View Full Version : Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri =?UNKNOWN?Q?Poincar=E9?=
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> wrote in message\nnews:42f33703\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n> In article <1123192475.360871.145550@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,\n> harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch writes:\n>\n> ] Martin Ouwehand wrote:\n> ]\n> ] > It is true that after all the failed attempts to show the movement of\nthe\n> ] > earth with respect to the aether, he and Lorentz did realise that the\n> ] > principle of relativity must be true and that it is impossible to\ndetect\n> ] > a translation movement with constant velocity.\n> ]\n> ] If I understood well, this only became fully clear to Lorentz after\n> ] contemplating on Einstein\'s 1905 paper.\n>\n> Lorentz writes in his 1904 paper: "It would be more satisfactory if it\n> were possible to show [...] that many electromagnetic actions are entirely\n> independent of the motion of the system." Taking in account the careful\n> and prudent style of Lorentz, I understand by this that he realised that\n> the principle of relativity must be true.\n\nOK - still he admitted himself later that the consequences of his theory had\nnot been fully clear to him.\n\n> ] Poincare\'s "note" of 1905 he\n> ] seems to have overlooked at that time, as you still do here.\n>\n> well, it\'s obviously just a short summary of his 1906 paper read before\n> the Académie des Sciences.\n\nI agree, but as 1906 is later than Einstein\'s paper, for the priority it\'s\nimportant to notice it.\n\n> ] > But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and\nthat\n> ] > the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for\nexample\n> ] > in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to\n> ] > synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by\nexchanging\n> ] > light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to\nthe\n> ] > aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn\'t be the same as the time for\ntrip\n> ] > B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the\n> ] > principle of relativity.\n> ]\n> ] I think to have found that passage ("A in Paris, B in Berlin" -\n> ] right?). The way I read it, he showed to understand it perfectly well.\n> ] Indeed, Einstein explicitly emphasised the same point in his 1905 paper\n> ] (surely because he based himself on earlier writings of Poincare):\n>\n> oh no, for Einstein it *is* possible to synchronize two clock at rest\n> with respect to each other in an inertial frame, because he postulates\n> that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.\n\nNo, see immediately below in my posting: the "speed of light" is defined as\nbeing two-way, while the one-way speed is purely a matter of convention.\n(Did you overlook to correct this before sending your message or didn\'t you\nunderstand this point? But I now see that in your reply you snipped that\npart.. maybe you forgot to read it?)\n\n> And that\'s\n> the point: whatever Poincaré\'s theory was (and from this conference for\n> lay persons I find it difficult to understand his theory of space and\n> time -- I don\'t know if he wrote a "professional" paper where he explains\n> it better), it\'s not relativity theory as we now undersand it.\n\nIt\'s perfectly clear to me and exactly like I understand relativity theory.\nThe *measurable* speed of light was for Poincare the same in all inertial\nframes, as concluded from M&M and so on. He just described things from a\ndifferent perspective than Einstein, as his philosophy was similar to\nLorentz.\nEveryone who knows SRT knows that synchronization is "relative" ... I even\nread somewhere that Einstein\'s synchronisation convention actually first was\nproposed by Poincare!\n\n> ] > Nowhere do Lorentz or Poincaré say that the Lorentz transformation\n> ] > connects space-time measurements in two inertial frames in relative\n> ] > motion.\n> ]\n> ] I am flabbergasted!\n>\n> let\'s follow Lorentz\' reasoning in his 1904 paper:\n\nOK, Lorentz introduced his paper with (emphasis mine):\n\n"The problem of determining the influence exerted on\n*electric and optical phenomena by a translation*,\n*such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth\'s annual motion*,\nadmits of a comparatively simple solution, so long\nas only those terms need be taken into account, which are proportional to\nthe first power of the ratio between the velocity of translation v and\nthe velocity of light c. Cases in which quantities of the second order,\ni.e. of the order (v/c)^2, may be perceptible, present more difficulties.\nThe first example of this kind is Michelson\'s well-known interference\nexperiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to\nthe conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered\nby their motion through the ether."\n\n> he writes down\n> the Maxwell equation in the aether frame (x, t), he then writes\n> them down in a frame (x\', t\') moving with speed v with respect to\n> the aether, using a *galilean* transformation:\n>\n> x\' = x - v * t\n> t\' = t\n\nEinstein does something similar in his 1905 paper, simply replacing "ether"\nby "rest". I\'m afraid that I miss your point...\n\n> (then the Maxwell equations aren\'t the same as in the aether frame) and\n> then he performs a transformation on this sytem in motion, saying "I take\n> (x\'\', t\'\') as new independent variables", to show that the transformed\n> system behaves enough like a system at rest with respect to the aether\n> that it\'s possible to deduce, by doing the inverse transformation, that\n> the translation motion v isn\'t detectable.\n\nThat\'s what matters, doesn\'t it?\n\n> Mathematically, the transformation\n> (x, t) -> (x\'\', t\'\') is what we call a Lorentz transformation, but it\n> seems clear to me that for Lorentz the transformation of space-time\n> measurement between the two frames is (x, t) -> (x\', t\'), not (x, t) ->\n> (x\'\' ,t\'\'). This is what I meant by the above comment "Nowhere do they..."\n> Poincaré\'s 1906 paper is silent about the space-time content of the\nLorentz\n> transformation, but as it\'s a follow-up to Lorentz\' I take it that he\n> agrees with him on this point.\n\nI\'m still not sure what you mean there: I don\'t see how one can misapply a\nLorentz transformation and still obtain the correct predictions!\nOTOH, I noticed how Poincare was enthousiast about Lorentz\' "local time"\nconcept, while Lorentz had not really thought much about it himself until\nafter he read Einstein\'s paper.\n\n> | ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~\nLausanne\n\nNice, we\'re in the same institute, I had not noticed that!\n-> Let\'s go for a coffee break next week, maybe together with prof. Gruber\nwho is also interested in this subject. What do you say?\n\nHarald\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> wrote in message
news:42f33703$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> In article <1123192475.360871.145550@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch writes:
>
> ] Martin Ouwehand wrote:
> ]
> ] > It is true that after all the failed attempts to show the movement of
the
> ] > earth with respect to the aether, he and Lorentz did realise that the
> ] > principle of relativity must be true and that it is impossible to
detect
> ] > a translation movement with constant velocity.
> ]
> ] If I understood well, this only became fully clear to Lorentz after
> ] contemplating on Einstein's 1905 paper.
>
> Lorentz writes in his 1904 paper: "It would be more satisfactory if it
> were possible to show [...] that many electromagnetic actions are entirely
> independent of the motion of the system." Taking in account the careful
> and prudent style of Lorentz, I understand by this that he realised that
> the principle of relativity must be true.
OK -[/itex] still he admitted himself later that the consequences of his theory had
not been fully clear to him.
> ] Poincare's "note" of 1905 he
> ] seems to have overlooked at that time, as you still do here.
>
> well, it's obviously just a short summary of his 1906 paper read before
> the Académie des Sciences.
I agree, but as 1906 is later than Einstein's paper, for the priority it's
important to notice it.
> ] > But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and
that
> ] > the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for
example
> ] > in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to
> ] > synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by
exchanging
> ] > light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to
the
> ] > aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn't be the same as the time for
trip
> ] > B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the
> ] > principle of relativity.
> ]
> ] I think to have found that passage ("A in Paris, B in Berlin" -
> ] right?). The way I read it, he showed to understand it perfectly well.
> ] Indeed, Einstein explicitly emphasised the same point in his 1905 paper
> ] (surely because he based himself on earlier writings of Poincare):
>
> oh no, for Einstein it *is* possible to synchronize two clock at rest
> with respect to each other in an inertial frame, because he postulates
> that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.
No, see immediately below in my posting: the "speed of light" is defined as
being two-way, while the one-way speed is purely a matter of convention.
(Did you overlook to correct this before sending your message or didn't you
understand this point? But I now see that in your reply you snipped that
part.. maybe you forgot to read it?)
> And that's
> the point: whatever Poincaré's theory was (and from this conference for
> lay persons I find it difficult to understand his theory of space and
> time -- I don't know if he wrote a "professional" paper where he explains
> it better), it's not relativity theory as we now undersand it.
It's perfectly clear to me and exactly like I understand relativity theory.
The *measurable* speed of light was for Poincare the same in all inertial
frames, as concluded from M&M and so on. He just described things from a
different perspective than Einstein, as his philosophy was similar to
Lorentz.
Everyone who knows SRT knows that synchronization is "relative" ... I even
read somewhere that Einstein's synchronisation convention actually first was
proposed by Poincare!
> ] > Nowhere do Lorentz or Poincaré say that the Lorentz transformation
> ] > connects space-time measurements in two inertial frames in relative
> ] > motion.
> ]
> ] I am flabbergasted!
>
> let's follow Lorentz' reasoning in his 1904 paper:
OK, Lorentz introduced his paper with (emphasis mine):
"The problem of determining the influence exerted on
*electric and optical phenomena by a translation*,
*such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth's annual motion*,
admits of a comparatively simple solution, so long
as only those terms need be taken into account, which are proportional to
the first power of the ratio between the velocity of translation v and
the velocity of light c. Cases in which quantities of the second order,
i.e. of the order (v/c)^2, may be perceptible, present more difficulties.
The first example of this kind is Michelson's well-known interference
experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to
the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered
by their motion through the ether."
> he writes down
> the Maxwell equation in the aether frame (x, t), he then writes
> them down in a frame (x', t') moving with speed v with respect to
> the aether, using a *galilean* transformation:
>
> x' = x - v * t
> [itex]t' = t
Einstein does something similar in his 1905 paper, simply replacing "ether"
by "rest". I'm afraid that I miss your point...
> (then the Maxwell equations aren't the same as in the aether frame) and
> then he performs a transformation on this sytem in motion, saying "I take
> (x'', t'') as new independent variables", to show that the transformed
> system behaves enough like a system at rest with respect to the aether
> that it's possible to deduce, by doing the inverse transformation, that
> the translation motion v isn't detectable.
That's what matters, doesn't it?
> Mathematically, the transformation
> (x, t) -> (x'', t'') is what we call a Lorentz transformation, but it
> seems clear to me that for Lorentz the transformation of space-time
> measurement between the two frames is (x, t) -> (x', t'), not (x, t) ->
> (x'' ,t''). This is what I meant by the above comment "Nowhere do they..."
> Poincaré's 1906 paper is silent about the space-time content of the
Lorentz
> transformation, but as it's a follow-up to Lorentz' I take it that he
> agrees with him on this point.
I'm still not sure what you mean there: I don't see how one can misapply a
Lorentz transformation and still obtain the correct predictions!
OTOH, I noticed how Poincare was enthousiast about Lorentz' "local time"
concept, while Lorentz had not really thought much about it himself until
after he read Einstein's paper.
> | ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~
Lausanne
Nice, we're in the same institute, I had not noticed that!
-> Let's go for a coffee break next week, maybe together with prof. Gruber
who is also interested in this subject. What do you say?
Harald
Martin Ouwehand
Aug7-05, 01:25 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <1123217831.870340.49450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,\ncmaj10@yahoo.com writes:\n\n] Just consider the fact that it is Poincare who gave the\n] equations that he dubbed himself the "Lorentz transformations", and\n] there you have Einstein using exactly the same term\n\nno, the term "Lorentz transformation" doesn\'t appear in Einstein\'s\n1905 paper -- BTW it\'s available from:\n\nhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/109924399\n\n] I think Einstein was mostly interested in discussing electrodynamics.\n\nwell at least his 1905 paper has chapters called "Definition of\nSimultaneity", "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", etc. Similar\nexplanations are what I find sorely missing in Poincaré\'s 1906 paper to\nqualify as an outline of relativity theory. On the other hand, it\nextensively discusses an electrodynamical model of the electron.\n\n--\n| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne\n__|_____________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/info/Martin.html _____________\nScience is the belief in the ignorance of experts [Richard P. Feynman]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1123217831.870340.49450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.c om>,
cmaj10@yahoo.com writes:
] Just consider the fact that it is Poincare who gave the
] equations that he dubbed himself the "Lorentz transformations", and
] there you have Einstein using exactly the same term
no, the term "Lorentz transformation" doesn't appear in Einstein's
1905 paper -- BTW it's available from:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/109924399
] I think Einstein was mostly interested in discussing electrodynamics.
well at least his 1905 paper has chapters called "Definition of
Simultaneity", "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", etc. Similar
explanations are what I find sorely missing in Poincaré's 1906 paper to
qualify as an outline of relativity theory. On the other hand, it
extensively discusses an electrodynamical model of the electron.
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|__{___________} Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/info/Martin.html __{___________}
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts [Richard P. Feynman]
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:1123101871.423815.299170@g14g2000cwa .googlegroups.com...\n> Why isn\'t the mathematician Henri Poincaré\n> acknowledged as the true discoverer of the\n> special theory of relativity?\n\nThere is a variety of reasons, some are socialogical and some\nare linked to differences in the philiosphical approaches that\nPoincaré and Einstein took.\n\nPoincaré held to a philosphy of conventionalism. He thought that\neven if there was no way to detect the frame of reference of the\nether, it is nonetheless a necessary concept and its frame should be\nadopted by a convention. He was influenced by the practical\nnecessity to define international standards of time and measurement.\n\nEistein was more influenced by positivism and philiosophical\nteachings on the relativity of knowledge. He realised that\nconventions were only practical necessities for measuement and\nwere not what matters in fundamental physics so he banished the\nether altogether. Minkowski made it even clearer when he\nintroduced space-time.\n\nThe difference is philosophical but it is still very significant. Eisntein\nwas able to extend his ideas to general relativity by applying the\nmathematics of curved space-time. Poincaré had been very aware\nof non-Euclidean geometry but he believed that people would always\nadopt a convention of measuring with Euclidean geometry because\nit is simpler. With such a point of view general relativity would have\nbeen very difficult to discover.\n\nAn instructive book about this aspect of the story is "Einstein\'s\nClocks. Poincaré\'s Maps" by Peter Galison.\n\n\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123101871.423815.299170@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré
> acknowledged as the true discoverer of the
> special theory of relativity?
There is a variety of reasons, some are socialogical and some
are linked to differences in the philiosphical approaches that
Poincaré and Einstein took.
Poincaré held to a philosphy of conventionalism. He thought that
even if there was no way to detect the frame of reference of the
ether, it is nonetheless a necessary concept and its frame should be
adopted by a convention. He was influenced by the practical
necessity to define international standards of time and measurement.
Eistein was more influenced by positivism and philiosophical
teachings on the relativity of knowledge. He realised that
conventions were only practical necessities for measuement and
were not what matters in fundamental physics so he banished the
ether altogether. Minkowski made it even clearer when he
introduced space-time.
The difference is philosophical but it is still very significant. Eisntein
was able to extend his ideas to general relativity by applying the
mathematics of curved space-time. Poincaré had been very aware
of non-Euclidean geometry but he believed that people would always
adopt a convention of measuring with Euclidean geometry because
it is simpler. With such a point of view general relativity would have
been very difficult to discover.
An instructive book about this aspect of the story is "Einstein's
Clocks. Poincaré's Maps" by Peter Galison.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Aug7-05, 05:04 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <1123155333.603213.39950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,\ncmaj10@yahoo.com writes:\n\n> The answer to your question is partly "Eddington". By that, I mean that\n> Einstein became a superstar to the general public, whereas this never\n> happened to Poincare. When the war was over in 1918, Eddington\n> generated a lot of hype around Einstein\'s relativity, which was largely\n> unknown at the time. In this post-war atmosphere he claimed that there\n> were theological consequences to this theory, much to Einstein\'s\n> consternation.\n\nHe preferred his own "Eddington model" of the universe, which is\nasymptotic to the Einstein static universe in the infinite past, to a\n"big bang" since the beginning should be "not to aesthetically abrupt".\nHe was a Quaker who never married. When asked by a reporter if it were\ntrue that only three people in the world understood General Relativity,\nhe paused and then said "I\'m trying to think who the third person could\nbe". Strange character, great astrophysicist, very influential in\npopularising Einstein, got lost in unified field theory (as did\nEinstein), though in Eddington\'s case it\'s more like a comedy of errors\nthan the tragedy of Einstein\'s case.\n\n> Anyway, Eddington was probably acting with\n> self-interests in mind, as he was already planning to test the light\n> bending prediction. Once this was verified in 1919, Einstein\'s fame was\n> catapulted to super-stardom. Well guess what, people then learned about\n> SR, and do you think Poincare really had to be mentioned in the media?\n>\n> That being said, I can buy Einstein\'s claim that he was unaware of\n> Poincare\'s work; but it\'s hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen\n> der Physik wasn\'t: this person was none other than Max Planck.\n\nSometimes its Poincaré, sometimes it\'s Mileva Maric, sometimes it\'s\nLorentz who was supposed to have been there first, only to get cheated\nout by Einstein; sometimes it is the statement that OF COURSE Einstein\nwas heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment. All of these\nclaims have been debunked. See, for example, Pais\'s excellent SUBTLE IS\nTHE LORD. (The title is a translation of Einstein\'s famous phrase\n"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht; Einstein\'s own\ntranslation was "God is slick, but he ain\'t mean".)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1123155333.603213.39950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
cmaj10@yahoo.com writes:
> The answer to your question is partly "Eddington". By that, I mean that
> Einstein became a superstar to the general public, whereas this never
> happened to Poincare. When the war was over in 1918, Eddington
> generated a lot of hype around Einstein's relativity, which was largely
> unknown at the time. In this post-war atmosphere he claimed that there
> were theological consequences to this theory, much to Einstein's
> consternation.
He preferred his own "Eddington model" of the universe, which is
asymptotic to the Einstein static universe in the infinite past, to a
"big bang" since the beginning should be "not to aesthetically abrupt".
He was a Quaker who never married. When asked by a reporter if it were
true that only three people in the world understood General Relativity,
he paused and then said "I'm trying to think who the third person could
be". Strange character, great astrophysicist, very influential in
popularising Einstein, got lost in unified field theory (as did
Einstein), though in Eddington's case it's more like a comedy of errors
than the tragedy of Einstein's case.
> Anyway, Eddington was probably acting with
> self-interests in mind, as he was already planning to test the light
> bending prediction. Once this was verified in 1919, Einstein's fame was
> catapulted to super-stardom. Well guess what, people then learned about
> SR, and do you think Poincare really had to be mentioned in the media?
>
> That being said, I can buy Einstein's claim that he was unaware of
> Poincare's work; but it's hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen
> der Physik wasn't: this person was none other than Max Planck.
Sometimes its Poincaré, sometimes it's Mileva Maric, sometimes it's
Lorentz who was supposed to have been there first, only to get cheated
out by Einstein; sometimes it is the statement that OF COURSE Einstein
was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment. All of these
claims have been debunked. See, for example, Pais's excellent SUBTLE IS
THE LORD. (The title is a translation of Einstein's famous phrase
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht; Einstein's own
translation was "God is slick, but he ain't mean".)
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:dd5n5t\\$ji9\\$5@online.de...\nSNIP\n> > That being said, I can buy Einstein\'s claim that he was unaware of\n> > Poincare\'s work; but it\'s hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen\n> > der Physik wasn\'t: this person was none other than Max Planck.\n>\n> Sometimes its Poincaré, sometimes it\'s Mileva Maric, sometimes it\'s\n> Lorentz who was supposed to have been there first,\n\nSupposedly been where first? All papers are there for everyone to read...\n\n> only to get cheated\n> out by Einstein; sometimes it is the statement that OF COURSE Einstein\n> was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment. All of these\n> claims have been debunked. See, for example, Pais\'s excellent SUBTLE IS\n> THE LORD. (The title is a translation of Einstein\'s famous phrase\n> "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht; Einstein\'s own\n> translation was "God is slick, but he ain\'t mean".)\n\nYou should read Pais\' book again! See my reply higher up in this thread.\n\nHarald\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:dd5n5t$ji9$5@online.de...
SNIP
> > That being said, I can buy Einstein's claim that he was unaware of
> > Poincare's work; but it's hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen
> > der Physik wasn't: this person was none other than Max Planck.
>
> Sometimes its Poincaré, sometimes it's Mileva Maric, sometimes it's
> Lorentz who was supposed to have been there first,
Supposedly been where first? All papers are there for everyone to read...
> only to get cheated
> out by Einstein; sometimes it is the statement that OF COURSE Einstein
> was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment. All of these
> claims have been debunked. See, for example, Pais's excellent SUBTLE IS
> THE LORD. (The title is a translation of Einstein's famous phrase
> "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht; Einstein's own
> translation was "God is slick, but he ain't mean".)
You should read Pais' book again! See my reply higher up in this thread.
Harald
Martin Ouwehand
Aug8-05, 02:03 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <42f3859a\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,\nHarry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> writes:\n\n] "Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> wrote in message\n] news:42f33703\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n]\n] > well, it\'s obviously just a short summary of his 1906 paper read before\n] > the Académie des Sciences.\n]\n] I agree, but as 1906 is later than Einstein\'s paper, for the priority it\'s\n] important to notice it.\n\nthe priority question would arise only if Poincaré\'s 1905 note, 1906 article,\nor anything else he wrote, contained relativity theory or something equivalent\nto it. I don\'t think it does.\n\n] (Did you overlook to correct this before sending your message or didn\'t you\n] understand this point? But I now see that in your reply you snipped that\n] part.. maybe you forgot to read it?)\n\nmy point was that Poincaré\'s theory is not the same as Einstein\'s: in his\n1905 article, Einstein explains how to synchronize clocks which are mutually\nat rest, while in this 1909 Conférence Poincaré explains that it can\'t be\ndone ("il leur est absolument impossible de savoir si leurs chronomètres\nmarquent ou non la même heure") -- and from the context I understand that\nit\'s because he believes that the speed of light in a moving frame is\nnot the same as its speed with respect to the aether (another difference\nwith Einstein.)\n\nI think it answers in part the question that started this thread, but it\nseems what you are saying is more something like "Poincaré\'s theory is\nequivalent to Einstein\'s, if properly interpreted" -- but then I think it\'s\neither not true, or you won\'t find references in Poincaré\'s writings to\nback up your interpretation. Take for instance time dilatation: A tells\nto B "please take this train riding at 80% of the speed of light, and\nlet this dynamite stick explode after 10 seconds", how would Poincaré\nhave determined the time of the explosion as seen by an observer next\nto the rail at the moment of the explosion and at rest with respect to A ?\nwould his answer be correct ?\n\n] > he writes down\n] > the Maxwell equation in the aether frame (x, t), he then writes\n] > them down in a frame (x\', t\') moving with speed v with respect to\n] > the aether, using a *galilean* transformation:\n] >\n] > x\' = x - v * t\n] > t\' = t\n]\n] Einstein does something similar in his 1905 paper, simply replacing "ether"\n] by "rest".\n\nNo, Einstein ends up with:\n\nx\' = (x - v * t) / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)\nt\' = (t - v * x/c^2) / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)\n\nYou know, the Lorentz transformation :-)\n\n] I\'m afraid that I miss your point...\n\nit\'s for those people who say "Look ! a Lorentz transformation ! it\'s\nthe theory of relativity !" -- for Lorentz it was some kind of mathematical\ntrick ("a change of variable"), not the transformation rule for space-time\nmeasurements between two inertial frames, for which he still used the\ngalilean transformation.\n\n] I\'m still not sure what you mean there: I don\'t see how one can misapply a\n] Lorentz transformation and still obtain the correct predictions!\n\nsome predictions of the resulting theory aren\'t correct: no time dilatation,\nthe time it takes for light to travel one way along a moving rod depends on\nthe direction (the Lorentz contraction cancels time differences only if light\ntravels up and down the moving rod.), the galilean transformation rule for\nthe electromagnetical field...\n\n--\n| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne\n__|_____________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/info/Martin.html _____________\nSo please, oh please, we beg, we pray,\nGo throw your TV set away [Roald Dahl]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <42f3859a$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> writes:
] "Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> wrote in message
] news:42f33703$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
]
] > well, it's obviously just a short summary of his 1906 paper read before
] > the Académie des Sciences.
]
] I agree, but as 1906 is later than Einstein's paper, for the priority it's
] important to notice it.
the priority question would arise only if Poincaré's 1905 note, 1906 article,
or anything else he wrote, contained relativity theory or something equivalent
to it. I don't think it does.
] (Did you overlook to correct this before sending your message or didn't you
] understand this point? But I now see that in your reply you snipped that
] part.. maybe you forgot to read it?)
my point was that Poincaré's theory is not the same as Einstein's: in his
1905 article, Einstein explains how to synchronize clocks which are mutually
at rest, while in this 1909 Conférence Poincaré explains that it can't be
done ("il leur est absolument impossible de savoir si leurs chronomètres
marquent ou non la même heure") -- and from the context I understand that
it's because he believes that the speed of light in a moving frame is
not the same as its speed with respect to the aether (another difference
with Einstein.)
I think it answers in part the question that started this thread, but it
seems what you are saying is more something like "Poincaré's theory is
equivalent to Einstein's, if properly interpreted" -- but then I think it's
either not true, or you won't find references in Poincaré's writings to
back up your interpretation. Take for instance time dilatation: A tells
to B "please take this train riding at 80% of the speed of light, and
let this dynamite stick explode after 10 seconds", how would Poincaré
have determined the time of the explosion as seen by an observer next
to the rail at the moment of the explosion and at rest with respect to A ?
would his answer be correct ?
] > he writes down
] > the Maxwell equation in the aether frame (x, t), he then writes
] > them down in a frame (x', t') moving with speed v with respect to
] > the aether, using a *galilean* transformation:
] >
] > x' = x - v * t] > t' = t
]
] Einstein does something similar in his 1905 paper, simply replacing "ether"
] by "rest".
No, Einstein ends up with:
x' = (x - v * t) / \sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)t' = (t - v * x/c^2) / \sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
You know, the Lorentz transformation :-)
] I'm afraid that I miss your point...
it's for those people who say "Look ! a Lorentz transformation ! it's
the theory of relativity !" -- for Lorentz it was some kind of mathematical
trick ("a change of variable"), not the transformation rule for space-time
measurements between two inertial frames, for which he still used the
galilean transformation.
] I'm still not sure what you mean there: I don't see how one can misapply a
] Lorentz transformation and still obtain the correct predictions!
some predictions of the resulting theory aren't correct: no time dilatation,
the time it takes for light to travel one way along a moving rod depends on
the direction (the Lorentz contraction cancels time differences only if light
travels up and down the moving rod.), the galilean transformation rule for
the electromagnetical field...
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|__{___________} Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/info/Martin.html __{___________}
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
Go throw your TV set away [Roald Dahl]
Charles Francis
Aug9-05, 09:40 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <dd9fqg\\$4uk\\$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>, Ilja Schmelzer\n<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes\n>"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> schrieb\n>> Perspicacious <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> writes:\n>>\n>> ] Why isn\'t the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true\n>> ] discoverer of the special theory of relativity?\n>\n>> But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and that\n>> the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for example\n>> in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to\n>> synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by exchanging\n>> light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to the\n>> aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn\'t be the same as the time for trip\n>> B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the\n>> principle of relativity.\n>>\n>> He certainly did not explain, as Einstein did, the changes to the concepts\n>> of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity.\n>\n>Hm, the question is if they follow from the theory.\n>\n>An ether interpretation of relativity with classical space and time but\n>distorted measurements is certainly in agreement with the facts and\n>the mathematical apparatus of special relativity.\n>\n>The spacetime interpretation is only one of two interpretations,\n>it is not a logical consequence.\n>\n\nI think that perhaps explains why Einstein was indeed the discoverer of\nspecial relativity. Relativity refers to relativity of motion, i.e. the\nabsence of an ether interpretation, not to the mathematical\ntransformations which were already known.\n\n\nRegards\n\n--\nCharles Francis\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <dd9fqg$4uk$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>, Ilja Schmelzer
<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes
>"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> schrieb
>> Perspicacious <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> ] Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true
>> ] discoverer of the special theory of relativity?
>
>> But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and that
>> the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for example
>> in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to
>> synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by exchanging
>> light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to the
>> aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn't be the same as the time for trip
>> B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the
>> principle of relativity.
>>
>> He certainly did not explain, as Einstein did, the changes to the concepts
>> of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity.
>
>Hm, the question is if they follow from the theory.
>
>An ether interpretation of relativity with classical space and time but
>distorted measurements is certainly in agreement with the facts and
>the mathematical apparatus of special relativity.
>
>The spacetime interpretation is only one of two interpretations,
>it is not a logical consequence.
>
I think that perhaps explains why Einstein was indeed the discoverer of
special relativity. Relativity refers to relativity of motion, i.e. the
absence of an ether interpretation, not to the mathematical
transformations which were already known.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:buyVt7FkIJ+CFwS7@clef.demon.co.uk... \n> In message <dd9fqg\\$4uk\\$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>, Ilja Schmelzer\n> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes\n> >"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> schrieb\n> >> Perspicacious <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> writes:\n> >>\n> >> ] Why isn\'t the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true\n> >> ] discoverer of the special theory of relativity?\n> >\n> >> But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and\nthat\n> >> the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for\nexample\n> >> in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to\n> >> synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by\nexchanging\n> >> light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to the\n> >> aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn\'t be the same as the time for\ntrip\n> >> B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the\n> >> principle of relativity.\n> >>\n> >> He certainly did not explain, as Einstein did, the changes to the\nconcepts\n> >> of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity.\n> >\n> >Hm, the question is if they follow from the theory.\n> >\n> >An ether interpretation of relativity with classical space and time but\n> >distorted measurements is certainly in agreement with the facts and\n> >the mathematical apparatus of special relativity.\n> >\n> >The spacetime interpretation is only one of two interpretations,\n> >it is not a logical consequence.\n> >\n>\n> I think that perhaps explains why Einstein was indeed the discoverer of\n> special relativity. Relativity refers to relativity of motion, i.e. the\n> absence of an ether interpretation, not to the mathematical\n> transformations which were already known.\n\nMetaphysical interpretation isn\'t part of modern physics (of which SRT\nbelongs), except maybe if it can be disproved by logic. But I agree that it\nexplains why so many *claim* that Einstein was the sole discoverer of SRT,\nfor at that time he suggested to have no need for an ether and that is the\npopular philosophy (or should I say mantra or mime?) of today.\n\nHarald\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buyVt7FkIJ+CFwS7@clef.demon.co.uk...
> In message <dd9fqg$4uk$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>, Ilja Schmelzer
> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> writes
> >"Martin Ouwehand" <see.URL@end.of.post.ch> schrieb
> >> Perspicacious <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> ] Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true
> >> ] discoverer of the special theory of relativity?
> >
> >> But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and
that
> >> the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for
example
> >> in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to
> >> synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by
exchanging
> >> light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to the
> >> aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn't be the same as the time for
trip
> >> B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the
> >> principle of relativity.
> >>
> >> He certainly did not explain, as Einstein did, the changes to the
concepts
> >> of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity.
> >
> >Hm, the question is if they follow from the theory.
> >
> >An ether interpretation of relativity with classical space and time but
> >distorted measurements is certainly in agreement with the facts and
> >the mathematical apparatus of special relativity.
> >
> >The spacetime interpretation is only one of two interpretations,
> >it is not a logical consequence.
> >
>
> I think that perhaps explains why Einstein was indeed the discoverer of
> special relativity. Relativity refers to relativity of motion, i.e. the
> absence of an ether interpretation, not to the mathematical
> transformations which were already known.
Metaphysical interpretation isn't part of modern physics (of which SRT
belongs), except maybe if it can be disproved by logic. But I agree that it
explains why so many *claim* that Einstein was the sole discoverer of SRT,
for at that time he suggested to have no need for an ether and that is the
popular philosophy (or should I say mantra or mime?) of today.
Harald
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Javier Bezos" <see_below_no_spam@yahoo.es> wrote in message\nnews:1124117339.821800.298120@g49g2000cwa .googlegroups.com...\n> "Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@.com> escribió en el mensaje\n> news:1123101871.423815.299170@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...\n> > Why isn\'t the mathematician Henri Poincaré\n> > acknowledged as the true discoverer of the\n> > special theory of relativity?\n> >\n> > http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm\n> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077\n>\n> I\'ve recently read Science and Method (1908) by Poincaré\n> and my impression was that he was clearly on the wrong\n> road, trying to explain its "new dinamics" in terms\n> of EM phenomena (eg, with EM self-induction). I was\n> following this thread and I would like to make a\n> question.\n\nI agree that also IMHO, Poincare also made some strange remarks.\n\n> I think a key point in the PoR as stated by Einstein is:\n> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite\n> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of\n> the emitting body". Does Poincaré make a similar statement\n> in his papers? Please, don\'t answer that it says something\n> implying that (which now _a posteriori_ could seem obvious\n> once Einstein formulated it)---what I would like to know\n> is if he said _that_ and when.\n>\n> Thanks\n> Javier\n\nI think he did, but I can\'t find it at the moment. And does it really\nmatter? That light speed is independent of the state of motion of the\nemitting body and c relative to the ether was already postulated by Maxwell!\nIn his 1904 presentation, Poincare referred to the Michelson-Morley\nexperiment and he stated :\n\n"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a fixed observer [fixed\nrelative to the ether or empty space] as for an observer who has a uniform\nmotion of translation relative to him; so that we have not, and cannot\npossibly have, any means of discerning whether we are, or are not, carried\nalong in such a motion".\n\nDo you really need to hear more? No hindsight is needed to see that the way\nEinstein rearranged these statements immediately follows.\n\nHarald\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Javier Bezos" <see_below_no_spam@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:1124117339.821800.298120@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> "Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:1123101871.423815.299170@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré
> > acknowledged as the true discoverer of the
> > special theory of relativity?
> >
> > http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077
>
> I've recently read Science and Method (1908) by Poincaré
> and my impression was that he was clearly on the wrong
> road, trying to explain its "new dinamics" in terms
> of EM phenomena (eg, with EM self-induction). I was
> following this thread and I would like to make a
> question.
I agree that also IMHO, Poincare also made some strange remarks.
> I think a key point in the PoR as stated by Einstein is:
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
> the emitting body". Does Poincaré make a similar statement
> in his papers? Please, don't answer that it says something
> implying that (which now _a posteriori_ could seem obvious
> once Einstein formulated it)---what I would like to know
> is if he said _that_ and when.
>
> Thanks
> Javier
I think he did, but I can't find it at the moment. And does it really
matter? That light speed is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body and c relative to the ether was already postulated by Maxwell!
In his 1904 presentation, Poincare referred to the Michelson-Morley
experiment and he stated :
"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a fixed observer [fixed
relative to the ether or empty space] as for an observer who has a uniform
motion of translation relative to him; so that we have not, and cannot
possibly have, any means of discerning whether we are, or are not, carried
along in such a motion".
Do you really need to hear more? No hindsight is needed to see that the way
Einstein rearranged these statements immediately follows.
Harald
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.