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	2018-03-29 00:50 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9h677$frj$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <2930251.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> <p9et7u$mgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <gmIuC.183411$f35.135975@fx23.am4> <p9fm9s$1qit$1@gioia.aioe.org> <IILuC.263223$_91.188714@fx02.am4>

Il 28/03/2018 14:16, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto:
> Den 28.03.2018 11.12, skrev Dino Bruniera:
>> Il 28/03/2018 10:27, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto:
>>> Den 28.03.2018 04.04, skrev Dino Bruniera:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> A thought experiment can't prove a theory to be correct as in:
>>> "its predictions are in accordance with experimental evidence".
>>> All a thought experiment can do is to demonstrate the logical
>>> consequence of an assumption (or axiom).
>>>
>>> Your conclusion above is the logical consequence of
>>> the assumption "Galilean relativity applies in the real world".
>>>
>>> This assumption is solidly falsified by experimental evidence.
>>
>> But "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.".
>>
>> Dino Bruniera
> 
> The "shortening only" theory first suggested by Lorentz doesn't work,
> that's why he later found the Lorentz transform in this paper:
> (Which in this forum is called Lorentz ether theory, LET.)
> https://paulba.no/paper/Lorentz04.pdf
> 
> Note that he pulled the transformation out of thin air
> with no other justification than it made Maxwell's equations
> invariant.
> https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
> 
> SR and LET will always predict exactly the same for any
> experiment, so neither of the theories are falsified.
> 
> According to LET, it is impossible to detect the ether frame. > You can assume any inertial frame to be the ether frame,
> the choice will not affect the predictions of LET.
> An ether whose state of motion have no physical consequences
> isn't very sensible.
> Besides, LET doesn't blend into GR, while SR does.
> LET doesn't predict gravitational Doppler shift,
> so it is no option in the real world.
> 
> Your conclusion above is solidly falsified by
> experimental evidence.
> 

First of all, thanks for the information you gave me.

The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame,
which is the reference frame of the CMBR.
There are also other people who have suggested that the CMBR is the 
preferred reference frame, but I think that I also managed to prove it 
in the article you can find at the following link:
http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0287

Also I wrote a second article, which you can find at the link 
http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0050
which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with the 
preferred reference frame.

But I have some difficulty finding italian physicists willing to read 
and evaluate my articles.
For this reason, after publishing these articles in Italian language, in 
my websites, which you can find at the following link: 
http://www.trecimedilavaredo.eu/,
with the help of a translator, I have translated my articles in English 
and I had them published in VIXRA.

Dino Bruniera

Thread