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 11:35 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9q95p$prk$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <2496226.BEx9A2HvPv@PointedEars.de> <p9oei4$4lt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <12386798.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de> <p9p0rn$15hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11997039.dW097sEU6C@PointedEars.de>
Il 01/04/2018 02:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> 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,
> 
> (You meant to say “_paragraph_”.)
> 
>> from which you copied the sentence:
> 
> Contrary to you, I do not have to copy and paste (without naming my
> sources).  I *know* what I am talking about instead, because I have
> *studied* it (as described above).
>   
>> "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.
> 
> Wrong.  You simply have no clue.  Had you read (more carefully), you would
> have known that Lorentz’s gravitational theory, of *1900*, was based on his
> (a)ether theory (of *1892*).  The first sentence of that theory is:
> 
> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Considerations_on_Gravitation>
> |
> | § 1. After all we have learned in the last twenty or thirty years about
> | the mechanism of electric and magnetic phenomena, it is natural to examine
> | in how far it is possible to account for the force of gravitation by
> | ascribing it to a certain state of the aether. […]
> 
> General relativity, the prevailing theory of gravitation that *is*
> (obviously) compatible with the principle of relativity, is based on special
> relativity, which does not need an ether.
>   

So, according to your interpretation, what is written on wikipedia is wrong?
I also looked for the German language version, which is a more precise 
language, and here's what I found:

"1908 [A 16] untersuchte Poincaré ebenfalls die von Lorentz aufgestellte 
Gravitationstheorie und klassifizierte sie als mit dem 
Relativitätsprinzip vereinbar, bemängelte jedoch wie Lorentz die 
ungenaue Angabe zur Perihel-Drehung des Merkur. Lorentz selbst jedoch 
verwarf 1914 sein eigenes Modell, weil er es nicht als mit dem 
Relativitätsprinzip vereinbar ansah. Stattdessen sah er Einsteins 
Arbeiten über Gravitation und Äquivalenzprinzip als die 
vielversprechendste Erklärungsart an."

It seems to me that even here it appears that Lorentz refers to his 
gravitational theory.
However, it seems to me that Lorentz considers Einstein's theory better 
than his.

>> Instead, Professor Franco Selleri, in his book entitled "The relativity
>> weak",
> 
> The title is not proper English either.  The actual English title of his
> 2009 book is “Weak Relativity: The Physics of Space and Time Without
> Paradoxes”.
> 

It has also been published in English!?
So Selleri is known throughout the scientific world.
I did not know.

> The book can be read for free e.g. at
> <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>.
> 
> Since this book apparently proposes ideas for adjustments to relativity, it
> requires understanding of relativity.  I would not recommend it for people
> (like you) who do not know relativity.
> 

Of course.

> The reader may judge the book for themselves, but I find some (for a
> professor of physics as the author) disturbingly *wrong* ideas or wording
> in that book.  For example, it is implicitly asserted in the introduction
> and later that “the theory of relativity” would be the same as “relativism”.
> Actually, the two have nothing in common.  The theory of relativity, or
> rather, the _theories_ of relativity, is/are one/those of invariants
> (*unchanging* quantities, like the speed of light and four-momentum); by
> contrast, “Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences
> in perception and consideration.” (Wikipedia)  As a result, the term
> “relativism” does not belong in a physics discussion.
> 
> See also the references in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Selleri>.
> 
>> 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. […]
> 
> However, *actually*, and I am quoting *now*:
> 
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Lorentz_and_general_relativity>
> |
> | Lorentz was one of few scientists who supported Einstein's search for
> | general relativity from the beginning – he wrote several research papers
> | and discussed with Einstein personally and by letter.[B 5] For instance,
> | he attempted to combine Einstein's formalism with Hamilton's principle
> | (1915),[19] and to reformulate it in a coordinate-free way (1916).
> 
> Follow the references.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> ASIB, your beliefs are irrelevant.  Observation shows that (1) the frequency
> of the CMB is not isotropic.  So if we accept your assertion that, because
> the CMB would be isotropic in that regard, it could serve as a frame of
> reference (which it cannot, as I explained),  

> this definitely kills that
> possibility even if one denies the former statement (1).

I did not understand what you mean in the last two lines.

However, there are also physicists who took into consideration that the 
reference frame of the cmb could be the preferred reference frame.
In fact here is what I found on ARXIV (and not on VIXRA) with the 
following link:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08771

Abstract.
The modern view, that there exists a preferred frame of reference 
related to the cosmic microwave background (CMB), is in apparent 
contradiction with the principles of special relativity. The purpose of 
the present study is to develop a counterpart of the special relativity 
theory that is consistent with the existence of a preferred frame but, 
like the standard relativity theory, is based on the relativity 
principle and universality of the (\textit{two-way}) speed of light.
...
...

But I would like to point out that my "theory" is different.

>> The fact is that we have three conversations going on, so let's get a
>> lot of confusion.
> 
> You are the only one who is confused here.  Completely.  Because you have no
> actual understanding to draw from.
> 
> 

Of course.

Dino Bruniera
Thread
