Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal light
rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal orientations
of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction. This defined direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined
horizontal light rays) will also explain why the speed of light is measured
to
be isotropic horizontally. The following link contains a proposed experiment
that will support this explanation for the MMX null result. Also this
proposed
experiment is the only properly designed experiment capable of detecting the
absolute motion of the earth's surface.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf


Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:

Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal light
rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal orientations
of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction.
So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go to?


This defined direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined
horizontal light rays) will also explain why the speed of light is measured
to
be isotropic horizontally. The following link contains a proposed experiment
that will support this explanation for the MMX null result. Also this
proposed
experiment is the only properly designed experiment capable of detecting the
absolute motion of the earth's surface.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf


Ken Seto






-----= 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:

Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal
light
rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal
orientations
of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction
..
So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go to?

No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving in
it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.

Ken Seto


This defined direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined
horizontal light rays) will also explain why the speed of light is
measured
to
be isotropic horizontally. The following link contains a proposed
experiment
that will support this explanation for the MMX null result. Also this
proposed
experiment is the only properly designed experiment capable of detecting
the
absolute motion of the earth's surface.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...apers/Seto.pdf


Ken Seto






-----= 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! =-----

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

kenseto wrote:


Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal

light

rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal

orientations

of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction

.

So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go to?


No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving in
it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus is
moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.
The Earth is round. The interferometer experiments have been performed
at different times of day, at different times of the year. If the ether
was always moving vertically wrt the apparatus, then it must be
vanishing into or emerging from the earth in all directions.



-----= 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:


Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal

light

rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal

orientations

of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction

.

So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go
to?


No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving
in
it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus
is
moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.

The Earth is round. The interferometer experiments have been performed
at different times of day, at different times of the year. If the ether
was always moving vertically wrt the apparatus, then it must be
vanishing into or emerging from the earth in all directions.

Do you have reading problem? I said that the ether is structured and
stationary and the earth is moving in it.
It doen't matter when or where the experiment is performed and how the
earth is moving wrt to other celestial objects. The only relevant motion
is that motion of the apparatus wrt to the defined horizontal light rays..
It might help if you keep in mind that the light rays are defined to be
moving horizontally in all experimental locations.
Notice that when the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in all
locations and the MMX apparatus is then defined as moving vertically
wrt these horizontal light rays. This creates the situation that one-half
of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically up and the other
half of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically down.

Ken Seto

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

kenseto wrote:

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...


kenseto wrote:



Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal

light


rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal

orientations


of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or down)
direction

.


So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go

to?


No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving

in

it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus

is

moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.


The Earth is round. The interferometer experiments have been performed
at different times of day, at different times of the year. If the ether
was always moving vertically wrt the apparatus, then it must be
vanishing into or emerging from the earth in all directions.


Do you have reading problem? I said that the ether is structured and
stationary and the earth is moving in it.
It doen't matter when or where the experiment is performed and how the
earth is moving wrt to other celestial objects. The only relevant motion
is that motion of the apparatus wrt to the defined horizontal light rays..
It might help if you keep in mind that the light rays are defined to be
moving horizontally in all experimental locations.
Notice that when the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in all
locations and the MMX apparatus is then defined as moving vertically
wrt these horizontal light rays. This creates the situation that one-half
of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically up and the other
half of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically down.


Are you advocating a flat earth, or do you honestly believe there is an
absolute vertical on a sphere?



-----= 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:



Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal

light


rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal

orientations


of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or
down)
direction

.


So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go

to?


No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving

in

it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus

is

moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.


The Earth is round. The interferometer experiments have been performed
at different times of day, at different times of the year. If the ether
was always moving vertically wrt the apparatus, then it must be
vanishing into or emerging from the earth in all directions.


Do you have reading problem? I said that the ether is structured and
stationary and the earth is moving in it.
It doen't matter when or where the experiment is performed and how the
earth is moving wrt to other celestial objects. The only relevant
motion
is that motion of the apparatus wrt to the defined horizontal light
rays..
It might help if you keep in mind that the light rays are defined to be
moving horizontally in all experimental locations.
Notice that when the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in
all
locations and the MMX apparatus is then defined as moving vertically
wrt these horizontal light rays. This creates the situation that
one-half
of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically up and the other
half of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically down.


Are you advocating a flat earth, or do you honestly believe there is an
absolute vertical on a sphere?

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.

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:




Analysis of the experimental design:
The MMX is designed to reveal the motion of the apparatus
in the stationary ether. However, it is clear that in order for the
experiment to show a none-null result the apparatus must be moving
horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. Since
the experiment gave null results it must mean that the apparatus was
not moving in the same horizontal plane as the defined horizontal
light rays. This means that the design of the MMX is flawed. Why?
Because even there is motion in the stationary ether the MMX is not
capable of detecting it.
What direction of absolute motion (motion wrt the defined horizontal

light



rays)
of the apparatus will give a null result for all the horizontal

orientations



of the arms? The answer to this question is: The vertical (up or

down)

direction

.



So is the Earth a source or sink of ether? Where does it come from/go

to?


No silly...the ether is structured and stationary. The earth is moving

in


it. The light rays
in the MMX experiment are defined as horizontal and thus the apparatus

is


moving vertically (up or down) wrt these defined horizontal light rays.


The Earth is round. The interferometer experiments have been performed
at different times of day, at different times of the year. If the ether
was always moving vertically wrt the apparatus, then it must be
vanishing into or emerging from the earth in all directions.


Do you have reading problem? I said that the ether is structured and
stationary and the earth is moving in it.
It doen't matter when or where the experiment is performed and how the
earth is moving wrt to other celestial objects. The only relevant

motion

is that motion of the apparatus wrt to the defined horizontal light

rays..

It might help if you keep in mind that the light rays are defined to be
moving horizontally in all experimental locations.
Notice that when the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in

all

locations and the MMX apparatus is then defined as moving vertically
wrt these horizontal light rays. This creates the situation that

one-half

of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically up and the other
half of the earth surface is defined as moving vertically down.


Are you advocating a flat earth, or do you honestly believe there is an
absolute vertical on a sphere?


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.





-----= 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
...


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.

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
...


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?
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.

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



-----= 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! =-----