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 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3154434.V25eIC5XRa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454376 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 30/03/2018 20:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> In fact it is precisely because the frequency and speed of the CMBR are >>> both isotropic, which for my theory >> >> You do not have a (scientific) theory. A (scientific) theory must make >> *falsifiable* predictions. >> >>> the reference frame of the CMBR is also the preferred reference frame. >> >> Dead wrong. >> >> 1. There is no preferred reference frame. The principle of relativity >> (introduced by Galilei) says so, and all observation confirms it. >> That is, it is not possible for an observer who is in inertial motion >> relative to something else to tell that this is the case *without* >> external reference. >> >> 2. The CMBR is radiation coming from, and moving to, *different* (all) >> directions. It cannot serve as a reference frame in the first place. >> > But the CMBR is not a reference frame. Why do you claim then that it is? You are so confused that you do not even realize that you are claiming things that contradict each other. > The reference frame is the place of the space in which the CMBR is > isotropic That would be precisely *none*. > and is referred to as the CMBR reference frame. Just one sentence before you said “the CMBR is not a reference frame”. Do you even realize anymore when you are contradicting yourself? > But also the other images are purified from the dipole anisotropy. Yes, but your statements make it obvious that you have no clue what that is. > But I do not comment because I have always talked about the speed of > light, without mentioning any phase. You simply have no clue. In classical electrodynamics, the speed of light *is* the phase speed of electromagnetic (EM) waves, which is constant in the same medium for all observers. And in that framework, light *is* an EM wave. Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum field theory (QFT) based on special relativity (SR). As a result, the propagation speed of photons, the quanta of the EM field, is constant and the same for all observers in the same medium, too. And it is the same as the phase speed of EM waves. You do not know that, and you claim to propose a *quantum* theory with your second "paper"? Ridiculous. >> No, *experimental evidence* showed it *before*. Einstein merely raised >> that to a postulate. (You have not read his seminal paper, “On the >> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, yes?) >> >>> but not due the theory of Lorentz aether before 1926. > > I verified that the year when Lorentz changed his mind about the ether, > it was 1916 and not 1926. Cite and quote your sources. My source (which I have cited, and quoted) say that he wrote in 1926 that he had changed his mind about his ether theory already before 1914. >>> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926. > > Before 1916. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory> >> >> “Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as >> incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it [his theory].” > > The book with the new formulation of the aether theory was published in > 1916 but, In the middle of World War Ⅰ? Cite evidence. > as I wrote above, Lorentz did not abandon the ether. Evidently you are wrong. > [hundreds of unreferred quoted lines] You can’t be serious. > I read everything, but I only answered the points that I considered most > important, You ignored my main counter-arguments because you are unable or unwilling to refute them. > both for time problems and because I did not consider it > necessary for the demonstration of my theory. You do not have a theory. You have wrong ideas, merely based on your utter ignorance and your gross misconceptions. PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 23:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9rhgu$r99$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454449 |
Il 01/04/2018 19:12, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 30/03/2018 20:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> In fact it is precisely because the frequency and speed of the CMBR are >>>> both isotropic, which for my theory >>> >>> You do not have a (scientific) theory. A (scientific) theory must make >>> *falsifiable* predictions. >>> >>>> the reference frame of the CMBR is also the preferred reference frame. >>> >>> Dead wrong. >>> >>> 1. There is no preferred reference frame. The principle of relativity >>> (introduced by Galilei) says so, and all observation confirms it. >>> That is, it is not possible for an observer who is in inertial motion >>> relative to something else to tell that this is the case *without* >>> external reference. >>> >>> 2. The CMBR is radiation coming from, and moving to, *different* (all) >>> directions. It cannot serve as a reference frame in the first place. >>> >> But the CMBR is not a reference frame. > > Why do you claim then that it is? > > You are so confused that you do not even realize that you are claiming > things that contradict each other. > >> The reference frame is the place of the space in which the CMBR is >> isotropic > > That would be precisely *none*. > As I wrote in my demonstration and also in other posts, for isotropic I mean without the dipole anisotropy. >> and is referred to as the CMBR reference frame. > > Just one sentence before you said “the CMBR is not a reference frame”. > Problems of the automatic translator. "and is referred to as the reference frame of the CMBR". > Do you even realize anymore when you are contradicting yourself? > >> But also the other images are purified from the dipole anisotropy. > > Yes, but your statements make it obvious that you have no clue what that is. > >> But I do not comment because I have always talked about the speed of >> light, without mentioning any phase. > > You simply have no clue. > > In classical electrodynamics, the speed of light *is* the phase speed of > electromagnetic (EM) waves, which is constant in the same medium for all > observers. And in that framework, light *is* an EM wave. > > Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum field theory (QFT) based on special > relativity (SR). As a result, the propagation speed of photons, the quanta > of the EM field, is constant and the same for all observers in the same > medium, too. And it is the same as the phase speed of EM waves. > > You do not know that, and you claim to propose a *quantum* theory with your > second "paper"? Ridiculous. > >>> No, *experimental evidence* showed it *before*. Einstein merely raised >>> that to a postulate. (You have not read his seminal paper, “On the >>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, yes?) >>> >>>> but not due the theory of Lorentz aether before 1926. >> >> I verified that the year when Lorentz changed his mind about the ether, >> it was 1916 and not 1926. > > Cite and quote your sources. > My source is "La Relatività debole" of Franco Selleri. Paragraph 15.3 That I wrote in another post. > My source (which I have cited, and quoted) say that he wrote in 1926 that he > had changed his mind about his ether theory already before 1914. > >>>> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926. >> >> Before 1916. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts> > >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory> >>> >>> “Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as >>> incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it [his theory].” >> >> The book with the new formulation of the aether theory was published in >> 1916 but, > > In the middle of World War Ⅰ? Cite evidence. > see above >> as I wrote above, Lorentz did not abandon the ether. > > Evidently you are wrong. > >> [hundreds of unreferred quoted lines] > > You can’t be serious. > >> I read everything, but I only answered the points that I considered most >> important, > > You ignored my main counter-arguments because you are unable or unwilling to > refute them. > >> both for time problems and because I did not consider it >> necessary for the demonstration of my theory. > > You do not have a theory. You have wrong ideas, merely based on your utter > ignorance and your gross misconceptions. > > Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 10:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gmIuC.183411$f35.135975@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #454050 |
Den 28.03.2018 04.04, skrev Dino Bruniera: > > To prove that mine is a proven theory, I quote below the final paragraph > of my article. If a 'theory' is provable, it must be true by definition and then it is no scientific theory. (Euclidean geometry is true by definition, but it is no scientific theory.) > > 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. A thought experiment can't prove a theory to be correct as in: "its predictions are in accordance with experimental evidence". All a thought experiment can do is to demonstrate the logical consequence of an assumption (or axiom). Your conclusion above is the logical consequence of the assumption "Galilean relativity applies in the real world". This assumption is solidly falsified by experimental evidence. No reason to go on. > [..] -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 11:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9fm9s$1qit$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454063 |
Il 28/03/2018 10:27, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: > Den 28.03.2018 04.04, skrev Dino Bruniera: >> >> 4. CONCLUSIONS >> >> The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the >> reasons that follow. >> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments", >> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency >> must also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not >> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be >> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin. > > A thought experiment can't prove a theory to be correct as in: > "its predictions are in accordance with experimental evidence". > All a thought experiment can do is to demonstrate the logical > consequence of an assumption (or axiom). > > Your conclusion above is the logical consequence of > the assumption "Galilean relativity applies in the real world". > > This assumption is solidly falsified by experimental evidence. But "if on Earth the speed of the photons appears isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic.". Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 14:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IILuC.263223$_91.188714@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #454065 |
Den 28.03.2018 11.12, skrev Dino Bruniera: > Il 28/03/2018 10:27, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: >> Den 28.03.2018 04.04, skrev Dino Bruniera: > >>> >>> 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. >> >> A thought experiment can't prove a theory to be correct as in: >> "its predictions are in accordance with experimental evidence". >> All a thought experiment can do is to demonstrate the logical >> consequence of an assumption (or axiom). >> >> Your conclusion above is the logical consequence of >> the assumption "Galilean relativity applies in the real world". >> >> This assumption is solidly falsified by experimental evidence. > > But "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.". > > Dino Bruniera The "shortening only" theory first suggested by Lorentz doesn't work, that's why he later found the Lorentz transform in this paper: (Which in this forum is called Lorentz ether theory, LET.) https://paulba.no/paper/Lorentz04.pdf Note that he pulled the transformation out of thin air with no other justification than it made Maxwell's equations invariant. https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf SR and LET will always predict exactly the same for any experiment, so neither of the theories are falsified. According to LET, it is impossible to detect the ether frame. You can assume any inertial frame to be the ether frame, the choice will not affect the predictions of LET. An ether whose state of motion have no physical consequences isn't very sensible. Besides, LET doesn't blend into GR, while SR does. LET doesn't predict gravitational Doppler shift, so it is no option in the real world. Your conclusion above is solidly falsified by experimental evidence. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 00:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9h677$frj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454066 |
Il 28/03/2018 14:16, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: > Den 28.03.2018 11.12, skrev Dino Bruniera: >> Il 28/03/2018 10:27, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: >>> Den 28.03.2018 04.04, skrev Dino Bruniera: >> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> A thought experiment can't prove a theory to be correct as in: >>> "its predictions are in accordance with experimental evidence". >>> All a thought experiment can do is to demonstrate the logical >>> consequence of an assumption (or axiom). >>> >>> Your conclusion above is the logical consequence of >>> the assumption "Galilean relativity applies in the real world". >>> >>> This assumption is solidly falsified by experimental evidence. >> >> But "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.". >> >> Dino Bruniera > > The "shortening only" theory first suggested by Lorentz doesn't work, > that's why he later found the Lorentz transform in this paper: > (Which in this forum is called Lorentz ether theory, LET.) > https://paulba.no/paper/Lorentz04.pdf > > Note that he pulled the transformation out of thin air > with no other justification than it made Maxwell's equations > invariant. > https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf > > SR and LET will always predict exactly the same for any > experiment, so neither of the theories are falsified. > > According to LET, it is impossible to detect the ether frame. > You can assume any inertial frame to be the ether frame, > the choice will not affect the predictions of LET. > An ether whose state of motion have no physical consequences > isn't very sensible. > Besides, LET doesn't blend into GR, while SR does. > LET doesn't predict gravitational Doppler shift, > so it is no option in the real world. > > Your conclusion above is solidly falsified by > experimental evidence. > First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame, which is the reference frame of the CMBR. There are also other people who have suggested that the CMBR is the preferred reference frame, but I think that I also managed to prove it in the article you can find at the following link: http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0287 Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0050 which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with the preferred reference frame. But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read and evaluate my articles. For this reason, after publishing these articles in Italian language, in my websites, which you can find at the following link: http://www.trecimedilavaredo.eu/, with the help of a translator, I have translated my articles in English and I had them published in VIXRA. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 03:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3166827.iIbC2pHGDl@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454133 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. If only you had understood it. > The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame, > which is the reference frame of the CMBR. Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you *still* have no clue what you are talking about. How sad. > There are also other people who have suggested that the CMBR is the > preferred reference frame, They must be equally un(der)educated, then. > but I think that I also managed to prove it in the article you can find at > the following link: > [spam] No, you did not. This is just pseudo-scientific word salad mixed with fallacies and misconceptions. I actually started to provide short corrections to each point, but since I ended up correcting almost every word in the incredibly long, unbroken first sentence, I stopped at line 2 of the abstract (with HD resolution and browser window in fullscreen mode). Vada via! Go away and do not come back until you have studied what you are talking about. Here are the subjects that you have no clue about, and that you really need to study, probably not in that order (this is just the order in which you refer to these concepts, often without knowing, in your abstract): - CMB(R) - speed of light - isotropy - transit - Michelson-Morley experiment - reference frame - Lorentz ether theory - length contraction - time dilation - special relativity - photons, especially photon energy and how it is calculated - stars (the astronomical objects, not the celebrities) - galaxies - Maxwellian electrodynamics - physical conditions in interstellar and intergalactic space - scientific truth - scientific theory - quantum mechanics - redshift - gravity, especially in general relativity - Doppler effect - universal expansion - scientific community > Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link > [spam] > which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with the > preferred reference frame. Ex falso quodlibet. > But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read > and evaluate my articles. Probably because it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, refuted by observation. You must realize that observation of the universe trumps all ideas and theories people can have about the universe. Science works by falsification: if it is not possible to falsify a theory, then it is not science. (Therefore, some physicists doubt whether string theory is actually a theory.) You should really take the time to watch this excellent science talk to perhaps clarify at least some of your misconceptions: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg> There are no subtitles in Italian directly, but there are in English (auto-generated) whose auto-translation to Italian you might find understandable and useful. 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 | 2018-03-30 23:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9ma0h$11mc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454139 |
Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. > > If only you had understood it. > However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET). >> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame, >> which is the reference frame of the CMBR. > > Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you *still* > have no clue what you are talking about. How sad. > Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong. >> There are also other people who have suggested that the CMBR is the >> preferred reference frame, > > They must be equally un(der)educated, then. > >> but I think that I also managed to prove it in the article you can find at >> the following link: >> [spam] > > No, you did not. This is just pseudo-scientific word salad mixed with > fallacies and misconceptions. I actually started to provide short > corrections to each point, but since I ended up correcting almost every word > in the incredibly long, unbroken first sentence, I stopped at line 2 of the > abstract (with HD resolution and browser window in fullscreen mode). > I will read your corrections willingly. > Vada via! Go away and do not come back until you have studied what you are > talking about. > I'll leave when I want. It will probably be when someone will have told me where my demonstration is wrong. Or when I realize that even in this NG, I will not be able to find someone who will told me where my demonstration is wrong. > Here are the subjects that you have no clue about, and that you really need > to study, probably not in that order (this is just the order in which you > refer to these concepts, often without knowing, in your abstract): > > - CMB(R) > - speed of light > - isotropy > - transit > - Michelson-Morley experiment > - reference frame > - Lorentz ether theory > - length contraction > - time dilation > - special relativity > - photons, especially photon energy and how it is calculated > - stars (the astronomical objects, not the celebrities) > - galaxies > - Maxwellian electrodynamics > - physical conditions in interstellar and intergalactic space > - scientific truth > - scientific theory > - quantum mechanics > - redshift > - gravity, especially in general relativity > - Doppler effect > - universal expansion > - scientific community > Thanks for your advice. >> Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link >> [spam] >> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with the >> preferred reference frame. > > Ex falso quodlibet. > >> But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read >> and evaluate my articles. > > Probably because it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, refuted by observation. > Maybe you're right, but I hope someone will show it to me. > You must realize that observation of the universe trumps all ideas and > theories people can have about the universe. Science works by > falsification: if it is not possible to falsify a theory, then it is not > science. (Therefore, some physicists doubt whether string theory is > actually a theory.) To falsify my theory, no observations are needed, but just find where my demonstration is wrong. On string theory I agree with you. > > You should really take the time to watch this excellent science talk to > perhaps clarify at least some of your misconceptions: > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg> > > There are no subtitles in Italian directly, but there are in English > (auto-generated) whose auto-translation to Italian you might find > understandable and useful. > Thank you. It seems very interesting to me. With subtitles I can also follow the video, maybe stopping it often. But what is "auto-translation"? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 00:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2496226.BEx9A2HvPv@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454331 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me.
>>
>> If only you had understood it.
>>
> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET).
LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that you
did not know either theory.
>>> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame,
>>> which is the reference frame of the CMBR.
>>
>> Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you *still*
>> have no clue what you are talking about. How sad.
>>
>
> Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change
> my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong.
No, evidently you don’t. I have told you already where you are wrong.
Paul has told you, too. How many more people, how many more postings
does it take?
>>> But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read
>>> and evaluate my articles.
>> Probably because it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, refuted by
>> observation.
>>
> Maybe you're right, but I hope someone will show it to me.
Statements that do not make sense because they are mumbo-jumbo of words used
in science, without regard as to what these words actually mean (pseudo-
scientific word salad) are not falsifiable. It is a waste of time to try,
because their clueless author can change their meaning at any time to save
face. (You have already done it.)
That does not mean that they are correct.
> To falsify my theory, no observations are needed, but just find where my
> demonstration is wrong.
You have been told that, too.
> […] what is "auto-translation"?
Short for “automatic translation”.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 18:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9oei4$4lt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454337 |
Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. >>> >>> If only you had understood it. >>> >> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET). > > LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that you > did not know either theory. > Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind. In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916. >>>> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame, >>>> which is the reference frame of the CMBR. >>> >>> Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you *still* >>> have no clue what you are talking about. How sad. >>> >> >> Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change >> my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong. > > No, evidently you don’t. I have told you already where you are wrong. > Paul has told you, too. How many more people, how many more postings > does it take? > It is not enough for me to tell it to me, you should also prove it to me. >>>> But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read >>>> and evaluate my articles. >>> Probably because it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, refuted by >>> observation. >>> >> Maybe you're right, but I hope someone will show it to me. > > Statements that do not make sense because they are mumbo-jumbo of words used > in science, without regard as to what these words actually mean (pseudo- > scientific word salad) are not falsifiable. It is a waste of time to try, > because their clueless author can change their meaning at any time to save > face. (You have already done it.) > > That does not mean that they are correct. > >> To falsify my theory, no observations are needed, but just find where my >> demonstration is wrong. > > You have been told that, too. > >> […] what is "auto-translation"? > > Short for “automatic translation”. > I understood this. But I know how to get it. That is, if the subtitle appears in English, can it be translated simultaneously into Italian? If yes, how? However, perhaps it is better for me to read the subtitles in English, so I practice. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 21:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <12386798.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454378 |
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me.
>>>> If only you had understood it.
>>> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET).
>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that
>> you did not know either theory.
>
> Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind.
See? Instead of *studying*, instead of *reading* and *learning*, you are
only *guessing* from *ignorance*. That approach is hopeless.
> In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916.
I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his
theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special
relativity (SR).
Only Poincaré insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified
version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR, without
a shred of evidence to back that up (the ether is by his own theory
undetectable). Contrary to Lorentz, he would not even acknowledge
Einstein’s contribution. So ISTM that, unfortunately, at an old age
the once reknowned scientist became somewhat of a crackpot who likes to
believe their own fantasies (here: the ether as a preferred reference
frame) rather than observed reality (all reference frames have equal
standing). Similar to you.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
—George Santayana, philosopher (1863–1952)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity>
>>>>> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame,
>>>>> which is the reference frame of the CMBR.
>>>>
>>>> Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you
>>>> *still*
>>>> have no clue what you are talking about. How sad.
>>> Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change
>>> my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong.
>> No, evidently you don’t. I have told you already where you are wrong.
>> Paul has told you, too. How many more people, how many more postings
>> does it take?
>
> It is not enough for me to tell it to me, you should also prove it to me.
Although *you* carry the burden of proof for your claims, _not_ I, (Paul
and) I *have* proven you wrong on *all* accounts now, *including* the CMB
(the temperature/observed photon frequency of the radiation it is actually
_not_ isotropic – detected by RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, and “Planck”).
>>> […] what is "auto-translation"?
>> Short for “automatic translation”.
>
> I understood this.
> But I know how to get it.
(You meant to say “_But how do I get it?_”)
The YouTube UI is unintuitive, maybe even buggy, in that regard. Select
“Settings” (cogwheel icon) → Subtitles/CC → “English (auto-generated)”.
[“Auto-translate” below that is displayed, but somehow disabled.] Then
select Subtitles/CC → “Auto-Translate” (enabled now) → Italian. It takes a
few seconds before the UI responds again.
> That is, if the subtitle appears in English, can it be translated
> simultaneously into Italian?
Yes.
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 00:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9p0rn$15hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454390 |
Il 31/03/2018 21:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. >>>>> If only you had understood it. >>>> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET). >>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that >>> you did not know either theory. >> >> Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind. > > See? Instead of *studying*, instead of *reading* and *learning*, you are > only *guessing* from *ignorance*. That approach is hopeless. > >> In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916. > > I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his > theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special > relativity (SR). > Here is the complete period, from which you copied the sentence: "In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it" [his theory] As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his gravitational theory and not that of ether. > Only Poincaré insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified > version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR, without > a shred of evidence to back that up (the ether is by his own theory > undetectable). Contrary to Lorentz, he would not even acknowledge > Einstein’s contribution. So ISTM that, unfortunately, at an old age > the once reknowned scientist became somewhat of a crackpot who likes to > believe their own fantasies (here: the ether as a preferred reference > frame) rather than observed reality (all reference frames have equal > standing). Similar to you. > > “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” > > —George Santayana, philosopher (1863–1952) > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity> > Instead, Professor Franco Selleri, in his book entitled "The relativity weak", in paragraph 15.3, wrote the following. "In 1916 Lorentz published the final edition of a book in which he developed a different formulation of the relativistic theory. Once again the idea was to start from some important but particular implications of classical physics and take on general validity. Lorentz made three assumptions : - a rule moving with respect to the ether with velocity v parallel to its length is shortened by a factor "rad (1-v ^ 2 / c ^ 2)"; - A clock in motion with respect to the ether with speed v has the periodic process used to measure the time slowed down by a factor "rad (1-v ^ 2 / c ^ 2)"; - The Einstein convention for clock synchronization is valid, ie the speed of light can be assumed to be equal to c in all directions and in all inertial reference systems. " Later is reported among "" a piece of Lorentz where, among other things, it is written: "The fact is that I can not but consider ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as having a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all matter. In this line of thought it seems natural not to assume at the beginning that it can not make any difference if a body moves through ether or not and measure distances and lengths of time by means of rulers and clocks with a fixed position relative to to the ether." So I do not see that Lorentz has abandoned the ether theory, but only that he changed it. However I reported the above, just for the sake of precision, not because it is very important to me. >>>>>> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame, >>>>>> which is the reference frame of the CMBR. >>>>> >>>>> Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you >>>>> *still* >>>>> have no clue what you are talking about. How sad. >>>> Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change >>>> my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong. >>> No, evidently you don’t. I have told you already where you are wrong. >>> Paul has told you, too. How many more people, how many more postings >>> does it take? >> >> It is not enough for me to tell it to me, you should also prove it to me. > > Although *you* carry the burden of proof for your claims, _not_ I, (Paul > and) I *have* proven you wrong on *all* accounts now, *including* the CMB > (the temperature/observed photon frequency of the radiation it is actually > _not_ isotropic – detected by RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, and “Planck”). > It seems to me to have shown the opposite in another post. The fact is that we have three conversations going on, so let's get a lot of confusion. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11997039.dW097sEU6C@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454400 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 31/03/2018 21:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me. >>>>>> If only you had understood it. >>>>> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET). >>>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that >>>> you did not know either theory. >>> >>> Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind. >> >> See? Instead of *studying*, instead of *reading* and *learning*, you are >> only *guessing* from *ignorance*. That approach is hopeless. >> >>> In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916. >> >> I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his >> theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special >> relativity (SR). > > Here is the complete period, (You meant to say “_paragraph_”.) > from which you copied the sentence: Contrary to you, I do not have to copy and paste (without naming my sources). I *know* what I am talking about instead, because I have *studied* it (as described above). > "In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and > classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like > Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion > advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his > own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected > it" [his theory] > > As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his > gravitational theory and not that of ether. Wrong. You simply have no clue. Had you read (more carefully), you would have known that Lorentz’s gravitational theory, of *1900*, was based on his (a)ether theory (of *1892*). The first sentence of that theory is: <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Considerations_on_Gravitation> | | § 1. After all we have learned in the last twenty or thirty years about | the mechanism of electric and magnetic phenomena, it is natural to examine | in how far it is possible to account for the force of gravitation by | ascribing it to a certain state of the aether. […] General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is* (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on special relativity, which does not need an ether. > Instead, Professor Franco Selleri, in his book entitled "The relativity > weak", The title is not proper English either. The actual English title of his 2009 book is “Weak Relativity: The Physics of Space and Time Without Paradoxes”. The book can be read for free e.g. at <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>. Since this book apparently proposes ideas for adjustments to relativity, it requires understanding of relativity. I would not recommend it for people (like you) who do not know relativity. The reader may judge the book for themselves, but I find some (for a professor of physics as the author) disturbingly *wrong* ideas or wording in that book. For example, it is implicitly asserted in the introduction and later that “the theory of relativity” would be the same as “relativism”. Actually, the two have nothing in common. The theory of relativity, or rather, the _theories_ of relativity, is/are one/those of invariants (*unchanging* quantities, like the speed of light and four-momentum); by contrast, “Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration.” (Wikipedia) As a result, the term “relativism” does not belong in a physics discussion. See also the references in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Selleri>. > in paragraph 15.3, wrote the following. > > "In 1916 Lorentz published the final edition of a book in which he > developed a different formulation of the relativistic theory. […] However, *actually*, and I am quoting *now*: ,- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Lorentz_and_general_relativity> | | Lorentz was one of few scientists who supported Einstein's search for | general relativity from the beginning – he wrote several research papers | and discussed with Einstein personally and by letter.[B 5] For instance, | he attempted to combine Einstein's formalism with Hamilton's principle | (1915),[19] and to reformulate it in a coordinate-free way (1916). Follow the references. >> Although *you* carry the burden of proof for your claims, _not_ I, (Paul >> and) I *have* proven you wrong on *all* accounts now, *including* the CMB >> (the temperature/observed photon frequency of the radiation it is >> actually _not_ isotropic – detected by RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, and >> “Planck”). >> > It seems to me to have shown the opposite in another post. ASIB, your beliefs are irrelevant. Observation shows that (1) the frequency of the CMB is not isotropic. So if we accept your assertion that, because the CMB would be isotropic in that regard, it could serve as a frame of reference (which it cannot, as I explained), this definitely kills that possibility even if one denies the former statement (1). > The fact is that we have three conversations going on, so let's get a > lot of confusion. You are the only one who is confused here. Completely. Because you have no actual understanding to draw from. PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 11:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9q95p$prk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454406 |
Il 01/04/2018 02:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>
>> Il 31/03/2018 21:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>>> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>>>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me.
>>>>>>> If only you had understood it.
>>>>>> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET).
>>>>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that
>>>>> you did not know either theory.
>>>>
>>>> Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind.
>>>
>>> See? Instead of *studying*, instead of *reading* and *learning*, you are
>>> only *guessing* from *ignorance*. That approach is hopeless.
>>>
>>>> In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916.
>>>
>>> I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his
>>> theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special
>>> relativity (SR).
>>
>> Here is the complete period,
>
> (You meant to say “_paragraph_”.)
>
>> from which you copied the sentence:
>
> Contrary to you, I do not have to copy and paste (without naming my
> sources). I *know* what I am talking about instead, because I have
> *studied* it (as described above).
>
>> "In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and
>> classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like
>> Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion
>> advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his
>> own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected
>> it" [his theory]
>>
>> As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his
>> gravitational theory and not that of ether.
>
> Wrong. You simply have no clue. Had you read (more carefully), you would
> have known that Lorentz’s gravitational theory, of *1900*, was based on his
> (a)ether theory (of *1892*). The first sentence of that theory is:
>
> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Considerations_on_Gravitation>
> |
> | § 1. After all we have learned in the last twenty or thirty years about
> | the mechanism of electric and magnetic phenomena, it is natural to examine
> | in how far it is possible to account for the force of gravitation by
> | ascribing it to a certain state of the aether. […]
>
> General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is*
> (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on special
> relativity, which does not need an ether.
>
So, according to your interpretation, what is written on wikipedia is wrong?
I also looked for the German language version, which is a more precise
language, and here's what I found:
"1908 [A 16] untersuchte Poincaré ebenfalls die von Lorentz aufgestellte
Gravitationstheorie und klassifizierte sie als mit dem
Relativitätsprinzip vereinbar, bemängelte jedoch wie Lorentz die
ungenaue Angabe zur Perihel-Drehung des Merkur. Lorentz selbst jedoch
verwarf 1914 sein eigenes Modell, weil er es nicht als mit dem
Relativitätsprinzip vereinbar ansah. Stattdessen sah er Einsteins
Arbeiten über Gravitation und Äquivalenzprinzip als die
vielversprechendste Erklärungsart an."
It seems to me that even here it appears that Lorentz refers to his
gravitational theory.
However, it seems to me that Lorentz considers Einstein's theory better
than his.
>> Instead, Professor Franco Selleri, in his book entitled "The relativity
>> weak",
>
> The title is not proper English either. The actual English title of his
> 2009 book is “Weak Relativity: The Physics of Space and Time Without
> Paradoxes”.
>
It has also been published in English!?
So Selleri is known throughout the scientific world.
I did not know.
> The book can be read for free e.g. at
> <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>.
>
> Since this book apparently proposes ideas for adjustments to relativity, it
> requires understanding of relativity. I would not recommend it for people
> (like you) who do not know relativity.
>
Of course.
> The reader may judge the book for themselves, but I find some (for a
> professor of physics as the author) disturbingly *wrong* ideas or wording
> in that book. For example, it is implicitly asserted in the introduction
> and later that “the theory of relativity” would be the same as “relativism”.
> Actually, the two have nothing in common. The theory of relativity, or
> rather, the _theories_ of relativity, is/are one/those of invariants
> (*unchanging* quantities, like the speed of light and four-momentum); by
> contrast, “Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences
> in perception and consideration.” (Wikipedia) As a result, the term
> “relativism” does not belong in a physics discussion.
>
> See also the references in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Selleri>.
>
>> in paragraph 15.3, wrote the following.
>>
>> "In 1916 Lorentz published the final edition of a book in which he
>> developed a different formulation of the relativistic theory. […]
>
> However, *actually*, and I am quoting *now*:
>
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Lorentz_and_general_relativity>
> |
> | Lorentz was one of few scientists who supported Einstein's search for
> | general relativity from the beginning – he wrote several research papers
> | and discussed with Einstein personally and by letter.[B 5] For instance,
> | he attempted to combine Einstein's formalism with Hamilton's principle
> | (1915),[19] and to reformulate it in a coordinate-free way (1916).
>
> Follow the references.
>
>>> Although *you* carry the burden of proof for your claims, _not_ I, (Paul
>>> and) I *have* proven you wrong on *all* accounts now, *including* the CMB
>>> (the temperature/observed photon frequency of the radiation it is
>>> actually _not_ isotropic – detected by RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, and
>>> “Planck”).
>>>
>> It seems to me to have shown the opposite in another post.
>
> ASIB, your beliefs are irrelevant. Observation shows that (1) the frequency
> of the CMB is not isotropic. So if we accept your assertion that, because
> the CMB would be isotropic in that regard, it could serve as a frame of
> reference (which it cannot, as I explained),
> this definitely kills that
> possibility even if one denies the former statement (1).
I did not understand what you mean in the last two lines.
However, there are also physicists who took into consideration that the
reference frame of the cmb could be the preferred reference frame.
In fact here is what I found on ARXIV (and not on VIXRA) with the
following link:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08771
Abstract.
The modern view, that there exists a preferred frame of reference
related to the cosmic microwave background (CMB), is in apparent
contradiction with the principles of special relativity. The purpose of
the present study is to develop a counterpart of the special relativity
theory that is consistent with the existence of a preferred frame but,
like the standard relativity theory, is based on the relativity
principle and universality of the (\textit{two-way}) speed of light.
...
...
But I would like to point out that my "theory" is different.
>> The fact is that we have three conversations going on, so let's get a
>> lot of confusion.
>
> You are the only one who is confused here. Completely. Because you have no
> actual understanding to draw from.
>
>
Of course.
Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9qmsv$1eup$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454424 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: >> General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is* >> (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on >> special relativity, which does not need an ether. > > So, according to your interpretation, what is written on wikipedia is > wrong? > I also looked for the German language version, which is a more precise > language, and here's what I found: please be careful, he warned everybody he is german.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 18:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <34613100.10thIPus4b@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454424 |
Next time, trim your quotes.
Dino Bruniera wrote:
> Il 01/04/2018 02:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> "In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and
>>> classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like
>>> Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion
>>> advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his
>>> own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> it" [his theory]
>>>
>>> As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his
>>> gravitational theory and not that of ether.
>>
>> Wrong. You simply have no clue. Had you read (more carefully), you
>> would have known that Lorentz’s gravitational theory, of *1900*, was
>> based on his (a)ether theory (of *1892*). The first sentence of that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> theory is:
>>
>> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Considerations_on_Gravitation>
>> |
>> | § 1. After all we have learned in the last twenty or thirty years about
>> | the mechanism of electric and magnetic phenomena, it is natural to
>> | examine in how far it is possible to account for the force of
>> | gravitation by ascribing it to a certain state of the aether. […]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on
>> special relativity, which does not need an ether.
>
> So, according to your interpretation, what is written on wikipedia is
> wrong?
No. You simply can’t read (see above and below):
>> ,-
>>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Lorentz_and_general_relativity>
>> |
>> | Lorentz was one of few scientists who supported Einstein's search for
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>> | general relativity from the beginning […]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ASIB, your beliefs are irrelevant. Observation shows that (1) the
>> frequency of the CMB is not isotropic. So if we accept your assertion
>> that, because the CMB w.
>> as a frame of reference (which it cannot, as I explained),
>
>> this definitely kills that
>> possibility even if one denies the former statement (1).
>
> I did not understand what you mean in the last two lines.
On the one hand (in point 2 of your “CONCLUSIONS” of your first "paper")
you claim that the CMBR photon frequency is isotropic. From that you
conclude that the CMBR is “the preferred reference frame”.
But the CMBR photon frequency is _not_ isotropic. Not from Earth, not from
any other point in our universe.
If your conclusion would be *valid*, you would have to conclude that the
CMB is not “the preferred reference frame”.
However, your conclusion is *not even valid*: The CMB *cannot* be a
reference frame in the first place, let alone “the preferred reference
frame”.
Which I show in detail in <news:761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> and
<news:5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de>.
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ra6dnQXoetvurlzHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #454444 |
On 4/1/18 11:44 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> But the CMBR photon frequency is _not_ isotropic. Not from Earth, not from
> any other point in our universe.
Exactly isotropic, no. But then, nothing is ever exact in the real
world. In the right frame near earth, the CMBR is indeed isotropic to
high accuracy (~20 ppm).
The dominant multipole in the CMBR, as seen from earth, is the dipole,
by several orders of magnitude. This dipole, of course, can be removed
by simply moving inertially at the proper velocity, which near earth is
about 370 km/sec relative to the sun, towards the constellation Leo. In
that frame, the CMBR is isotropic to ~20 parts per million. Note that
essentially all maps of the CMBR have this dipole subtracted (otherwise
it is all one could see); they also subtract known microwave sources
("foreground" sources, which are not part of the CMBR).
Note the CMBR dipole=0 frame is NOT a "preferred frame" in the usual
sense of being involved in the dynamics. That is, the dynamics remains
independent of frame (locally Lorentz invariant), but the initial
conditions determine a unique frame.
In other contexts this is called "spontaneous symmetry
breaking", as the equations of the theory have a symmetry
(here local Lorentz invariance) not obeyed by the initial
conditions (here having a unique "rest" frame). Note that
many/most manifolds of GR have such a unique frame,
including the FLRW manifolds that are the basis of modern
cosmological models.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9rgho$pg0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454444 |
Il 01/04/2018 18:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: > Next time, trim your quotes. > > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 01/04/2018 02:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> "In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and >>>> classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like >>>> Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion >>>> advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his >>>> own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> it" [his theory] >>>> >>>> As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his >>>> gravitational theory and not that of ether. >>> >>> Wrong. You simply have no clue. Had you read (more carefully), you >>> would have known that Lorentz’s gravitational theory, of *1900*, was >>> based on his (a)ether theory (of *1892*). The first sentence of that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> theory is: >>> >>> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Considerations_on_Gravitation> >>> | >>> | § 1. After all we have learned in the last twenty or thirty years about >>> | the mechanism of electric and magnetic phenomena, it is natural to >>> | examine in how far it is possible to account for the force of >>> | gravitation by ascribing it to a certain state of the aether. […] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is* > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on >>> special relativity, which does not need an ether. >> >> So, according to your interpretation, what is written on wikipedia is >> wrong? > > No. You simply can’t read (see above and below): > >>> ,- >>> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Lorentz_and_general_relativity> >>> | >>> | Lorentz was one of few scientists who supported Einstein's search for > ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >>> | general relativity from the beginning […] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>> ASIB, your beliefs are irrelevant. Observation shows that (1) the >>> frequency of the CMB is not isotropic. So if we accept your assertion >>> that, because the CMB w. >>> as a frame of reference (which it cannot, as I explained), >> >>> this definitely kills that >>> possibility even if one denies the former statement (1). >> >> I did not understand what you mean in the last two lines. > > On the one hand (in point 2 of your “CONCLUSIONS” of your first "paper") > you claim that the CMBR photon frequency is isotropic. From that you > conclude that the CMBR is “the preferred reference frame”. > > But the CMBR photon frequency is _not_ isotropic. Not from Earth, not from > any other point in our universe. > In my demonstrations, for CMBR photon frequency isotropic, I mean without the dipole anisotropy (see sentences between ****). I report below what I wrote in the demonstrations. "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). ***** Hence in that point the CMBR’s frequency would be isotropic or, more precisely, would not be affected by the dipole anisotropy. ***** But then its speed would also be isotropic, since the MM experiment proved that the speed of photons (including those of the CMBR) is isotropic in any RF in which it is measured." > If your conclusion would be *valid*, you would have to conclude that the > CMB is not “the preferred reference frame”. > > However, your conclusion is *not even valid*: The CMB *cannot* be a > reference frame in the first place, let alone “the preferred reference > frame”. > > Which I show in detail in <news:761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> and > <news:5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de>. What must be done to make these links (o URL) work? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 23:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4036653.8F6SAcFxjW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #454470 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > In my demonstrations, for CMBR photon frequency isotropic, I mean > without the dipole anisotropy (see sentences between ****). But it still is not, then. Just look at the image. How many colors do you count there? (If you think the CMB frequency is isotropic, then you are misunderstanding Tom Roberts’ comments.) >> Which I show in detail in <news:761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> and >> <news:5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de>. > > What must be done to make these links (o URL) work? For your Thunderbird, install an extension that can handle Message-IDs or Message-ID URIs. Otherwise search the part after “<news:” until before “>” using Google Groups Message-ID search. PointedEars -- I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwsgt.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9tf6m$1nf3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454477 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> In my demonstrations, for CMBR photon frequency isotropic, I mean >> without the dipole anisotropy (see sentences between ****). > > But it still is not, then. Just look at the image. How many colors do > you count there? (If you think the CMB frequency is isotropic, then you > are misunderstanding Tom Roberts’ comments.) You are not even stupid enough like your other friends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web