Re: The Einstein Effect

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