Le Sage Gravity - some questions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ad_Absurdum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Le Sage gravity, particularly focusing on questions regarding the bending of light and the implications of low mass particles in this gravitational model. Participants explore theoretical aspects and implications of Le Sage gravity in relation to established physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether light would still be bent by gravity in the context of Le Sage gravity and if different frequencies of light would be dispersed differently compared to the bending caused by curved space.
  • Another participant asserts that Le Sage gravity has been falsified and expresses skepticism about the relevance of discussing it, citing historical context and the limitations of early understanding of light properties.
  • A further contribution suggests an alternative model where spacetime curvature behaves differently in the absence of mass, proposing that mass could "uncurve" spacetime rather than being pushed by particles, while questioning the implications for singularities.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the renewed interest in Le Sage theory, reiterating its falsification and noting the existence of a new thread on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the validity and relevance of Le Sage gravity, with some asserting its falsification while others explore theoretical implications without consensus on its applicability.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of spacetime and the implications of different gravitational models, particularly in relation to light behavior and the concept of singularities.

Ad_Absurdum
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
"Le Sage" Gravity - some questions

In "pushing" gravity of the "Le Sage" kind, caused by some type of low mass particles,

1. Would light still be bent by gravity?

2. Would the light be dispersed (each frequency bent to a different extent), thus differentiating it from the bending caused by curved space?Thanks in advance!

:smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Since Le Sage gravity has been falsified already (i.e. shown to be inconsistent with experiment) why would one care? The Wikipedia has some references to the (very early, 17th century) articles when Le Sage gravity was still considered interesting (i.e. it hadn't been falsified yet.) However, I doubt that they knew enough about the properties of light to have a definitive prediction.
 
pervect said:
Since Le Sage gravity has been falsified already (i.e. shown to be inconsistent with experiment) why would one care? The Wikipedia has some references to the (very early, 17th century) articles when Le Sage gravity was still considered interesting (i.e. it hadn't been falsified yet.) However, I doubt that they knew enough about the properties of light to have a definitive prediction.

Would the drag effect that doomed Le Sage gravity still be an issue if instead of the all-pervasive corpuscles he mentions, you had spacetime in the absence of mass be curved in the opposite way that we now assume it is around mass? Then mass would shield it by "uncurving" spacetime. You'd have the same effect as Le Sage but there are no particles pushing to cause drag. It's just the shape of the universe that does the pushing. It would be like spacetime is a plateau above the minimum (zero spacetime curvature) and mass creates valleys in it that can only go as deep as the minimum (a black hole). But that seems to me to be indistinguishable from Einstein's view to me as far as the observed results. Only what would this version say about singularities? They don't have infinite gravitation, but instead have 100% "uncurving".

I'm probably completely off on some obvious thing but I don't know what it is - so don't flame me. I just want to know what's wrong with this idea.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the sudden resurgence in interest in LeSage theory, which has (as I mentioned) been falsified.

Since this is a necropost (reopening a very old post), and we already have a new thread on LeSage gravity under another name, I'm locking this thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K