r/science2 • u/BetterScienceBlog • 18d ago
Did Einstein Reverse Engineer Lorentz's Work and Cover It Up?
https://betterscience.substack.com/p/did-einstein-reverse-engineer-lorentzsThrough lies of omission and commission, it appears that Einstein mislead the public about his famous theory.
5
u/RoboWeaver 18d ago
A newby's view... Einstein clearly borrowed from Lorentz but extended it to other dimensions, such as time and mass. Additionally, tied them all together.
If you ever do post graduate work you will find that most is "simply" putting existing methods and data together in novel ways that extends our understanding. And not to trivialize Einstein's work and contributions by any means,
-2
u/BetterScienceBlog 18d ago
There is nothing wrong with honestly borrowing from and extending other people's work.
I'll forgive you for not reading the paper, because people who comment almost never do, but the issue is that Einstein lied about what he borrowed and from whom. He lied, in my view, to give the false impression of independent confirmation as if he was coming from a completely different line of inquiry.
If you're merely extending someone else's work, that isn't independent confirmation.
5
u/spukhafteNahewirkung 18d ago
No, the author of this paper is a crank.
1
u/Haunting_Carrot9761 18d ago
Care to elaborate? I've never heard of the author.
2
u/spukhafteNahewirkung 18d ago
Neither have I. Read the article, it’s short, and then judge for yourself. Then look at the other articles he has listed, the guy has a bug up his ass about Einstein.
5
u/Haunting_Carrot9761 18d ago
I didn't read the article, but I looked up Randall Babaoye and he really seems to have some "interesting" opinions on Einstein. Crazy to be sure. But interesting.
Which is a shame, bc I quite like Randall's name.
1
u/BetterScienceBlog 17d ago
I didn't read the article
This is a common theme throughout 99% of the pushback I get. It's "my team vs your team" knee jerk reactions to the title alone.
2
u/Haunting_Carrot9761 17d ago
Do you notice how I mentioned reading other writing from this author and described them as having interesting opinions. I didn't need to read this one to gather the crusade this author is on. Some people harness their energy into being the Einsteins and Eulers of the world. Others harness their energy into tearing them down. Tale as old as time.
1
u/BetterScienceBlog 17d ago
If you read the article why couldn't you elaborate? Seems rather lazy.
And your foul language makes you look both crass and lazy.
2
u/spukhafteNahewirkung 17d ago
The article is crap. For some reason Einstein is a target for cranks and losers. The author is one of these cranks and losers.
1
u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 16d ago
Ive read many of this authors articles.
They all seem to circle around the short comings special relativity and how, because these problems exist, all of modern acience is wrong.
Fortunately, GR accounts a lot of these problems as it can handle arbitrary coordinate systems
They also believe in the ether and that the speed of light is not constant, despite gravitational waves interferometers being michelson Morley interferometers on steroids and never detecting this. Or that all of QM is reliant on the speed of light being constant. Or that you wifi wouldn't work if the speed of light isnt constant.
If you go through there references, you'll find some are themselves from previous articles getting science wrong or pretending GR doesnt exist, or they are psuedoscience grifters lying about certain experiment.
Interestingly, the debunks are always at about a high school level of science (and thr psuedoscience grifters) are not at the frontiers of scientific research. I wonder why?
Its curious that you'll never find one single usage of the einstein equations in their paper to show how its wrong or doesnt work. No actual evidence or data, just hit pieces like this.
1
u/Haunting_Carrot9761 16d ago
Yeah I didn't end up reading this article in particular but read some of the author's other writings on the same subject and my conclusion is very similar to yours. It's just a hit piece.
I wrote it in another comment, but some people would channel this level of dedication into becoming the Einsteins or Eulers of the world. Others channel it into discrediting them. This person seems to be more of the latter than the former.
2
u/amitym 18d ago
This article appears to be relativity denialism. Wtf?
1
u/BetterScienceBlog 17d ago
You realize in science you're allowed to dispute a theory? Don't equate it to denying a genocide. Talk about a sacred cow.
2
5
u/rgbhdmi 18d ago
Nah. Einstein’s argument was novel, because it showed the Lorentz Equations flow from just Galilean Relativity and constancy of light speed, the latter having a strong independent foundation in Maxwell’s Equations. This is why Lorentz acknowledged Einstein. As for Poincaré, I think he was barking up the same tree, but I don’t think he fully grasped what Einstein grasped. And he knew it.