Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?
Date	2018-04-01 23:11 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<14936174.geO5KgaWL5@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(21 earlier) <p9os67$tbp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2361797.k3LOHGUjKi@PointedEars.de> <p9qhrb$17hu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de> <p9reju$mi2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Dino Bruniera wrote:

> Il 01/04/2018 18:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the
>>> demonstrations.
>> 
>> As I have just told you, your so-called "demonstrations" are irrelevant
>> because your conclusions in your first write-up, which do serve as the
>> premises for your second write-up, are both wrong and self-contradictory.
>> 
>> To be more precise:
>> 
>> ad (1):
>> 
>> You essentially claim that different frequency (“not isotropic”) must
>> mean different speed (“not isotropic”).  Your claim is *wrong*.
> 
> Yes, but only for the CMBR.

Utter nonsense.  The CMBR is EM radiation; it is not different from any 
other EM radiation in that regard.

The speed of light, the (phase) speed of EM waves, is constant and the same 
for all observers and sources, therefore the (phase) speed of the CMBR is 
constant and the same for all observers and sources.  Until there is 
evidence to the contrary, the laws of physics are the same in all parts of 
the universe.

You have no provided such evidence either.

>> See also my more detailed explanation in
>> <news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.
> 
> The link does not work.

It is not a link, it is a Message-ID URI, and it works.

>> 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
>> 
> 
> This image was purified from dipole anisotropy.

*And* there is *still* an anisotropy.  What does that tell you?

>>      [If this this (false-color) image looks to you as if it had all the
>>      [same color, then you definitely need better glasses – or an eye
>>       operation.]

So you should do that.

> For language problems, I struggle to understand what you say.

It appears increasingly pointless for me to talk to you at all.

>> ad (2):
>> 
>> In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
>> cannot be isotropic”.
> 
> If their frequency is not isotropic.

Which is wrong.

> Or rather, if it includes the dipole anisotropy.

The propagation speed of the radiation has nothing to do with that.

*That* anisotropy is purely a consequence of the Doppler effect.
The *remaining* anitropy is a consequence of the difference of the sources.

> As I wrote in my demonstrations.

Those are wrong, then.

>> In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
>> is in fact isotropic”.
> 
> If their frequency is isotropic, or rather, if it don't includes the
> dipole anisotropy.

The anisotropy of CMBR frequency, *after* the dipole anisotropy has been 
removed, has *nothing* to do with an anistropy of propagation speed.

>> (2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1).
>> You are *contradicting yourself*.
> 
> The thing is, if you do not read well my dimonstraction, you cannot even
> prove it's wrong.

Wrong.  The self-contradiction in your conclusions is *obvious*.

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

Thread