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 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0468233f-b482-4ce2-a82f-b42ca8f0fd8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453891 |
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > The jury of mathematical high school olympiads in my country > had different opinion, poor idiot. You might be able to solve 1+2+3 = 6, but beyond that, you are nil. You had your chance to prove yourself here, with a simple math problem. And the fact is, that you failed it; you were not able to solve it. Google kept a record. So now that you have proven to yourself and others here that you are not fit to discuss math & physics, go find yourself a different hobby. Collecting rocks may help you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jay Arter <fey@aawlcw.ju> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9bnsu$1eue$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #453905 |
rotchm wrote: > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> The jury of mathematical high school olympiads in my country had >> different opinion, poor idiot. > > You might be able to solve 1+2+3 = 6, but beyond that, you are nil. > You had your chance to prove yourself here, with a simple math problem. > And the fact is, that you failed it; you were not able to solve it. > Google kept a record. That's incorrect. 1+2+3 = 3!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p93tmv$15rq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #453606 |
kenseto wrote: > On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 2:45:46 PM UTC-4, Emma Blazer wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> >> > The unit vector of this attractive EM force between the earth and the >> > moon is pointing toward the center of the earth. >> >> Unless moon win, when you are closest. Than the moon becomes more >> attractive. > > We are talking about gravity between the earth and the moon. The larger > mass earth always more attractive than the moon. Unless you stand closest to the moon. Moon wins all the time. > That’s why the moon is orbiting the earth. So does earth around the moon. That thing is mutual, I guess. Unless three or more objects are involved in the cluster. Then it gets a bit unpredictable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ead0c0e-1133-4d2e-a192-15c9c196fa9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453594 |
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 2:45:46 PM UTC-4, Emma Blazer wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > The unit vector of this attractive EM force between the earth and the > > moon is pointing toward the center of the earth. > > Unless moon win, when you are closest. Than the moon becomes more > attractive. Of corse, in that case, the moon is more massive than you. We are talking about the earth and the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f9e1981-ee14-43bc-928e-3d1d8e5226b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453700 |
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:23:15 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Of corse, in that case, the moon is more massive than you. How do you know? Did you ever go to the moon? Tell you what. I will show your posts to my buddy Elon. He will then offer you a free trip to the moon. You accept?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f0f460d-a459-4471-854c-6e7e2d41db89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453566 |
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 8:20:17 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? > This question was asked in the forum Quora and my answer is as follows: > > Gravity is a composite force as follows: > > 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured ether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. The unit vector of this attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth. > > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction. The unit vector of this repulsive effect is pointing at a right angle with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force. > > 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. The unit vector of the attractive force and of the repulsive force causes a resulting unit vector pointing in the tangential direction. This causes the moon to follow a circular orbit around the earth. > > A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf Gravity affects light. Why does light exist? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 20:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9fd91c0-c4c6-4560-a526-49560978af08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453860 |
Mitchell Raemsch wrote Gravity affects light. Why does light exist? Mitchell Raemsch (1 kg * (c^2)) / s = 8.98755179e+16 watts Light exists while Time is passing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 18:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9drhk$q7h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #453566 |
Il 23/03/2018 16:20, kenseto ha scritto: > Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials? In an article, which is available in the following link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0050v2.pdf , I have proposed a model of Universe composed by space quanta and I have explained the gravity with the following hypothesis. 2.2 Gravity There is no vacuum among the space quanta. Therefore if one single quantum compresses and shrinks in size, the adjacent quanta can/must increase in size and thus expand. Matter is made up of space quanta. The elementary particles of the so-called standard model of quantum physics, are physical phenomena that, amongst other things, compress space quanta. Therefore a material object contains a huge number of sets of compressed space quanta, that increase the average compression of the space quanta composing it. Consequently the quanta adjacent to the object, i.e. those situated in the front line (first liner), can/must expand further due to the reduction in size of the quanta of the object. However they are later partially recompressed, because the second-liner space quanta, which are now more compressed because they have not undergone any expansion, expand in turn towards the first-liner space quanta. Later also the quanta in the third line, yet compressed, expand towards those in the second line, and so on, until the quanta ever more distant from the object. In other words, matter squeezes large amounts of space quanta and allows the neighbouring quanta, and then gradually those farther away from them, to expand more. The result is an environment in which the space quanta situated in the vicinity of matter, are more expanded than those located far from it. The quanta composing matter are more compressed than the external ones. However, for the sake of precision, we should say that the average compression of the quanta composing matter, is greater than the average compression of those outside of it. This is because atoms include numerous quanta that could even be more expanded than those outside of it, i.e. those between the nuclei and the electrons, in that they are located closer to the elementary particles. The sets of quanta composing the atoms, tend to expand in the direction of the most expanded (or less compressed) quanta, as they encounter less resistance to their expansion. Therefore since material objects are made up of atoms, they expand in the direction of the most expanded quanta and thus in the direction of other objects. For this reason every object tends to move towards other objects. To move an object in the opposite direction than the one in which it would tend to move, i.e. from a point where the quanta are more expanded (e.g. from ground level) to a point where they are less expanded (e.g. 1 m from the ground), a certain force must be applied to gradually increase the compression of the sets of quanta composing the atoms of the object, in order for them to oppose to the greater pressure of the quanta they encounter as they approach the higher level. However, more precisely, we should not think of quanta as moving from one point to another, but of quanta compressions as moving from one point to another. Or, better yet, to physical manifestations occurring in different points in space. Consequently an object of one meter in height, has its atoms situated in a higher position at a higher mean compression rate, compared to the lower atoms, as the quanta making up the higher atoms, encounter more resistance to their expansion, compared to the quanta in the lower atoms. Therefore, assuming that the object has the shape of a cube, it will have a larger lower surface area than the upper one, because the compression of the quanta situated near the lower surface, is smaller than that of the quanta closer to the upper surface. However, if measured, the two surfaces would still appear to be the same, as the atoms of the measuring instruments themselves, are subject to expansion of the neighbouring quanta. All of this justifies gravity in a different but similar way to that hypothesized by General Relativity (GR), in that matter does not bend space-time, but increases the expansion of space quanta, and an object is not guided by space-time curvature, but it is guided by space quanta expansion. In short, space-time curvature is thus replaced by space quanta expansion. Therefore the mathematics envisaged by GR, should also apply to this hypothesis. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 19:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1942710.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #453986 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > In an article, which is available in the following link: > http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0050v2.pdf , IOW, it is so bad that it could not make it into a scientific publication. > I have proposed a model of Universe composed by space quanta and I have > explained the gravity with the following hypothesis. | […] I presented a theory that demonstrates the existence of the Preferred | Reference Frame and at which speed the Earth moves relative to it. […] You are, depending on your choice, either 386, 131, or about 98 years too late. (That there is no preferred reference frame was realized by Galileo Galilei in his 1632 book already; the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 suggested that there is no luminiferous aether, and many second-order experiments in the 1920s confirmed that.) | And now, with this article, I will tray to begin to walk the above path, | […] /Ex falso quodlibet./ Educate yourself: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_ship> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether> 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 | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 21:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9e5ob$1gug$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #453997 |
Il 27/03/2018 19:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> In an article, which is available in the following link: >> http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0050v2.pdf , > > IOW, it is so bad that it could not make it into a scientific publication. > >> I have proposed a model of Universe composed by space quanta and I have >> explained the gravity with the following hypothesis. > > | […] I presented a theory that demonstrates the existence of the Preferred > | Reference Frame and at which speed the Earth moves relative to it. […] > > You are, depending on your choice, either 386, 131, or about 98 years too > late. (That there is no preferred reference frame was realized by Galileo > Galilei in his 1632 book already; the null result of the Michelson–Morley > experiment of 1887 suggested that there is no luminiferous aether, and many > second-order experiments in the 1920s confirmed that.) > But now, with the article available in the following link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0287v1.pdf I have dimostrated the existence of the Preferred Reference Frame and at wich speed the Earth moves relative to it. 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. Hence the result found by Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is isotropic in any Reference Frame, is due to the phenomenon suggested by Lorentz, i.e., that each object undergoes a contraction of its length and a dilation of its time as a function of its speed with respect to the points it passes through, which, therefore, constitutes its preferred Reference Frame. Hence now Special Relativity is complementable with a theory for which light waves are manifested in a medium (and not in a vacuum) and their speed is not isotropic in all Reference Frames, no matter what their speed is, a frame with respect to an other frame. It is a theory that opens another path to the truth about the workings of the Universe. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 22:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454012 |
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.
> 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. 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.
[Instead, it means that there was indeed a Big Bang, the CMBR being
the “afterglow” of that – gamma radiation allowed to propagate freely
as the universe expanded and cooled to become transparent, redshifted
to microwaves due to further universal expansion *and* an *isotropic*
speed of light (in *all* reference frames):
<https://youtu.be/EjaGktVQdNg?t=1913>]
And JFYI, what you have is not a theory either. You have an *idea*, one
that is disproved by countless observations.
> 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.
> [more nonsense]
I am not going to refute every nonsensical statement of yours. It is more
than a life’s work to refute every nonsense that every ignoramus has ever
come up with. I have better things to do.
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?
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 01:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454018 |
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. >> 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. > 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. But to say it, you should read both articles I wrote, 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)" > [Instead, it means that there was indeed a Big Bang, the CMBR being > the “afterglow” of that – gamma radiation allowed to propagate freely > as the universe expanded and cooled to become transparent, redshifted > to microwaves due to further universal expansion *and* an *isotropic* > speed of light (in *all* reference frames): > > <https://youtu.be/EjaGktVQdNg?t=1913>] > > And JFYI, what you have is not a theory either. You have an *idea*, one > that is disproved by countless observations. > Before doing this statement, you should show that my demonstration is not correct. >> 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 and I confirm my statement. >> [more nonsense] > > I am not going to refute every nonsensical statement of yours. It is more > than a life’s work to refute every nonsense that every ignoramus has ever > come up with. I have better things to do. > You have not shown that I have write any nonsensical statement. Therefore I confirm that I have dimostrated the existence of the Preferred Reference Frame and at wich speed the Earth moves relative to it. > 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. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 03:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454035 |
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 04:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454044 |
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. >> 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, I quote below the final paragraph of my article. 4. CONCLUSIONS 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. Of course what applies to the photons of the CMBR also applies to all other photons. In conclusion, if on Earth the speed of the photons appears isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic. Therefore the speed of the photons is isotropic only with respect to the points in space they pass through, which can then be defined as the preferred RFs for any objects that pass through them. From these demonstrations a theory can be derived, which states that for each object and at any time, there is a preferred RF which consists of the points in space where it passes through, with respect to which: - the speed of the photons is isotropic; - the object can measure its speed; - the object is contracted as a function of its speed; - the time in the object dilates as a function of its speed. The tool for measuring said speed is the dipole anisotropy of CMBR. >>> 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. Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is also isotropic. And, of course, if the speed of the CMB is not isotropic, the speed of light is also not isotropic. >> 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. What does AISB mean? 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. > >>> 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. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 04:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2016749.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454050 |
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 11:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9flsl$1pm7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454051 |
Il 28/03/2018 04:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > 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. > As I think you have already understood, I do not know English well, so I help me with the google translator, so I ask you to understand the meaning of what I say. And in this case I wanted to emphasize that I showed what I said. >>>>> 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. > In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to. Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency. And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my final paragraph, that you cut. Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR". And as both the light and the CMBR, is manifested through photons, which naturally have the same speed, the CMBR and the light, have the same speed. Therefore it is not true that "the isotropy" OF THE SPEED "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. > Again you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to, that is to the isotropy of frequency. Therefore you had to write "The isotropy of the frequency of the CMBR refers .... ". > 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. > This is what results from the measurements carried out on the Earth, but I have shown that "if on Earth the speed of the photons appears isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic.". >> Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is >> also isotropic. > > You have it backwards. > So you. > Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed. > Are you kidding me? The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through photons, which have the so-called speed of light. > The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, What do you mean by phase speed? I have found on line that it is "the speed at which the phase of a wave is propagated, the product of the frequency times the wavelength", but the product of the frequency times the wavelength, corresponds to the speed of light! > 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?) > It seems to me that you are confusing the speed isotropy and frequency isotropy, of CMBR. So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is. >>> 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. If this is your thinking, I can not do anything about it. But I hope that any other readers of these posts, do not think like you. > >>>>> 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. > Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 15:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <19777922.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454064 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 28/03/2018 04:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Il 28/03/2018 03:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>
> As I think you have already understood, I do not know English well,
That might explain why you are misinterpreting the experimental results.
English is the /lingua franca/ of science, probably since the translation of
the first edition of Isaac Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia
Mathematica» (1687) into English (“Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy” by Andrew Motte, 1729). The MMX in particular was performed by
people who spoke English natively and published in English.
> so I help me with the google translator, so I ask you to understand the
> meaning of what I say.
This is an international newsgroup. You may write in your native language
here (although I do not think that your ideas so far would become more
coherent or consistent by this. Your basic misconceptions will remain.)
However, not knowing English well is a bad start to formulate a theory in
English. Google Translate is far from perfect – you have to augment it with
actual knowledge about the language that you are translating into.
JFYI, my native language is German, but I speak English at near-native
level. Certified, too. (For translation into/from English, I rarely have
to use Google Translate; rather, I am contributing to its dictionary.)
> And in this case I wanted to emphasize that I showed what I said.
OK, but you did _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.
>>> 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.
>
> In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what
> isotropy refers to.
*Everyone* who knows what the CMB(R) is knows that, when it is not qualified
further, it refers to its black-body temperature and related properties
(such as spectral radiance and frequency); _not_ to its (phase) speed.
> Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency.
Correct. And the isotropy of its (phase) speed is a truism, because it is
electromagnetic radiation of which we *know* that the (phase) speed is
isotropic. It is largely irrelevant.
> And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my
> final paragraph, that you cut.
But that is largely irrelevant. We already *know* that the speed of light
is invariant by theory since 1905, and by experiment *at least* since the
1920s.
The fact that you do not understand is that the CMBR *is* light (according
to the broader definition), so its (phase) speed is not at all surprising or
interesting.
Rather, the previously confirmed isotropy of the speed of light allows one
to conclude that if the *temperature* of the CMBR that was discovered in
1964 (and theorized a few years before that) is *also* isotropic, then the
*universal expansion* must be isotropic, too. Which confirms the Big Bang
theory.
Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*?
> Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR".
Yes, it is very important not to confuse those two concepts: isotropy of
(black-body) temperature, and isotropy of speed. You *are* confusing them,
and that leads you to believe that your conclusions make some sense. They
do not.
>> 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.
>
> Again you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to,
No, I did not. Learn to read.
> that is to the isotropy of frequency.
So you do not understand that isotropy of black-body temperature is
equivalent to isotropy of _peak_ frequency because of photon energy.
Perhaps you should learn first what a photon is?
> Therefore you had to write "The isotropy of the frequency of the CMBR
> refers .... ".
Nonsense.
>> 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.
>
> This is what results from the measurements carried out on the Earth, but
> I have shown that "if on Earth the speed of the photons appears
> isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools
> available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons
> suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic.".
Sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about.
>>> Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is
>>> also isotropic.
>> You have it backwards.
>
> So you.
No, I do not. Look it up.
>> Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed.
>
> Are you kidding me?
> The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through
> photons, which have the so-called speed of light.
But I said “_CMB_”, not “CMBR”. The missing “R” for “Radiation”, and the
“strictly speaking” part, are important here.
>> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed,
>
> What do you mean by phase speed?
You do not even know that and claim to be able to propose a quantum-
mechanical theory that makes sense? You cannot arrive at a proper
understanding of physics by taking such shortcuts.
> I have found on line that it is "the speed at which the phase of a wave
> is propagated, the product of the frequency times the wavelength",
Correct, that is what is usually meant by it, so it is what I meant.
> but the product of the frequency times the wavelength, corresponds to
> the speed of light!
Correct. AISB in the other subthread: c = λ f.
And not only theory (Maxwellian electrodynamics) but also *observation*
shows that this speed is locally constant, and the same for all observers in
the same medium. Therefore the relativistic Doppler effect: the change of
*observed* frequency (redshift or blueshift) *and* *observed* wavelength
*without* a change of the speed of light.
>> 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?)
>
> It seems to me that you are confusing the speed isotropy and frequency
> isotropy, of CMBR.
You are wrong. *You* are the one confusing them.
> So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is.
YMMD. You did not even know what phase speed is, you had to look it up.
>> 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.
>
> Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"?
Because you *evidently* do not know what you are talking about. You do not
even know, or understand, the basic concepts of the two prevailing (because
experimentally confirmed) theories of light, like phase speed (Maxwellian
electrodynamics), photon energy, and black-body temperature (both quantum
mechanics). Yet you claim to be able to propose a consistent theory that is
based on the observed properties of light.
That is ridiculous, and hopeless.
PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9lhiu$1ob8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454073 |
Il 28/03/2018 15:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 28/03/2018 04:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 28/03/2018 03:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>> 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. >> >> As I think you have already understood, I do not know English well, > > That might explain why you are misinterpreting the experimental results. > English is the /lingua franca/ of science, probably since the translation of > the first edition of Isaac Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia > Mathematica» (1687) into English (“Mathematical Principles of Natural > Philosophy” by Andrew Motte, 1729). The MMX in particular was performed by > people who spoke English natively and published in English. English is the international language, and not only for the sciences, so I would like to take this opportunity to improve my English. However I don't think I didn't understand the experimental results. > >> so I help me with the google translator, so I ask you to understand the >> meaning of what I say. > > This is an international newsgroup. You may write in your native language > here (although I do not think that your ideas so far would become more > coherent or consistent by this. Your basic misconceptions will remain.) > > However, not knowing English well is a bad start to formulate a theory in > English. Google Translate is far from perfect – you have to augment it with > actual knowledge about the language that you are translating into. > > JFYI, my native language is German, but I speak English at near-native > level. Certified, too. (For translation into/from English, I rarely have > to use Google Translate; rather, I am contributing to its dictionary.) > The English and the German languages are both Saxon languages, but they are very different. I am Italian, or better Venetian (that inflicted a major defeat on the fleet of the Ottoman Empire, on 1571) , and I can read English (for my work, but now I am retired), but I studied German a little, because I like it, because it is a precise language. And I always try to be precise. >> And in this case I wanted to emphasize that I showed what I said. > > OK, but you did _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. >>>> 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. >> >> In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what >> isotropy refers to. > > *Everyone* who knows what the CMB(R) is knows that, when it is not qualified > further, it refers to its black-body temperature and related properties > (such as spectral radiance and frequency); _not_ to its (phase) speed. > But in this discussion we are talking about my theory, in which I speak of isotropy of the speed and of isotropy of frequency of the photons of the CMBR. In fact it is precisely because the frequency and speed of the CMBR are both isotropic, which for my theory the reference frame of the CMBR is also the preferred reference frame. However I think that what you call the "black-body temperature" of the CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the potons of CMBR. >> Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency. > > Correct. And the isotropy of its (phase) speed is a truism, because it is > electromagnetic radiation of which we *know* that the (phase) speed is > isotropic. It is largely irrelevant. > In my theory I speak of the speed of the photons of the CMBR and not of the phase velocity of the photons of the CMBR. And the MM experiment concerns the speed of light and not the phase velocity of light. Moreover, the phase velocity can also exceed the speed of light, so I do not think it has to do with our discussion. >> And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my >> final paragraph, that you cut. > > But that is largely irrelevant. We already *know* that the speed of light > is invariant by theory since 1905, and by experiment *at least* since the > 1920s. > The speed of light is isotropic, due to Einstein's special relativity theory, but not due the theory of Lorentz aether before 1926. And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926. > The fact that you do not understand is that the CMBR *is* light (according > to the broader definition), so its (phase) speed is not at all surprising or > interesting. > Instead for my theory, the speed of the photons of the CMBR, which is natively the same as the photons of the light, is very important. And the word "phase" has little to do with it. > Rather, the previously confirmed isotropy of the speed of light allows one > to conclude that if the *temperature* of the CMBR that was discovered in > 1964 (and theorized a few years before that) is *also* isotropic, then the > *universal expansion* must be isotropic, too. Which confirms the Big Bang > theory. > O.K. > Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*? > I believe I know it well. My theory is based on the isotropy of the speed of the photons of the CMBR and on the anisotropy of the frequency of the photons of the CMBR, measured on the Earth. >> Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR". > > Yes, it is very important not to confuse those two concepts: isotropy of > (black-body) temperature, and isotropy of speed. You *are* confusing them, > and that leads you to believe that your conclusions make some sense. They > do not. > As I wrote above, perhaps you do not consider that the "(black-body) temperature" of the CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the photons of the CMBR. Maybe that's why you think I'm messing up. However I believe it is more correct and even simpler, to use the word "frequency". >>> 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. >> >> Again you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to, > > No, I did not. Learn to read. > >> that is to the isotropy of frequency. > > So you do not understand that isotropy of black-body temperature is > equivalent to isotropy of _peak_ frequency because of photon energy. > It seems to me that perhaps we have understood each other, now. > Perhaps you should learn first what a photon is? > >> Therefore you had to write "The isotropy of the frequency of the CMBR >> refers .... ". > > Nonsense. > >>> 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. >> >> This is what results from the measurements carried out on the Earth, but >> I have shown that "if on Earth the speed of the photons appears >> isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools >> available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons >> suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic.". > > Sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about. > It's not true. >>>> Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is >>>> also isotropic. >>> You have it backwards. >> >> So you. > > No, I do not. Look it up. > >>> Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed. >> >> Are you kidding me? >> The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through >> photons, which have the so-called speed of light. > > But I said “_CMB_”, not “CMBR”. The missing “R” for “Radiation”, and the > “strictly speaking” part, are important here. > I do not understand this. How do the photons of the CMBR not to have a speed, "strictly speaking" or not "strictly speaking", that is? >>> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, >> >> What do you mean by phase speed? > > You do not even know that and claim to be able to propose a quantum- > mechanical theory that makes sense? You cannot arrive at a proper > understanding of physics by taking such shortcuts. > This was a rhetorical question. >> I have found on line that it is "the speed at which the phase of a wave >> is propagated, the product of the frequency times the wavelength", > > Correct, that is what is usually meant by it, so it is what I meant. > O.K. >> but the product of the frequency times the wavelength, corresponds to >> the speed of light! > > Correct. AISB in the other subthread: c = λ f. > O.K. > And not only theory (Maxwellian electrodynamics) but also *observation* > shows that this speed is locally constant, and the same for all observers in > the same medium. Therefore the relativistic Doppler effect: the change of > *observed* frequency (redshift or blueshift) *and* *observed* wavelength > *without* a change of the speed of light. This applies to the theory of special relativity. > >>> 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?) >> >> It seems to me that you are confusing the speed isotropy and frequency >> isotropy, of CMBR. > > You are wrong. *You* are the one confusing them. > >> So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is. > > YMMD. You did not even know what phase speed is, you had to look it up. > I repeat that it seems to me that perhaps we have understood each other, now. >>> 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. >> >> Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"? > > Because you *evidently* do not know what you are talking about. You do not > even know, or understand, the basic concepts of the two prevailing (because > experimentally confirmed) theories of light, like phase speed (Maxwellian > electrodynamics), photon energy, and black-body temperature (both quantum > mechanics). Yet you claim to be able to propose a consistent theory that is > based on the observed properties of light. > I am a retired, with the passion of physic, and two years ago I did an online physics course, which I have passed with the score of 92.5 out of 100. So I know, at least, the basic concepts of physics. But, as regards relativity and cosmology, I think I know a little more. I have proposed an alternative theory to special relativity, but I am ready to change my mind, if someone diverts me where my proof is wrong, > That is ridiculous, and hopeless. > I cannot conclude this long answer without resuming the speech on the experiment of MM, so I report below what we discussed in previous posts on this topic. Me: Hence the result found by Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is isotropic in any Reference Frame, You: The MMX simply did not show that. Me: I do not agree with your statement You: It is true nevertheless. Look it up. Me: and I confirm my statement. To prove my thesis, I remind you that on the basis of special relativity and also on the basis of Lorentz's ether theory, the MMX experiment would give the same result in any reference system. So if it turns out that this is not true, both theories would be falsified. Therefore you should demonstrate that the MMX experiment does not show that the speed of light is the same in every reference system. So you win a Nobel prize for physics! :-) Now I conclude this post, apologizing for the delay, which is due to the length of the answer and to my language problems. However, I will try to answer the other posts. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 20:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454282 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > English is the international language, There are others. > and not only for the sciences, True. > so I would like to take this opportunity to improve my English. This is not English 101. Or Physics 101. > However I don't think I didn't understand the experimental results. You made several claims about those experiments that show that you *do* both misunderstand them (their goal) and misinterpret their (sometimes unexpected) results. > The English and the German languages are both Saxon languages, They are both _(West) Germanic_ languages instead. [There is no “Saxon” language grouping or family. Old Saxon, or Old Low German, which is related to English by tribe migration, is also a language of the West Germanic branch.] > but they are very different. As you are, by contrast to me, not fluent in, nor a native speaker of, either language, you cannot possibly know that. Once again you are hopelessly overestimating your understanding. JFYI, you are dead wrong: they are rather very similar. > And I always try to be precise. So far you have failed horribly in that, though. >>> In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what >>> isotropy refers to. >> *Everyone* who knows what the CMB(R) is knows that, when it is not >> qualified further, it refers to its black-body temperature and related >> properties (such as spectral radiance and frequency); _not_ to its >> (phase) speed. > > But in this discussion we are talking about my theory, in which I speak > of isotropy of the speed and of isotropy of frequency of the photons of > the CMBR. Irrelevant. > 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. In any case, 3. the *observed* CMB *anisotropies* ultimately *kill* your idea: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELIKT-1> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer#/media/File:COBE_DMR_Image.PNG> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#/media/File:PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg> > However I think that what you call the "black-body temperature" of the > CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the potons of CMBR. You *think* (or rather, *believe*), because you do _not_ *know*. *By chance*, you are correct here –, E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² E_γ = E(m = 0) = p_γ c p_γ = ℏ |k⃗| = ℎ∕2π × 2π∕λ = ℎ∕λ E_γ = p_γ c = ℎ∕λ × c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f – but it is doubtful whether you are only trying to obscure the fact that *I told you so* further below. >>> Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency. >> Correct. And the isotropy of its (phase) speed is a truism, because it >> is electromagnetic radiation of which we *know* that the (phase) speed is >> isotropic. It is largely irrelevant. > In my theory I speak of the speed of the photons of the CMBR and not of > the phase velocity of the photons of the CMBR. > > And the MM experiment concerns the speed of light and not the phase > velocity of light. Speed is the magnitude of (the) velocity (vector). Don’t you know anything? > Moreover, the phase velocity can also exceed the speed of light, No, it cannot. Both are separate, interrelated quantities; however, if one says “velocity” when one means “speed”¹, then they are *the same*. Therefore I wrote “(phase) speed of light” several times. You have no clue what you are talking about. At all. ______ ¹ as it is the case with “phase velocity”, and in at least one introductory online course on special relativity that I happened to pass with a mark of 100 % – highly recommended[1] >>> And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my >>> final paragraph, that you cut. >> >> But that is largely irrelevant. We already *know* that the speed of >> light is invariant by theory since 1905, and by experiment *at least* >> since the 1920s. > > The speed of light is isotropic, due to Einstein's special relativity > theory, 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. Lorentz formulated his aether theory (which is _not_ what we call LET now) in 1892 and refined it until 1904. It then became apparent (to him, too) that SR (starting in 1905) was the better theory, and he abandoned his and supported SR instead. > And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926. <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].” You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. >> Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*? > > I believe I know it well. This is science, not religion. Your belief is *irrelevant*. I dare you to define “isotropy” *without* your looking it up. >>> Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR". >> Yes, it is very important not to confuse those two concepts: isotropy of >> (black-body) temperature, and isotropy of speed. You *are* confusing >> them, and that leads you to believe that your conclusions make some >> sense. They do not. > > As I wrote above, perhaps you do not consider that the "(black-body) > temperature" of the CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the photons of > the CMBR. That is what *I* told *you*. > Maybe that's why you think I'm messing up. You *are* messing up. > However I believe it is more correct and even simpler, to use the word > "frequency". Your belief is irrelevant. You are wrong. >>>> Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed. >>> Are you kidding me? >>> The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through >>> photons, which have the so-called speed of light. >> But I said “_CMB_”, not “CMBR”. The missing “R” for “Radiation”, and the >> “strictly speaking” part, are important here. > > I do not understand this. > How do the photons of the CMBR not to have a speed, "strictly speaking" > or not "strictly speaking", that is? One is the astronomical object of observation, the other the *radiation*. >>>> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, >>> What do you mean by phase speed? >> You do not even know that and claim to be able to propose a quantum- >> mechanical theory that makes sense? You cannot arrive at a proper >> understanding of physics by taking such shortcuts. > > This was a rhetorical question. Why are you lying? >> And not only theory (Maxwellian electrodynamics) but also *observation* >> shows that this speed is locally constant, and the same for all observers >> in the same medium. Therefore the relativistic Doppler effect: the >> change of *observed* frequency (redshift or blueshift) *and* *observed* >> wavelength *without* a change of the speed of light. > > This applies to the theory of special relativity. Not only. >>> So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is. >> YMMD. You did not even know what phase speed is, you had to look it up. > > I repeat that it seems to me that perhaps we have understood each other, > now. You have not understood anything. >>>> 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. >>> Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"? >> >> Because you *evidently* do not know what you are talking about. You do >> not even know, or understand, the basic concepts of the two prevailing >> (because experimentally confirmed) theories of light, like phase speed >> (Maxwellian electrodynamics), photon energy, and black-body temperature >> (both quantum >> mechanics). Yet you claim to be able to propose a consistent theory that >> is based on the observed properties of light. > > I am a retired, Figures. > with the passion of physic, and two years ago I did an > online physics course, which I have passed with the score of 92.5 out of > 100. So I know, at least, the basic concepts of physics. Evidently you don’t. Or you are willfully, arbitrarily discarding much of what you learned. > But, as regards relativity and cosmology, I think I know a little more. You mean *much* *less*. > I have proposed an alternative theory to special relativity, No, you have published pseudo-scientific word salad. That is why you had to do it on viXra, the crackpot’s paradise for papers that never underwent proper peer review and probably never will. > but I am ready to change my mind, if someone diverts me where my proof is > wrong, I have told you numerous times now. > To prove my thesis, I remind you that on the basis of special relativity > and also on the basis of Lorentz's ether theory, the MMX experiment > would give the same result in any reference system. Historian’s fallacy. > So if it turns out that this is not true, both theories would be > falsified. The MMX was first performed in 1887. Lorentz introduced his aether theoryin 1892 as a consequence and explanation of the former’s null result. SR was formulated independently in 1905, without requiring an aether. To this day SR is the theory that works better. > Therefore you should demonstrate that the MMX experiment does > not show that the speed of light is the same in every reference system. *In hindsight*, the MMX was performed only in its rest frame, where coordinate time equals proper time [γ(v) = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²), γ(0) = 1.] Next time, do your own homework. > So you win a Nobel prize for physics! :-) You have no clue. > Now I conclude this post, apologizing for the delay, You should apologize for a few other things instead, including wasting everybody’s time and other resources with this nonsense. PointedEars ___________ [1] <https://online.stanford.edu/course/understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity> -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9ociu$1ei$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454312 |
Il 30/03/2018 20:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> However I don't think I didn't understand the experimental results. > > You made several claims about those experiments that show that you *do* both > misunderstand them (their goal) and misinterpret their (sometimes > unexpected) results. > > Once again you are hopelessly overestimating your understanding. JFYI, > you are dead wrong: they are rather very similar. > > So far you have failed horribly in that, though. > I don't want to reply to this provocation. >> >> But in this discussion we are talking about my theory, in which I speak >> of isotropy of the speed and of isotropy of frequency of the photons of >> the CMBR. > > Irrelevant. > >> 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. The reference frame is the place of the space in which the CMBR is isotropic and is referred to as the CMBR reference frame. Below is what I wrote in my article about the CMBR. "According to the Big Bang theory, about 379,000 years after the beginning of its expansion, the Universe became transparent to radiation, so a huge amount of photons began to spread freely (5,6). Photons were released from different parts of the Universe and have travelled in random directions, so some of them travelled towards Earth. Since then these photons, which are referred to as CMBR, have continued to reach Earth, starting with those being released from the closest points and then gradually more and more distant ones. Due to the expansion of space, their wavelength has greatly increased, and therefore their frequency has decreased to the currently detected value (about 1,100 times), which is the same for all photons, except for some very slight anisotropies (around one in 100,000) (5). In addition to these anisotropies, which are intrinsic in nature for CMBR (being of intrinsic nature, they do not affect the present theory and, therefore, for simplicity will not always be considered in this paper), it has been detected a particular anisotropy of much greater amplitude than the other (around one in 1,000) (4), which depends on the direction of the CMBR’s provenance and that is due to the motion of the Earth (about 300 km/s) with respect to a particular point at which this anisotropy would not be detected, called "dipole anisotropy" (7)." > In any case, > > 3. the *observed* CMB *anisotropies* ultimately *kill* your idea: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELIKT-1> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer#/media/File:COBE_DMR_Image.PNG> Below the figures is written "following dipole subtraction", ie without the "dipole anisotropy", which demonstrates the motion of the Earth with respect to the CMBR reference frame. As I wrote above. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#/media/File:PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg> > But also the other images are purified from the dipole anisotropy. Instead the images on the first page of this link are not purified from dipole anisotropy. http://www.inaoep.mx/~itziar/clases/cmb10_2.pdf >> However I think that what you call the "black-body temperature" of the >> CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the potons of CMBR. > > You *think* (or rather, *believe*), because you do _not_ *know*. > *By chance*, you are correct here –, > > E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² > > E_γ = E(m = 0) = p_γ c > > p_γ = ℏ |k⃗| = ℎ∕2π × 2π∕λ = ℎ∕λ > > E_γ = p_γ c = ℎ∕λ × c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f > > – but it is doubtful whether you are only trying to obscure the fact that > *I told you so* further below. > >>>> Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency. >>> Correct. And the isotropy of its (phase) speed is a truism, because it >>> is electromagnetic radiation of which we *know* that the (phase) speed is >>> isotropic. It is largely irrelevant. >> In my theory I speak of the speed of the photons of the CMBR and not of >> the phase velocity of the photons of the CMBR. >> >> And the MM experiment concerns the speed of light and not the phase >> velocity of light. > > Speed is the magnitude of (the) velocity (vector). Don’t you know anything? > >> Moreover, the phase velocity can also exceed the speed of light, > > No, it cannot. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Phase_velocity_is_greater_than_the_speed_of_light_inside_the_waveguide But I do not comment because I have always talked about the speed of light, without mentioning any phase. > Both are separate, interrelated quantities; however, if > one says “velocity” when one means “speed”¹, then they are *the same*. > > Therefore I wrote “(phase) speed of light” several times. > > You have no clue what you are talking about. At all. > > ______ > ¹ as it is the case with “phase velocity”, and in at least one introductory > online course on special relativity that I happened to pass with a mark > of 100 % – highly recommended[1] > >>>> And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my >>>> final paragraph, that you cut. >>> >>> But that is largely irrelevant. We already *know* that the speed of >>> light is invariant by theory since 1905, and by experiment *at least* >>> since the 1920s. >> >> The speed of light is isotropic, due to Einstein's special relativity >> theory, > > 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. On that date he wrote a book with which he accepted the Einstein convention for the synchronization of clocks. But he did not abandon the idea of ether. > > Lorentz formulated his aether theory (which is _not_ what we call LET now) > in 1892 and refined it until 1904. It then became apparent (to him, too) > that SR (starting in 1905) was the better theory, and he abandoned his and > supported SR instead. > I do not think it's true, but it does not matter for my article. >> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926. > Before 1916. > <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, as I wrote above, Lorentz did not abandon the ether. > You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. > >>> Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*? >> >> I believe I know it well. > > This is science, not religion. Your belief is *irrelevant*. I dare you to > define “isotropy” *without* your looking it up. > >>>> Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR". >>> Yes, it is very important not to confuse those two concepts: isotropy of >>> (black-body) temperature, and isotropy of speed. You *are* confusing >>> them, and that leads you to believe that your conclusions make some >>> sense. They do not. >> >> As I wrote above, perhaps you do not consider that the "(black-body) >> temperature" of the CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the photons of >> the CMBR. > > That is what *I* told *you*. > >> Maybe that's why you think I'm messing up. > > You *are* messing up. > >> However I believe it is more correct and even simpler, to use the word >> "frequency". > > Your belief is irrelevant. You are wrong. > >>>>> Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed. >>>> Are you kidding me? >>>> The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through >>>> photons, which have the so-called speed of light. >>> But I said “_CMB_”, not “CMBR”. The missing “R” for “Radiation”, and the >>> “strictly speaking” part, are important here. >> >> I do not understand this. >> How do the photons of the CMBR not to have a speed, "strictly speaking" >> or not "strictly speaking", that is? > > One is the astronomical object of observation, the other the *radiation*. > >>>>> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, >>>> What do you mean by phase speed? >>> You do not even know that and claim to be able to propose a quantum- >>> mechanical theory that makes sense? You cannot arrive at a proper >>> understanding of physics by taking such shortcuts. >> >> This was a rhetorical question. > > Why are you lying? > >>> And not only theory (Maxwellian electrodynamics) but also *observation* >>> shows that this speed is locally constant, and the same for all observers >>> in the same medium. Therefore the relativistic Doppler effect: the >>> change of *observed* frequency (redshift or blueshift) *and* *observed* >>> wavelength *without* a change of the speed of light. >> >> This applies to the theory of special relativity. > > Not only. > >>>> So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is. >>> YMMD. You did not even know what phase speed is, you had to look it up. >> >> I repeat that it seems to me that perhaps we have understood each other, >> now. > > You have not understood anything. > >>>>> 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. >>>> Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"? >>> >>> Because you *evidently* do not know what you are talking about. You do >>> not even know, or understand, the basic concepts of the two prevailing >>> (because experimentally confirmed) theories of light, like phase speed >>> (Maxwellian electrodynamics), photon energy, and black-body temperature >>> (both quantum >>> mechanics). Yet you claim to be able to propose a consistent theory that >>> is based on the observed properties of light. >> >> I am a retired, > > Figures. > >> with the passion of physic, and two years ago I did an >> online physics course, which I have passed with the score of 92.5 out of >> 100. So I know, at least, the basic concepts of physics. > > Evidently you don’t. Or you are willfully, arbitrarily discarding much of > what you learned. > >> But, as regards relativity and cosmology, I think I know a little more. > > You mean *much* *less*. > >> I have proposed an alternative theory to special relativity, > > No, you have published pseudo-scientific word salad. That is why you had to > do it on viXra, the crackpot’s paradise for papers that never underwent > proper peer review and probably never will. > >> but I am ready to change my mind, if someone diverts me where my proof is >> wrong, > > I have told you numerous times now. > >> To prove my thesis, I remind you that on the basis of special relativity >> and also on the basis of Lorentz's ether theory, the MMX experiment >> would give the same result in any reference system. > > Historian’s fallacy. > >> So if it turns out that this is not true, both theories would be >> falsified. > > The MMX was first performed in 1887. Lorentz introduced his aether theoryin > 1892 as a consequence and explanation of the former’s null result. SR was > formulated independently in 1905, without requiring an aether. To this day > SR is the theory that works better. > >> Therefore you should demonstrate that the MMX experiment does >> not show that the speed of light is the same in every reference system. > > *In hindsight*, the MMX was performed only in its rest frame, where > coordinate time equals proper time [γ(v) = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²), γ(0) = 1.] > > Next time, do your own homework. > >> So you win a Nobel prize for physics! :-) > > You have no clue. > >> Now I conclude this post, apologizing for the delay, > > You should apologize for a few other things instead, including wasting > everybody’s time and other resources with this nonsense. > > I read everything, but I only answered the points that I considered most important, both for time problems and because I did not consider it necessary for the demonstration of my theory. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web