Re: The Einstein Effect

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