Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:08:49 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:df6ge2-bk7.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.physics, kenseto
> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:10:11 GMT
> <n_5Rd.44553$i42.32702@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> > message news:00tee2-qp3.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> In sci.physics, kenseto
> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> wrote
> >> on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:21:12 GMT
> >> <cPOQd.32529$XY5.9484@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >
> >> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> > message
> >> > news:cuvtqq$3q6$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> >> > In sci.physics, kenseto
> >> >> > <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:27:34 GMT
> >> >> > <qLIQd.43390$i42.18900@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> >>news:cuv49q$si9$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>A.S. wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>A.S. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>kenseto wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>>>news:1108196351.363959.109670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>Note to A.S.,
> >> >> >>>>>>>Notice none of the runts of the SRians offer a valid reason
that
> >> >> >>>>>>>could refute my theory.as you requested. :-)
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Notice that I *did* offer such a reason: Michelson-Morley.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>Instead they all started to attack me!!!
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Seto, read up on "paranoia".
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>Bjoern, the following are the details of the atomic model
> >> >> >>>>version of Ken Seto. If you can debunk it
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Err, why are you not satisfied with the arguments I already gave?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Because you didn't give any arguement. What you did was
hand-waving.
> >> >> >>The MMX did not refute my theory.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > MMX can only refute a rigid, stationary luminiferous aether.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's essentially what Seto proposes with his "E-matrix".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wrong again. :-)
> >> > The MMX as designed cannot refute any aether theory.
> >> > The apparatus is moving vertically wrt the defined
> >> > horizontal light rays and thus the light path lengths
> >> > for all the orientations of the arms remain constant
> >> > and thus the null result.
> >>
> >> Excellent!
> >>
> >> Now explain Sagnac's effect (which basically places MMX on
> >> a giant smoothly rotating platform).
> >
> > The Sagnac's effect is not the same as the MMX. It detects the effect of
the
> > absolute motion of the rotating mirrors.
>
> Ah, of course. Now why didn't I think of that? :-P
>
> >>
> >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> >> http://www.wbabin.net/babin/sagnac.htm
> >>
> >> > The MMX can detect absolute motion if the plane of the light rays is
> >> > oriented vertically.
> >> > BTW the proposed experiment in the following link will confirm that
the
> >> > absolute motion on the earth surface is in the vertical direction.
> >> > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >>
> >> For all times of day, latitudes, and times of year?
> >
> > Yes ...this was explained to you many time. The detected motion is wrt
the
> > direction of motion of the light rays. The earth surface is moving
> > vertically wrt the defined horizontal light rays. time of day, latitudes
and
> > time of year have no effect on this relationship. Why?? Because the
light
> > rays are defined as moving horizontally in all experimental locations at
all
> > time of the year.
>
> OK.
>
> Now put a polarization filter in the lightbeam.
>
> I'll wait.
What is your point???
Ken Seto
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
