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 22:47 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9rgho$pg0$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <12386798.RDIVbhacDa@PointedEars.de> <p9p0rn$15hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11997039.dW097sEU6C@PointedEars.de> <p9q95p$prk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <34613100.10thIPus4b@PointedEars.de>
Il 01/04/2018 18:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Next time, trim your quotes.
> 
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 01/04/2018 02:00, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> "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?
> 
> No.  You simply can’t read (see above and below):
> 
>>> ,-
>>>
>> <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 […]
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>> 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 w.
>>> 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.
> 
> On the one hand (in point 2 of your “CONCLUSIONS” of your first "paper")
> you claim that the CMBR photon frequency is isotropic.  From that you
> conclude that the CMBR is “the preferred reference frame”.
> 
> But the CMBR photon frequency is _not_ isotropic.  Not from Earth, not from
> any other point in our universe.
> 

In my demonstrations, for CMBR photon frequency isotropic, I mean 
without the dipole anisotropy (see sentences between ****).
I report below what I wrote in the demonstrations.

"Due to the expansion of space, their wavelength has greatly increased, 
and therefore their frequency has decreased to the currently detected 
value (about 1,100 times), which is the same for all photons, except for 
some very slight anisotropies (around one in 100,000) (5).
In addition to these anisotropies, which are intrinsic in nature for CMBR

  ****
  (being of intrinsic nature, they do not affect the present theory and, 
therefore, for simplicity will not always be considered in this paper),
  ****

it has been detected a particular anisotropy of much
greater amplitude than the other (around one in 1,000) (4), which 
depends on the direction of the CMBR’s provenance and that is due to the 
motion of the Earth (about 300 km/s) with respect to a particular point 
at which this anisotropy would not be detected, called "dipole 
anisotropy" (7).

  *****
Hence in that point the CMBR’s frequency would be isotropic or, more 
precisely, would not be affected by the dipole anisotropy.
  *****

But then its speed would also be isotropic, since the MM experiment 
proved that the speed of photons (including those of the CMBR) is 
isotropic in any RF in which it is measured."


> If your conclusion would be *valid*, you would have to conclude that the
> CMB is not “the preferred reference frame”.
> 
> However, your conclusion is *not even valid*: The CMB *cannot* be a
> reference frame in the first place, let alone “the preferred reference
> frame”.
> 
> Which I show in detail in <news:761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> and
> <news:5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de>.

What must be done to make these links (o URL) work?

Dino Bruniera
Thread
