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 04:04 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <1942710.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> <p9e5ob$1gug$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de>
Il 28/03/2018 03:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, that is what all crackpots believe.  When in fact it is their
> responsibility to provide evidence to support their outlandish claims.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>
>   
But I demonstrated what I said.

>> 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, I quote below the final paragraph 
of my article.

4. CONCLUSIONS

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.
Of course what applies to the photons of the CMBR also applies to all 
other photons.
In conclusion, 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.
Therefore the speed of the photons is isotropic only with respect to the 
points in space they pass through, which can then be defined as the 
preferred RFs for any objects that pass through them.

 From these demonstrations a theory can be derived, which states that 
for each object and at any time, there is a preferred RF which consists 
of the points in space where it passes through, with respect to which:
- the speed of the photons is isotropic;
- the object can measure its speed;
- the object is contracted as a function of its speed;
- the time in the object dilates as a function of its speed.
The tool for measuring said speed is the dipole anisotropy of CMBR.

>>> 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.
Therefore if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is 
also isotropic.
And, of course, if the speed of the CMB is not isotropic, the speed of 
light is also not isotropic.

>> But to say it, you should read both articles I wrote,
> 
> I scanned one; it claimed nonsense, and cited the other one whose content
> is nonsense, too (as evident from your summary).  That is enough.
> 
>> 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)"
> 
> Your statements about the CMBR here make clear that you do not understand
> it.  So I see no point in reading your article which claims the same.
> 
>> Before doing this statement, you should show that my demonstration is
>> not correct.
> 
> Again, no.  *You* carry the burden of proof for *your* claims.  *You* need
> to do *your* homework.  You have not done it yet as you are ignoring past
> experimental results to the contrary of your claims.  And the results that
> you are referring to mean something else than you like to think.
>   
>>>> 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
> 
> It is true nevertheless.  Look it up.
> 
>> and I confirm my statement.
> 
> AISB.

What does AISB mean?

The truth is that you do not think it's worth reading my articles, but 
in this way you do not answer in a coherent way.

>   
>>> 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.
> 
> (_phenomenon_)
> 
> It has *everything* to do with it.  Your saying otherwise is evidence that
> you do not understand the topic that you are talking about: reference
> frames.  Think about it some more, then answer the question.
> 
> 

Instead I think I know the topic of a reference frame well.

Dino Bruniera
Thread
