Google is your friend.Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:Elaborate a bit one why it does not work.On 6/02/2026 5:23 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:>=?UTF-8?Q?Niocl=C3=A1s_P=C3=B3l_Caile=C3=A1n?= de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com>wrote:>Jan Panteltje schreef:|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|"I also think 'science' should stop babbling about infinities,|
|mamaticians doing a divide by zero all the time |
| Singularities |
|There are no 'infinities' in nature!" |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
>
Maybe you will like the light-is-a-gravitational-wave theory of Roger
Brewis.
(S. http://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
If EM radiation is a 'state' of the Le Sage particles than much is simplyfied,
gravity then moves at the speed of light, gravitational lensing, etc etc.
Photons as Le Sage particles? It doesn't work. For every problem there
is a solution that is simple, convincing and wrong, and Jan is great at
finding them - for a certain rather low value of "convincing".
Photons as a state_ of LS particles.Have you any idea what that might mean? It certainly doesn't strike me as any kind of meaningful exoression.
I think I did read somewhere gravity moves at the speed of light.Gravity waves seem to. LIGO apparently picked up an incipient binary neutron star fusion early enough for optical telescopes to be pointed at the right spot to see the optical output.
Or light moves at the speed of gravity then,"All"?
So in Lhe Sage theory very likely EM radiation is just a magnetized or charged state of those LS particles.
All we do is 'activate' those to make EM radiation.
I do not need the Nobel prize, that is all corrupt anyways,Einstein's general relativity theory that makes space-time four dimensional, with time as the imaginary fourth dimension, means that every point in the universe is effectively in contact with an ever-enlarging sphere whose surface is sufficiently far away that the sum of the squares of the normal space separation is exactly cancelled by the sum of the square of the time-axis separation.
but really the probability that it would be different particles with exactly the same speed is not very high.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.