Re: The Einstein Effect

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