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 18:44 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<34613100.10thIPus4b@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <p9oei4$4lt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <12386798.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de> <p9p0rn$15hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11997039.dW097sEU6C@PointedEars.de> <p9q95p$prk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

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)

Thread