XPost: sci.astro   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 5/02/2026 5:23 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:   
   >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 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.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)