longer
light
path length of a moving rod while a rod remains the same length
physically
in all frames.

For SR:
1.The speed of light is not a universal constant as asserted by SR. It
is a
constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458 m) /the absolute time content for
a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
2. The SR assertion of apparent length contraction is replaced with the
longer light path length of a moving rod.

Ken Seto

xxein: So you say.

No...that's what my theory says.

Now use your theory to show the special relation
of R=2M. If you can manage that, then go to R=3M and show it. Maybe,
then, somebody can take your stuff seriously.

What's R and M?

Ken Seto

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"AndroclesInEngland" wrote in
message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
measured the speed of light from a moving source anywhere on this
planet.
I
think you are making that one up, Ken.

I didn't make up anything. They measured the speed of light from a
decaying
peon moving at .999c and they found the speed of that
light is still c.
Was it a Mexican peon, by any chance? And who might 'they' be? Come on
now,
let's have your understanding of this wonderful event. How was the clock
started, what distance was the pion measured over, what signal was used to
stop the pre-synchronized clock at the other end of the drag strip, how
were
the clocks synchronized, how fast did that signal travel between the
clocks,
etc., etc. If you want to have a bash at relativity, shouldn't you at
least
know the blunders they make when they make these ridiculous claims? Don't
you know that relativists are notorious at inventing experiments that
prove
what they want to prove?

Don't ask me. I got this info from this NG....specifically from Tom Roberts.
Do you agree that the earth is moving relative to the sun? How come we
measure the speed of the light from the sun is c?

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Michelson Morley
experiment,
with fringe shifts and all that good stuff. In which case the observer
ISN'T
moving with respect to the source, is he?

I proved to you that your ballistic model for light is not valid.
Therefore
it is not valid for use to explain the MMX null result.

Ken Seto

Proved? To me?

Yes....I proved to you that the speed of light is independent of the motion
of the source. Paul Anderson listed a number of experiments that validate
the source independency of the speed of light in another thread. Perhaps he
will list them again.
Now it is your turn to list the number of experiments to prove to me that
the speed of light is source dependent. Thanks.

I saw you make an argument that I refuted, but I saw no
proof.
Oh dear... do you think that if you say it, that's a proof? Sorry, you are
not going to convince anyone that way. And look, you've snipped as well,
without saying why. Perhaps you lost it accidentally. I'll put it back
for
you so that you have a chance to answer it. Come on now, read it and
provide
a proof of what is wrong with it.

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0

The proper question is: Is the observer moving relative to the light
bullets? The answer is yes. So according to you we have a case of c+v or
c-v. But we don't detect that experimentally.

Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0

The proper question is: Is the detector moving relative to the light
bullets? The answer is yes. So according to you we have a case of c+v or
c-v. But we don't detect that experimentally

Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

The observer is know to move relative to the air sometime.

Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c. So they DO have a speed of c+v after
all. It's just that in MMX, v happens to be zero. I thinks that's pretty
simple, don't you?

Not simple at all. Its full of holes.

The rolling marbles have a velocity of u, and if you move along one of the
chutes with one it will have a velocity of u-v, or zero, with respect to
you, and you'll stay alongside it. Stand still and it's velocity with
respect to you will be once again be 'u'. There's nothing magic about it.
All matter is composed of molecules or individual atoms with electrons,
all
visible light is emitted by individual electrons falling to a lower energy
state, hence all visible light is comprised of individual photons and they
don't need any aether to transport them.

Photons are wave packets. They still need the aether to transport them.

They are self supporting
electomagnetic phenomena, the magnetic field collapsing and producing an
electric field, which in turn collapses to produce a magnetic field, ad
infinitum. they ar packets of constant energy that cannot be created or
destroyed, only converted to or from some other form, which can be mass.
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (aether)? Yes, according to
you.

I agree with that. All observers are moving in the stationary aether.

But you can't detect it, can you?

Yes I can detect it with the proposed experiment in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Magical things happen, like the apparatus
shrinking along its length. At least, that's what Lorentz said (Dover, pp
3 - 7).

Not according to my theory. There is no need for the bogus assertion of
length contraction as proposed by Lorentz. The MMX apparatus is moving
vertically (up or down) and thus the light path length from the mirror at
the end of each arm remains constant for all the horizontal orientations of
the horizontal arms. This was the reason for the observed null result.

Ken Seto

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:40:36 +0100, "AndroclesInEngland"
wrote:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...


Tell you what I do think, Ken. I think that nobody has ever actually
measured the speed of light from a moving source anywhere on this
planet.
I
think you are making that one up, Ken.

I didn't make up anything. They measured the speed of light from a
decaying
peon moving at .999c and they found the speed of that
light is still c.
Was it a Mexican peon, by any chance? And who might 'they' be? Come on now,
let's have your understanding of this wonderful event. How was the clock
started, what distance was the pion measured over, what signal was used to
stop the pre-synchronized clock at the other end of the drag strip, how were
the clocks synchronized, how fast did that signal travel between the clocks,
etc., etc. If you want to have a bash at relativity, shouldn't you at least
know the blunders they make when they make these ridiculous claims? Don't
you know that relativists are notorious at inventing experiments that prove
what they want to prove?

Just ask Paul Anderson.

He can tell you of dozens of experiments where the desired answer was known
beforehand and miraculously just happened to turn up - always to within about 1
part in 10^10 of the relativistic prediction. What a surprise! More funding for
the researcher too!

The atmospheric muon experiment is the biggest joke of all. It is actually
designed to reject superluminal muons because they are not permitted under SR.
Yet quite obviously, most of the ones that reach the surface start out
travelling at c.




Anyway, I thought we were talking about the Michelson Morley experiment,
with fringe shifts and all that good stuff. In which case the observer
ISN'T
moving with respect to the source, is he?

I proved to you that your ballistic model for light is not valid.
Therefore
it is not valid for use to explain the MMX null result.

Ken Seto

Proved? To me? I saw you make an argument that I refuted, but I saw no
proof.
Oh dear... do you think that if you say it, that's a proof? Sorry, you are
not going to convince anyone that way. And look, you've snipped as well,
without saying why. Perhaps you lost it accidentally. I'll put it back for
you so that you have a chance to answer it. Come on now, read it and provide
a proof of what is wrong with it.

Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.

Since v = 0 in this case, c+0 = c. So they DO have a speed of c+v after
all. It's just that in MMX, v happens to be zero. I thinks that's pretty
simple, don't you?
The rolling marbles have a velocity of u, and if you move along one of the
chutes with one it will have a velocity of u-v, or zero, with respect to
you, and you'll stay alongside it. Stand still and it's velocity with
respect to you will be once again be 'u'. There's nothing magic about it.
All matter is composed of molecules or individual atoms with electrons, all
visible light is emitted by individual electrons falling to a lower energy
state, hence all visible light is comprised of individual photons and they
don't need any aether to transport them. They are self supporting
electomagnetic phenomena, the magnetic field collapsing and producing an
electric field, which in turn collapses to produce a magnetic field, ad
infinitum. they ar packets of constant energy that cannot be created or
destroyed, only converted to or from some other form, which can be mass.
Is the observer moving relative to the medium (aether)? Yes, according to
you.
But you can't detect it, can you? Magical things happen, like the apparatus
shrinking along its length. At least, that's what Lorentz said (Dover, pp
3 - 7).
Androcles



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
My latest: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe