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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597353

Crankishness is not welcome here (was Re: objectivity of what is there first)

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/12/2022 4:46 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 10:07:05 UTC+1 J. J. Lodder ha scritto:
>> beda pietanza <bedapi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> whatever is the space, it is there before a light source shows up.
>> I don't want to derange your little world,
>> but light doesn't need a source for existence.
>> Technically:
>> light waves are the solutions of the -free- Maxwell equations.
>> (that is, without the source terms)
>>
>> This carries over into quantum field theory:
>> photons are the quanta of the -free- electromagnetic field.
> beda:
> too big a scene for a source that starts to emit light in a preexisting space
> and that light adapt itself to the space that is traveling,



Once again you have not established that space was existing. Where you
are discussing "creation" you have to account for everything. You ducked
this issue last time we spoke. You cannot simply claim that things
suddenly exist out of nothing/nowhere and get away with it. This one
failure destroys the integrity and validity of the rest of your thesis.



> that is reason of light to travel independently of the speed of source.
> Instead when light is already emitted, and travel the space,
> the accidental encounter with a receiver implies a classic c +-v
> (where c and v are the absolute speeds of light and the absolute speed of the receiver,both indeterminated)
> Hope it is clear that my scenario was in the realm of what happens here now,
> My fault of not having been clear enough.
> 
>>
>> Whatever came first, early in the big bang is undecidable.
>> Did light create matter, or did matter create light?
>> Or both? Or did both of them create space itself?


First of all it isn't simply space, it is space-time. If you read and
listen, then listen to Penrose. To have time you must have mass. Unless
you have a starting basis that incorporates a complete set there is no
reason to pay any attention to you because without a complete set you
become just another crank. Last chance...


>>
>> The answer is whatever you want to believe in,

Untrue.

>> and claims about it are meaningless,

Again, untrue. We use what we discern as existing, then project back
through time to assess how this could have happened. Some ideas fit,
some do not. Pulling alleged facts out of your hat with no foundation
fails every time.


> Beda
> the context of the my scenario is as above designed
> nothing about the origin of the universe.

Then what the hell are you talking about? This is a science newsgroup.
If you are talking about clear fiction get that discussion out of here
and into one of the "creative" newsgroups or forums or both.

Crankishness is not welcome here.

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