Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: The Einstein Effect
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:07:31 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vlvblj$sikk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qltnnj9qkarh9ieam06qn7l2hkjmje5ps1@4ax.com>
 <20250108b@crcomp.net> <ac60ojth5iktk05rip5mk5ho0hhku67q2b@4ax.com>
 <vlpjrn$3j05h$1@dont-email.me> <20250110a@crcomp.net>
 <vlsrtr$fbdk$1@dont-email.me> <20250111a@crcomp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 04:07:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c5e6aea5f0ff697f24c6e88782f0981";
	logging-data="936596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19doGE8IxUbklEa9oWzsYqs7CeYBD+hzpI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u5ejUS/4+SrApiz+bYprIG2aZd8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250111-4, 12/1/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20250111a@crcomp.net>
Bytes: 6148

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