On 7 Dec 2003 00:27:37 -0800, (Bruce Pew) wrote:

(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.

A moronic reply from a true SRian moron.


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


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

"Bruce Pew" wrote in message
om...
"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.

Hey moron....you don't have the ability to comprehend is not my problem.

Ken Seto

"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!!!!!!

Henri you misinterpreted the equivalence principle. All objects on earth are
accelerating
toward the center of the earth.

Ken Seto

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

Hey moron....you don't have the ability to comprehend is not my problem.

Its self evident that you [cluelessnitwitboogereatingmoronkenseto]
define the term moron. Your function in this newsgroup is to troll and
remain a source of derision.

Ken Seto

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

Hey moron....you don't have the ability to comprehend is not my problem.

Its self evident that you
[cluelessnitwitboogereatingmoronkensetohenriwilsonc lone] define the
term moron. Your function in this newsgroup is to troll and remain a
source of derision.

Ken Seto

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:25:58 -0500, "kenseto" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message

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!!!!!!

Henri you misinterpreted the equivalence principle. All objects on earth are
accelerating toward the center of the earth.

Well, the surface is said to be accelerating outwards, thus providing the force
on our feet when we are standing up.

Anyway it doen't matter. Either way, the movement is radial, . That is also
what you are claiming about the MMX apparatus. It is always moving at right
angles to the horizontal light rays.

So if you are crazy, so is Einstein.

get it?


Ken Seto





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