Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativit=
y-theory.html
for additional details and references. I am preparing a new extended
corrected version with more references and further data. This interesting
debate -and people that has corrected and improved to me- will be properl=
y
acknowledged therein.
****************************
<thomas.smid@gmail.com> on 1 Sep 2005 22:25:52 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I came across a webpage http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html showing
Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation (as given in his
book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory').
It claims to be elegant and simple but appears to be mathematically
inconsistent to me (as far as my understanding of maths goes anyway).
****************************
Einstein copied relativity theory from Lorentz and Poincar=E9. It present=
ed
like new his research from a reorganization of work of others and did not
cited. For example, instead of use the LT like a postulate and derive
constancy of c how Poincar=E9 did, Einstein elevated constancy of c alrea=
dy
present in Poincar=E9 writings to a new postulate (note that I say to "ne=
w
postulate" no "new" alone) and derived (so say) the LT from it. There is
not new physics.
However, the derivation is mathematically wrong and based in hidden
assumptions that after even Einstein recognized (at least used three
additional principles to two known of Einstein SR).
Also others derivations of Einstein are wrong, for example his derivation
of E=3Dmc^2. This indicates that Einstein knew previously the results tha=
t
supposedly he was "deriving from application of logical steps to his two
postulates".
-------
Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativit=
y-theory.html
for additional details and references. I am preparing a new extended
corrected version with more references and further data. This interesting
debate -and people that has corrected and improved to me- will be properl=
y
acknowledged therein.
****************************
<thomas.smid@gmail.com> on 1 Sep 2005 22:25:52 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I came across a webpage http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html showing
Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation (as given in his
book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory').
It claims to be elegant and simple but appears to be mathematically
inconsistent to me (as far as my understanding of maths goes anyway).
****************************
Einstein copied relativity theory from Lorentz and Poincar=E9. It present=
ed
like new his research from a reorganization of work of others and did not
cited. For example, instead of use the LT like a postulate and derive
constancy of c how Poincar=E9 did, Einstein elevated constancy of c alrea=
dy
present in Poincar=E9 writings to a new postulate (note that I say to "ne=
w
postulate" no "new" alone) and derived (so say) the LT from it. There is
not new physics.
However, the derivation is mathematically wrong and based in hidden
assumptions that after even Einstein recognized (at least used three
additional principles to two known of Einstein SR).
Also others derivations of Einstein are wrong, for example his derivation
of E=3Dmc^2. This indicates that Einstein knew previously the results tha=
t
supposedly he was "deriving from application of logical steps to his two
postulates".
-------
Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)