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	2018-03-30 20:11 +0200
Organization	PointedEars Software (PES)
Message-ID	<761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2016749.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de> <p9flsl$1pm7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <19777922.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> <p9lhiu$1ob8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Dino Bruniera wrote:

> English is the international language,

There are others.

> and not only for the sciences,

True.

> so I would like to take this opportunity to improve my English.

This is not English 101.  Or Physics 101.

> However I don't think I didn't understand the experimental results.

You made several claims about those experiments that show that you *do* both 
misunderstand them (their goal) and misinterpret their (sometimes 
unexpected) results.

> The English and the German languages are both Saxon languages,

They are both _(West) Germanic_ languages instead.  [There is no “Saxon” 
language grouping or family.  Old Saxon, or Old Low German, which is related 
to English by tribe migration, is also a language of the West Germanic 
branch.]

> but they are very different.

As you are, by contrast to me, not fluent in, nor a native speaker of, 
either language, you cannot possibly know that.

Once again you are hopelessly overestimating your understanding.  JFYI,
you are dead wrong: they are rather very similar.

> And I always try to be precise.

So far you have failed horribly in that, though.
 
>>> 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.
> 
> But in this discussion we are talking about my theory, in which I speak
> of isotropy of the speed and of isotropy of frequency of the photons of
> the CMBR.

Irrelevant.

> 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.

In any case,

3. the *observed* CMB *anisotropies* ultimately *kill* your idea:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELIKT-1>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer#/media/File:COBE_DMR_Image.PNG>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#/media/File:PIA16874-CobeWmapPlanckComparison-20130321.jpg>

> However I think that what you call the "black-body temperature" of the
> CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the potons of CMBR.

You *think* (or rather, *believe*), because you do _not_ *know*.
*By chance*, you are correct here –,

   E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

  E_γ = E(m = 0) = p_γ c

  p_γ = ℏ |k⃗| = ℎ∕2π × 2π∕λ = ℎ∕λ

  E_γ = p_γ c = ℎ∕λ × c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f

– but it is doubtful whether you are only trying to obscure the fact that
*I told you so* further below.
 
>>> 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.
> In my theory I speak of the speed of the photons of the CMBR and not of
> the phase velocity of the photons of the CMBR.
> 
> And the MM experiment concerns the speed of light and not the phase
> velocity of light.

Speed is the magnitude of (the) velocity (vector).  Don’t you know anything?

> Moreover, the phase velocity can also exceed the speed of light,

No, it cannot.  Both are separate, interrelated quantities; however, if
one says “velocity” when one means “speed”¹, then they are *the same*.  

Therefore I wrote “(phase) speed of light” several times.

You have no clue what you are talking about.  At all.

______
¹  as it is the case with “phase velocity”, and in at least one introductory
   online course on special relativity that I happened to pass with a mark
   of 100 % – highly recommended[1]

>>> 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 speed of light is isotropic, due to Einstein's special relativity
> theory,

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.

Lorentz formulated his aether theory (which is _not_ what we call LET now) 
in 1892 and refined it until 1904.  It then became apparent (to him, too) 
that SR (starting in 1905) was the better theory, and he abandoned his and 
supported SR instead.

> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926.

<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].”

You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
 
>> Do you even know what “isotropy” and “isotropic” *means*?
> 
> I believe I know it well.

This is science, not religion.  Your belief is *irrelevant*.  I dare you to 
define “isotropy” *without* your looking it up.

>>> 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.
> 
> As I wrote above, perhaps you do not consider that the "(black-body)
> temperature" of the CMBR, corresponds to the frequency of the photons of
> the CMBR.

That is what *I* told *you*.

> Maybe that's why you think I'm messing up.

You *are* messing up.

> However I believe it is more correct and even simpler, to use the word
> "frequency".

Your belief is irrelevant.  You are wrong.
  
>>>> 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.
> 
> I do not understand this.
> How do the photons of the CMBR not to have a speed, "strictly speaking"
> or not "strictly speaking", that is?

One is the astronomical object of observation, the other the *radiation*.
 
>>>> 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.
> 
> This was a rhetorical question.

Why are you lying?
 
>> 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.
> 
> This applies to the theory of special relativity.

Not only.

>>> 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.
>   
> I repeat that it seems to me that perhaps we have understood each other,
> now.

You have not understood anything.
 
>>>> 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.
> 
> I am a retired,

Figures.

> with the passion of physic, and two years ago I did an
> online physics course, which I have passed with the score of 92.5 out of
> 100. So I know, at least, the basic concepts of physics.

Evidently you don’t.  Or you are willfully, arbitrarily discarding much of 
what you learned.

> But, as regards relativity and cosmology, I think I know a little more.

You mean *much* *less*.

> I have proposed an alternative theory to special relativity,

No, you have published pseudo-scientific word salad.  That is why you had to 
do it on viXra, the crackpot’s paradise for papers that never underwent 
proper peer review and probably never will.

> but I am ready to change my mind, if someone diverts me where my proof is
> wrong,

I have told you numerous times now.
 
> To prove my thesis, I remind you that on the basis of special relativity
> and also on the basis of Lorentz's ether theory, the MMX experiment
> would give the same result in any reference system.

Historian’s fallacy.

> So if it turns out that this is not true, both theories would be
> falsified.

The MMX was first performed in 1887.  Lorentz introduced his aether theoryin 
1892 as a consequence and explanation of the former’s null result.  SR was 
formulated independently in 1905, without requiring an aether.  To this day 
SR is the theory that works better.

> Therefore you should demonstrate that the MMX experiment does
> not show that the speed of light is the same in every reference system.

*In hindsight*, the MMX was performed only in its rest frame, where 
coordinate time equals proper time [γ(v) = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²), γ(0) = 1.]

Next time, do your own homework.

> So you win a Nobel prize for physics! :-)

You have no clue.

> Now I conclude this post, apologizing for the delay,

You should apologize for a few other things instead, including wasting 
everybody’s time and other resources with this nonsense.


PointedEars
___________
[1] <https://online.stanford.edu/course/understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Thread
