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 03:07 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <p9drhk$q7h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1942710.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> <p9e5ob$1gug$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org>

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>

>>> 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.

>> 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.

> But to say it, you should read both articles I wrote,

I scanned one; it claimed nonsense, and cited the other one whose content  
is nonsense, too (as evident from your summary).  That is enough.

> including paragraph 3.4 of the other article, where there is a "Simulation
> of the journey of photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
> (CMBR)"

Your statements about the CMBR here make clear that you do not understand 
it.  So I see no point in reading your article which claims the same.

> Before doing this statement, you should show that my demonstration is
> not correct.

Again, no.  *You* carry the burden of proof for *your* claims.  *You* need 
to do *your* homework.  You have not done it yet as you are ignoring past 
experimental results to the contrary of your claims.  And the results that 
you are referring to mean something else than you like to think.

>>> Hence the result found by Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that
>>> the speed of light is isotropic in any Reference Frame,
>> 
>> The MMX simply did not show that.
> 
> I do not agree with your statement

It is true nevertheless.  Look it up.

> and I confirm my statement.

AISB.

>> 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.

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thread