juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
Oct12-06, 04:03 AM
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
toto@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> There is no
> formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
> before the `annus mirabilis'.
I never saw any of those purported concepts, in a constructed form. You
provided no further cite. The debate is closed.
****************************
I repeat again, there is no basic formula or fundamental concept of
relativity on Einstein writings that were not published and known before
the “annus mirabilis”. Popular version of history or personal web pages
like reference [1] I cited are example of how the history of relativity is
distorted.
****************************
toto@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
> (especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
> which follow from above one.
Well, really it's closed. A mathematician works in a predefined
mathematical system, for instance arithmetic with the Peano's axioms etc.
But the constancy of c obviously doesn't belong to such a system, and would
even be a revolutionary *novelty*. Poincaré didn't explicit it, but it is
taken for
granted? I really can't follow such an oriented logic.
Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
[Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la lumière
est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
misunderstood genius, even by himself?
****************************
No is not closed. The difference that you fail to understand is that from
different formal systems, premises to be highlighted are different. If you
take the PoR and the LT you can derive the constancy of c (Poincaré
approach). If you take the PoR and the constancy of you can derive the LT
(Einstein approach).
Perhaps Poincaré failed to explicitly write in a clear form the relativity
principle in the form that Einstein did. That is, perhaps Poincaré was
more obscure. But 1) Always it is more easy to be more clear when other
did the basic work previously (that is the advantage of Einstein). 2) In
that case, the difference of Einstein would be that was able to explain
better that already was known.
If constancy of c is implicit on Poincaré math, he did not need explicit
to say this. There is no more novelty on claim that c is constant and
derive (INCORRECTLY) the LT that claim that LT and maximum speed of c form
the basis of a new (NOVEL) mechanics.
Perhaps Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
But wrote on 1905
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light.”
That and the fact that developed the basis of 4D formulation and
discovered that ds was an invariant before Minkoski offer no doubt that
constancy of c in each frame was well known from Poincaré.
It is really really difficult believe that Poincaré (one of BEST
mathematicians and excellent physicist) needed explicitly to claim that
constancy of c follow from invariance of
ds = (ct)^2 – (dr)^2 = (ct’)^2 – (dr’)^2
or that the LT to be a real transformation (with mathematical inverse)
need that c was a constant.
It was Poincaré newer Einstein who fully showed the covariance of Maxwell
to LT and stated that this would be applicable to ALL phenomena. Poincaré
obtained some like
(1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi / \partial t^2 = (1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi’ /
\partial t’^2
Above formula is valid elsewhere if second derivatives are e.g. 1, we obtain
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
Do you need you establish that c is a constant a posteriori or claim that
it is a new postulate? I Do NOT and Poincaré who was infinitely smarter
than I in mathematical issues no.
Now Einstein do not asumme the LT from the beginning, then may use the fact
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
which characterizes the LT but is not present in Galilean-Newton mechanics
as a NEW POSTULATE.
Your claim that Poincaré did not know the situations is so surprising like
Stachel’s claim that Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, could
not do a simple 3-line routinely computation from the GR action he
obtained, whereas Einstein who was well-known by his very low mathematical
level and newer formulated correct equations did and, this is still more
surprising, Hilbert copied.
No significant improvement was done by Einstein in SR. Einstein copied GR
field equations from Hilbert.
****************************
Regarding
“It doesn't work like that. The speed may be different, but the lengths
change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
from the principle of relativity alone. A further hypothesis is needed.
Poincaré never gave one. Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.”
Again, own Poincaré words (1905) about his principle of relativity.
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then we would find a
common constant in the law of gravity and in electromagnetic laws, the
velocity of light.”
The further hypothesis does not contained in Poincaré principle of
relativity is the LT, which Poincaré take like a substitute of Galilean
mechanics.
That does Poincaré and Lorentz the main fathers of relativity theory.
Precisely it was the claim of Witthaker between others: Weyl, Pauli, Born,
etc.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
toto@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> There is no
> formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
> before the `annus mirabilis'.
I never saw any of those purported concepts, in a constructed form. You
provided no further cite. The debate is closed.
****************************
I repeat again, there is no basic formula or fundamental concept of
relativity on Einstein writings that were not published and known before
the “annus mirabilis”. Popular version of history or personal web pages
like reference [1] I cited are example of how the history of relativity is
distorted.
****************************
toto@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
> (especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
> which follow from above one.
Well, really it's closed. A mathematician works in a predefined
mathematical system, for instance arithmetic with the Peano's axioms etc.
But the constancy of c obviously doesn't belong to such a system, and would
even be a revolutionary *novelty*. Poincaré didn't explicit it, but it is
taken for
granted? I really can't follow such an oriented logic.
Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
[Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la lumière
est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
misunderstood genius, even by himself?
****************************
No is not closed. The difference that you fail to understand is that from
different formal systems, premises to be highlighted are different. If you
take the PoR and the LT you can derive the constancy of c (Poincaré
approach). If you take the PoR and the constancy of you can derive the LT
(Einstein approach).
Perhaps Poincaré failed to explicitly write in a clear form the relativity
principle in the form that Einstein did. That is, perhaps Poincaré was
more obscure. But 1) Always it is more easy to be more clear when other
did the basic work previously (that is the advantage of Einstein). 2) In
that case, the difference of Einstein would be that was able to explain
better that already was known.
If constancy of c is implicit on Poincaré math, he did not need explicit
to say this. There is no more novelty on claim that c is constant and
derive (INCORRECTLY) the LT that claim that LT and maximum speed of c form
the basis of a new (NOVEL) mechanics.
Perhaps Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
But wrote on 1905
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light.”
That and the fact that developed the basis of 4D formulation and
discovered that ds was an invariant before Minkoski offer no doubt that
constancy of c in each frame was well known from Poincaré.
It is really really difficult believe that Poincaré (one of BEST
mathematicians and excellent physicist) needed explicitly to claim that
constancy of c follow from invariance of
ds = (ct)^2 – (dr)^2 = (ct’)^2 – (dr’)^2
or that the LT to be a real transformation (with mathematical inverse)
need that c was a constant.
It was Poincaré newer Einstein who fully showed the covariance of Maxwell
to LT and stated that this would be applicable to ALL phenomena. Poincaré
obtained some like
(1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi / \partial t^2 = (1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi’ /
\partial t’^2
Above formula is valid elsewhere if second derivatives are e.g. 1, we obtain
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
Do you need you establish that c is a constant a posteriori or claim that
it is a new postulate? I Do NOT and Poincaré who was infinitely smarter
than I in mathematical issues no.
Now Einstein do not asumme the LT from the beginning, then may use the fact
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
which characterizes the LT but is not present in Galilean-Newton mechanics
as a NEW POSTULATE.
Your claim that Poincaré did not know the situations is so surprising like
Stachel’s claim that Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, could
not do a simple 3-line routinely computation from the GR action he
obtained, whereas Einstein who was well-known by his very low mathematical
level and newer formulated correct equations did and, this is still more
surprising, Hilbert copied.
No significant improvement was done by Einstein in SR. Einstein copied GR
field equations from Hilbert.
****************************
Regarding
“It doesn't work like that. The speed may be different, but the lengths
change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
from the principle of relativity alone. A further hypothesis is needed.
Poincaré never gave one. Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.”
Again, own Poincaré words (1905) about his principle of relativity.
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then we would find a
common constant in the law of gravity and in electromagnetic laws, the
velocity of light.”
The further hypothesis does not contained in Poincaré principle of
relativity is the LT, which Poincaré take like a substitute of Galilean
mechanics.
That does Poincaré and Lorentz the main fathers of relativity theory.
Precisely it was the claim of Witthaker between others: Weyl, Pauli, Born,
etc.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)