Relativity is insane. Einstein literally rewrote the formula for “add two velocities together”. You know, like 20 km/s + 20 km/s, WHICH YOU WOULD THINK just turns into 40km/s, but it’s actually ever so slightly less.
It goes really deep in terms of what it affects in physics.
> In physics, analogous transformations have been introduced by Voigt (1887) related to an incompressible medium, and by Heaviside (1888), Thomson (1889), Searle (1896) and Lorentz (1892, 1895) who analyzed Maxwell's equations. They were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), and brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905) who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz.[3] Eventually, Einstein (1905) showed in his development of special relativity that the transformations follow from the principle of relativity and constant light speed alone by modifying the traditional concepts of space and time, without requiring a mechanical aether in contradistinction to Lorentz and Poincaré.[4] Minkowski (1907–1908) used them to argue that space and time are inseparably connected as spacetime.
Einstein did great work, no doubt. But his work was still a product of his time, and was 'in the air'. If it hadn't been for Einstein, other people would have made similar discoveries soon. They were already in the process, after all.
However I suspect, it would have probably taken several great scientists and a few more years.
But that’s kind of the point with Einstein. Work was going towards the aether and in the wrong direction. It was a leap rather than an incremental or logical next step to come up with relativity.
I might need to dig up college notes because I didn’t even know there were 3 kinds of aether theories…but yes, the Lorentz aether (so far) reads a lot like special relativity.
>Eventually, Einstein (1905) showed in his development of special relativity that the transformations follow from the principle of relativity
But that for me is really the point. Even if Lorentz had the math right, he didn't have the explanation, which Einstein delivered. And that's the valuable part in science. Having a model that explains the world better than previous models.
General relativity is insane and was definitely a bit ahead of its time. It took decades before we could test many of the implications.
Special relativity was being worked on by several people contemporaneously. The fact that it is called "Lorentz Contraction" should tell you that other people were working on it.
On the contrary. The URL you post here has been submitted to HN several times (plus my attempt to make the title a little catchier as I linked to the GitHub issue #28, which I titled “Don’t add website DRM to Chrome” in a defensible attempt to expand the title the best I credibly could under HN rules - the issue title is just “Don’t.”)
These all died in obscurity. This blog post by contrast had a catchy title that HN actually engaged with, and as such is measurably superior.
Blame dang & co, for making forum software in which blogspam is the only way to add comment or meaningfully add context and editorialize. (Since blogspam is officially discouraged I’d say the software is not fit for purpose.)
The US bank security system confuses me. To accept money, I need to give out my routing number and account number. Using those numbers, someone could theoretically withdraw money... Maybe... The whole system is built upon obscurity. Why do some stores need a pin on my debit card, and some do not? Why do online stores need my name and address, but IRL ones do not? How did that one online store charge me without my CVV? How can restaurants swipe my card now and charge me later?
I only send and receive money with Google/Apple Pay & PayPal at this point. This flow is reasonable (every transaction is authorised in a trusted location (ie: PayPal). Further transactions are impossible without additional authorization). It boggles my mind that banks & CC companies haven't made some standard for this. Would save them so much money in fraud protection.
> Why do some stores need a pin on my debit card, and some do not?
Oh that’s easy enough. If they need a PIN it’s actually being run as a debit card over the debit card network. Otherwise it’s being run as a “check card” over the credit card network (with higher fees and better consumer protections). It’s just backed with money instead of a line of credit.
> Why do online stores need my name and address, but IRL ones do not?
IRL stores have access to the actual card (with your name) and having this artifact present makes it much less likely that you are a fraudulent fraudster committing fraud, so the processors are willing to take it.
> How can restaurants swipe my card now and charge me later?
the good news is if the store ever defrauds you, everyone knows where to find the store! Unlike fraudsters making purchases.
And banks are still perfectly willing to issue personal checks, a form of payment that requires you to hand someone a piece of paper with your full name, address, bank account and routing info, your signature, and a brief handwriting sample.
> having 10 million single window units blasting walls of heat into a crowded city very quickly becomes an arms race where nobody wins (except perhaps the AC manufacturers).
Is this more or less energy than would be used for heating, in an equivalent city that seldom wants A/C? Remember, with the exception of heat pumps (hardly universal and less efficient at low temperatures) A/C is usually much more efficient at changing indoor temperatures, and also that 100F -> 72F is a smaller temperature difference than 32F -> 72F.
In this particular case it's a question of putting a lot of concentrated heat into one area, compared to thinking about the overall energy budget.
Part of the problem with heat is that above a certain threshold you basically just die without recourse. Whereas with the right survival equipment, humans can tolerate a surprising amount of cold for a surprising duration, with a wide range of sophistication from "a blanket because you're shivering" to "full-body survival suit because the wind will instantly freeze your skin". That is, you can survive fairly cold temperatures without "burning" anything other than calories, if you have the right clothing. But above a certain heat and humidity threshold, there's no recourse and you automatically die without external energy input.
It would be pretty interesting to do some kind of analysis on the total energy expenditure on maintaining human homeostasis in a hot climate compared to an equivalently cold climate. But you have to take that threshold effect into account, that people can tolerate being cold for a while, but cooling becomes a strict requirement sooner than heating becomes a strict requirement, so you actually might need to pump around more total energy in the hot climate case compared to the cold climate case, even though cooling is more efficient than heating.
I'm East Asian. Guilt and shame here are the same thing -- the distinction between moral vs non-moral is blurry at best. The only difference is who you're disappointing and what the perceived consequence is.
Idk, it seems reasonably obvious that there is activism and litigation and nonprofits and bureaucracies all studying environmental issues, and these are all operated by people, many of whom get more money and attention was a result of the concerns they raise. There is some opportunity for a conflict of interest.
One question, though, is whether they take that opportunity. Another more salient question is whether the Wall Street Journal, of all the possible papers, has fallen under the influence of such groups.
And it certainly seems as if they’ve found some people with elevated lead levels in blood, and ground and water samples that exceed EPA limits.
It goes really deep in terms of what it affects in physics.