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	2018-04-02 01:00 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<p9roa4$158p$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(22 earlier) <2361797.k3LOHGUjKi@PointedEars.de> <p9qhrb$17hu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5887299.G0QQBjFxQf@PointedEars.de> <p9reju$mi2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <14936174.geO5KgaWL5@PointedEars.de>
Il 01/04/2018 23:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> Dino Bruniera wrote:
> 
>> Il 01/04/2018 18:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
>>> Dino Bruniera wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  The CMBR is EM radiation; it is not different from any
> other EM radiation in that regard.
> 

The photons of the CMBR are different from the other photons, because 
their frequency is substantially isotropic compared to the CMBR 
reference frame.
I wrote substantially, because it is not exactly isotropic, as I 
explained in my demonstrations and in my previous posts.
And as Tom Robert also wrote in another post.

It seems to me that we are losing a lot of time because you have not 
read my short article, where I wrote what I mean by CMBR isotropy.

Anyway, I write it again.
By CMBR isotropy I mean CMBR without the dipole anisotropy, which is 100 
times higher than the other anisotropies.

> The speed of light, the (phase) speed of EM waves, is constant and the same
> for all observers and sources, therefore the (phase) speed of the CMBR is
> constant and the same for all observers and sources.  Until there is
> evidence to the contrary, the laws of physics are the same in all parts of
> the universe.
> 

This is what special relativity states.

> You have no provided such evidence either.
> 

Instead I showed it in my article, at least until proven otherwise.

In short, I'm always saying the same things.

>>> See also my more detailed explanation in
>>> <news:1888246.bB369e8A3T@PointedEars.de>.
>>
>> The link does not work.
> 
> It is not a link, it is a Message-ID URI, and it works.
>   
>>>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png>
>>>
>>
>> This image was purified from dipole anisotropy.
> 
> *And* there is *still* an anisotropy.  What does that tell you?
>   

There are still several anisotropy, but very slight.
As I wrote in my article.
"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", "do not affect the present theory"),

>>>       [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.]
> 
> So you should do that.
> 

see above

>> For language problems, I struggle to understand what you say.
> 
> It appears increasingly pointless for me to talk to you at all.
> 

You should read my first article, so we will understand better.
Otherwise we could close this discussion now and resume it when (and if) 
I will open a discussion about my article and publish the demonstrations.

>>> ad (2):
>>>
>>> In (1), you claim that “[the] speed [of the CMBR photons]
>>> cannot be isotropic”.
>>
>> If their frequency is not isotropic.
> 
> Which is wrong.
> 
see above

>> Or rather, if it includes the dipole anisotropy.
> 
> The propagation speed of the radiation has nothing to do with that.
> 
> *That* anisotropy is purely a consequence of the Doppler effect.

Which depends on the speed of the Earth with respect to the CMBR 
reference frame of the CMBR.


> The *remaining* anitropy is a consequence of the difference of the sources.
> 

That I do not consider in my article-theory, as I wrote in the 
demonstrations.

>> As I wrote in my demonstrations.
> 
> Those are wrong, then.
>   
>>> 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.
> 
> The anisotropy of CMBR frequency, *after* the dipole anisotropy has been
> removed, has *nothing* to do with an anistropy of propagation speed.
> 

Quite right.
In fact I do not consider them.
I wrote that they "do not affect the present theory".

>>> (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.
> 
> Wrong.  The self-contradiction in your conclusions is *obvious*.
>   

Dino Bruniera
Thread
