A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:25:40â¯PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
<snip>
What is mainly shows is that English language science journalists don\'t know much about science. I read the Guardian in England for about twenty years and found sceintific howlers in it every coupe of weeks. I had to read the Volksrant in the Netherlands for a bout a decade before I found an obvious mistake.
> Clear difference between Le Sage and a relatitvity that predicts infinite gravity also called \'singularities\' is that in a Le Sage system at some point all particles are intercepted, so gravity has a limit.
A much clearer different is that the Le Sage theory of gravity doesn\'t work, and relativity does.
A relativitistic \"signularity\" isn\'t an infinity - it just a volume where space is curved enough to be closed in on itself and nothing can escape
> Nature does not know \'infinities\' (Panteltje\'s rule1) something always will break down, give way.
Jan Panteltje doesn\'t know what infinity means so his \"rule\" is just an expression of incomprehension.
> Ohms law knows infinities, 1 V in zero Ohm., that is like Einstein\'s thinking.
First find your zero ohm resistor. Super-conductors might appear to qualify but they all stop super-conducting when the circulating current gets high enough to generate a high enough magnetic field to stop then being super-conductors.
The problem here isn\'t Einstein\'s thinking but the defects in Jan Panteltje\'s thinking.
Jan is the kind of simple-minded person who gets confused about what mathematics means.
> MATH is no solution, all it does is describe quantities with incomplete equations in not fully described systems.
The math is fine, but it is just a description of a simplified reality which has been simplified enough to be susceptible to mathematics.
Incomplete, but useful, if you know what you are doing. Jan doesn\'t.
Usually it makes us look more carefully at our experiment and find what we did wrong.
> Newton\'s math breaks down when applied to observation of stars in galaxies, causing people to look for example dark matter.
There\'s nothing wrong with Newton\'s math. The problem is that the reality he was modelling was more complicated than he knew. Einstein pointed out that a more complicated model. of reality needed slightly different math which - so far - has worked fine/.
Which doesn\'t work either.
\"Later in 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (E.P.R.) imagined a thought experiment which, if one allowed for entangled states to exist, led to a paradox: either some influence travels faster than light (non-causality), or quantum physics is incomplete. None of the two terms of the alternative were admissible at the time, hence the paradox.\"
The experiment realised their 1935 thought experiment. This didn\'t defeat Einstein\'s way of thinking but rather showed that he had been thinking about a useful question.
Pity about the other stuff it predicts. Le Sage didn\'t predict the Lorentz transforms, even if you imagine that he could have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Simple and wrong.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
What is mainly shows is that English language science journalists don\'t know much about science. I read the Guardian in England for about twenty years and found sceintific howlers in it every coupe of weeks. I had to read the Volksrant in the Netherlands for a bout a decade before I found an obvious mistake.
> Clear difference between Le Sage and a relatitvity that predicts infinite gravity also called \'singularities\' is that in a Le Sage system at some point all particles are intercepted, so gravity has a limit.
A much clearer different is that the Le Sage theory of gravity doesn\'t work, and relativity does.
A relativitistic \"signularity\" isn\'t an infinity - it just a volume where space is curved enough to be closed in on itself and nothing can escape
> Nature does not know \'infinities\' (Panteltje\'s rule1) something always will break down, give way.
Jan Panteltje doesn\'t know what infinity means so his \"rule\" is just an expression of incomprehension.
> Ohms law knows infinities, 1 V in zero Ohm., that is like Einstein\'s thinking.
First find your zero ohm resistor. Super-conductors might appear to qualify but they all stop super-conducting when the circulating current gets high enough to generate a high enough magnetic field to stop then being super-conductors.
The problem here isn\'t Einstein\'s thinking but the defects in Jan Panteltje\'s thinking.
Jan is the kind of simple-minded person who gets confused about what mathematics means.
> MATH is no solution, all it does is describe quantities with incomplete equations in not fully described systems.
The math is fine, but it is just a description of a simplified reality which has been simplified enough to be susceptible to mathematics.
Incomplete, but useful, if you know what you are doing. Jan doesn\'t.
Usually it makes us look more carefully at our experiment and find what we did wrong.
> Newton\'s math breaks down when applied to observation of stars in galaxies, causing people to look for example dark matter.
There\'s nothing wrong with Newton\'s math. The problem is that the reality he was modelling was more complicated than he knew. Einstein pointed out that a more complicated model. of reality needed slightly different math which - so far - has worked fine/.
Which doesn\'t work either.
\"Later in 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (E.P.R.) imagined a thought experiment which, if one allowed for entangled states to exist, led to a paradox: either some influence travels faster than light (non-causality), or quantum physics is incomplete. None of the two terms of the alternative were admissible at the time, hence the paradox.\"
The experiment realised their 1935 thought experiment. This didn\'t defeat Einstein\'s way of thinking but rather showed that he had been thinking about a useful question.
Pity about the other stuff it predicts. Le Sage didn\'t predict the Lorentz transforms, even if you imagine that he could have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Simple and wrong.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney