Re: Is the universe infinite, or does it have a limit?

Hubble's constant was deduced from red-shift measurements

Type2 Supernova are used as "standard candles"

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.

You do have a lot of silly ideas.

Science doesn't talk about infinities. Mathematicians do.

Science is about rationalising observations, and you can't observe infinity.

Not that you can explain why you think this.

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.

Actually both. Redshifts give the most reliable data at cosmological distances and you can see all the clouds of neutral hydrogen along the like of sight if you find a suitably bright remote quasar. The so-called Lyman forest of absorption lines.

There is no way for us to know if the universe itself is infinite or just very very big. There is always going to be a finite limit to the region that we can ever know about (ignoring for the moment that at the greatest distances it is an optically opaque hot plasma now seen as the

Doesn't really hack it at all. Pauli's phrase "Not even wrong" is probably the kindest description for Le Sage Theory.

Curiously you may well be right about that - some apparent infinities in physical theories can be effectively magicked away by the right use of mathematics (aka renormalisation theory). QCD depends on it.

Mathematics *is the tool* for explaining physics - hand waving woolly word salad has no predictive power and is fundamentally untestable.

Sure, but motivate it Today (and my hat of to German science teaching TV channels!) there was a lecture' about 'quantum' in physics on zdfinfo.de program named Terra X presented by Harald Lesch (professor). And that is what I am missing on UK free to air TV, most there is braindead, games and repeats of old movies. Now if they also kill social media for people younger than 16 like they do down under, end of the world... Anyways, it went among other things into light as wave versus light as particle, the 2 slit experiment, and quantum secure communication, a view at the experiments, visiting the labs etc etc.. Now if you see light as a wave, then its speed depends on the medium. Consensus these days is that the universe is not empty, talk about dark matter (or Le Sage particles in my take) would mean that light speed can vary depending on the density of the medium, Jeroen from CERN had pointed to a paper that shows the universe filled with a fluid makes most math for elementary particles as we know it work.

Yes I have heard about re-normalization...

In *my* view mamamatics is just about quantities

You need a mechanism, the steam engine used steam, you could once you got some sizes and pressure, calculate the strength and how much bigger or smaller it was if you changed your experimental setup (steam engine) But without the 'steam' it has no meaning.

When I learned about radio it was all about electrons, I remember that moment 'ah so electrons flow through these cables' and electrons in radio tubes (Van Aisberg's books.

You need a *mechanism* to explain and predict things!! New things!!!

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.

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.

In sci.electronics.design john larkin snipped-for-privacy@glen--canyon.com wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:28:44 -0000 (UTC), Nioclás Pól Caileán de | |Ghloucester snipped-for-privacy@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.

Various theories are proposed about light.

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.

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.

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".

Elaborate a bit one why it does not work. Photons as a state_ of LS particles.

I think I did read somewhere gravity moves at the speed of light. Or light moves at the speed of gravity then, 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 No Bell price, that is all corrupt anyways, but really the probability that it would be different particles with exactly the same speed is not very high.

Yes I have read about his objections, but he was still into marbles.

Google is your friend.

Have you any idea what that might mean? It certainly doesn't strike me as any kind of meaningful exoression.

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.

"All"?

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.

He wasn't, but you don't know enough to realise this.

The speed of light in a *vacuum* is a fundamental invariant for physics proved by Maxwell from his equations of electromagnetism well before Einstein had conceived of relativity. It was a surprise at the time.

It is one of the things that catches out experimenters measuring the speed of light - imperfect vacuum in the apparatus has to be corrected for. Even the best man-made hard vacuum is poor compared to near space.

The systematic correction is small but for a period was applied by a highly respected experimenter in the wrong sense. People who duplicated the setup also made the same error. It was only noticed when a new method came available with better precision and a harder vacuum that the mistake was discovered. Speed of light with error bars as a function of time and method employed makes for an interesting graph.

There is no need for a cosmic ether. Michelson-Morely null result put paid to that idea a long time ago.

There is a sea of virtual particles flipping into and out of existence on borrowed energy as can be demonstrated by the Casimir effect.

Epicycles were the Fourier transform method of their day. They worked well enough to enable practitioners to do what they needed to do.

Eventually better observational constraints and new theories come along that can improve upon the established methods of the day. Back when Galileo was around the Jesuit astronomers were happy enough to use heretical heliocentric solutions in private because they worked.

Even now the most accurate planetary ephemeris is computed using symbolic expansions of the perturbations of every planet on every other. It all gets very messy in the real world even with just 9 planets.

Unless your theory has predictive powers and predicts something new that can be experimentally verified or used to refute it then it isn't a scientific theory it is just random word salad pseudoscience.

Le Sage predicts that the 'noise' in the speed of a clock close to earth is bigger than in 'free' space. I mentioned that here several times. We get ever better clocks, that noise should be measured in space and on earth. It predicts a lot more things, like (and that is enen used as argument against it) the internal heating of planets. Now usually, without any evidence! attributed to 'nuclear processes'.

If EM radiation is a state of Le Sage particles all becomes logic and very simple. 'state' is an interesting thing, spin? new particles formed by the combination of those Le Sage particles with electrons? And the big question is : Where do these Le Sage particles come from. We are just ants in a garden, what those call their 'Universe' is limited so is our view. Maybe as many 'bangs' as water molecules in the ocean exists. Brain limitations or unwillingness to 'see', religions used to control people and suck their money - will not find truth Einstein admitted he failed to connect gravity and light I just gave a glimpse It is easy You earthlings only need to drop Albert's brain crap. And be free!

Eye C you use a spell shaker I wrote: No Bell price You are falsifying things!

Yealus?

With you I don't need to

A childish homophon of what you meant.

On the contrary making them easier to understand.

Of you? That's sort of ludicrous misconception we normally get from John Larkin.

_Gravitational_ waves

ISTM that this is insufficient observational evidence that the phase speed of GWs is equal to c because we do not know when before the merger (this is not called "fusion") the first GWs were emitted: They could have been emitted long enough before that the light that was emitted later was still not able to catch up with them.

More convincing evidence is that it definitely took ∆t ≈ 10 ms for the first detected GW (of GW150914) to propagate from LIGO Livingston, Louisiana to LIGO Hanford, Washington, which is ∆x ≈ 3000 km *Euclidean* distance away from the former (this means a phase speed of ∆x/∆t ≈ 300 000 km/s):

_Spacetime_ has been _four-dmensional_ since special relativity; the concept was introduced by Minkowski in 1908, not Einstein in 1905 (but Einstein, after some hesitation, made extensive use of it as it enabled him to formulate general relativity *after* 1908).

Time is NOT an "imaginary dimension" of spacetime; it is a *real(-valued)* coordinate, e.g. (c t, x, y, z)^T for a position four-vector.

You are confusing the time in the pseudo-Euclidean/-Lorentzian manifold that is vanilla SR/GR spacetime with Euclidean ("imaginary") time; perhaps because of a popular-scientific book or two by Hawking who did not explain the origin of his "imaginary time" concept (a Wick rotation) very well (probably because the maths would have gone way over the heads of most of the readers; IIRC he once joked that "Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales.")

What happens is that (for simplicity the Minkowski) spacetime metric can be written

ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = -(dx^0)^2 + (dx^1)^2 + (dx^2)^2 + (dx^3)^2,

where the first identity can be derived from a simple geometric idea how to measure the distance traveled by a light pulse in vacuum, and the superscripts in parentheses on the last line mean indices, not exponents.

We can then make use of the fact that i^2 = -1, where i is the imaginary unit, and define the Euclidean or ("imaginary") time

x^4 := i c t ==> dx^4 = i c dt ==> (dx^4)^2 = -c^2 dt^2,

so that the metric can be written

ds^2 = (dx^4)^2 + (dx^1)^2 + (dx^2)^2 + (dx^3)^2

which looks Euclidean. This coordinate transformation is called

This applies in some sense to events connected by *light* and other effects that propagate at the same speed.

Then he is a fool.