https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very weird guy.
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the- >puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very
weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom ><cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
<https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339>
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very >>> weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
Which explains why he never had a girlfriend.
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 16:48:52 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >><cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
<https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339>
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very >>>> weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
Which explains why he never had a girlfriend.
For every weird man there is an equally weird woman, and vice versa.
He took a vow of chastity, as required to be a Fellow of Trinity
College. Probably more interested in math than marriage.
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>
Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very >>> weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
Which explains why he never had a girlfriend.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a very >>> weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
Which explains why he never had a girlfriend.
On 07/01/2025 00:48, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the- >>> puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
You do realise that the title of the book is actually taken from a paper about how total gibberish prose attributed to a scientist is more often believed by the general public than the same gibberish prose attributed
to a mystic guru (aka religious leader proxy).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01273-8
That is behind a Nature paywall but the original paper is free access here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347290885_The_Einstein_effect_Global_evidence_for_scientific_source_credibility_effects_and_the_influence_of_religiosity
Religious leaders will just have to get used to the idea that scientists
and rational thought now hold sway over ignorance and superstition.
On 07/01/2025 00:48, john larkin wrote:the-
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-
347290885_The_Einstein_effect_Global_evidence_for_scientific_source_credibility_effects_and_the_influence_of_religiositypuzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
You do realise that the Title of the book is actually taken from a paper about how total gibberish prose attributed to a scientist is more often believed by the general public than the same gibberish prose attributed
to a mystic guru (aka religious leader proxy).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01273-8
That is behind a Nature paywall but the orginalpaper is free access
here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Religious leaders will just have to get used to the idea that scientists
and rational thought now hold sway over ignorance and superstition.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Not just weird but deeply unpleasant.
Which explains why he never had a girlfriend.
It is interesting that Oxford university now host the Newton Project
which is slowly building up a picture of his private and public life in
as much as it is possible from the very limited historical records
available.
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-personal-life
His physics research is well documented and copies of his published
works with additional annotation in his own hand are known.
He was intensely private and somewhat insecure which led to some of his
spats with Hooke (who was a brilliant experimentalist) and Leibnitz (who
was a brilliant mathematician). We should all give thanks that Leibnitz notation for calculus ultimately won out although fluxions f, f' and f"
live on.
Modern diagnosis might be something like manic depressive genius (he did
have what would today be considered a mental breakdown in 1693 after not sleeping for 5 days). He thought his friends were conspiring against
him.
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 10:49:57 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
ISTR inhaling mercury fumes was a 'cure' for constipation in those days. Supposedly. Not terribly effective and with possible side-effects that
today would be unacceptable to say the least.
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
ISTR inhaling mercury fumes was a 'cure' for constipation in those days.
Supposedly. Not terribly effective and with possible side-effects that
today would be unacceptable to say the least.
Not quite. Drinking a small amount as liquid metal was though and had
been used since Roman times. Possibly better than the alternatives.
Before antibiotics it was also used as a dangerous "cure" for syphilis.
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the-use-of-mercury
Calomel as mercurous chloride did slightly work for some skin infections
but soluble mercury salts are all deadly poisonous.
Breathing mercury fumes makes you go mad - hence the Mad Hatter's Tea
Party in Alice in Wonderland. World's largest zenith telescope in Canada
used a spinning mercury mirror (it self passivates with an oxide coat so isn't anything like as dangerous as it sounds).
https://interestingengineering.com/science/largest-liquid-mirror-telescope-earth-large-zenith
Martin Brown wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
ISTR inhaling mercury fumes was a 'cure' for constipation in those days. >>> Supposedly. Not terribly effective and with possible side-effects that
today would be unacceptable to say the least.
Not quite. Drinking a small amount as liquid metal was though and had
been used since Roman times. Possibly better than the alternatives.
Before antibiotics it was also used as a dangerous "cure" for syphilis.
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the-use-of-mercury
Calomel as mercurous chloride did slightly work for some skin infections
but soluble mercury salts are all deadly poisonous.
Breathing mercury fumes makes you go mad - hence the Mad Hatter's Tea
Party in Alice in Wonderland. World's largest zenith telescope in Canada
used a spinning mercury mirror (it self passivates with an oxide coat so
isn't anything like as dangerous as it sounds).
https://interestingengineering.com/science/largest-liquid-mirror-telescope-earth-large-zenith
Many medicines are poisonous, chirally modified to make them less
potent.
In drug development, enantiomeric selection to maximize
clinical effects or mitigate drug toxicity has yielded
both success and failure.
<https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/110/1/4/1668162>
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
On 07/01/2025 15:14, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 10:49:57 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
ISTR inhaling mercury fumes was a 'cure' for constipation in those
days.
Supposedly. Not terribly effective and with possible side-effects that
today would be unacceptable to say the least.
Not quite. Drinking a small amount as liquid metal was though and had
been used since Roman times. Possibly better than the alternatives.
Before antibiotics it was also used as a dangerous "cure" for syphilis.
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the-use-of-mercury
Calomel as mercurous chloride did slightly work for some skin infections
but soluble mercury salts are all deadly poisonous.
Martin Brown wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
OTOH his alchemical interests meant breathing mercury fumes and other
noxious gasses from time to time probably didn't help either.
ISTR inhaling mercury fumes was a 'cure' for constipation in those
days.
Supposedly. Not terribly effective and with possible side-effects that
today would be unacceptable to say the least.
Not quite. Drinking a small amount as liquid metal was though and had
been used since Roman times. Possibly better than the alternatives.
Before antibiotics it was also used as a dangerous "cure" for syphilis.
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the- use-of-mercury
Calomel as mercurous chloride did slightly work for some skin
infections but soluble mercury salts are all deadly poisonous.
Breathing mercury fumes makes you go mad - hence the Mad Hatter's Tea
Party in Alice in Wonderland. World's largest zenith telescope in
Canada used a spinning mercury mirror (it self passivates with an oxide
coat so isn't anything like as dangerous as it sounds).
https://interestingengineering.com/science/largest-liquid-mirror- telescope-earth-large-zenith
Many medicines are poisonous, chirally modified to make them less
potent.
In drug development, enantiomeric selection to maximize clinical
effects or mitigate drug toxicity has yielded both success and
failure.
<https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/110/1/4/1668162>
Danke,
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
I knew they had some interesting results but not that they had
discovered full blown calculus (at least in differential forms).
The paper by the Manchester & Exeter team is online free access here:
http://ckraju.net/Joseph/PA-3-Manchester-2007-paper.pdf
Very interesting - thanks for pointing it out.
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be gravitational waves.
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization >effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass. >
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be gravitational waves.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
On 1/10/25 01:41, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Well, yes! That's what orbital resonance is. It tends to make
moons orbit with periods related by simple rational numbers.
Their energy is then constrained to discrete levels. If that
isn't quantization, then what is?
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
Energy and mass are equivalent, so the field would not just vanish.
I'll pass about the effects of converting a gigantic mass into energy.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Yes and yes, as was recently confirmed by the detection of such waves.
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass. >
The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
Kind of hard to do. Ask the LIGO people, Except for some cataclysmic
events, the noise is really low frequency too, in the nHz domain and
below.
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:33:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/10/25 01:41, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote: >>>>>
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein. >>>>>> It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Well, yes! That's what orbital resonance is. It tends to make
moons orbit with periods related by simple rational numbers.
Their energy is then constrained to discrete levels. If that
isn't quantization, then what is?
I don't think planetary orbital energies are constrained to discrete
levels, but you can define approximate periodicity to be quantization
if you like.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
Energy and mass are equivalent, so the field would not just vanish.
But photons have no mass and are unaffected by gravity.
I'll pass about the effects of converting a gigantic mass into energy.
Or take two billiard balls that collide off-center. A velocity
differential is created orthogonal to the original path. That creates
a gravitational wave.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Yes and yes, as was recently confirmed by the detection of such waves.
I was referring to uniform velocity motion there, not a giant event.
Seems like it would make a wake, and that might slow it down. In that
case, the entire universe is viscous.
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass. > >>> The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
Kind of hard to do. Ask the LIGO people, Except for some cataclysmic
events, the noise is really low frequency too, in the nHz domain and
below.
Still there, and could be speeded up for listening.
john larkin wrote:
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above
fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:33:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/10/25 01:41, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:54:46 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/9/25 19:48, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:42:39 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote: >>>>>
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein. >>>>>> It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Danke,
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
But quantized?
Well, yes! That's what orbital resonance is. It tends to make
moons orbit with periods related by simple rational numbers.
Their energy is then constrained to discrete levels. If that
isn't quantization, then what is?
I don't think planetary orbital energies are constrained to discrete
levels, but you can define approximate periodicity to be quantization
if you like.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
Jeroen Belleman
Suppose there was some gigantic mass drifting around. Everything else
in the universe would feel its gravitational attraction. Now blow it
up, convert all its mass to energy. The sudden loss of mass creates a
bubble of not-gravity that expands at the speed of light and everybody
will notice (maybe hear a click?) when it hits them, the same time as
the flash does.
Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
that.
Energy and mass are equivalent, so the field would not just vanish.
But photons have no mass and are unaffected by gravity.
I'll pass about the effects of converting a gigantic mass into energy.
Or take two billiard balls that collide off-center. A velocity
differential is created orthogonal to the original path. That creates
a gravitational wave.
If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
Wouldn't that make it lose energy?
Yes and yes, as was recently confirmed by the detection of such waves.
I was referring to uniform velocity motion there, not a giant event.
Seems like it would make a wake, and that might slow it down. In that
case, the entire universe is viscous.
Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass. > >>> The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.
Kind of hard to do. Ask the LIGO people, Except for some cataclysmic
events, the noise is really low frequency too, in the nHz domain and
below.
Still there, and could be speeded up for listening.
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
john larkin wrote:
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who
first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although
light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.
Don wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
john larkin wrote:
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein.
It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although
light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.
Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if
they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need
to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.
Bill Sloman wrote:
Don wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
john larkin wrote:
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein. >>>>>> It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although
light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.
Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable
representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if
they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need
to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.
Propositions promulgated by PR people such as Bernays are often widely accepted.
THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICISTS FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE
the epicycle theory has become a synonym of thoughtless
complication. ...
Einstein's general relativity refined Newton's law of
gravitation, but it did not simplify it in the sense that
it needed less parameters. Newton's theory never underwent
the piling up of absurd complications that we know from
the standard model.
Nevertheless they dare to compare
their illogical turmoil to Newton's clear thoughts, hoping
that the standard model will be "embedded" by a future
theory of the sought-after new Einstein. Wishful thinking.
It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed.
All that will remain after the crash of the standard model,
when the thin fouling is brushed off the rocks, is quantum
mechanics as developed in the 1920s.
But this is a much too
scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
faintly cross their minds.
Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
much shorter time scale.
Bill Sloman wrote:
Don wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
john larkin wrote:
Don wrote:
john larkin wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a >>>>>>> very weird guy.
Einstein loved the sound of his own metaphysical bark and wasn't above >>>>>> fudging the score:
<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>
Regardless, my followup isn't about this thread's titular Einstein. >>>>>> It's about Newton.
"Did you know? It was AYABHATA & not Newton or (sic) Leibniz who >>>>>> first developed Calculus"
<https://x.com/Aelthemplaer/status/1874573331330167032>
Seems to me that if gravity has finite velocity, there have to be
gravitational waves.
Yes, and if there are gravitational waves, there must be quantization
effects. Where waves and matter interact, quantization occurs. The
scale of the phenomena, both in time and in size, may make it hard
to recognize it as such though.
That said, there are plenty of examples of quantization effects in
the behaviour of objects in our solar system. Orbital resonances,
tidal locking, Trojans, what else?.
Come to think of it, when a star gets ejected at high speed from a
star cluster, as sometimes happens, isn't that in some way similar
to the decay of a radioactive atom?
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although
light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.
Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable
representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if
they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need
to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.
Propositions promulgated by PR people such as Bernays are often widely accepted.
THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICISTS FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE
the epicycle theory has become a synonym of thoughtless
complication. ...
Einstein's general relativity refined Newton's law of
gravitation, but it did not simplify it in the sense that
it needed less parameters. Newton's theory never underwent
the piling up of absurd complications that we know from
the standard model. Nevertheless they dare to compare
their illogical turmoil to Newton's clear thoughts, hoping
that the standard model will be "embedded" by a future
theory of the sought-after new Einstein. Wishful thinking.
It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed. All
that will remain after the crash of the standard model,
when the thin fouling is brushed off the rocks, is quantum
mechanics as developed in the 1920s. But this is a much too
scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
faintly cross their minds.
Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
much shorter time scale.
(excerpt)
Don wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Don wrote:
For what it's worth, both the photoelectric effect in Einstein's
equation and Millikan's measurement make perfect sense to me. Although >>>> light with weight works with me, things begin to become unworkable
with Schrödinger and Einstein's field equations.
Schroedinger's and Einstein's field equation are both perfectly workable >>> representations of reality. They wouldn't have become widely accepted if >>> they weren't. If you can't get them to work for you, you probably need
to sign up for a university course to improve your skills.
Propositions promulgated by PR people such as Bernays are often widely
accepted.
THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICISTS FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE
the epicycle theory has become a synonym of thoughtless
complication. ...
Einstein's general relativity refined Newton's law of
gravitation, but it did not simplify it in the sense that
it needed less parameters. Newton's theory never underwent
the piling up of absurd complications that we know from
the standard model. Nevertheless they dare to compare
their illogical turmoil to Newton's clear thoughts, hoping
that the standard model will be "embedded" by a future
theory of the sought-after new Einstein. Wishful thinking.
It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed. All
that will remain after the crash of the standard model,
when the thin fouling is brushed off the rocks, is quantum
mechanics as developed in the 1920s. But this is a much too
scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
faintly cross their minds.
Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
much shorter time scale.
(excerpt)
In their day epicycles applied to circles were the forerunner of modern Fourier theory and could be used to model the movements of planets with increasing degrees of accuracy with ever more terms used.
A mathematical model of the physical laws is just that. There may be a
better one just around the corner but until that new method is found something that works well enough to be useful is better than nothing.
The modern VSOP model of solar system dynamics has an incredible number
of harmonic terms for the mutual interactions of the various planets.
The real world is seldom simple when you want ultimate precision and accuracy.
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Cohen's book is horrible, unreadable.
On 13/01/2025 18:43, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:36:05 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/einstein-and-adam-grant-agree-the-puzzle-principle-will-make-you-instantly-smarter/91102339
Cohen's book looks interesting, so I ordered it.
I'm now reading Gleick's short biography of Isaac Newton, who was a
very weird guy.
Cohen's book is horrible, unreadable.
Shame - was it badly written or factually incorrect?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 108:32:24 |
Calls: | 8,692 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,257 |
Messages: | 5,948,428 |