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 22:14 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9reju$mi2$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(20 earlier) <2387506.X9hSmTKtgW@PointedEars.de> <p9os67$tbp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2361797.k3LOHGUjKi@PointedEars.de> <p9qhrb$17hu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de>
Il 01/04/2018 18:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 01/04/2018 02:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> In a post of 28.3 I reported the conclusions of my first article, where,
>>>> among other things, it is written:
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>     ^^^^^^^^^
>>>> 2. As shown by the "Demonstrations using background radiation", in the
>>>> point in space traversed by the Earth, both the speed and the frequency
>>>                                            
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> of the CMBR photons are isotropic. This means that their speed is in
>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> fact isotropic, so it cannot also be truly isotropic with respect to the
>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Earth, since the Earth is moving at a speed of about 300 km/s. "
>>>>
>>>> So I mentioned the existence of two demonstrations, but I have not
>>>> reported them in any posts.
>>>
>>> That is not necessary.  Your premise is both wrong and internally
>>> inconsistent.
>>>
>>> ad (1): You have not understood the (relativistic) Doppler effect.
>>>
>>> ad (2): You claim the opposite of what you claimed in (1).
>>>
>>> I have marked the relevant parts this time.
>>>
>>>> And neither you, nor Paul, exposed them and proved they were wrong.
>>>
>>> But we did.
>>
>> There is no worse blind than those who do not want to see.
> 
> True.  And you do not want to see.
> 
>> But you also want to see what is not there.
> 
> *You* want to see what is not there.
> 
> Like *old*, *demented* Poincaré (but supported by *considerably less*
> education and ingenuity), you *want* to see that there is a “preferred
> reference frame” when, in fact, (0) all experiments (thought experiments and
> real ones) show that all reference frames have equal standing – none of them
> is *always* the “preferred” one.
> 
> Probably because you are incapable of understanding the observed reality.
> 

No, it's because I dimostrated it, at least until proven contrary.

>> Here, there are the conclusions of the demonstrations, but not the
>> demonstrations.
> 
> As I have just told you, your so-called "demonstrations" are irrelevant
> because your conclusions in your first write-up, which do serve as the
> premises for your second write-up, are both wrong and self-contradictory.
> 
> To be more precise:
> 
> ad (1):
> 
> You essentially claim that different frequency (“not isotropic”) must mean
> different speed (“not isotropic”).  Your claim is *wrong*.
> 

Yes, but only for the CMBR.
As I wrote in my demonstrations and how you can read above, in the 
conclusions.

> When for the *same* observer (O) sources of the *same* kind (S₁, S₂) move
> *differently* relative to the observer [or the observer relative to them,
> see (0)], and the observed frequency of a signal from one source *differs*
> from that of another source due to the Doppler effect, the (phase) speed of
> the signal remains *the same*:
> 
>      [Use a monospace font for display; see also:
>       <https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts#ggformatteruserjs>]
> 
>                              _._       _._
>                   S₁ .     .'   '. O .'   '.     . S₂     S₁, S₂ stationary
>                       '-.-'                 '-.-'         relative to O
>                                                           (and vice-versa)
> 
>                           _..._        _
>      <--- S₁ ._       _.-'     '-. O .' '.   . S₂ <---    S₁, S₂ moving
>                '-...-'                    '-'             relative to O
>                                  (--->)                   (or O moving
>                                                           relative to S₁, S₂)
> 
> See also my more detailed explanation in
> <news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.
> 

The link does not work.

> Also, the photon energy is
> 
>    E = ℎ f,
> 
> so the photon frequency is
> 
>    f = E∕ℎ
> 
> Even if all sources have the same speed relative to the observer (which we
> assume with the CMB), the energy E of the sources can differ, and so can
> the frequency of the photons that they emit.  Observations show: The CMB is
> _not_ isotropic with regard to frequency and black-body temperature –
> already *considering* relative motion of the measuring observatories
> *in space*.  In different directions, they frequence/temperature differ
> *slightly*:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
> 

This image was purified from dipole anisotropy.

>      [If this this (false-color) image looks to you as if it had all the same
>       color, then you definitely need better glasses – or an eye operation.]
> 
> Therefore, we must assume that the *sources* differ *slightly* from another.
> This is easily explained because it is so unlikely that the early universe
> has developed *exactly* the same *everywhere* that it is impossible.  (If it
> had, galaxies would not have formed, stars would not have formed, planets
> would not have formed, life on planets would not have formed, and we would
> not be here.)
> 

For language problems, I struggle to understand what you say. However, 
in my demonstrations I consider only the dipole anisotropy, which is 100 
times greater than the others and which depends solely on the speed of 
the Earth relative to the CMBR reference system.
As I wrote in my demonstrations.

> ad (2):
> 
> In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
> cannot be isotropic”.

If their frequency is not isotropic.
Or rather, if it includes the dipole anisotropy.
As I wrote in my demonstrations.
> 
> In (2), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
> is in fact isotropic”.
> 

If their frequency is isotropic, or rather, if it don't includes the 
dipole anisotropy.
As in the reference frame of CMBR.
As I wrote in my demonstrations.

> (2) is *the exact opposite* of what you claimed in (1).
> You are *contradicting yourself*.
> 

The thing is, if you do not read well my dimonstraction, you cannot even 
prove it's wrong.

>> However there are in my article on VIXRA whose link is:
>> [spam]
>>
>> And soon I think I publish them in this NG, hoping to get some
>> evaluations on the merits, even if negative.
> 
> You have already gotten (negative) reviews, because you posted
> the URI (not: link) before.  But you do not want to see that.
> 
> Unless this changes, this was my last detailed reply to you.
> I am getting the idea that I am just wasting my time.
> 

As you want.

Dino Bruniera
Thread
