Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597313 > unrolled thread
| Started by | beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-11 13:47 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-12 12:08 -0800 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 24 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 13:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q2uozt.1d0bhflskw7f1N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #597342 |
beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> 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, 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. ROTFL. Do you really think that the above is an improvement? Jan > > > > 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? > > > > The answer is whatever you want to believe in, > > and claims about it are meaningless, > Beda > the context of the my scenario is as above designed > nothing about the origin of the universe. > regards > beda > > > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4fb9b6d4-b570-4dc3-a1bc-0529a632be24n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597348 |
Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 13:13:05 UTC+1 J. J. Lodder ha scritto: > beda pietanza <bedapi...@gmail.com> 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, 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. > ROTFL. Do you really think that the above is an improvement? beda It is go back to reality cheers > > Jan > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > The answer is whatever you want to believe in, > > > and claims about it are meaningless, > > Beda > > the context of the my scenario is as above designed > > nothing about the origin of the universe. > > regards > > beda > > > > > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 07:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Crankishness is not welcome here (was Re: objectivity of what is there first) |
| Message-ID | <jvoov2F3aj2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597342 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 12:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <417b89ce-3ed6-4b64-9bfb-6f4531e91e27n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597313 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 1:47:21 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: > whatever is the space, it is there before a light source shows up. > 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. > 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. > 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 If space is expanding you can see it began as a single dimensional point at an absolute beginning. Gravity would be in the way if it was there. And the beginning of time would have to wait. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web