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	2018-04-01 19:12 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<3154434.V25eIC5XRa@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <p9flsl$1pm7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <19777922.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> <p9lhiu$1ob8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> <p9ociu$1ei$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Dino Bruniera wrote:

> Il 30/03/2018 20:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> In fact it is precisely because the frequency and speed of the CMBR are
>>> both isotropic, which for my theory
>> 
>> You do not have a (scientific) theory.  A (scientific) theory must make
>> *falsifiable* predictions.
>> 
>>> the reference frame of the CMBR is also the preferred reference frame.
>> 
>> Dead wrong.
>> 
>> 1. There is no preferred reference frame.  The principle of relativity
>>     (introduced by Galilei) says so, and all observation confirms it.
>>     That is, it is not possible for an observer who is in inertial motion
>>     relative to something else to tell that this is the case *without*
>>     external reference.
>> 
>> 2. The CMBR is radiation coming from, and moving to, *different* (all)
>>     directions.  It cannot serve as a reference frame in the first place.
>> 
> But the CMBR is not a reference frame.

Why do you claim then that it is?

You are so confused that you do not even realize that you are claiming 
things that contradict each other.

> The reference frame is the place of the space in which the CMBR is
> isotropic

That would be precisely *none*.

> and is referred to as the CMBR reference frame.

Just one sentence before you said “the CMBR is not a reference frame”.

Do you even realize anymore when you are contradicting yourself?

> But also the other images are purified from the dipole anisotropy.

Yes, but your statements make it obvious that you have no clue what that is.

> But I do not comment because I have always talked about the speed of
> light, without mentioning any phase.

You simply have no clue.

In classical electrodynamics, the speed of light *is* the phase speed of 
electromagnetic (EM) waves, which is constant in the same medium for all 
observers.  And in that framework, light *is* an EM wave.

Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum field theory (QFT) based on special 
relativity (SR).  As a result, the propagation speed of photons, the quanta 
of the EM field, is constant and the same for all observers in the same 
medium, too.  And it is the same as the phase speed of EM waves.

You do not know that, and you claim to propose a *quantum* theory with your 
second "paper"?  Ridiculous.

>> No, *experimental evidence* showed it *before*.  Einstein merely raised
>> that to a postulate.  (You have not read his seminal paper, “On the
>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, yes?)
>> 
>>> but not due the theory of Lorentz aether before 1926.
> 
> I verified that the year when Lorentz changed his mind about the ether,
> it was 1916 and not 1926.

Cite and quote your sources.

My source (which I have cited, and quoted) say that he wrote in 1926 that he 
had changed his mind about his ether theory already before 1914.

>>> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926.
> 
> Before 1916.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory>
>> 
>> “Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as
>> incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it [his theory].”
> 
> The book with the new formulation of the aether theory was published in
> 1916 but,

In the middle of World War Ⅰ?  Cite evidence.

> as I wrote above, Lorentz did not abandon the ether.

Evidently you are wrong.

> [hundreds of unreferred quoted lines]

You can’t be serious.

> I read everything, but I only answered the points that I considered most 
> important,

You ignored my main counter-arguments because you are unable or unwilling to 
refute them.

> both for time problems and because I did not consider it 
> necessary for the demonstration of my theory.

You do not have a theory.  You have wrong ideas, merely based on your utter 
ignorance and your gross misconceptions.

PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thread