• The Einstein Effect

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 6 07:36:05 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jan 6 22:17:20 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Mon Jan 6 16:48:52 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 6 20:06:50 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 6 17:38:28 2025
    On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 20:06:50 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    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.

    That's insane.


    .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 7 14:48:55 2025
    On 7/01/2025 11:48 am, 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.

    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.

    But he did have a close relationship with the male Swiss mathematician
    Nicolas Fatio De Duillier, and was distressed for quite while after it
    ended.

    Nicolas Fatio De Duillier has come up here before - he seems to have
    been the first person to come up with what is now known as the Le Sage
    theory of gravity (which can't be made to work but Jan Panteltje likes).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 7 10:49:57 2025
    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 orginalpaper 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.

    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.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed Jan 8 01:44:02 2025
    On 7/01/2025 9:49 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
    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.

    At least for some people. Trump got re-elected after telling the
    electorate that immigrants in Ohio were killing and eating people's
    pets. The mainstream media couldn't find any evidence that this had ever happened, and Karmala Harris couldn't hide her amusement when he
    advanced the claim in the notionally presidential debate

    The internet does seem to be delivering nonsense to gullible twits on a
    massive scale - Cursitor Doom and John Larkin re-post some the choicer
    items here.

    Getting good data from even the scientific literature does depend on
    exercising quite a bit of careful scepticism, and it doesn't seem to be
    a skill that is widely taught - John Larkin sees to have got through a
    science course at Tulane without acquiring it.

    <snipped sensible stuff about Newton - Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" cover's Newton's life, and Newton does show up in it from time to time,
    more or less correctly depicted.>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Tue Jan 7 15:14:18 2025
    On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 10:49:57 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

    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 orginalpaper 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.

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Wed Jan 8 09:47:37 2025
    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed Jan 8 14:55:59 2025
    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,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don on Wed Jan 8 15:44:23 2025
    On 08/01/2025 14:55, Don wrote:
    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>

    The dose always makes the poison. Some very effective drugs don't have
    a lot of leeway between their effective dose and LD50.

    Water can be lethal if you consume too much of it in a short time as one unlucky "Hold your wee for a wii" contestant found out the hard way.

    https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712

    Electrolyte imbalance is also the root cause of many MDMA deaths.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0736467909003291

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jan 8 17:42:39 2025
    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,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed Jan 8 18:13:34 2025
    On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:47:37 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

    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.

    Ah - you're right. It was drinking the stuff they used to do! I can guess
    what the chief alternative was and I agree drinking mercury has more
    appeal! :-D

    Before antibiotics it was also used as a dangerous "cure" for syphilis.

    Not quite sure how that could work, but I'll take your word for it.

    https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the-use-
    of-mercury

    Oh, right.

    Calomel as mercurous chloride did slightly work for some skin infections
    but soluble mercury salts are all deadly poisonous.

    True, but the nastiest variant by a country mile is dimethylmercury,
    exposure to which gives rise to an extremely unpleasant and protracted
    death.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Don on Wed Jan 8 18:16:21 2025
    On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 14:55:59 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:

    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,

    Paracelsus told us that it's not the substance itself but the dose of it
    that makes the poison and if you think about it, it's perfectly true.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don on Thu Jan 9 10:14:22 2025
    On 08/01/2025 17:42, 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.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Thu Jan 9 17:26:02 2025
    Martin Brown 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>

    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.

    And thank you for the link to the pertinent paper. Here's a paper about Archimedes' contribution to calculus:

    <https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=jhm>

    Although Achimedes apparently approaches integration from a geometric perspective, Newton's calculus uses Cartesian coordinates.

    Danke,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Don on Thu Jan 9 10:48:19 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jan 9 23:54:46 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Thu Jan 9 16:41:34 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 05:35:22 2025
    On 2025-01-10, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> 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.

    Gravitaional waves have been detected.

    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.

    Would that reduce the mass? photos have mass.

    If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
    Wouldn't that make it lose energy?

    ??? if it was traveling faster than light perhaps.


    Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.

    What's the diference between a moving thing and a not moving thing?

    The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.

    It seems that it is hard to build a microphone for it

    --
    Jasen.
    🇺🇦 Слава Україні

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 05:38:10 2025
    On 2025-01-10, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> 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.

    Gravitaional waves have been detected.

    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.

    Would that reduce the mass? photos have mass.

    If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
    Wouldn't that make it lose energy?

    This is why the the moon orbits higher and the earth spins slower.

    Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.

    What's the diference between a moving thing and a not moving thing?
    (there is no difference)
    We call this effect tidal force.

    The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.

    It seems that it is hard to build a microphone for it

    --
    Jasen.
    🇺🇦 Слава Україні

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 10:33:13 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 10:03:27 2025
    On 09/01/2025 18:48, 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.

    Classical gravity has infinite velocity. Newton's action at a distance.
    If it wasn't instantaneous we would spiral into the sun.

    GR treats mass as altering the spacetime around it - redefining straight
    lines or geodesics there are no forces acting at all.

    It is *changes* in gravitational potential that propagate away from the
    objects causing them at the speed of light. Mass warps spacetime so that straight lines are no longer straight in the classical Euclidean sense.

    The most common source of detectable gravitational waves is a black hole
    merger where they spin up ever faster causing a characteristic chirp.
    Basically matter going down the plug hole in very big lumps.

    The site that allows you to see the most recent one is called "Chirp": https://chirp.research.exeter.ac.uk/latest

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 23:55:16 2025
    On 10/01/2025 11:41 am, 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?



    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 stars fall into back holes, and accelerate to the speed of light
    in the process, and we don't seem to notice, that hypothesis does seem
    to be invalid.
    Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
    that.

    Probably a little more clearly than you have.

    If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
    Wouldn't that make it lose energy?

    Most of the gravitational waves we have observed seem to have been
    created by small - stellar - black holes merging, though there are a few neutron star pairs in the data as well.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157322000175

    Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.

    Not all that much,

    The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.

    It isn't

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

    detects remarkably small displacements. The variations we see from tidal effects are pretty slow and wouldn't be audible if converted to an
    acoustic signal.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 13:21:48 2025
    On 10/01/2025 00:41, 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?

    Jeroen is right. It is a corollary of a still unproved but empirically
    observed to be true Bode's law for the orbital distances of the planets
    (and corresponding rules for multiple moons of the gas giants).

    This also happens in simulations. It is called Ovenden's conjecture and
    it comes down to saying that dynamical systems of stars or planets will
    settle down into a configuration where their orbital periods are in
    certain simple ratios to one another. They do this typically by three
    body close encounters where the lightest one is either flung out of the
    system or to a higher or lower more elliptical orbit.

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/115/3/296/2603818

    The simplest form is tidal locking as has happened to our moon.

    He doesn't get the credit he deserves for this still unproven but highly plausible conjecture. Not even a mention in Wiki (that I can find).

    Here is his obituary from JRASC:

    https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987JRASC..81..109B/0000109.000.html

    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

    Globular clusters are quite fun in that respect in that they are locked
    into a configuration that becomes ever more ordered and tightly bound by throwing out stars at high speed from time to time. It takes a three (or
    more) body close encounter for this to happen. In simulations it tends
    to happen way more often than in reality unless you soften the force law
    at close proximity (a limitation of fixed step integration methods).

    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.

    The moving photons produced still have the same mass as the mass that
    they replaced. This happens in positron annihilation for example.

    Since Al discovered E = MC^2, you'd think he would have thought about
    that.

    He did and it is. Photons have no rest mass, but are not at rest.

    If something moves really fast, does it make a gravitational wake?
    Wouldn't that make it lose energy?

    Yes. It has been measured and the behaviour is exactly consistent with
    GR predictions for the rate of energy loss. The binary pulsar where you
    have two precision standard clocks in mutual (gradually decaying orbits)
    was the first test of the theory back in 1984.

    Moving things must lose energy. They wiggle other things as they pass.

    The g-field around us must be very noisy. Must sound cool.

    The only times when it is in about the audio range is when there is a
    black hole merger with at least a neutron star.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Jan 10 08:46:21 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 17:05:24 2025
    On 10/01/2025 16:46, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    A single planet in orbit around a sun can have any orbital period it
    likes but once it becomes a 3 (or more) body problem it has to satisfy
    certain heuristic rules that in handwaving terms amount to that they
    stay out of each other's way as much as possible. That translates to
    having orbital periods that follow a simple ratio rule.

    Bode's law is the heuristic one for our solar system. A slightly
    different rule applies to Jupiters Galilean moons and to Saturn's.

    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.

    Photons have no *rest* mass, but they are not stationary either.

    E = mc^2

    Cuts both ways. The matter converted into photons still has mass just
    that mass is moving away from its start position at the speed of light. Expanding uniformly assuming it was symmetrical to begin with. Gauss's

    They are just as much influenced by gravity in GR as anything else is.
    GR bends spacetime and photons travel the shortest time path or geodesic between any two points. Eddington measured the sun bending starlight to
    test Einstein's theory of GR.

    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.

    Not much of one. You really have to throw things about violently for any
    of the GR corrections to classical dynamics to come into play. Tightly
    bound pairs of neutron stars make excellent testbed for this.

    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.

    Most of the slowdown would come from blue shifted microwave background
    photons and intergalactic medium hitting the leading edge of the object.

    We see this actually happening in FR type II radio galaxies where the relativistic beam hits the intergalactic medium and lights it up.

    Canonical example is the jet in Cygnus A which was first seen in 1983. https://www.nrao.edu/archives/items/show/33384

    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.

    It has to be multiple solar masses and near light speed before
    gravitational radiation is noticeable at any distance from the source.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jan 10 17:53:10 2025
    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.

    Danke,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 10 21:57:23 2025
    On 1/10/25 17:46, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    Again, the timescale and size of the phenomena make it hard to
    see, but given enough time, orbits of multiple objects around
    one planet tend to settle into harmonically related periods,
    with the relations being simple rational numbers. That is,
    they tend to settle into discrete values.

    The time and size scales are incommensurate compared to similar
    effects in atomic and nuclear phenomena, but the general idea is
    analogous. It's just that it takes hundreds of millions of years
    rather than femtoseconds.





    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.

    Einstein derived that light *is* affected by gravity and Eddington
    confirmed it by actual measurement.


    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.

    Yes, I agree in principle.

    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.

    In the framework of GR, only accelerated masses radiate.

    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.

    OK, but the sensitivity of current detectors at nHz frequencies
    is utterly inadequate, so even if you'd speed up the recordings,
    all you'd get would be detector noise.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Don on Sat Jan 11 15:26:21 2025
    On 11/01/2025 4:53 am, 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, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jan 11 17:19:05 2025
    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)

    Danke,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Don on Sun Jan 12 14:07:31 2025
    On 12/01/2025 4:19 am, Don wrote:
    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. ...

    In fact is was primitive way of handling elliptical orbits before they
    were recognised to be elliptical. It was a well-thought-through
    complication that worked pretty well.

    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.

    It took a long time before we had enough precise observations to nail
    down the deviations from Newton's Law of Gravitation.

    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.

    The standard model fits current observations pretty well. As with
    Einstein's elaboration of Newton's over-simple theory, any new theory
    has to fit the observations we've made so far.

    That isn't wishful thinking - rather a better grasp of reality than you
    seem to have.

    It is rather a Copernicus or a Kepler that is needed.

    Copernicus articulated an idea. Kepler took Brahe's precise
    observations, and gave Newton organised data that was good enough to be
    worth thinking about

    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.

    Probably wrong. The standard model fit's some aspects of reality
    remarkably well

    But this is a much too
    scary perspective for particle physicists to let it even
    faintly cross their minds.

    Don't be silly.

    Besides the epicycle model that dominated astronomy for
    fifteen centuries, history has instructive examples on a
    much shorter time scale.

    Epicycles fitted the crude eyeball data which was all we had for fifteen centuries. Brahe's data was still eyeball data, but he used huge and
    expensive observational tools to make his observations somewhat more
    precise than anybody had managed before.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Don on Sun Jan 12 09:44:29 2025
    On 11/01/2025 17:19, Don wrote:
    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)

    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.


    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Jan 12 13:56:26 2025
    Martin Brown wrote:
    Don wrote:
    Bill Sloman wrote:
    Don wrote:

    <snip>

    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.

    If I remember correctly, in her video HOW WE KNOW THAT EINSTEIN'S
    GENERAL RELATIVITY CAN'T BE QUITE RIGHT [1], Sabine Hossenfelder
    more-or-less says Einstein's Field Equations are relatively easy for
    DIYers (eg me), to master. It encouraged me to use a JPL tutorial [2]
    to teach it to myself. Subsequently, the topic of cosmology was
    mentally parked on my brain's back burner for the time being.

    Schockly puts Schroedinger's Equation to good use in ELECTRONS AND
    HOLES In SEMICONDUCTORS. In regards to Schroedinger's Equation, Bohmeian Mechanics [3] currently piques my interest. THE METAPHYSICS OF BOHMIAN MECHANICS by De Guyter gave me a peek inside the rabbit hole.

    Note.

    [1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY>
    [2] <https://spsweb.fltops.jpl.nasa.gov/portaldataops/mpg/MPG_Docs/Source%20Docs/Einstein%27s%20Field%20Equations.pdf>
    [3] <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/>

    Danke,

    --
    Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
    There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
    She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jan 13 10:43:10 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 14 17:29:51 2025
    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?

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Tue Jan 14 11:06:26 2025
    On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:29:51 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    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?

    He doesn't say a lot about Einstein. He mostly talks about himself.
    When he described, in detail, barfing in an airplane, I quit reading.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)