Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597317

Re: objectivity of what is there first

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/11/2022 3:47 PM, beda pietanza wrote:

> whatever is the space, it  is there before a light source shows up.

Are you sure? Please tell me exactly what "a light source" is. You have
not provided for "mass" or "time."

> Once the light source emits the light, the space in which light is going to travel
> was there and remains as before, so light travels the space independently of the velocity of the source.

It would appear that the "source" for initial light is the big bang 
itself, not some flame or flashlight or any somesuch. In such a case
light would not be emitted, it just would be.

> instead when light is already traveling, the receiver, being the light there before the receiver is receiving the light, the receiver go versus the light or away from it, therefore the speed of the receiver sums or subtracts to the speed of the light.
> This is trivially logic , in SR it is not so, light travels independently either of the speed of the source either for the speed of the receiver.
> Moreover, the one way speed of light is impossible to be measured, but SR sets it as c, with manipulate clocks.

According to Penrose time does not exist without without mass. Googling
that issue yields 2,840,000,000 hits. Absent time, is there (can there
be) space and/or aether.

I have no answers, only questions.

Sorry, but your thesis appears to be based on preconceived notions that
ignore some well established principles. When creating an initial
scenario you need to provide the origin of all the elements of known
reality.

> How this is done?, just using the two ways speed divided by 2.
> No one of the SRists will explain that what SR say of the invariant c is just an "as if" speed of light is c , while the true SOL are c+v and c-v (here c stands for the real (yet unknown) one way  speed of light) , so bringing SR into a common acceptable logic.
> cheers
> beda

Science is the study of nature. It appears that nature has rules
because we can predict future events with certainty (e.g. the sun will 
rise tomorrow...)

Starting with accepting Big Bang for the purpose of discussion, my
next question is about the possibility of multiverse, which if only
for the sake of discussion we accept. Does something in the big bang
event determine what the rules of nature are for our particular
universe? And if so, does some slight alteration in how the big bang
event progresses result in alternative concurrent universes and also
lead to the other universes having different laws of nature?

If you want to argue about whether or not the big bang happened please
start another thread and leave this thread to explore the stated
possibilities.

Thanks in advance.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 13:47 -0800
  Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 16:42 -0600
    Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 15:02 -0800
      Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 17:24 -0600
        Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 16:03 -0800
          Re: objectivity of what is there first Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 17:20 -0800
            Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 02:46 -0800
              Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 07:37 -0600
        Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 03:13 -0800
          Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 07:44 -0600
            Re: objectivity of what is there first Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 16:46 +0000
              Re: objectivity of what is there first Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 09:55 -0800
                Re: objectivity of what is there first Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 18:14 +0000
                Re: objectivity of what is there first Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 19:28 +0000
                Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 14:47 -0600
              Re: objectivity of what is there first whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 14:07 -0600
                Re: objectivity of what is there first Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar> - 2022-12-12 20:15 +0000
                Re: objectivity of what is there first Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-12 19:23 -0500
  Re: objectivity of what is there first nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-12 10:07 +0100
    Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 02:46 -0800
      Re: objectivity of what is there first nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-12 13:13 +0100
        Re: objectivity of what is there first beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 08:26 -0800
      Crankishness is not welcome here (was Re: objectivity of what is there first) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 07:34 -0600
  Re: objectivity of what is there first "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 12:08 -0800

csiph-web