"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical direction
is
defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all light

rays

are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and the
apparatus.

So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?

The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.

Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.

This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half of the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light ray
not how the earth moves.

It is a good thing your definitions do not apply to the real world.

shrugg you got comprehension problem. I suggest that you read
a book on logic.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical direction

is

defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all light

rays


are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.


Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half of the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light ray
not how the earth moves.

On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.

It is a good thing your definitions do not apply to the real world.


shrugg you got comprehension problem. I suggest that you read
a book on logic.
LOL. I just want to know how "vertical" can be the same direction (or
just one of two directions) in New York, London, Moscow, Tokyo, .....




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical direction

is

defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all
light

rays


are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.


Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half of
the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light
ray
not how the earth moves.

On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.

You are a moron.....one half of the earth has a vector component up
and the other half of the earth has a vector component down wrt the
DEFINED HORIZONTAL LIGHT RAYS.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .





kenseto wrote:





"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical direction

is


defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all

light

rays



are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.



Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half of

the

earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light

ray

not how the earth moves.


On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.


You are a moron.....one half of the earth has a vector component up
and the other half of the earth has a vector component down wrt the
DEFINED HORIZONTAL LIGHT RAYS.

But, "vertical" on the whole Earth (except for two points) also has a
horizontal component wrt to the DEFINED HORIZONTAL LIGHT RAYS, and the
DEFINED HORIZONTAL is different for every trial, so the DEFINED VERTICAL
will be different.

A real test of your explanation of the MMX would be to run it at various
points on the Earth at the same time. They can be set up to be
perpendicular by placing them at appropriate points. If your
explanation is correct, then at least one of the trials will detect
motion. by running repeated trials, it would be possible to determine
the direction of absolute motion.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Brian Kennelly wrote in message ...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical direction

is

defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all light

rays


are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.


Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half of the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light ray
not how the earth moves.

On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.

It is a good thing your definitions do not apply to the real world.


shrugg you got comprehension problem. I suggest that you read
a book on logic.
LOL. I just want to know how "vertical" can be the same direction (or
just one of two directions) in New York, London, Moscow, Tokyo, .....

Apparently it 'can be' for a clueless nitwit like seto. Its funny how
he trolls this newsgroup. It always starts with something like
'relativity is flawed' and ends up with seto suggesting that
'non-clueless folk' read a book on logic. I'm surprised seto can spell
logic.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
Brian Kennelly wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical
direction

is

defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all
light

rays


are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical
direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as
they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times
of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location
is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED
as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and
the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.


Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half
of the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is
moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light
ray
not how the earth moves.

On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.

It is a good thing your definitions do not apply to the real world.


shrugg you got comprehension problem. I suggest that you read
a book on logic.
LOL. I just want to know how "vertical" can be the same direction (or
just one of two directions) in New York, London, Moscow, Tokyo, .....

Apparently it 'can be' for a clueless nitwit like seto. Its funny how
he trolls this newsgroup. It always starts with something like
'relativity is flawed' and ends up with seto suggesting that
'non-clueless folk' read a book on logic. I'm surprised seto can spell
logic.

Idiot ....go learn some real physics.

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half
of

the

earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is
moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light

ray

not how the earth moves.


On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.


You are a moron.....one half of the earth has a vector component up
and the other half of the earth has a vector component down wrt the
DEFINED HORIZONTAL LIGHT RAYS.

But, "vertical" on the whole Earth (except for two points) also has a
horizontal component wrt to the DEFINED HORIZONTAL LIGHT RAYS, and the
DEFINED HORIZONTAL is different for every trial, so the DEFINED VERTICAL
will be different.

The effect of the horizontal component is very small. Why? Because it is
dependent on c+Vh or c-Vh. Since c isVh then it will have very
samll effect on fringe shift. This very small shift is detected by the
Dayton-Miller ex[eriment. OTOH, the effect of the vertical component
is not dependent on c and therefore a very small value of the vertical
component is detectable.

A real test of your explanation of the MMX would be to run it at various
points on the Earth at the same time. They can be set up to be
perpendicular by placing them at appropriate points. If your
explanation is correct, then at least one of the trials will detect
motion. by running repeated trials, it would be possible to determine
the direction of absolute motion.

NO....a better experiment to confirm my explanation is outlined in the
following link: This proposed experiment is approved for publication by
the peer-reviewed journal Galilean Electrodynamics

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
Brian Kennelly wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:


"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...



kenseto wrote:



"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...




kenseto wrote:




"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
.. .


I now realize that you have a reading problem. The vertical
direction

is

defined as wrt the defined horizontal light rays. Notice that all
light

rays


are defined as moving horizontally in all locations on earth.


I don't think you have any sense of geometry. The vertical
direction
cannot have been the same for all interferometer experiments, as
they
have been done at different places on the Earth, at different times
of
day, and different times of the year.


Hey iodiot....It doesn't matter how the earth move and what location
is
the experiment. The light rays are DEFINED as moving horizontally in
all locations. In order to get null resuult the apparatus is DEFINED
as
moving vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. The phrases
"defined horizontal" and "defined vertical" are used to describe the
relationship on the direction of motions between the light rays and
the
apparatus.


So every point on Earth defined as moving vertically at all times?


The light rays are defined as moving "horizontally" on all locations.
Since null result was obtained on all experimental locations, the a
pparatus must be moving vertically (perpendicular) wrt these
defined horizontal light rays.


Given the shape of the Earth, it appears that your Earth should have
been defined to explode or to have shrunk to a point long ago.


This is stupid. The vertical direction is "up" or "down". If one half
of the
earth is moving vertically up then the other half of the earth is
moving
vertically down. Besides, vertical is wrt the defined horizontal light
ray
not how the earth moves.

On a spherical Earth, "up" is away from the center of the earth, "down"
is toward it. This is a different spatial direction at different points
on the Earth. For your description to work, the Earth would have to be
flat, so that half the Earth could agree about each direction.

It is a good thing your definitions do not apply to the real world.


shrugg you got comprehension problem. I suggest that you read
a book on logic.
LOL. I just want to know how "vertical" can be the same direction (or
just one of two directions) in New York, London, Moscow, Tokyo, .....

Apparently it 'can be' for a clueless nitwit like seto. Its funny how
he trolls this newsgroup. It always starts with something like
'relativity is flawed' and ends up with seto suggesting that
'non-clueless folk' read a book on logic. I'm surprised seto can spell
logic.

Idiot ....go learn some real physics.

No question who the idiot is [cluelessnitwitkenseto]. Your function in
this newsgroup is to troll and be a source of derision. Quite a few
intelligent folks have given you [cluelessnitwitkenseto] the
opportunity to explain your convoluted incoherent bull**** [aether
theory]. You always fail.

On 6 Dec 2003 11:16:24 -0800, (Bruce Pew) wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message


Apparently it 'can be' for a clueless nitwit like seto. Its funny how
he trolls this newsgroup. It always starts with something like
'relativity is flawed' and ends up with seto suggesting that
'non-clueless folk' read a book on logic. I'm surprised seto can spell
logic.

Idiot ....go learn some real physics.

No question who the idiot is [cluelessnitwitkenseto]. Your function in
this newsgroup is to troll and be a source of derision. Quite a few
intelligent folks have given you [cluelessnitwitkenseto] the
opportunity to explain your convoluted incoherent bull**** [aether
theory]. You always fail.

Ken sometimes actually has the rudiments of a good point - but he rarely knows
how to develop his ideas or explain them to anyone else. Hence he often DOES
sound like a complete idiot even though, to him, everyone else IS one.

In the MMX case, he might just be correct.

His point is that if an aether exists, it has no absolute, horizontal,
vertical, up, down or left and right directions. Whichever plane the light
beams of the MMX apparatus travel in, can therefore be taken as INSTANTANEOUS
'horizontal', by definition.

Since there is a null result, the only explanation Ken can give (Ken considers
no alternatives) is that the apparatus is always moving absolutely in a
direction perpendicular to that horizontal plane.

Now that might sound blatantly stupid. BUT IT IS NO MORE RIDICULOUS THAN GR'S
EXPLANATION OF 'WHY WE DON'T FALL OFF PLANET EARTH'.

The equivalence principle virtually says the same thing. We are all
accelerating outwards from the centre of the earth - INCLUDING THE MMX
APPARATUS!!!!!!

So if you regard Ken as an absolute trolling idiot, you must also place
Einstein in that same category. Otherwise please forever regard yourself as
just a confused, self-deluded hypocrite.

Unless the MMX can be performed in the vertical direction, how can you
completely rule out Ken's theory? I might go so far as to even suggest that his
consideration has the potential to produce a theoretical relationship between
the value of 'g' and the small observed fringe shift.



Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
On 6 Dec 2003 11:16:24 -0800, (Bruce Pew) wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Bruce Pew" wrote in message


Apparently it 'can be' for a clueless nitwit like seto. Its funny how
he trolls this newsgroup. It always starts with something like
'relativity is flawed' and ends up with seto suggesting that
'non-clueless folk' read a book on logic. I'm surprised seto can spell
logic.

Idiot ....go learn some real physics.

No question who the idiot is [cluelessnitwitkenseto]. Your function in
this newsgroup is to troll and be a source of derision. Quite a few
intelligent folks have given you [cluelessnitwitkenseto] the
opportunity to explain your convoluted incoherent bull**** [aether
theory]. You always fail.

Ken sometimes actually has the rudiments of a good point - but he rarely knows
how to develop his ideas or explain them to anyone else. Hence he often DOES
sound like a complete idiot even though, to him, everyone else IS one.

In the MMX case, he might just be correct.

His point is that if an aether exists, it has no absolute, horizontal,
vertical, up, down or left and right directions. Whichever plane the light
beams of the MMX apparatus travel in, can therefore be taken as INSTANTANEOUS
'horizontal', by definition.

Since there is a null result, the only explanation Ken can give (Ken considers
no alternatives) is that the apparatus is always moving absolutely in a
direction perpendicular to that horizontal plane.

Now that might sound blatantly stupid. BUT IT IS NO MORE RIDICULOUS THAN GR'S
EXPLANATION OF 'WHY WE DON'T FALL OFF PLANET EARTH'.

The equivalence principle virtually says the same thing. We are all
accelerating outwards from the centre of the earth - INCLUDING THE MMX
APPARATUS!!!!!!

So if you regard Ken as an absolute trolling idiot, you must also place
Einstein in that same category. Otherwise please forever regard yourself as
just a confused, self-deluded hypocrite.

Einstein was fine but you are a clueless nitwit [just like ken]. Your
function in this newsgroup is to troll and be a source of derision.
Tweedleken and tweedlehenri.

Unless the MMX can be performed in the vertical direction, how can you
completely rule out Ken's theory? I might go so far as to even suggest that his
consideration has the potential to produce a theoretical relationship between
the value of 'g' and the small observed fringe shift.



Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm