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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597356

Re: objectivity of what is there first

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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