He wasn't, but you don't know enough to realise this.Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:Yes I have read about his objections, but he was still into marbles.On 6/02/2026 4:04 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:>Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:>On 5/02/2026 5:23 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:>
However, our universe is expanding, and there are points whose distance from
each other increases faster than light could propagate between them. So
even if our universe would be closed, it would not be possible for light to
arrive at its point of emission by going around our universe. Maybe that is
the reason why this has never been observed.
Just a simple question, I am no astrofishycist,
is that 'expansion' we observe deduced from the red shifts we measure?
Hubble's constant was deduced from red-shift measurements
>Or brightness of some stars?>
Type2 Supernova are used as "standard candles"
>How about tired light theory (light slowing down causing redshift)?>
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, so light doesn't slow down.
"Tired light" isn't an explanation that has expert support.
>Personally I am with Le Sage theory, for me it explains much, like clocks>
slowing down near a heavy object.
You do have a lot of silly ideas.
>I also think 'science' should stop babbling about infinities,>
mathematicians doing a divide by zero all the time
Singularities
There are no 'infinities' in nature!
Science doesn't talk about infinities. Mathematicians do.
>
Science is about rationalising observations, and you can't observe infinity.
>Something will always break down, give way!>
Not that you can explain why you think this.
>And Le Sage does explain some internal heating of stellar objects, say Pluto for example.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
In short, we need a MECHANISM to explain things, like we need ELECTRONS in electronics
Not math and Spices
Math is a very handy way of rationalising our observations, and sorting
out the implications of any mechanism you feel like hypothesising.
>
Spice is a useful tool, but you do have to understand it's limitations.
>
The Le Sage theory of gravity is a hypothetical mechanism, but the
hypothetical particles that make it work need self-contradictory
properties, and that's why it has never appealed to anybody competent.
Because if you look at those LS particles and little balls .
But these things maybe be much more complex.
Reverse the thinking, ask: "What should they look like to make it work?"
Same for electrons in the vacuum tube, it needs charged particle to expain
why the diode rectifier works.
It does not work for marbles.
When Feynman looked at the Le Sage particles he couldn't think of a way
to make them work. There might still be one, but it's going to be a long
wait until we get a physicist smarter than Feynman. Other theories are
more accessible.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.