----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<bd800f8a-9634-4f40-9749-7aa337a90b29n@googlegroups.com> fb7dd985
@REPLY:
<6f54a31a-e5f1-476e-96b4-fa782b187426n@googlegroups.com> 2ef5c002
@REPLYADDR Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Dono.
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<6fb9e923-e06d-4f1c-a68f-c0be19182b4cn@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<6f54a31a-e5f1-476e-96b4-fa782b187426n@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<bd800f8a-9634-4f40-9749-7aa337a90b29n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:59:58 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 06:31:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/29/2023 7:33 AM, Alan B wrote:
> > > Is such a thing even possible?
> > I`m sure the LIGO devices are pretty damn close!
> Sensitivity maybe yes. But for MMX to be of any use
> one has to be able rotate the table on its Mercury bed
> to check if each arm gets the same reading both
> n+S and E-W
> You can`t rotate any of the arms at Hanford or Livingston
> They always point the same direction.
> So LIGO could never be a MMX device.
Is there any limit to your imbecility? This is a rhetorical question.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441