Strange

What "effect" does a combination of digits have? What does "a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations" mean?

Are you suggesting that numbers have some sort of physical existence?

You could try contacting one of the LIGO team to ask if anyone has simulated this case. You could start here: https://stuver.blogspot.com/p/ask-question.html Or here: https://cplberry.com/ The energy radiated would depend on relative mass difference, relative speed, the angular momentum of each and ... who knows what else. So you would probably only get an approximate answer, anyway. I assume less than the usual case, just because it happens much more quickly. On the other hand, it is a very big universe. So it could happen.

! Moderator Note "The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science." I would move this to Biology but it seems that the person who said "there is no such thing as a stupid question" was mistaken.

You are correct. But these are different.In the case of the thermal energy of atoms, there is no rest frame where it becomes zero. So there is an energy contribution to the mass in the rest frame of the object. And so it contributes to the rest mass.

Yes. Which is why physics always uses the rest mass which is the "real" mass of the object. Of "things" in the most general sense. Anything we can measure the properties of (definitions tend to get circular when you reach the fundamental concepts) whether that is matter or photons or complete systems. (One could go down a wormhole of what is a "thing", what is "real", what "exists", etc.)

If there was a cause, then it wasn't a coincidence. I have bumped into people I know on the street in a city on the other side of the world, by pure chance. That may seem incredibly unlikely, but think of all the billions of people who haven't bumped into someone they know like that.

Yes. So maybe I am asking why those specific pairs are related via Fourier transforms. No, there isn't. Which is interesting.

! Moderator Note This makes no sense.

What evidence do you have that “only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void”? And what is a “numerical device”? One what? And what is a “mathematical proxy representation”?

It is impossible to give an exact answer without running simulations on a supercomputer. I have never heard of anyone modelling this case, presumably because it is so unlikely. I would guess there would be a narrow spike followed by a brief ringdown phase. The precise details would be affected by the relative orientation of their angular momentum

! Moderator Note Some unhelpful posts have been hidden

I don't see how it could be intentional. So a coincidence. How likely is it? Hard to say, but often these things are not as unlikely as you might think. For example, the message board probably attracts people with similar interests. And people with similar interests often work in the same company. (Every company I have worked in has been full of engineers. That is probably not purely by chance.) And then you need to take into account that it may not be the same person, but just someone who looks similar. If you have just seen a new photo, you may be "primed" to spot someone who looks similar. In the same way that when you buy a new car, you suddenly see far more of them on the road than you did before. Then you need to remember that even if the chance is a million to one it is still quite likely to happen. There may be more than a billion people who use message boards and forums on a regular basis. It would be expected that several of those would experience million-to-one events.

! Moderator Note Quantum theory is perhaps the best and most accurately tested theory ever created. If you repeat nonsense like this, the thread will be closed.

Someone asked a question the other day that made me realise that there seems to be a parallel between the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) and Noether's theorem. For example, one conjugate pair of variables in the HUP is energy and time. While in Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is related to time symmetry. Another conjugate pair is momentum and position. And the conservation of momentum is related to spatial translation symmetry. I assume this is not just a coincidence. So is there a deeper reason? Is Noether's theorem the reason why these are conjugate pairs?

Simply repeating your false assertion won't magically make it true. A dimension can be defined very roughly as the number of bit of data needed to define a location. So, in 3D space you need 3 bits of information: x, y, z for example. In 4D spacetime you need four bits of information: the three spatial ones plus time. On the surface of a sphere you only need two numbers (latitude and longitude, for example). That is why the surface is two dimensional.

The SURFACE is two dimensional. Do you know what "dimension" means? DO you know what "surface" means? Do you know what it means to be two dimensional? Apparently not. "a sphere ... is a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in a three-dimensional Euclidean space" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere A surface is two dimensional.

It isn't, mathematically. But even if we go for the informal definition of a sphere as a 3D object, the surface is two dimensional with a finite area and no boundary. The surface of the Earth, for example, is two dimensional and does not have an edge. Unless you are a flat-earther and think that you will fall off the edge if you try and sail all the way round.

Mass and energy are equivalent. They are both properties of "things" (in the most general sense). Energy is a property. But I suppose the one property it has is that it is conserved. One definition of energy is simply that it is a bookkeeping device, a conserved property of systems.

Even in a non-inertial frame or in the presence of gravity (which the continuous acceleration of a centrifuge is equivalent to) the local speed of light is still c. You might determine the speed of light outside the centrifuge to be different(*), but you will always measure it locally as c. (*) Off the top of my head, I am not sure if that is the case or not.

We are talking about the surface of a sphere (the surface of the Earth, if you like). Or, as studiot correctly points out, a sphere. A sphere (the 2D surface) does not have an edge, border or boundary. It is a continuous, unbounded surface with a finite area. If you are unable to understand this simple mathematical (and practical) fact, I am not sure why we should take your random assertions too seriously. A sphere is a 2D surface.

Who are you addressing? What does what mean?

! Moderator Note These (and other statements you have made) are incorrect and demonstrate a profound ignorance of physics. If you keep making factually incorrect statements such as this, the thread will be closed.

Really? Where is the end of the world?

Why is it logically flawed? You are just saying that without showing any logic. You may believe the universe has always been here but you have provided no evidence or logic to support that belief. Did you miss this: The surface of a sphere is unbounded but finite. In case you missed it again: The surface of a sphere is UNBOUNDED but FINITE.