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

From	Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity exist? How does gravity attract materials?
Date	2018-03-28 01:56 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<a9e63794-0907-487a-8430-fb3d19a8c9a1@googlegroups.com> <p9drhk$q7h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1942710.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> <p9e5ob$1gug$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de>

Il 27/03/2018 22:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 27/03/2018 19:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>> But now, with the article available in the following link:
>> [spam]
>> I have dimostrated the existence of the Preferred Reference Frame and at
>> wich speed the Earth moves relative to it.
> 
> No, you have not.  Repeating nonsense dos not make it true.
>   
I believe, rather, that you should show that my demonstration is not 
correct.

>> 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.

> 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.
But to say it, you should read both articles I wrote, including 
paragraph 3.4 of the other article, where there is a "Simulation of the 
journey of photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)"

>      [Instead, it means that there was indeed a Big Bang, the CMBR being
>       the “afterglow” of that – gamma radiation allowed to propagate freely
>       as the universe expanded and cooled to become transparent, redshifted
>       to microwaves due to further universal expansion *and* an *isotropic*
>       speed of light (in *all* reference frames):
> 
>       <https://youtu.be/EjaGktVQdNg?t=1913>]
> 
> And JFYI, what you have is not a theory either.  You have an *idea*, one
> that is disproved by countless observations.
> 

Before doing this statement, you should show that my demonstration is 
not correct.

>> Hence the result found by Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that
>> the speed of light is isotropic in any Reference Frame,
> 
> The MMX simply did not show that.
> 
I do not agree with your statement and I confirm my statement.

>> [more nonsense]
> 
> I am not going to refute every nonsensical statement of yours.  It is more
> than a life’s work to refute every nonsense that every ignoramus has ever
> come up with.  I have better things to do.
> 
You have not shown that I have write any nonsensical statement.
Therefore I confirm that I have dimostrated the existence of the 
Preferred Reference Frame and at wich speed the Earth moves relative to it.

> Instead, I give you some food for thought:
> 
> Although the orbit of the ISS is almost circular, astronauts on the ISS
> do not feel that acceleration.  They say they are in a microgravity
> environment, and are obviously _not_ pressed against the walls of the
> station.  Why do you think that is so?
> 

This physical feonomen has nothing to do with my demonstration.

Dino Bruniera

Thread