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

"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

"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

"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.:-)

Ken Seto

"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.

"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. 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 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,

I can imagine *you* see nothing wrong with wrong theories
being subsets of a theory.

but
Ken can't rationally claim that for his theory.

Ken?
Rationally?
Theory?

Dirk Vdm

"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

"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

"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


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