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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597313 > unrolled thread

objectivity of what is there first

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#597313 — objectivity of what is there first

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#597317

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597319

Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> 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.
beda
you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough,
certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse
sorry,
cheers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597320

On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>> 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.


> beda
> you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough,
> certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse

Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of
shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell
me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or
'time.'"

And it continues on after that with, "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."

I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers
(including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no
answers. There's no dishonor in that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597322

Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >> 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. 
> 
> 
> > beda 
> > you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough, 
> > certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse
> Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of 
> shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell
> me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or
> 'time.'" 
> 
> And it continues on after that with, "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."
> I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers 
> (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no 
> answers. There's no dishonor in that.
beda
it seems you are too advanced for my imitated resources,
to my regret.
cheers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597326

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 4:03:40 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > >> 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. 
> > 
> > 
> > > beda 
> > > you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough, 
> > > certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse 
> > Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of 
> > shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell 
> > me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or 
> > 'time.'" 
> > 
> > And it continues on after that with, "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." 
> > I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers 
> > (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no 
> > answers. There's no dishonor in that.
> beda 
> it seems you are too advanced for my imitated resources, 
> to my regret. 
> cheers 
> beda

As always, Beda, you suffer from the "I don't know what I don't know" syndrome, which is not an attractive position to find yourself in. Your guesses are not physics... they are just guesses...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597343

Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 02:20:20 UTC+1 Paul Alsing ha scritto:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 4:03:40 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > > Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > >> 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. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > beda 
> > > > you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough, 
> > > > certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse 
> > > Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of 
> > > shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell 
> > > me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or 
> > > 'time.'" 
> > > 
> > > And it continues on after that with, "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." 
> > > I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers 
> > > (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no 
> > > answers. There's no dishonor in that. 
> > beda 
> > it seems you are too advanced for my imitated resources, 
> > to my regret. 
> > cheers 
> > beda
> As always, Beda, you suffer from the "I don't know what I don't know" syndrome, which is not an attractive position to find yourself in. Your guesses are not physics... they are just guesses...
beda
Life is most active on the border lines of sea-earth; earth -air; sea-air;
Scientific thoughts are most active in the border line between the known and the yet unknown,
Some are able to foresee in the mist a little deeper the not yet visible by most  
Scientific opinions and guesses lives in the border lines between  the scientific thoughts and the scientific thinkable.
cheers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597354

On 12/12/2022 4:46 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 02:20:20 UTC+1 Paul Alsing ha scritto:
>> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 4:03:40 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>> On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>> Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> beda
>>>>> you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough,
>>>>> certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse
>>>> Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of
>>>> shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell
>>>> me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or
>>>> 'time.'"
>>>>
>>>> And it continues on after that with, "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."
>>>> I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers
>>>> (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no
>>>> answers. There's no dishonor in that.
>>> beda
>>> it seems you are too advanced for my imitated resources,
>>> to my regret.
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>> As always, Beda, you suffer from the "I don't know what I don't know" syndrome, which is not an attractive position to find yourself in. Your guesses are not physics... they are just guesses...
> beda
> Life is most active on the border lines of sea-earth; earth -air; sea-air;
> Scientific thoughts are most active in the border line between the known and the yet unknown,
> Some are able to foresee in the mist a little deeper the not yet visible by most
> Scientific opinions and guesses lives in the border lines between  the scientific thoughts and the scientific thinkable.
> cheers
> beda

And here you attempt to cede validity to plain old crankism. Paul has it
right and I've been wasting time and effort on you. Goodbye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597345

Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >> 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. 
> 
> 
> > beda 
> > you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough, 
> > certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse
> Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of 
> shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell
> me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or
> 'time.'" 
> 
> And it continues on after that with, "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."
> I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers 
> (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no 
> answers. There's no dishonor in that.
beda
Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J. Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my 
thoughts in my original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to make clearer my intents.
regards
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597356

On 12/12/2022 5:13 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 12 dicembre 2022 alle 00:24:42 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>> On 12/11/2022 5:02 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno domenica 11 dicembre 2022 alle 23:42:39 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> beda
>>> you must have misunderstood the content of my post, likely I was not clear enough,
>>> certainly I know nothing about of the big bank nor about the multiuniverse
>> Is it too complicated for you to appreciate that I addressed a number of
>> shortcomings in your thesis? It begins with "Are you sure? Please tell
>> me exactly what "a light source" is. You have not provided for "mass" or
>> 'time.'"
>>
>> And it continues on after that with, "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."
>> I won't go on, but you should if you can. Otherwise the readers
>> (including me) have to assume your thesis is flawed and you have no
>> answers. There's no dishonor in that.
> beda
> Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J. Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my
> thoughts in my original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to make clearer my intents.
> regards
> beda

No matter how you try you'll never make anything out of a pig's ear. I
have it on good authority they're not even suitable for eating.

As I told you, you have to account for everything. Having thoughts with
nothing to base them on is devoid of all value. One can create music and
novel like fiction out of nothing, but you can never create science (the
study of nature) without actually studying nature. Stop pulling things
out of your ass an foisting them off as science. Go learn, then add to
the human database once you have that foundation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597367

whodat wrote:

> On 12/12/2022 5:13 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> beda Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J.
>> Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my thoughts in my
>> original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to make
>> clearer my intents. regards beda
> 
> No matter how you try you'll never make anything out of a pig's ear. I
> have it on good authority they're not even suitable for eating.

shut the fuck up. You are a gay from america. They think wars is about 
moving joysticks in a helicopters, as they see in those capitalist 
military industrial complex propaganda movies. All the crap movies of 
america contains gringos moving around in *helicopters*. They are fucking 
obsessed with helicopters. Which btw, are made in Russia.

was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something. They are 
gays, and can't fight like a man, without helicopters. Take the 
helicopters away from america, and you have NO america. And no blown up 
gas and energy pipelines from the people of europa.

what a fucking terrorist state, to detonate in huge explosions, the energy 
pipelines to an entire continent. And saying it on TV and massmedia. 
Disgusting pigs. You are written in the book of history, pigs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597370

On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 17:46:23 UTC+1, Darron Riva wrote:
> whodat wrote: 
> 
> > On 12/12/2022 5:13 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >> beda Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J. 
> >> Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my thoughts in my 
> >> original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to make 
> >> clearer my intents. regards beda 
> > 
> > No matter how you try you'll never make anything out of a pig's ear. I 
> > have it on good authority they're not even suitable for eating.
> shut the fuck up. You are a gay from america. They think wars is about 
> moving joysticks in a helicopters, as they see in those capitalist 
> military industrial complex propaganda movies. All the crap movies of 
> america contains gringos moving around in *helicopters*. They are fucking 
> obsessed with helicopters. Which btw, are made in Russia. 
> 
> was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something. 

Perhaps you would also take over Ukraine much
faster than Putin and his minions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597373

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 17:46:23 UTC+1, Darron Riva wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>> 
>> > On 12/12/2022 5:13 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> >> beda Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J.
>> >> Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my thoughts in my
>> >> original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to
>> >> make clearer my intents. regards beda
>> > 
>> > No matter how you try you'll never make anything out of a pig's ear.
>> > I have it on good authority they're not even suitable for eating.
>> shut the fuck up. You are a gay from america. They think wars is about
>> moving joysticks in a helicopters, as they see in those capitalist
>> military industrial complex propaganda movies. All the crap movies of
>> america contains gringos moving around in *helicopters*. They are
>> fucking obsessed with helicopters. Which btw, are made in Russia.
>> 
>> was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something.
> 
> Perhaps you would also take over Ukraine much faster than Putin and his
> minions.

"uKraine"?? there is no uKraine, imbecile, but nato, nazi nato, which are 
faking fighting there. These so called "mercenaries" are going to the 
front line, get their ass kicked, watching what war is all about, then run 
back to their mommas home in their corrupt capitalist countries, where is 
safe to be a gay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597377

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 12/12/2022 1:14 PM, Darron Riva wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> 
>>> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 17:46:23 UTC+1, Darron Riva wrote:
> 
>>>> was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you would also take over Ukraine much faster than Putin and
>>> his minions.
>> 
>> "uKraine"?? there is no uKraine, imbecile,
> 
> That was the wet dream of Nazi 卐Путлер卐, to overrun Ukraine in 
> less than a

they got, as region, a restricted form of autonomy 1991. Understood they 
are not going full nazis, killing people because they declared themself 
neutral or Russian. The fucking uKrainians are inherently Russians, pushed 
by america to become nazis 2014. It stays in the history books and 
wikipedia, you fucking cretin. Shall I reread it for you? Are you a gay of 
america??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597390

On 12/12/2022 1:28 PM, Darron Riva wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>> On 12/12/2022 1:14 PM, Darron Riva wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 17:46:23 UTC+1, Darron Riva wrote:
>>
>>>>> was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you would also take over Ukraine much faster than Putin and
>>>> his minions.
>>>
>>> "uKraine"?? there is no uKraine, imbecile,
>>
>> That was the wet dream of Nazi 卐Путлер卐, to overrun Ukraine in
>> less than a
> 
> they got, as region, a restricted form of autonomy 1991. Understood they
> are not going full nazis, killing people because they declared themself
> neutral or Russian. The fucking uKrainians are inherently Russians, pushed
> by america to become nazis 2014. It stays in the history books and
> wikipedia, you fucking cretin. Shall I reread it for you? Are you a gay of
> america??

No soup for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNxl-lpOME

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597381

On 12/12/2022 10:46 AM, Darron Riva wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/12/2022 5:13 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> beda Since from the replays I received from Paul Alsing and J. J.
>>> Lodder, I realized that I have poorly expressed my thoughts in my
>>> original post, please read my replays to them where I attempt to make
>>> clearer my intents. regards beda
>>
>> No matter how you try you'll never make anything out of a pig's ear. I
>> have it on good authority they're not even suitable for eating.
> 
> shut the fuck up. You are a gay from america. They think wars is about
> moving joysticks in a helicopters, as they see in those capitalist
> military industrial complex propaganda movies. All the crap movies of
> america contains gringos moving around in *helicopters*. They are fucking
> obsessed with helicopters. Which btw, are made in Russia.

Russia has to sell its low end technology someplace.
> 
> was I Russia, I would take over america in a week or something. 

Population of Russia - 143.4 million
Population of Ukraine- 43.81 million
Population of USA    - 331.9 million

In 9 months 2 weeks and 2 days Russia has been unable to subdue a
smaller country that Russia has more than 3 times Ukraine's population
and Ukraine is literally next door to Russia's land mass.

But you, in your insane mind, think Russia could defeat a nation that
has 2.3 times Russia's population. Not only that, but the distance 
between Moscow and Washington is 4,860 miles or more than 7800 km.

You couldn't sell that idea even to Rasputin, one of the historically
craziest Russian who ever lived.

Do you have tertiary syphilis or is this narcotics talking for you?

> They are
> gays, and can't fight like a man, without helicopters. 

Gay is everything to you!

> Take the
> helicopters away from america, and you have NO america. And no blown up
> gas and energy pipelines from the people of europa.
> 
> what a fucking terrorist state, to detonate in huge explosions, the energy
> pipelines to an entire continent. And saying it on TV and massmedia.
> Disgusting pigs. You are written in the book of history, pigs.

Now you're beginning to like pigs as much as gays. This should be
interesting from a rather sick vantage point. But then, that's the
hand we're being dealt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597383

whodat wrote:

> Population of Russia - 143.4 million 
> Population of Ukraine- 43.81 million 
> Population of USA    - 331.9 million
> In 9 months 2 weeks and 2 days Russia has been unable to subdue a
> smaller country that Russia has more than 3 times Ukraine's population
> and Ukraine is literally next door to Russia's land mass.

idiot, uKraine was over in two days. Now she is fighting america, uk, 
nato, australia etc and the capitalist shit around the world. I am so 
proud of Russia. You capitalist gays will never achieve the level of 
Russia, first in space, first on moon, first dog in space etc etc and etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597403

On 12/12/2022 3:15 PM, Darron Riva wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> Population of Russia - 143.4 million
>> Population of Ukraine- 43.81 million
>> Population of USA    - 331.9 million
>> In 9 months 2 weeks and 2 days Russia has been unable to subdue a
>> smaller country that Russia has more than 3 times Ukraine's population
>> and Ukraine is literally next door to Russia's land mass.
> 
> idiot, uKraine was over in two days. Now she is fighting america, uk,
> nato, australia etc and the capitalist shit around the world.

What drugs are you on, nymshifter?

If *anything*, 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 should have realized after two days, their 
ass was going to be kicked big time, and they should have gotten the 
hell out of there.

> I am so
> proud of Russia. You capitalist gays will never achieve the level of
> Russia, first in space, first on moon, first dog in space etc etc and etc.

That was the Soviet Union, not Russia. It included the genius Ukrainians 
(& others) who did so much for the USSR space program.
Nowadays, 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 isn't much more than a Mafia-run gas station with 
nukes.

Hey nymshifter! How about a bet? As of Jan 1, 2024, about 1 year from 
now, how many countries do you think 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 will have broken up 
into? Include any annexations by neighbors in the count. I hear there 
was a fair referendum where Kaliningrad Oblast voted to join Czechia, 
for example.

How about after five years from now? (Jan 1, 2028)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597341

beda pietanza <bedapietanza@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.

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,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597342

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. 

> 
> 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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web