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	2018-04-01 00:07 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9p0rn$15hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <3166827.iIbC2pHGDl@PointedEars.de> <p9ma0h$11mc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2496226.BEx9A2HvPv@PointedEars.de> <p9oei4$4lt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <12386798.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de>
Il 31/03/2018 21:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 31/03/2018 00:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> Il 29/03/2018 03:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>>>> First of all, thanks for the information you gave me.
>>>>> If only you had understood it.
>>>> However, I already knew Lorentz's ether theory (LET).
>>> LET is _not_ Lorentz’s ether theory, and Paul already demonstrated that
>>> you did not know either theory.
>>
>> Probably the LET theory refers to the ether theory, which in the other
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> post I mentioned as after 1916 (or 1914), when Lorentz changed his mind.
> 
> See?  Instead of *studying*, instead of *reading* and *learning*, you are
> only *guessing* from *ignorance*.  That approach is hopeless.
> 
>> In any case, I also know that, but I refer to that before 1916.
> 
> I have already told you that Lorentz himself said that he abandoned his
> theory before 1914 at the latest, in favor of (Einstein’s) special
> relativity (SR).
> 

Here is the complete period, from which you copied the sentence:

"In 1908[A 11] Poincaré examined the gravitational theory of Lorentz and 
classified it as compatible with the relativity principle, but (like 
Lorentz) he criticized the inaccurate indication of the perihelion 
advance of Mercury. Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his 
own theory as incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected 
it" [his theory]

As you can see, it turns out that Lorentz has abandoned his 
gravitational theory and not that of ether.

>      Only Poincaré insisted to his own death (in 1912) that his modified
>      version of Lorentz’ ether theory (1905) had more merit than SR, without
>      a shred of evidence to back that up (the ether is by his own theory
>      undetectable).  Contrary to Lorentz, he would not even acknowledge
>      Einstein’s contribution.  So ISTM that, unfortunately, at an old age
>      the once reknowned scientist became somewhat of a crackpot who likes to
>      believe their own fantasies (here: the ether as a preferred reference
>      frame) rather than observed reality (all reference frames have equal
>      standing).  Similar to you.
> 
>        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
> 
>           —George Santayana, philosopher (1863–1952)
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity>
> 

Instead, Professor Franco Selleri, in his book entitled "The relativity 
weak", in paragraph 15.3, wrote the following.

"In 1916 Lorentz published the final edition of a book in which he 
developed a different formulation of the relativistic theory. Once again 
the idea was to start from some important but particular implications of 
classical physics and take on general validity. Lorentz made three 
assumptions :
- a rule moving with respect to the ether with velocity v parallel to 
its length is shortened by a factor "rad (1-v ^ 2 / c ^ 2)";
- A clock in motion with respect to the ether with speed v has the 
periodic process used to measure the time slowed down by a factor "rad 
(1-v ^ 2 / c ^ 2)";
- The Einstein convention for clock synchronization is valid, ie the 
speed of light can be assumed to be equal to c in all directions and in 
all inertial reference systems. "

Later is reported among "" a piece of Lorentz where, among other things, 
it is written:

"The fact is that I can not but consider ether, which can be the seat of 
an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as having a 
certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all 
matter. In this line of thought it seems natural not to assume at the 
beginning that it can not make any difference if a body moves through 
ether or not and measure distances and lengths of time by means of 
rulers and clocks with a fixed position relative to to the ether."

So I do not see that Lorentz has abandoned the ether theory, but only 
that he changed it.
However I reported the above, just for the sake of precision, not 
because it is very important to me.


>>>>>> The fact is that I think I have found the preferred reference frame,
>>>>>> which is the reference frame of the CMBR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite all corrections and recommendations to you to study, you
>>>>> *still*
>>>>> have no clue what you are talking about.  How sad.
>>>> Instead I think I know what I'm talking about. But I'm ready to change
>>>> my mind if someone gives me where I'm wrong.
>>> No, evidently you don’t.  I have told you already where you are wrong.
>>> Paul has told you, too.  How many more people, how many more postings
>>> does it take?
>>
>> It is not enough for me to tell it to me, you should also prove it to me.
> 
> Although *you* carry the burden of proof for your claims, _not_ I, (Paul
> and) I *have* proven you wrong on *all* accounts now, *including* the CMB
> (the temperature/observed photon frequency of the radiation it is actually
> _not_ isotropic – detected by RELIKT-1, COBE, WMAP, and “Planck”).
> 
It seems to me to have shown the opposite in another post.

The fact is that we have three conversations going on, so let's get a 
lot of confusion.

Dino Bruniera
Thread
