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	2018-03-30 23:44 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9mb4j$13b1$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <IILuC.263223$_91.188714@fx02.am4> <p9h677$frj$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t_0vC.599361$hq2.553841@fx42.am4> <p9jma1$mar$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2125925.NG923GbCHz@PointedEars.de>

Il 30/03/2018 06:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 29/03/2018 09:56, Paul B. Andersen ha scritto:
>>> Den 29.03.2018 00.50, skrev Dino Bruniera:
>>>> which explains the phenomena covered by GR in a way compatible with
>>>> the preferred reference frame.
>>>
>>> Waste of time.
>>>
>>>   *plonk*
> 
> That means that he has added you to his killfile, so …
> 
>> I note that you have not commented on the first article.
> 
> … if I would not be replying, he could not read this.  I am seriously
> considering to add you to my killfile, too, for repeated stupid behavior.
> You have been warned.
> 
> FWIW, just a few remarks to show (you) how very wrong you are on all
> accounts.
>   
>> Regarding the second article, you have reported only a few initial
>> lines, so I think it is right to report the conclusion too.
>>
>> 4. CONCLUSIONS
>> ....
>>
>> 4.1 Expansion of the Universe
>> The Universe is made up of an infinity of tiny particles of equal amount
>> of space (a substance that has the tendency to expand), which I call
>> “space quanta”.
> 
> Your conclusions are based on fals(ifi)e(d) premises.  /Ex falso quodlibet./
> Experimental or observational evidence for them is missing, too.
> 
>> Space quanta tend to expand unceasingly, thus causing the expansion of
>> the Universe.
> 
> Quanta are point-like virtual objects; they cannot expand.
> 
> The expansion of our universe does not really need a cause; we observe it,
> so we must accept it as a fact.
> 
> However, inflation theory, which has been most recently been supported by
> the observational results of the Planck Collaboration of 2015, posits that
> the exponential expansion at the beginning was caused by an inflaton field.
> 
> In any case, we are just witnessing the continuation of that initial
> expansion, not slowing down but accelerated again (observationally
> confirmed, Nobel Prize in Physics-awarded) by dark energy, the energy in
> empty space.
>   
>> 4.2 Gravity
>> Matter is made up of dynamic sets of compressed space quanta, […]
> 
> No, it is not.  Confirmed by experiments and working technical applications
> (including the computer that you are using to post nonsense here):
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/matter/>
> 
>> 4.3 Variable speed of light
> 
> The speed of light is constant and the same for all observers in the same
> medium and in all directions (isotropic).  Confirmed by experiments,
> observations, and working technical applications (including the computer
> that you are using to post nonsense here).
> 
>> 4.4 Cosmological redshift
>> Cosmological redshift is due to the speed of the place of the celestial
>> object receiving the photon, relative to the place of the celestial
>> object that emitted it. […]
> 
> No, it is due to the expansion of our universe (hence “cosmological”).
> Theoretically internally and externally consistent (GR), and observationally
> confirmed.
> 
>> 4.5 A brief consideration on energy and matter, obscure
>> I would like to point out that for this model of the Universe, energy
>> and dark matter may be not necessary.
> 
> But *your* model does _not_ describe our universe – it has no relation to
> observed reality whatsoever.
> 
>> [more nonsense]
> 
> Your half-wit guesses, which are expressed as pseudo-scientific word salad,
> among other gibberish, are hopeless.  Go away and study.
> 

I thank you for the comments, but I'm not going to contest them, so as 
not to waste time unnecessarily.
Because if someone showed me that the demonstration contained in my 
first article is wrong, I would not feel like defending even my second 
article.
In fact, when I have finished this discussion with you, I think I will 
open a new discussion, but only on the first article.
Maybe I was wrong to talk about the second article, without first 
concluding the discussion on the first, but I did not think that 
Andersen wanted to discuss the second article, without first discussing 
the first.

Dino Bruniera

Thread