XPost: sci.astro   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 6/02/2026 4:04 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:   
   >> Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > 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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)