XPost: sci.astro   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 6/02/2026 11:12 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:   
   >> Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Yes I have read about his objections, but he was still into marbles.   
      
   He wasn't, but you don't know enough to realise this.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)