Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?
Date	2018-03-28 04:58 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<2016749.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <p9e5ob$1gug$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Dino Bruniera wrote:

> Il 28/03/2018 03:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Il 27/03/2018 22:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>> Il 27/03/2018 19:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>>> But now, with the article available in the following link:
>>>>> [spam]
>>>>> I have dimostrated the existence of the Preferred Reference Frame and
>>>>> at wich speed the Earth moves relative to it.
>>>> No, you have not.  Repeating nonsense dos not make it true.
>>> I believe, rather, that you should show that my demonstration is not
>>> correct.
>> Yes, that is what all crackpots believe.  When in fact it is their
>> responsibility to provide evidence to support their outlandish claims.
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>
>   
> But I demonstrated what I said.

No, you did not.  You merely *misinterpreted* experimental results produced 
by *others*.
 
>>> This is the abstract:
>>>>> The aim of this paper is to demonstrate, by means of CMBR, a theory
>>>>> which states that the speed of light is isotropic with respect to each
>>>>> point in expanding space, so it cannot also be isotropic with respect
>>>>> to transiting objects.
>>>> Not even wrong.
>>>>
>>>> CMBR is _not_ the name of a theory.
>>> I have not written that cmbr is a name of a theory.
>> ACK.  You have, however, claimed that your idea is a theory.  It is not.
>   
> To prove that mine is a proven theory,

There is no “proven theory” in the natural sciences.  You already fail at 
the ground level here.

>>>> It refers to a _phenomenon_, Cosmic
>>>> Microwave Background Radiation, which has been *observed* since 1964
>>>> (when it was discovered).  And it does _not_ mean what you think it
>>>> does.
>>> Before saying that CMBR does not do what I think it does, you should say
>>> what I think it does.
>> I did.  To be more precise, you are confusing the CMBR isotropy with the
>> speed-of-light isotropy.  Those are *separate* concepts.
> 
> As I also wrote in the final paragraph above, this is not true, because
> both the light and the CMB, manifests itself with photons, and
> therefore, have the same speed.

They do have the same *phase* speed (both are forms of electromagnetic 
radiation).  However, the isotropy of the CMBR has nothing *directly* to do 
with the isotropy of the speed of light.

The isotropy of the CMBR refers to the black-body *temperature* of the 
radiation: from the Sol system at least, it is approximately the same in all 
directions of observation.

The isotropy of the *speed* of light obviously refers to its phase *speed* 
instead: the fact that that speed as measured is independent of relative 
motion between light source and observer.

> Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is
> also isotropic.

You have it backwards.

Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed.

The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, but that does not really matter.  (We 
already knew before it was [accidentally] discovered that it had to be 
electromagnetic radiation, so its phase speed was not important in its 
discovery.)

The *peak frequency* of the CMBR is *also* approximately isotropic 
(corresponding to a temperature of ca. 3 K) because the speed of light is 
isotropic, *and* the universal expansion is approximately isotropic.

Do you see now that you do _not_ understand the meaning of the CMB(R)
*at all*?  (Have you even bothered to watch the talk I referred you to?)

>> AISB.
> 
> What does AISB mean?

“As I said before”.  It is a common Usenet abbreviation – look it up next 
time.
 
> The truth is that you do not think it's worth reading my articles, but
> in this way you do not answer in a coherent way.

I do not care what you think about my rebuttal as you simply do not have a 
clue.  Fighting against unarmed people is not logical.

>>>> Instead, I give you some food for thought:
>>>>
>>>> Although the orbit of the ISS is almost circular, astronauts on the ISS
>>>> do not feel that acceleration.  They say they are in a microgravity
>>>> environment, and are obviously _not_ pressed against the walls of the
>>>> station.  Why do you think that is so?
>>> This physical feonomen has nothing to do with my demonstration.
>> (_phenomenon_)
>> 
>> It has *everything* to do with it.  Your saying otherwise is evidence
>> that you do not understand the topic that you are talking about:
>> reference frames.  Think about it some more, then answer the question.
> 
> Instead I think I know the topic of a reference frame well.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>

As I expected, you would not even think about and answer the simplest 
questions to double-check your understanding.

Your un(der)educated guessing is hopeless.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
Thread
