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	2018-03-28 15:31 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<19777922.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2016749.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de> <p9flsl$1pm7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Dino Bruniera wrote:

> Il 28/03/2018 04:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> Il 28/03/2018 03:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>> This is the abstract:
>>>>>>> The aim of this paper is to demonstrate, by means of CMBR, a theory
>>>>>>> which states that the speed of light is isotropic with respect to
>>>>>>> each point in expanding space, so it cannot also be isotropic with
>>>>>>> respect to transiting objects.
>>>>>> Not even wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CMBR is _not_ the name of a theory.
>>>>> I have not written that cmbr is a name of a theory.
>>>> ACK.  You have, however, claimed that your idea is a theory.  It is
>>>> not.
>>> To prove that mine is a proven theory,
>> There is no “proven theory” in the natural sciences.  You already fail at
>> the ground level here.
> 
> As I think you have already understood, I do not know English well,

That might explain why you are misinterpreting the experimental results.  
English is the /lingua franca/ of science, probably since the translation of 
the first edition of Isaac Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia 
Mathematica» (1687) into English (“Mathematical Principles of Natural 
Philosophy” by Andrew Motte, 1729).  The MMX in particular was performed by 
people who spoke English natively and published in English.

> so I help me with the google translator, so I ask you to understand the
> meaning of what I say.

This is an international newsgroup.  You may write in your native language 
here (although I do not think that your ideas so far would become more 
coherent or consistent by this.  Your basic misconceptions will remain.)

However, not knowing English well is a bad start to formulate a theory in 
English.  Google Translate is far from perfect – you have to augment it with 
actual knowledge about the language that you are translating into.

JFYI, my native language is German, but I speak English at near-native 
level.  Certified, too.  (For translation into/from English, I rarely have 
to use Google Translate; rather, I am contributing to its dictionary.)

> And in this case I wanted to emphasize that I showed what I said.

OK, but you did _not_.
 
>>>>>> It refers to a _phenomenon_, Cosmic
>>>>>> Microwave Background Radiation, which has been *observed* since 1964
>>>>>> (when it was discovered).  And it does _not_ mean what you think it
>>>>>> does.
>>>>> Before saying that CMBR does not do what I think it does, you should
>>>>> say what I think it does.
>>>> I did.  To be more precise, you are confusing the CMBR isotropy with
>>>> the speed-of-light isotropy.  Those are *separate* concepts.
>>> As I also wrote in the final paragraph above, this is not true, because
>>> both the light and the CMB, manifests itself with photons, and
>>> therefore, have the same speed.
>> They do have the same *phase* speed (both are forms of electromagnetic
>> radiation).  However, the isotropy of the CMBR has nothing *directly* to
>> do with the isotropy of the speed of light.
> 
> In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what
> isotropy refers to.

*Everyone* who knows what the CMB(R) is knows that, when it is not qualified 
further, it refers to its black-body temperature and related properties 
(such as spectral radiance and frequency); _not_ to its (phase) speed.

> Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency.

Correct.  And the isotropy of its (phase) speed is a truism, because it is 
electromagnetic radiation of which we *know* that the (phase) speed is 
isotropic.  It is largely irrelevant.

> And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my
> final paragraph, that you cut.

But that is largely irrelevant.  We already *know* that the speed of light 
is invariant by theory since 1905, and by experiment *at least* since the 
1920s.

The fact that you do not understand is that the CMBR *is* light (according 
to the broader definition), so its (phase) speed is not at all surprising or 
interesting.

Rather, the previously confirmed isotropy of the speed of light allows one 
to conclude that if the *temperature* of the CMBR that was discovered in 
1964 (and theorized a few years before that) is *also* isotropic, then the 
*universal expansion* must be isotropic, too.  Which confirms the Big Bang 
theory.

Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*?

> Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR".

Yes, it is very important not to confuse those two concepts: isotropy of 
(black-body) temperature, and isotropy of speed.  You *are* confusing them, 
and that leads you to believe that your conclusions make some sense.  They 
do not.

>> The isotropy of the CMBR refers to the black-body *temperature* of the
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> radiation: from the Sol system at least, it is approximately the same in
>> all directions of observation.
> 
> Again you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to,

No, I did not.  Learn to read.

> that is to the isotropy of frequency.

So you do not understand that isotropy of black-body temperature is 
equivalent to isotropy of _peak_ frequency because of photon energy.

Perhaps you should learn first what a photon is?

> Therefore you had to write "The isotropy of the frequency of the CMBR
> refers .... ".

Nonsense.
 
>> The isotropy of the *speed* of light obviously refers to its phase
>> *speed* instead: the fact that that speed as measured is independent of
>> relative motion between light source and observer.
> 
> This is what results from the measurements carried out on the Earth, but
> I have shown that "if on Earth the speed of the photons appears
> isotropic, as in the experiment of MM, it only means that the tools
> available on Earth are not able to measure it properly for the reasons
> suggested by Lorentz, and not that it really is isotropic.".

Sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about.

>>> Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is
>>> also isotropic.
>> You have it backwards.
> 
> So you.

No, I do not.  Look it up.
 
>> Strictly speaking, the CMB has no speed.
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> The "R" of CMB_R, refers to "Radiation", which manifests itself through
> photons, which have the so-called speed of light.

But I said “_CMB_”, not “CMBR”.  The missing “R” for “Radiation”, and the 
“strictly speaking” part, are important here.

>> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed,
> 
> What do you mean by phase speed?

You do not even know that and claim to be able to propose a quantum-
mechanical theory that makes sense?  You cannot arrive at a proper 
understanding of physics by taking such shortcuts.

> I have found on line that it is "the speed at which the phase of a wave
> is propagated, the product of the frequency times the wavelength",

Correct, that is what is usually meant by it, so it is what I meant.

> but the product of the frequency times the wavelength, corresponds to
> the speed of light!

Correct.  AISB in the other subthread: c = λ f.

And not only theory (Maxwellian electrodynamics) but also *observation* 
shows that this speed is locally constant, and the same for all observers in 
the same medium.  Therefore the relativistic Doppler effect: the change of 
*observed* frequency (redshift or blueshift) *and* *observed* wavelength 
*without* a change of the speed of light.
 
>> but that does not really matter.  (We
>> already knew before it was [accidentally] discovered that it had to be
>> electromagnetic radiation, so its phase speed was not important in its
>> discovery.)
>> 
>> The *peak frequency* of the CMBR is *also* approximately isotropic
>> (corresponding to a temperature of ca. 3 K) because the speed of light is
>> isotropic, *and* the universal expansion is approximately isotropic.
>> 
>> Do you see now that you do _not_ understand the meaning of the CMB(R)
>> *at all*?  (Have you even bothered to watch the talk I referred you to?)
> 
> It seems to me that you are confusing the speed isotropy and frequency
> isotropy, of CMBR.

You are wrong.  *You* are the one confusing them.

> So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is.

YMMD.  You did not even know what phase speed is, you had to look it up.
 
>> As I expected, you would not even think about and answer the simplest
>> questions to double-check your understanding.
>> 
>> Your un(der)educated guessing is hopeless.
> 
> Why would my "guessing" be "un(der)educated"?

Because you *evidently* do not know what you are talking about.  You do not 
even know, or understand, the basic concepts of the two prevailing (because 
experimentally confirmed) theories of light, like phase speed (Maxwellian 
electrodynamics), photon energy, and black-body temperature (both quantum 
mechanics).  Yet you claim to be able to propose a consistent theory that is 
based on the observed properties of light.

That is ridiculous, and hopeless.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)
Thread
