Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and its three directions)
Next: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, May 28, 2010 Washington,DC
From: kenseto on 31 May 2010 09:04 On May 31, 4:09 am, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > The following link descibes a new doable experiment to detect absolute > > motion. Also included are new interpretions for the results of past > > experiments caused by absolute motion: The Photoelectric Experiment > > and the Double-Slit Experiment. > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > Ken Seto > > Really, hasn't this been taken care of already by the Michelson-Morley > experiments -- more than a century ago? They've come up with more and > more sensitive versions of experiments ever since, culminating in the > current LIGO, GEO600, and TAMA300 experiments which are basically > kilometer-scale versions of the Michelson-Morley apparatus. The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted by relativity. My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the final spot. The length of this path in combination with the Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the photographic paper. Ken Seto > > None of them have detected any absolute motion as they travel with the > Earth around the Sun. Incidently, they haven't detected any > gravitational waves either, which is what they were designed to look > for. Absolute motion detection is orders of magnitude easier than > gravity wave detection, as the Earth's motion around the Sun would > produce much bigger waves in an Aether than any gravity waves in > Relativity would. > > Yousuf Khan
From: kenseto on 31 May 2010 09:09 On May 29, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 8:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > The following link descibes a new doable experiment to detect absolute > > motion. Also included are new interpretions for the results of past > > experiments caused by absolute motion: The Photoelectric Experiment > > and the Double-Slit Experiment.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > Ken Seto > > The experimental proposal is completely inadequate. You are an idiot runt of the SRians.
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 10:23 kenseto wrote: [...] > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > photographic paper. hahahahahahahah [...]
From: kenseto on 31 May 2010 11:46 On May 29, 3:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > you must have something which is fixed No you don't need anything that is fixed to have absolute motion....in fact no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest. Two objects can move individually and the observed relative velocity between them is the vector difference of their absolute motion along the line joining them. Ken Seto > > fixed wrt what ??
From: nuny on 31 May 2010 18:25
On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > not me. > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to force applied to the elevator car. You are claiming that unchanging velocity is similarly measurable. Say I am in a small, enclosed space (the elevator car with no windows) and I have performed experiments and have determined I am not under acceleration. Now, my task is to measure my velocity through space. How do you suggest I do it? What equipment will I need, how shall I employ it, and what indications should I expect to see that will tell me what my speed is? Mark L. Fergerson |