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 18:17 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <p9od1o$285$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2387506.X9hSmTKtgW@PointedEars.de> <p9os67$tbp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2361797.k3LOHGUjKi@PointedEars.de> <p9qhrb$17hu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Dino Bruniera wrote:

> Il 01/04/2018 02:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where,
>>> among other things, it is written:
>>>
>>> "The speed of light relative to the Earth cannot be isotropic for the
>>> reasons that follow.
>>> 1. As is clear from the "Demonstrations through thought experiments",
>>> for the speed of the CMBR photons to be isotropic, their frequency must
>>> also appear isotropic. Given that on Earth their frequency is not
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> isotropic, but depends on the direction, their speed cannot be
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> isotropic, because it too must depend on the direction of origin.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^
>>> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the
>>> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency
>>                                           
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. "
>>>
>>> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not
>>> reported them in any posts.
>> 
>> That is not necessary.  Your premise is both wrong and internally
>> inconsistent.
>> 
>> ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect.
>> 
>> ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1).
>> 
>> I have marked the relevant parts this time.
>> 
>>> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong.
>> 
>> But we did.
> 
> There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see.

True.  And you do not want to see.

> But you also want to see what is not there.

*You* want to see what is not there.

Like *old*, *demented* Poincaré (but supported by *considerably less* 
education and ingenuity), you *want* to see that there is a “preferred 
reference frame” when, in fact, (0) all experiments (thought experiments and 
real ones) show that all reference frames have equal standing – none of them 
is *always* the “preferred” one.

Probably because you are incapable of understanding the observed reality.

> 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*.

When for the *same* observer (O) sources of the *same* kind (S₁, S₂) move 
*differently* relative to the observer [or the observer relative to them, 
see (0)], and the observed frequency of a signal from one source *differs* 
from that of another source due to the Doppler effect, the (phase) speed of 
the signal remains *the same*:

    [Use a monospace font for display; see also:
     <https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts#ggformatteruserjs>]

                            _._       _._ 
                 S₁ .     .'   '. O .'   '.     . S₂     S₁, S₂ stationary
                     '-.-'                 '-.-'         relative to O
                                                         (and vice-versa)

                         _..._        _ 
    <--- S₁ ._       _.-'     '-. O .' '.   . S₂ <---    S₁, S₂ moving
              '-...-'                    '-'             relative to O
                                (--->)                   (or O moving 
                                                         relative to S₁, S₂)

See also my more detailed explanation in 
<news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.

Also, the photon energy is

  E = ℎ f,

so the photon frequency is

  f = E∕ℎ

Even if all sources have the same speed relative to the observer (which we 
assume with the CMB), the energy E of the sources can differ, and so can
the frequency of the photons that they emit.  Observations show: The CMB is 
_not_ isotropic with regard to frequency and black-body temperature – 
already *considering* relative motion of the measuring observatories
*in space*.  In different directions, they frequence/temperature differ 
*slightly*: 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>

    [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.]

Therefore, we must assume that the *sources* differ *slightly* from another.  
This is easily explained because it is so unlikely that the early universe 
has developed *exactly* the same *everywhere* that it is impossible.  (If it 
had, galaxies would not have formed, stars would not have formed, planets 
would not have formed, life on planets would not have formed, and we would 
not be here.)


ad (2):

In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
cannot be isotropic”. 

In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
is in fact isotropic”.

(2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1).
You are *contradicting yourself*.

> However there are in my article on VIXRA whose link is:
> [spam]
> 
> And soon I think I publish them in this NG, hoping to get some
> evaluations on the merits, even if negative.

You have already gotten (negative) reviews, because you posted
the URI (not: link) before.  But you do not want to see that.

Unless this changes, this was my last detailed reply to you.
I am getting the idea that I am just wasting my time.


PointedEars
-- 
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

  —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven
Thread
