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 23:04 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9rhgu$r99$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <19777922.EfDdHjke4D@PointedEars.de> <p9lhiu$1ob8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <761221034.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> <p9ociu$1ei$1@gioia.aioe.org> <3154434.V25eIC5XRa@PointedEars.de>

Il 01/04/2018 19:12, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 30/03/2018 20:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> In fact it is precisely because the frequency and speed of the CMBR are
>>>> both isotropic, which for my theory
>>>
>>> You do not have a (scientific) theory.  A (scientific) theory must make
>>> *falsifiable* predictions.
>>>
>>>> the reference frame of the CMBR is also the preferred reference frame.
>>>
>>> Dead wrong.
>>>
>>> 1. There is no preferred reference frame.  The principle of relativity
>>>      (introduced by Galilei) says so, and all observation confirms it.
>>>      That is, it is not possible for an observer who is in inertial motion
>>>      relative to something else to tell that this is the case *without*
>>>      external reference.
>>>
>>> 2. The CMBR is radiation coming from, and moving to, *different* (all)
>>>      directions.  It cannot serve as a reference frame in the first place.
>>>
>> But the CMBR is not a reference frame.
> 
> Why do you claim then that it is?
> 
> You are so confused that you do not even realize that you are claiming
> things that contradict each other.
> 
>> The reference frame is the place of the space in which the CMBR is
>> isotropic
> 
> That would be precisely *none*.
> 

As I wrote in my demonstration and also in other posts, for isotropic I 
mean without the dipole anisotropy.

>> and is referred to as the CMBR reference frame.
> 
> Just one sentence before you said “the CMBR is not a reference frame”.
> 

Problems of the automatic translator.
"and is referred to as the reference frame of the CMBR".

> Do you even realize anymore when you are contradicting yourself?
> 
>> But also the other images are purified from the dipole anisotropy.
> 
> Yes, but your statements make it obvious that you have no clue what that is.
>   
>> But I do not comment because I have always talked about the speed of
>> light, without mentioning any phase.
> 
> You simply have no clue.
> 
> In classical electrodynamics, the speed of light *is* the phase speed of
> electromagnetic (EM) waves, which is constant in the same medium for all
> observers.  And in that framework, light *is* an EM wave.
> 
> Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum field theory (QFT) based on special
> relativity (SR).  As a result, the propagation speed of photons, the quanta
> of the EM field, is constant and the same for all observers in the same
> medium, too.  And it is the same as the phase speed of EM waves.
> 
> You do not know that, and you claim to propose a *quantum* theory with your
> second "paper"?  Ridiculous.
>   
>>> No, *experimental evidence* showed it *before*.  Einstein merely raised
>>> that to a postulate.  (You have not read his seminal paper, “On the
>>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, yes?)
>>>
>>>> but not due the theory of Lorentz aether before 1926.
>>
>> I verified that the year when Lorentz changed his mind about the ether,
>> it was 1916 and not 1926.
> 
> Cite and quote your sources.
> 

My source is "La Relatività debole" of Franco Selleri.
Paragraph 15.3
That I wrote in another post.


> My source (which I have cited, and quoted) say that he wrote in 1926 that he
> had changed his mind about his ether theory already before 1914.
> 
>>>> And my theory derives from that of Lorentz before 1926.
>>
>> Before 1916.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>
>   
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory>
>>>
>>> “Contrary to Poincaré, Lorentz in 1914 considered his own theory as
>>> incompatible with the relativity principle and rejected it [his theory].”
>>
>> The book with the new formulation of the aether theory was published in
>> 1916 but,
> 
> In the middle of World War Ⅰ?  Cite evidence.
> 

see above

>> as I wrote above, Lorentz did not abandon the ether.
> 
> Evidently you are wrong.
>   
>> [hundreds of unreferred quoted lines]
> 
> You can’t be serious.
> 
>> I read everything, but I only answered the points that I considered most
>> important,
> 
> You ignored my main counter-arguments because you are unable or unwilling to
> refute them.
> 
>> both for time problems and because I did not consider it
>> necessary for the demonstration of my theory.
> 
> You do not have a theory.  You have wrong ideas, merely based on your utter
> ignorance and your gross misconceptions.
> 
> 

Dino Bruniera

Thread