juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
Oct12-06, 04:06 AM
****************************
harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch on 26 Aug 2005 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
3202.217.124.88.226.1124969543.squirrel@webmail.ca nonicalscience.com">news:3202.217.124.88.226.1124969543.squirrel@webma il.canonicalscience.com...
SNIP
> 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.
But he *did* do so (in 1898!), as I quoted in the other thread.
Cheers,
Harald
****************************
Yes, I read, Thanks!
I also obtained an explicit quote from him (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."
Naturally, this follows from the LT which not only Poincare accepted like
a new definition of simultaneity, but he claimed that was the basis for a
new mechanics that he developed from his own PoR. Einstein newer obtained
a mechanics, because Einstein newer obtained the expression for
relativistic forces.
The constancy of c follows directly from LT, which Poincare thought of a
substitute of Galilean ones. How can some think that the thought that c
was different in different frames if was accepting that Galilean T was not
valid?
c' = c + v only follows from Galilean transformation which Poincare
rejected even for gravitation when Einstein was only doing some remarks on
EM!
Above quote is self-explicative.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch on 26 Aug 2005 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
3202.217.124.88.226.1124969543.squirrel@webmail.ca nonicalscience.com">news:3202.217.124.88.226.1124969543.squirrel@webma il.canonicalscience.com...
SNIP
> 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.
But he *did* do so (in 1898!), as I quoted in the other thread.
Cheers,
Harald
****************************
Yes, I read, Thanks!
I also obtained an explicit quote from him (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."
Naturally, this follows from the LT which not only Poincare accepted like
a new definition of simultaneity, but he claimed that was the basis for a
new mechanics that he developed from his own PoR. Einstein newer obtained
a mechanics, because Einstein newer obtained the expression for
relativistic forces.
The constancy of c follows directly from LT, which Poincare thought of a
substitute of Galilean ones. How can some think that the thought that c
was different in different frames if was accepting that Galilean T was not
valid?
c' = c + v only follows from Galilean transformation which Poincare
rejected even for gravitation when Einstein was only doing some remarks on
EM!
Above quote is self-explicative.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)