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 11:05 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9flsl$1pm7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <2924619.aeNJFYEL58@PointedEars.de> <p9elne$dld$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2016749.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de>
Il 28/03/2018 04:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> No, you did not.  You merely *misinterpreted* experimental results produced
> by *others*.
>   
>>>> 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,
> 
> There is no “proven theory” in the natural sciences.  You already fail at
> the ground level here.
> 

As I think you have already understood, I do not know English well, so I 
help me with the google translator, so I ask you to understand the 
meaning of what I say.
And in this case I wanted to emphasize that I showed what I said.

>>>>> 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.
> 
> They do have the same *phase* speed (both are forms of electromagnetic
> radiation).  However, the isotropy of the CMBR has nothing *directly* to do
> with the isotropy of the speed of light.
> 

In the words "the isotropy of the CMBR" you have omitted to write what 
isotropy refers to.
Because there is the isotropy of speed and the isotropy of frequency. 
And in this case, I refer to the isotropy of speed, as I wrote in my 
final paragraph, that you cut.
Therefore you had to write "the isotropy of the speed of the CMBR".
And as both the light and the CMBR, is manifested through photons,
which naturally have the same speed, the CMBR and the light, have the 
same speed.
Therefore it is not true that "the isotropy" OF THE SPEED "of the CMBR 
has nothing *directly* to do with the isotropy of the speed of light"

> The isotropy of the CMBR refers to the black-body *temperature* of the
> radiation: from the Sol system at least, it is approximately the same in all
> directions of observation.
> 

Again you have omitted to write what isotropy refers to, that is to the 
isotropy of frequency.
Therefore you had to write "The isotropy of the frequency of the CMBR 
refers .... ".

> The isotropy of the *speed* of light obviously refers to its phase *speed*
> instead: the fact that that speed as measured is independent of relative
> motion between light source and observer.
> 

This is what results from the measurements carried out on the Earth, but 
I have shown that "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 if the speed of the CMB is isotropic, the speed of light is
>> also isotropic.
> 
> You have it backwards.
> 

So you.

> 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.

> The CMB_R_ has a (phase) speed, 

What do you mean by phase speed?
I have found on line that it is "the speed at which the phase of a wave 
is propagated, the product of the frequency times the wavelength",
but the product of the frequency times the wavelength, corresponds to 
the speed of light!

> but that does not really matter.  (We
> already knew before it was [accidentally] discovered that it had to be
> electromagnetic radiation, so its phase speed was not important in its
> discovery.)
> 
> The *peak frequency* of the CMBR is *also* approximately isotropic
> (corresponding to a temperature of ca. 3 K) because the speed of light is
> isotropic, *and* the universal expansion is approximately isotropic.
> 
> Do you see now that you do _not_ understand the meaning of the CMB(R)
> *at all*?  (Have you even bothered to watch the talk I referred you to?)
> 

It seems to me that you are confusing the speed isotropy and frequency 
isotropy, of CMBR.
So maybe it's you, not me, who does not know well what CMBR is.

>>> AISB.
>>
>> What does AISB mean?
> 
> “As I said before”.  It is a common Usenet abbreviation – look it up next
> time.
>   
>> 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.
> 
> I do not care what you think about my rebuttal as you simply do not have a
> clue.  Fighting against unarmed people is not logical.

If this is your thinking, I can not do anything about it. But I hope 
that any other readers of these posts, do not think like you.

> 
>>>>> 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.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>
> 
> 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"?

Dino Bruniera
Thread
