Convergence Public Lecture: The Genesis and Renaissance of General Relativity

[@richarddeese1991]

This was a wonderful talk; it truly changed the character and flavor of how I think about both relativity as a theory, and about Einstein the man and the scientist - all without diminishing Einstein the legend and hero. Thank you! 𝓽𝓪𝓿𝓲.

[@seatown2000]

I really appreciate the fact that everyone has access to this beautiful information.

[@yendorelrae5476]

Thank you Perimeter Institute, what an interesting new look at Einstein.

[@paxdriver]

Dr renn has such great pace in presentation

[@josephkarpinski9586]

Would like to see your outreach target more university and even high school students in the audience. Plant the seeds of inspiration and discovery across multiple generations....

[@frankweyl9989]

Joseph Karpinski I concur exactly.

[@roloa.5490]

Joseph Karpinski As a current university student, I would like to see histories of science play a more dominant role in program curriculum. The concept of a paradigm should be taught across the board...

[@frankweyl9989]

rol a I suggest that some people may not understand your use of the word paradigm in the above context: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/paradigm.html That is it.

[@theyogaashram]

+rol a I agree that einstein should be relegated to history. check out the electric universe model at thunderboltsproject on YT!

[@giuseppevianello9288]

A brilliant presentation. Thanks

[@rkreike]

Q: In a vacuum all objects fall with same acceleration, but is this also so for objects that can rotate very fast, much faster than in non-vacuum?

[@jwt242]

Incredibly interesting lecture...

[@bryandraughn9830]

Astonishing summary of Einstein's development of GR! I'm blown away!

[@Moronvideos1940]

I downloaded this Thank you

[@elaghs1504]

With respects to all theories of physics from the beginning until now, and I know that all of them have practical applications, I still believe in the "m" theory and network space-time, so many other theories can be extended.

[@jsc8764]

views of the. audience are distracting. it would be more advantageous to spend more time on the slides.

[@venkatbabu186]

Field equations is just one great I type.

[@qualquan]

just history for the experts

[@KaliGold]

Great video...but please stop showing people in the audience...its annoying.

[@paxdriver]

Word

[@dennisp3314]

These "Modern" editors are constitutionally incapable of letting a scene unfold. Must have movement / cuts or they go crazy. They also think it is what audiences want. They have no clue that the folks looking at these lectures are not the same Splosion' & Action junkies watching Furious 27

[@TobiasKryze]

Dheep' P wrong. I love the Furious movies. I also love science.

[@-Pentcho-Valev]

Unlike the rest of physics which is deductive, Einstein's general relativity is an empirical model. This means that Einstein and his mathematical friends had to change and fudge the equations countless times until agreement with known in advance results and pet assumptions was reached. In other words, the making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" as defined here: collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf "The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

[@-Pentcho-Valev]

shomolya Not all of physics. Empirical theories (like Einstein's general relativity) have an unlimited capacity to adapt to (new) data or assumptions. In contrast, deductive theories (like Einstein's special relativity) are fixed - once the axioms (postulates) are officially announced, all the conclusions are in a sense predetermined.

[@Kalumbatsch]

+Pentcho Valev Bullshit.

[@Kalumbatsch]

shomolya Yep, and the curve already fit to 5 standard deviations without any fudging. What a surprise!

[@yitphady2852]

Cool

[@yitphady2852]

Nice

[@imaseeker100]

I can't take it when a speaker reads from their slides word for word.

[@climbeverest]

Lovely

[@whirledpeas3477]

Einstshine 🙂

[@yitphady2852]

Good

[@Stroheim333]

Sorry to say, but this presentation is too much standard, popular history of science. And Dr. Jurgen Renn even oversimplify more than other physicists use to do; the most pressing problem that Einstein solved wasn't about Mercury, but the Michelson-Morley experiment 1887, that showed the aether couldn't possible exist, and which also was a big problem for the concept of Newtonian absolute space. Hendrik Lorentz had already 1899-1904 solved a great portion of the results from Michelson-Morleys experiment, with a kind of Newtonian relativity theory which also included length contraction and time dilation. Einstein downplayed the importance of Lorentz, and even sometimes denied that he 1905 had any knowledge about Michelson-Morleys experiment when he published his special relativity theory. But except it is such an absurd claim in itself, we know from Einstein's own writings that he really studied Michelson-Morleys experiment during his student years, and he couldn't possible had been unawared of Lorentz 1905.

[@aachenmann]

+Stroheim333 Do you know the difference between Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and General Relativity? Michelson-Morleys experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Dr. Renn's talk is about the evolution and historical significance of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

[@Stroheim333]

aachenmann Of course I know, and don't be a fool. Special relativity is entrenched in general relativity, and was the founding block that general relativity was built upon. When you talk about general relativity you talk about special relativity at the same time.

[@aachenmann]

+Stroheim333 Don't be a fool yourself. Dr. Renn's talk is about the evolution and historical significance of Einstein's theory of General Relativity, Not Special Relativity. Pay attention to his talk, will you?

[@aachenmann]

+Stroheim333 If you know the difference between Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and General Relativity Then don't talk like a fool Michelson-Morleys experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

[@Stroheim333]

aachenmann A complete fool say that Michelson-Morley's experiment have nothing to do with special (and therebefore also general) relativity. But I congratulate you -- now you learned to google! Next step is to understand what you find when you try to google "michelson-morley" and "Einstein".

[@АлександрРусаков-в4с]

Jones Karen Brown Charles Lewis Angela

[@jimbones155]

The Electric Universe makes more sense.

[@CyrilleParis]

The Electric Universe is not even a myth. It's just pure bullshit coming out of the arse of dummies. The only reason some people still speak about this is because it is relayed by antisemitic circles who can't stand that Einstein gave so much to humanity.

[@primemagi]

Your research has been good, but biased and very selective. It is interesting you did not mention others i.e. Max Planck. Grandfather told me, the scientist referred to Einstein as intellectual gypsy. I asked him was it because he played violin? NO He said, where ever he went he pick up something. Put them together and present it as new work. I find it sad since I presented the correct equation for mass / energy equivalence, everyone spending time and resources defending Einstein? Why? My interest is the science not the scientist. I thought you were seeking the correct understanding, not hero worshiping. You still have no understanding of gravity, because we have not released it yet. You will understand gravity when you are able to see structure of matter. Current model is fiction. Detail in my 1975 Bremen summerhouse notes or by official request only. MG1

[@quitchiboo]

this is me making an official request.

[@primemagi]

what is your official position? only 4 people in the world are entitled to make official request from me to get new science information. MG1

[@quitchiboo]

I'm here in my official capacity as PI of the GR research group at Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Study, FIAS - Germany, Frankfurt. It is my expressed hope you can contribute to our ongoing 10 year dark matter program. Let me know if you need any additional information.

[@quitchiboo]

I'm here in my official capacity as PI of the GR research group at Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Study, FIAS - Germany, Frankfurt. It is my expressed hope you can contribute to our ongoing 10 year dark matter program. Let me know if you need any additional information.

[@primemagi]

Thank you, . my 1975 Bremen summerhouse notes were my thank to the people of Germany for the way I was treated in Bremen. You are entitled to the content. your Dark matter Program will be crystal clear if you have number of correct information. Evolution of Galaxy, interaction of gravity with matter and correct models. I am happy to contribute. You need to know, I do not have conventional qualification. You need an open mind & prepared to know my full information before drawing any conclusion. DLR has my email, name and full address in UK. If you want to know anything about me please email me. I do not have anything to hide, but if you ask UK/US authority you will receive disinformation as well as information. they monitor me 24/7. gathered information sent to their scientist here and USA to match with data & present as new discovery. MG1

[@yitphady2852]

Good