5 ms·

time dialation (something completely alien to all before him No, not so much. You missed this in my GP comment: "Hendrik Lorentz proposed that the motion of t

time dialation (something completely alien to all before him No, not so much. You missed this in my GP comment: "Hendrik Lorentz proposed that the motion of the apparatus through the aether may cause the apparatus to contract along its length in the direction of motion, and he further assumed, that the time variable for moving systems must also be changed accordingly ("local time"), which led to the formulation of the Lorentz transformation."

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>>time dialation (something completely alien to all before him >Hendrik Lorentz prop Lorentz did not think that time actually dilated; his notion of "local time" he considered purely a mathematical trick, unrelated to actual physics, in the same manner that renormalization sweeps away infinities in a clever manner. Here's the quote: "While for Lorentz length contraction was a real physical effect, he considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation from the resting to a "fictitious" moving system. " [1] So no, Lorentz absolutely did not think physical time actually dilated. Stop repeating this nonsense. Also, Lorentz was not the first to publish the time dilation formula. And, like Lorentz, all before him thought it a neat mathematical trick, devoid of actual physics. Poincare did think it may be actual time dilation, but he too lacked the insights that Einstein had that put these dilation and stretching concepts not as ad-hoc after effects, but that they come from a simple, single physical principle. What's more, Einstein's way of looking at it all was the one that turned out to match reality the best. For example, in 1905 Poincare introduced "Poincare stresses", another fictitious set of forces, to reconcile the math they didn't like from what they thought of as reality. Lorentz and Poincare used the now-disproven aether as the basis for their theories. Einstein did not. Spend a moment reading that wiki page, replete with sources, and especially the section on "The shift to relativity." It's abundantly clear that Einstein was the first to publish the correct interpretation, devoid of all the ad hoc (and physically incorrect) assumptions that Lorentz, Poincare, and others, used to reconcile their belief with the evidence. Einstein, in one simple argument, showed that one simple physical idea - light has the same speed regardless of observer - leads to the correct equations that model reality, needs no other ad hoc forces or aether or any other items. Here's [2] notes from a talk I gave (and still give from time to time) on a simple derivation of all these things from the one principle. You spend an incredible amount of time misrepresenting and discounting the work of Einstein, so much so that you're posting many, many wrong items. I gave up listing them since the sheer amount of it baffling. Why? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory [2] https://lomont.org/papers/2011/SpaceTimeTalk.pdf https://lomont.org/papers/2011/SpaceTimeTalk.pdf
- catmistake 6y ago
  It is in the ballpark. The point is that Einstein did not pull a rabbit out of his hat, others had thought similar weirdness, and Einstein was aware of it.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    Claiming as factual all the things you did is not "in the ballpark." It's simply wrong, and oddly skewed to paint the worst possible light with ad hominem, misconceptions, and lies. Yes, plenty of people were working on similar stuff - this is true for every single case I've ever dug into (Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Einstein, Witten, Feynman, Wright Brothers, Marconi, transistor, laser, fission, fusion, ...), but to claim (as you did) that the person who actually make the breakthrough did not do it (and backing it by lies, as I sourced), is deceitful. I've yet to see someone create something so vastly improved from the world around them that it would not have been made by another person or group immediately. But that does not mean it's fine to discount the work of the person who did it first, especially if that requires falsehoods.
    - catmistake 6y ago
      No, I was correct. Ad hominem is an attack. I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        >Ad hominem is an attack. Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument. >I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. I didn't say tou attacked me. You threw in Einstein being a womanizer in a discussion about people worthy of Nobel Prizes. I don't think the Nobel comittee takes that into consideration. >Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. Agreed. Since you brought up unfounded paranoia, and since you thought the ad hominem was about you attacking me when that is not what I wrote, you should get that paranoia checked :) >My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe. I never claimed anything like that. Strawman? I agree he didn't operate in a vacuum, which is why I think there's ample evidence his work would have been done by others soon after he did it if he did not exist. This is true for just about every person and discovery. You're the one arguing that all of mankind could not have developed General Relativity for decades without Einstein. Which is it? Was his work able to be done by others around the same time (i.e., not in a vacuum), or was his work so spectacular and impossible for all of mankind to not be able to produce it for decades (i.e., the walks on water argument)?

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>>time dialation (something completely alien to all before him >Hendrik Lorentz prop Lorentz did not think that time actually dilated; his notion of "local time" he considered purely a mathematical trick, unrelated to actual physics, in the same manner that renormalization sweeps away infinities in a clever manner. Here's the quote: "While for Lorentz length contraction was a real physical effect, he considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation from the resting to a "fictitious" moving system. " [1] So no, Lorentz absolutely did not think physical time actually dilated. Stop repeating this nonsense. Also, Lorentz was not the first to publish the time dilation formula. And, like Lorentz, all before him thought it a neat mathematical trick, devoid of actual physics. Poincare did think it may be actual time dilation, but he too lacked the insights that Einstein had that put these dilation and stretching concepts not as ad-hoc after effects, but that they come from a simple, single physical principle. What's more, Einstein's way of looking at it all was the one that turned out to match reality the best. For example, in 1905 Poincare introduced "Poincare stresses", another fictitious set of forces, to reconcile the math they didn't like from what they thought of as reality. Lorentz and Poincare used the now-disproven aether as the basis for their theories. Einstein did not. Spend a moment reading that wiki page, replete with sources, and especially the section on "The shift to relativity." It's abundantly clear that Einstein was the first to publish the correct interpretation, devoid of all the ad hoc (and physically incorrect) assumptions that Lorentz, Poincare, and others, used to reconcile their belief with the evidence. Einstein, in one simple argument, showed that one simple physical idea - light has the same speed regardless of observer - leads to the correct equations that model reality, needs no other ad hoc forces or aether or any other items. Here's [2] notes from a talk I gave (and still give from time to time) on a simple derivation of all these things from the one principle. You spend an incredible amount of time misrepresenting and discounting the work of Einstein, so much so that you're posting many, many wrong items. I gave up listing them since the sheer amount of it baffling. Why? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory [2] https://lomont.org/papers/2011/SpaceTimeTalk.pdf https://lomont.org/papers/2011/SpaceTimeTalk.pdf

catmistake 6y ago
It is in the ballpark. The point is that Einstein did not pull a rabbit out of his hat, others had thought similar weirdness, and Einstein was aware of it.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  Claiming as factual all the things you did is not "in the ballpark." It's simply wrong, and oddly skewed to paint the worst possible light with ad hominem, misconceptions, and lies. Yes, plenty of people were working on similar stuff - this is true for every single case I've ever dug into (Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Einstein, Witten, Feynman, Wright Brothers, Marconi, transistor, laser, fission, fusion, ...), but to claim (as you did) that the person who actually make the breakthrough did not do it (and backing it by lies, as I sourced), is deceitful. I've yet to see someone create something so vastly improved from the world around them that it would not have been made by another person or group immediately. But that does not mean it's fine to discount the work of the person who did it first, especially if that requires falsehoods.
  - catmistake 6y ago
    No, I was correct. Ad hominem is an attack. I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      >Ad hominem is an attack. Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument. >I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. I didn't say tou attacked me. You threw in Einstein being a womanizer in a discussion about people worthy of Nobel Prizes. I don't think the Nobel comittee takes that into consideration. >Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. Agreed. Since you brought up unfounded paranoia, and since you thought the ad hominem was about you attacking me when that is not what I wrote, you should get that paranoia checked :) >My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe. I never claimed anything like that. Strawman? I agree he didn't operate in a vacuum, which is why I think there's ample evidence his work would have been done by others soon after he did it if he did not exist. This is true for just about every person and discovery. You're the one arguing that all of mankind could not have developed General Relativity for decades without Einstein. Which is it? Was his work able to be done by others around the same time (i.e., not in a vacuum), or was his work so spectacular and impossible for all of mankind to not be able to produce it for decades (i.e., the walks on water argument)?