Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-23 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-03-30 07:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 223 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-23 09:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-23 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 18:42 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-23 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 21:52 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-24 09:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 10:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 13:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 02:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-23 23:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 06:33 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 17:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 16:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-26 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 13:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 11:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-24 22:51 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 15:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 12:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 15:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-25 01:12 +0100
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 23:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-24 23:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 07:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 01:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 12:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 06:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 10:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 12:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-26 20:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 16:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 19:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 19:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 04:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 05:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 06:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 08:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 20:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 19:38 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Kip Tubbs <eqsl@ejfdawi.wo> - 2018-03-27 21:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 20:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 18:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 05:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 18:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 04:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 05:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 14:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 21:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 15:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-29 22:29 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 21:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 02:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 05:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 18:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 17:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-30 17:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-01 11:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 22:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-31 00:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-31 07:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 21:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 22:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 04:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 08:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 05:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-27 12:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 18:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-27 12:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 08:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-25 21:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 06:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-26 09:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> - 2018-03-26 21:15 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 08:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 19:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-25 20:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:29 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 19:51 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 21:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 22:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 01:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 03:07 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 04:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 04:58 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:05 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-28 15:31 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-30 20:11 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:21 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 19:12 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 23:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-28 10:27 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:12 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-28 14:16 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 00:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-29 03:02 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:25 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 00:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 21:51 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 00:07 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:35 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-04-01 13:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-01 14:30 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 23:18 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 17:17 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 15:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 15:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 08:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> - 2018-04-02 17:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 18:54 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 05:30 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-01 08:52 -0500
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-04-01 14:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:09 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-01 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 20:38 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 07:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:42 -0700
LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-02 11:41 -0500
Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-04 01:51 +0200
Re: LET (was: Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 03:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 20:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 21:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-29 09:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 23:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-30 06:37 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 00:38 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 16:06 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 17:27 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:29 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-31 20:58 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 22:48 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 02:14 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 14:03 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 18:17 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 11:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-01 22:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 22:14 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-01 23:11 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 01:00 +0200
Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-02 09:01 +0200
Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-30 07:35 -0700
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34a20573-6cb6-4cb1-9ff3-311263c695dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454416 |
tjrob137 On 3/30/18 5:37 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, Sure it is. That's what that acronym means around here. The Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from Special Relativity, even though it is based on completely different principles (some of which are quite arbitrary). I think what you guys are missing is When ever comparing (one mass structure in its own reference Frame) to (another mass structure in its own reference Frame), the Coordinate Systems are exactly Inverse of each other...... canceling Essentially (particle a in Aether Frame a) is observing (particle /a in Aether Frame /a) The 2 Inverse Aether frames cancel & eliminate It is a möbius transformation https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZUUbrWTGSyXZt5bc2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/hXvCvYMnBo13r5ib2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 09:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t_0vC.599361$hq2.553841@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #454133 |
Den 29.03.2018 00.50, skrev Dino Bruniera:
> >
> Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link
> http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0050
From where I quote:
<<
The Universe may be imagined as an immense sphere
composed exclusively of an infinity of tiny indivisible
particles of an equal amount of space, which, from
now on, I will call “space quanta”.
By “space” I mean a continuous substance, therefore not
made up of particles ...
>>
I won't bother to comment this.
> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with the
> preferred reference frame.
Waste of time.
*plonk*
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 23:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9jma1$mar$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454158 |
Il 29/03/2018 09:56, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: > Den 29.03.2018 00.50, skrev Dino Bruniera: >> > Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link >> http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0050 > > From where I quote: > << > The Universe may be imagined as an immense sphere > composed exclusively of an infinity of tiny indivisible > particles of an equal amount of space, which, from > now on, I will call “space quanta”. > > By “space” I mean a continuous substance, therefore not > made up of particles ... > >> > > I won't bother to comment this. > >> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with >> the preferred reference frame. > > Waste of time. > > *plonk* > I note that you have not commented on the first article. Regarding the second article, you have reported only a few initial lines, so I think it is right to report the conclusion too. 4. CONCLUSIONS .... 4.1 Expansion of the Universe The Universe is made up of an infinity of tiny particles of equal amount of space (a substance that has the tendency to expand), which I call “space quanta”. Space quanta tend to expand unceasingly, thus causing the expansion of the Universe. 4.2 Gravity Matter is made up of dynamic sets of compressed space quanta, which allow for a greater expansion of the neighbouring quanta and then, progressively, of the more distant ones. Each material object tends to move to places where space quanta are more expanded, i.e. towards other material objects 4.3 Variable speed of light Speed of light depends on the expansion of space quanta of the places in which they transit. However since also clocks move in function of said expansion, if measured, both the speed and frequency of light results always the same. Therefore, in the past, when space expansion was smaller, speed of light was greater. 4.4 Cosmological redshift Cosmological redshift is due to the speed of the place of the celestial object receiving the photon, relative to the place of the celestial object that emitted it. In support of this hypothesis, I have presented two tables that simulate the journey of the photons of a high-redshift galaxy and that of CMBR photons, and a formula for calculating the apparent brightness of a high-redshift celestial object, to derive space expansion occurred during the journey of the photons towards the Earth. All of this proves that the expansion speed of the Universe is decelerating, and not accelerating as currently supported by the SC (Scientific Community), based on its model of the Universe. 4.5 A brief consideration on energy and matter, obscure I would like to point out that for this model of the Universe, energy and dark matter may be not necessary. Dark energy would be not necessary because the expansion of the Universe could be justified by the expansion of the space quanta (paragraph 2.1). Dark matter may not be necessary, if not to a lesser extent, because certain motions of the outer arms of spiral galaxies could be justified, at least in part, by the combination of the native expansion of space quanta, which causes celestial objects to move away, and their major expansion due to the presence of matter, that makes them approach each other (paragraph 2.2). However, these are topics to be explored and developed. In conclusion I think I have shown that the model of the Universe presented here, is at least more compatible with the observations than that supported by the SC. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 06:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2125925.NG923GbCHz@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454210 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 29/03/2018 09:56, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: >> Den 29.03.2018 00.50, skrev Dino Bruniera: >>> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with >>> the preferred reference frame. >> >> Waste of time. >> >> *plonk* That means that he has added you to his killfile, so … > I note that you have not commented on the first article. … if I would not be replying, he could not read this. I am seriously considering to add you to my killfile, too, for repeated stupid behavior. You have been warned. FWIW, just a few remarks to show (you) how very wrong you are on all accounts. > Regarding the second article, you have reported only a few initial > lines, so I think it is right to report the conclusion too. > > 4. CONCLUSIONS > .... > > 4.1 Expansion of the Universe > The Universe is made up of an infinity of tiny particles of equal amount > of space (a substance that has the tendency to expand), which I call > “space quanta”. Your conclusions are based on fals(ifi)e(d) premises. /Ex falso quodlibet./ Experimental or observational evidence for them is missing, too. > Space quanta tend to expand unceasingly, thus causing the expansion of > the Universe. Quanta are point-like virtual objects; they cannot expand. The expansion of our universe does not really need a cause; we observe it, so we must accept it as a fact. However, inflation theory, which has been most recently been supported by the observational results of the Planck Collaboration of 2015, posits that the exponential expansion at the beginning was caused by an inflaton field. In any case, we are just witnessing the continuation of that initial expansion, not slowing down but accelerated again (observationally confirmed, Nobel Prize in Physics-awarded) by dark energy, the energy in empty space. > 4.2 Gravity > Matter is made up of dynamic sets of compressed space quanta, […] No, it is not. Confirmed by experiments and working technical applications (including the computer that you are using to post nonsense here): <https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/matter/> > 4.3 Variable speed of light The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in the same medium and in all directions (isotropic). Confirmed by experiments, observations, and working technical applications (including the computer that you are using to post nonsense here). > 4.4 Cosmological redshift > Cosmological redshift is due to the speed of the place of the celestial > object receiving the photon, relative to the place of the celestial > object that emitted it. […] No, it is due to the expansion of our universe (hence “cosmological”). Theoretically internally and externally consistent (GR), and observationally confirmed. > 4.5 A brief consideration on energy and matter, obscure > I would like to point out that for this model of the Universe, energy > and dark matter may be not necessary. But *your* model does _not_ describe our universe – it has no relation to observed reality whatsoever. > [more nonsense] Your half-wit guesses, which are expressed as pseudo-scientific word salad, among other gibberish, are hopeless. Go away and study. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 23:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9mb4j$13b1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454258 |
Il 30/03/2018 06:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 29/03/2018 09:56, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: >>> Den 29.03.2018 00.50, skrev Dino Bruniera: >>>> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with >>>> the preferred reference frame. >>> >>> Waste of time. >>> >>> *plonk* > > That means that he has added you to his killfile, so … > >> I note that you have not commented on the first article. > > … if I would not be replying, he could not read this. I am seriously > considering to add you to my killfile, too, for repeated stupid behavior. > You have been warned. > > FWIW, just a few remarks to show (you) how very wrong you are on all > accounts. > >> Regarding the second article, you have reported only a few initial >> lines, so I think it is right to report the conclusion too. >> >> 4. CONCLUSIONS >> .... >> >> 4.1 Expansion of the Universe >> The Universe is made up of an infinity of tiny particles of equal amount >> of space (a substance that has the tendency to expand), which I call >> “space quanta”. > > Your conclusions are based on fals(ifi)e(d) premises. /Ex falso quodlibet./ > Experimental or observational evidence for them is missing, too. > >> Space quanta tend to expand unceasingly, thus causing the expansion of >> the Universe. > > Quanta are point-like virtual objects; they cannot expand. > > The expansion of our universe does not really need a cause; we observe it, > so we must accept it as a fact. > > However, inflation theory, which has been most recently been supported by > the observational results of the Planck Collaboration of 2015, posits that > the exponential expansion at the beginning was caused by an inflaton field. > > In any case, we are just witnessing the continuation of that initial > expansion, not slowing down but accelerated again (observationally > confirmed, Nobel Prize in Physics-awarded) by dark energy, the energy in > empty space. > >> 4.2 Gravity >> Matter is made up of dynamic sets of compressed space quanta, […] > > No, it is not. Confirmed by experiments and working technical applications > (including the computer that you are using to post nonsense here): > > <https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/matter/> > >> 4.3 Variable speed of light > > The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in the same > medium and in all directions (isotropic). Confirmed by experiments, > observations, and working technical applications (including the computer > that you are using to post nonsense here). > >> 4.4 Cosmological redshift >> Cosmological redshift is due to the speed of the place of the celestial >> object receiving the photon, relative to the place of the celestial >> object that emitted it. […] > > No, it is due to the expansion of our universe (hence “cosmological”). > Theoretically internally and externally consistent (GR), and observationally > confirmed. > >> 4.5 A brief consideration on energy and matter, obscure >> I would like to point out that for this model of the Universe, energy >> and dark matter may be not necessary. > > But *your* model does _not_ describe our universe – it has no relation to > observed reality whatsoever. > >> [more nonsense] > > Your half-wit guesses, which are expressed as pseudo-scientific word salad, > among other gibberish, are hopeless. Go away and study. > I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as not to waste time unnecessarily. Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second article. In fact, when I have finished this discussion with you, I think I will open a new discussion, but only on the first article. Maybe I was wrong to talk about the second article, without first concluding the discussion on the first, but I did not think that Andersen wanted to discuss the second article, without first discussing the first. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 00:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <13481569.tv2OnDr8pf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454333 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as > not to waste time unnecessarily. > Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my > first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second > article. There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to accept it. Like a crackpot. PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 16:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9o4m1$1jkt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454338 |
Il 31/03/2018 00:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as >> not to waste time unnecessarily. >> Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my >> first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second >> article. > > There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to > accept it. Like a crackpot. > But how do you say that two people have already shown me that my demonstration is wrong, if I havn't yet managed to present it? You have done nothing but tell me that "I have no clou". Therefore I prefer not to present it in this discussion, because it would not be well judged. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 17:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1612895.TLkxdtWsSY@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454367 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 31/03/2018 00:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as >>> not to waste time unnecessarily. >>> Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my >>> first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second >>> article. >> There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to >> accept it. Like a crackpot. > > But how do you say that two people have already shown me that my > demonstration is wrong, if I havn't yet managed to present it? You have presented it (ad nauseam). > You have done nothing but tell me that "I have no clou". Wrong. > Therefore I prefer not to present it in this discussion, because it > would not be well judged. You are confused. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 18:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9od1o$285$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454372 |
Il 31/03/2018 17:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 31/03/2018 00:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as >>>> not to waste time unnecessarily. >>>> Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my >>>> first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second >>>> article. >>> There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to >>> accept it. Like a crackpot. >> >> But how do you say that two people have already shown me that my >> demonstration is wrong, if I havn't yet managed to present it? > > You have presented it (ad nauseam). > For presented, I mean written. Otherwise how can it be judged. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 20:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2387506.X9hSmTKtgW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454377 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 31/03/2018 17:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 31/03/2018 00:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as >>>>> not to waste time unnecessarily. >>>>> Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my >>>>> first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second >>>>> article. >>>> There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to >>>> accept it. Like a crackpot. >>> But how do you say that two people have already shown me that my >>> demonstration is wrong, if I havn't yet managed to present it? >> You have presented it (ad nauseam). > > For presented, I mean written. You have written it here (ad nauseam). > Otherwise how can it be judged. It was read. PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 22:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9os67$tbp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454387 |
Il 31/03/2018 20:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 31/03/2018 17:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 31/03/2018 00:38, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>> I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as >>>>>> not to waste time unnecessarily. >>>>>> Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my >>>>>> first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second >>>>>> article. >>>>> There is no “if”. Two people have showed it already, but you refuse to >>>>> accept it. Like a crackpot. >>>> But how do you say that two people have already shown me that my >>>> demonstration is wrong, if I havn't yet managed to present it? >>> You have presented it (ad nauseam). >> >> For presented, I mean written. > > You have written it here (ad nauseam). > In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where, among other things, it is written: "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the reasons that follow. 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments", for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin. 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. " So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not reported them in any posts. And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong. However, since you insisted that I would write them, tell me in which post I wrote them. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 02:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2361797.k3LOHGUjKi@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454393 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where,
> among other things, it is written:
>
> "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the
> reasons that follow.
> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments",
> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must
> also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin.
^^^^^^^^^
> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the
> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. "
>
> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not
> reported them in any posts.
That is not necessary. Your premise is both wrong and internally
inconsistent.
ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect.
ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1).
I have marked the relevant parts this time.
> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong.
But we did.
PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 14:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9qhrb$17hu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454410 |
Il 01/04/2018 02:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where, >> among other things, it is written: >> >> "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the >> reasons that follow. >> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments", >> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must >> also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin. > ^^^^^^^^^ >> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the >> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. " >> >> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not >> reported them in any posts. > > That is not necessary. Your premise is both wrong and internally > inconsistent. > > ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect. > > ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1). > > I have marked the relevant parts this time. > >> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong. > > But we did. > > There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see. But you also want to see what is not there. Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the demonstrations. However there are in my article on VIXRA whose link is: http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0287 And soon I think I publish them in this NG, hoping to get some evaluations on the merits, even if negative. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 18:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454425 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 01/04/2018 02:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where,
>>> among other things, it is written:
>>>
>>> "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the
>>> reasons that follow.
>>> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments",
>>> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must
>>> also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the
>>> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency
>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. "
>>>
>>> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not
>>> reported them in any posts.
>>
>> That is not necessary. Your premise is both wrong and internally
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect.
>>
>> ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1).
>>
>> I have marked the relevant parts this time.
>>
>>> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong.
>>
>> But we did.
>
> There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see.
True. And you do not want to see.
> But you also want to see what is not there.
*You* want to see what is not there.
Like *old*, *demented* Poincaré (but supported by *considerably less*
education and ingenuity), you *want* to see that there is a “preferred
reference frame” when, in fact, (0) all experiments (thought experiments and
real ones) show that all reference frames have equal standing – none of them
is *always* the “preferred” one.
Probably because you are incapable of understanding the observed reality.
> Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the
> demonstrations.
As I have just told you, your so-called "demonstrations" are irrelevant
because your conclusions in your first write-up, which do serve as the
premises for your second write-up, are both wrong and self-contradictory.
To be more precise:
ad (1):
You essentially claim that different frequency (“not isotropic”) must mean
different speed (“not isotropic”). Your claim is *wrong*.
When for the *same* observer (O) sources of the *same* kind (S₁, S₂) move
*differently* relative to the observer [or the observer relative to them,
see (0)], and the observed frequency of a signal from one source *differs*
from that of another source due to the Doppler effect, the (phase) speed of
the signal remains *the same*:
[Use a monospace font for display; see also:
<https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts#ggformatteruserjs>]
_._ _._
S₁ . .' '. O .' '. . S₂ S₁, S₂ stationary
'-.-' '-.-' relative to O
(and vice-versa)
_..._ _
<--- S₁ ._ _.-' '-. O .' '. . S₂ <--- S₁, S₂ moving
'-...-' '-' relative to O
(--->) (or O moving
relative to S₁, S₂)
See also my more detailed explanation in
<news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.
Also, the photon energy is
E = ℎ f,
so the photon frequency is
f = E∕ℎ
Even if all sources have the same speed relative to the observer (which we
assume with the CMB), the energy E of the sources can differ, and so can
the frequency of the photons that they emit. Observations show: The CMB is
_not_ isotropic with regard to frequency and black-body temperature –
already *considering* relative motion of the measuring observatories
*in space*. In different directions, they frequence/temperature differ
*slightly*:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
[If this this (false-color) image looks to you as if it had all the same
color, then you definitely need better glasses – or an eye operation.]
Therefore, we must assume that the *sources* differ *slightly* from another.
This is easily explained because it is so unlikely that the early universe
has developed *exactly* the same *everywhere* that it is impossible. (If it
had, galaxies would not have formed, stars would not have formed, planets
would not have formed, life on planets would not have formed, and we would
not be here.)
ad (2):
In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
cannot be isotropic”.
In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
is in fact isotropic”.
(2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1).
You are *contradicting yourself*.
> However there are in my article on VIXRA whose link is:
> [spam]
>
> And soon I think I publish them in this NG, hoping to get some
> evaluations on the merits, even if negative.
You have already gotten (negative) reviews, because you posted
the URI (not: link) before. But you do not want to see that.
Unless this changes, this was my last detailed reply to you.
I am getting the idea that I am just wasting my time.
PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)
—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2793fbd7-b595-4d64-81dd-cc87bb96847b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454442 |
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:17:46 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Like *old*, *demented* Poincaré (but supported by *considerably less* > education and ingenuity), you *want* to see that there is a “preferred > reference frame” Poincaré came closer than any other of Einstein's predecessors to what we understand as SR. To call him "demented" for clinging to a dynamical interpretation of the LT is IMHO overly harsh. Poincaré was a conventionalist. If I were to second-guess how he might respond to your statement, I would imagine that he would say that it would be a matter of *convenience* more than anything else whether one chooses to study the implications of SR/LET using a dynamical, kinematic or geometric interpretation. Interestingly, Poincaré discovered a four-dimensional, spacetime interpretation of the LT years before Minkowski. He did not see that this approach offered any advantages over three-dimensional Galilei spacetime. Was Poincaré "demented" for dropping this approach? I would say no. It simply did not fit in with his research program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a918b057-d37f-4b07-b898-3c31023db9b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454454 |
On Sunday, 1 April 2018 20:06:58 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Interestingly, Poincaré discovered a four-dimensional, spacetime > interpretation of the LT years before Minkowski. He did not see that this > approach offered any advantages over three-dimensional Galilei spacetime. Maybe he didn't think that common sense is just a set of prejudices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <492aaa6d-d124-460e-8d79-8c2b4ead24ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454454 |
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 1:06:58 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Interestingly, Poincaré discovered a four-dimensional, spacetime > interpretation of the LT years before Minkowski. He did not see that this > approach offered any advantages over three-dimensional Galilei spacetime. See http://scottwalter.free.fr/papers/2007-genesis-walter.html for discussion of this point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff9c8d64-04f3-45ed-a180-a294cf18aba4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454454 |
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 1:06:58 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Interestingly, Poincaré discovered a four-dimensional, spacetime > interpretation of the LT years before Minkowski. He did not see that this > approach offered any advantages over three-dimensional Galilei space+time. See http://scottwalter.free.fr/papers/2007-genesis-walter.html for discussion of this point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9reju$mi2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454442 |
Il 01/04/2018 18:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 01/04/2018 02:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where, >>>> among other things, it is written: >>>> >>>> "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the >>>> reasons that follow. >>>> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments", >>>> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must >>>> also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin. >>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>>> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the >>>> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency >>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. " >>>> >>>> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not >>>> reported them in any posts. >>> >>> That is not necessary. Your premise is both wrong and internally >>> inconsistent. >>> >>> ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect. >>> >>> ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1). >>> >>> I have marked the relevant parts this time. >>> >>>> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong. >>> >>> But we did. >> >> There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see. > > True. And you do not want to see. > >> But you also want to see what is not there. > > *You* want to see what is not there. > > Like *old*, *demented* Poincaré (but supported by *considerably less* > education and ingenuity), you *want* to see that there is a “preferred > reference frame” when, in fact, (0) all experiments (thought experiments and > real ones) show that all reference frames have equal standing – none of them > is *always* the “preferred” one. > > Probably because you are incapable of understanding the observed reality. > No, it's because I dimostrated it, at least until proven contrary. >> Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the >> demonstrations. > > As I have just told you, your so-called "demonstrations" are irrelevant > because your conclusions in your first write-up, which do serve as the > premises for your second write-up, are both wrong and self-contradictory. > > To be more precise: > > ad (1): > > You essentially claim that different frequency (“not isotropic”) must mean > different speed (“not isotropic”). Your claim is *wrong*. > Yes, but only for the CMBR. As I wrote in my demonstrations and how you can read above, in the conclusions. > When for the *same* observer (O) sources of the *same* kind (S₁, S₂) move > *differently* relative to the observer [or the observer relative to them, > see (0)], and the observed frequency of a signal from one source *differs* > from that of another source due to the Doppler effect, the (phase) speed of > the signal remains *the same*: > > [Use a monospace font for display; see also: > <https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts#ggformatteruserjs>] > > _._ _._ > S₁ . .' '. O .' '. . S₂ S₁, S₂ stationary > '-.-' '-.-' relative to O > (and vice-versa) > > _..._ _ > <--- S₁ ._ _.-' '-. O .' '. . S₂ <--- S₁, S₂ moving > '-...-' '-' relative to O > (--->) (or O moving > relative to S₁, S₂) > > See also my more detailed explanation in > <news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>. > The link does not work. > Also, the photon energy is > > E = ℎ f, > > so the photon frequency is > > f = E∕ℎ > > Even if all sources have the same speed relative to the observer (which we > assume with the CMB), the energy E of the sources can differ, and so can > the frequency of the photons that they emit. Observations show: The CMB is > _not_ isotropic with regard to frequency and black-body temperature – > already *considering* relative motion of the measuring observatories > *in space*. In different directions, they frequence/temperature differ > *slightly*: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png> > This image was purified from dipole anisotropy. > [If this this (false-color) image looks to you as if it had all the same > color, then you definitely need better glasses – or an eye operation.] > > Therefore, we must assume that the *sources* differ *slightly* from another. > This is easily explained because it is so unlikely that the early universe > has developed *exactly* the same *everywhere* that it is impossible. (If it > had, galaxies would not have formed, stars would not have formed, planets > would not have formed, life on planets would not have formed, and we would > not be here.) > For language problems, I struggle to understand what you say. However, in my demonstrations I consider only the dipole anisotropy, which is 100 times greater than the others and which depends solely on the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR reference system. As I wrote in my demonstrations. > ad (2): > > In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons] > cannot be isotropic”. If their frequency is not isotropic. Or rather, if it includes the dipole anisotropy. As I wrote in my demonstrations. > > In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons] > is in fact isotropic”. > If their frequency is isotropic, or rather, if it don't includes the dipole anisotropy. As in the reference frame of CMBR. As I wrote in my demonstrations. > (2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1). > You are *contradicting yourself*. > The thing is, if you do not read well my dimonstraction, you cannot even prove it's wrong. >> However there are in my article on VIXRA whose link is: >> [spam] >> >> And soon I think I publish them in this NG, hoping to get some >> evaluations on the merits, even if negative. > > You have already gotten (negative) reviews, because you posted > the URI (not: link) before. But you do not want to see that. > > Unless this changes, this was my last detailed reply to you. > I am getting the idea that I am just wasting my time. > As you want. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 23:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <14936174.geO5KgaWL5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454469 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 01/04/2018 18:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the
>>> demonstrations.
>>
>> As I have just told you, your so-called "demonstrations" are irrelevant
>> because your conclusions in your first write-up, which do serve as the
>> premises for your second write-up, are both wrong and self-contradictory.
>>
>> To be more precise:
>>
>> ad (1):
>>
>> You essentially claim that different frequency (“not isotropic”) must
>> mean different speed (“not isotropic”). Your claim is *wrong*.
>
> Yes, but only for the CMBR.
Utter nonsense. The CMBR is EM radiation; it is not different from any
other EM radiation in that regard.
The speed of light, the (phase) speed of EM waves, is constant and the same
for all observers and sources, therefore the (phase) speed of the CMBR is
constant and the same for all observers and sources. Until there is
evidence to the contrary, the laws of physics are the same in all parts of
the universe.
You have no provided such evidence either.
>> See also my more detailed explanation in
>> <news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.
>
> The link does not work.
It is not a link, it is a Message-ID URI, and it works.
>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
>>
>
> This image was purified from dipole anisotropy.
*And* there is *still* an anisotropy. What does that tell you?
>> [If this this (false-color) image looks to you as if it had all the
>> [same color, then you definitely need better glasses – or an eye
>> operation.]
So you should do that.
> For language problems, I struggle to understand what you say.
It appears increasingly pointless for me to talk to you at all.
>> ad (2):
>>
>> In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
>> cannot be isotropic”.
>
> If their frequency is not isotropic.
Which is wrong.
> Or rather, if it includes the dipole anisotropy.
The propagation speed of the radiation has nothing to do with that.
*That* anisotropy is purely a consequence of the Doppler effect.
The *remaining* anitropy is a consequence of the difference of the sources.
> As I wrote in my demonstrations.
Those are wrong, then.
>> In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
>> is in fact isotropic”.
>
> If their frequency is isotropic, or rather, if it don't includes the
> dipole anisotropy.
The anisotropy of CMBR frequency, *after* the dipole anisotropy has been
removed, has *nothing* to do with an anistropy of propagation speed.
>> (2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1).
>> You are *contradicting yourself*.
>
> The thing is, if you do not read well my dimonstraction, you cannot even
> prove it's wrong.
Wrong. The self-contradiction in your conclusions is *obvious*.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web