View Full Version : Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?
<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>"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>\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\nIn addition to my other posting, I found _that_ literally in Poincare 1898:\n\n" [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its\nspeed is the same in all directions.\nNow that\'s a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be\nattempted." (translation mine)\n\nBTW, he next elaborated on the definition of simultaneity...\n\nCheers,\nHarald\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 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
In addition to my other posting, I found _that_ literally in Poincare 1898:
" [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its
speed is the same in all directions.
Now that's a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be
attempted." (translation mine)
BTW, he next elaborated on the definition of simultaneity...
Cheers,
Harald
Cl.Massé
Aug20-05, 06:17 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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n43019a48\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n\n> So? I really can\'t follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a\n> similar text about Einstein.\n\nCertainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was\ncompletely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among\nwhich the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur\nElektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving\nBodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn\'t\nwon WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little\nemployee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of\nthe work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The\nrelativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the\nPoincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.\n\nFirst, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became\nPoincaré. Who is next in the list?\n\nI read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own\nwritings. I\'m sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity\nas a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a\ngroup, but acting on what? He never says it. Poincaré was rather a\nmathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also\nnot very comfortable with the physical reality.\n\nNow the relativity, like every theory, isn\'t a collection of formulas,\nbut a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model\nderives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the\nphysical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.\nAre you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that\nsuch a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are\nof good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has\nany bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to\nsee his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,\nit\'s the time.\n\nAnalogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at\nleast one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the\nnon-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for\ndescribing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The\nHamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle\nis mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave\n(eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of\nlinear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as\nthe pioneers of quantum mechanics?\n\nAs to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works\nof other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is\nway too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the\npre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the\nevidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren\'t crooks too.\n\n-- ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country Liberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
43019a48$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> So? I really can't follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a
> similar text about Einstein.
Certainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was
completely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among
which the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn't
won WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little
employee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of
the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The
relativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the
Poincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.
First, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became
Poincaré. Who is next in the list?
I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
group, but acting on what? He never says it. Poincaré was rather a
mathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also
not very comfortable with the physical reality.
Now the relativity, like every theory, isn't a collection of formulas,
but a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model
derives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the
physical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.
Are you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that
such a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are
of good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has
any bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to
see his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,
it's the time.
Analogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at
least one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the
non-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for
describing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The
Hamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle
is mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave
(eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of
linear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as
the pioneers of quantum mechanics?
As to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works
of other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is
way too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the
pre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the
evidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren't crooks too.
-- ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Homo Lykos
Aug20-05, 06:18 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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:4300594f\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... \n>\n>> The reason Poincare\' is not granted as the true discoverer of special\n>> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein\n>> as the discoverer of the theory.\n\nLorentz, not Einstein\n(SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L\'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,\nComptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):\n\n" *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la\nmettre en concordance avec le postulat de l\'impossibilité complète de la\ndétermination du mouvement absolu. C\'est ce qu\'il a réussi à faire dans son\narticle intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any\nvelocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l\'Académie d\'Amsterdam,\n27 mai 1904).\n\nL\'importance de la question m\'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats que\nj\'ai obtenus sont d\'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de\n*Lorentz*; j\'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter dans\nquelques points du détail. "\n\nhttp://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm\n\n\n>\n> E= mc^2 is quite original from Einstein (despite what Ives claimed),\n\n? ? ?\n\n> eventhough also here most likely Einstein was inspired by the writings of\n> others.\n\n1. Hasenöhrl, Zur Theorie der Strahlung in bewegten Körpern, Annalen der\nPhysik, Juli 1904\n\n2. Hasenöhrl, Berichtigung [zu 1.], Annalen der Physik, 26. Jan. 1905\n\n\nHomo Lykos\n\n--\nhttp://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm\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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4300594f$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>> The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
>> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
>> as the discoverer of the theory.
Lorentz, not Einstein
(SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
" *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la
mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la
détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans son
article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie d'Amsterdam,
27 mai 1904).
L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats que
j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de
*Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter dans
quelques points du détail. "
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
>
> E= mc^2 is quite original from Einstein (despite what Ives claimed),
? ? ?
> eventhough also here most likely Einstein was inspired by the writings of
> others.
1. Hasenöhrl, Zur Theorie der Strahlung in bewegten Körpern, Annalen der
Physik, Juli 1904
2. Hasenöhrl, Berichtigung [zu 1.], Annalen der Physik, 26. Jan. 1905
Homo Lykos
--
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
Cl.Massé
Aug22-05, 04:15 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>"Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n43065e57\\$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...\n\n> Lorentz, not Einstein\n> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L\'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,\n> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):\n>\n> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à\n> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l\'impossibilité complète de\n> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C\'est ce qu\'il a réussi à faire dans\n> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with\n> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l\'Académie\n> d\'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).\n>\n> L\'importance de la question m\'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats\n> que j\'ai obtenus sont d\'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de\n> *Lorentz*; j\'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter\n> dans quelques points du détail. "\n>\n> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm\n\nHere, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*. The impossibility to\ndetermine the absolute motion is an experimental fact, or a direct\nhypothesis from one, given by the MM experiment. It isn\'t a matter of\nRelativity, but of the Lorentz contraction, a concurrent theory that lost.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>"Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
43065e57$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
> Lorentz, not Einstein
> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>
> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à
> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de
> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans
> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with
> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie
> d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>
> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats
> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de
> *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter
> dans quelques points du détail. "
>
> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*. The impossibility to
determine the absolute motion is an experimental fact, or a direct
hypothesis from one, given by the MM experiment. It isn't a matter of
Relativity, but of the Lorentz contraction, a concurrent theory that lost.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Homo Lykos
Aug23-05, 02:23 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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:4308e240\\$0\\$30470\\$636a15ce@ news.free.fr...\n> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 43065e57\\$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...\n>\n>> Lorentz, not Einstein\n>> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L\'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,\n>> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):\n>>\n>> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à\n>> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l\'impossibilité complète de\n>> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C\'est ce qu\'il a réussi à faire\n>> dans\n>> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with\n>> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l\'Académie\n>> d\'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).\n>>\n>> L\'importance de la question m\'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats\n>> que j\'ai obtenus sont d\'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux\n>> de\n>> *Lorentz*; j\'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter\n>> dans quelques points du détail. "\n>>\n>> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm\n>\n> Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.\n\nNo (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):\n\n1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz\n\n2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz\n\n3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by\nLorentz/Poincaré\n\n\nHomo Lykos\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4308e240$0$30470$636a15ce@news.free.fr...
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43065e57$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>> Lorentz, not Einstein
>> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
>> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>>
>> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à
>> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de
>> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire
>> dans
>> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with
>> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie
>> d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>>
>> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats
>> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux
>> de
>> *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter
>> dans quelques points du détail. "
>>
>> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
>
> Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.
No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
Lorentz/Poincaré
Homo Lykos
<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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message\nnews:4304ce52\\$0\\$29152\\$626a14ce@news .free.fr...\n> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 43019a48\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n>\n> > So? I really can\'t follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a\n> > similar text about Einstein.\n>\n> Certainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was\n> completely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among\n> which the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur\n> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving\n> Bodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn\'t\n> won WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little\n> employee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of\n> the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The\n> relativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the\n> Poincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.\n\nThe above text that you wrote left out the similarity points that I\nreferred to and therefore should have been in there. For example, you\n"overlooked" to mention his skin colour and his religion, while you\nemphasized those of Poincare. On top of that, you made a statement that\nis both correct and extremely misleading: in 1905 he was indeed *not*\nascribed the paternity of the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of\nthe establishment. Did you consider to go in politics?\n\n> First, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became\n> Poincaré. Who is next in the list?\n\nThat question is also incorrect. Corrected: "From a flood of pertinent\nevidence, Poincare played an important role in the development of\nspecial relativity. *Lately*, according to her family and someone who\nhad seen the manuscript, his wife was co-author. Who is next in the\nlist?" I can tell you: Larmor and Fitzgerald are also sometimes given\nsome credit in more elaborate reviews. My excuses if I still overlooked\nsomeone who should be mentioned.\n\n> I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own\n> writings. I\'m sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity\n> as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a\n> group, but acting on what? He never says it.\n\nHe referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as\npublished in 1904, and which was in part a reply to Poincare\'s earlier\nwritings. From what you state here above, I dare conclude that you did\n*not* study those writings nor the 1904 paper of Lorentz, but just that\none note.\n\n> Poincaré was rather a\n> mathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also\n> not very comfortable with the physical reality.\n\nWith such a misguided remark you support my above conclusion.\n\n> Now the relativity, like every theory, isn\'t a collection of formulas,\n> but a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model\n> derives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the\n> physical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.\n> Are you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that\n> such a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are\n> of good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has\n> any bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to\n> see his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,\n> it\'s the time.\n\nIndeed Poincare didn\'t do so, as far as I am aware of. He considered\nLorentz to be the father of the new mechanics, not himself. He incited\nLorentz (and as it turned out, Einstein) to develop the right theory,\nand next polished it up by presenting the Lorentz transformations. And\nas you hopefully know, the first verification of SRT was of Lorentz\'\nprediction of the precise electron trajectory. For that reason I\nconsider that Poincare may indeed be simply labelled initiator as well\nas discoverer and perfectioner of SRT, while Lorentz could be called the\nmain architect. I think that Einstein was the first to show that the\nLorentz transformations can be directly derived from the PoR. How should\nwe call him for that? Maybe the "perfector" of SRT?\n\n> Analogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at\n> least one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the\n> non-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for\n> describing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The\n> Hamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle\n> is mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave\n> (eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of\n> linear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as\n> the pioneers of quantum mechanics?\n\nI\'d say that that disqualifies Plack as "The True Discoverer" of quantum\nmechanics.\nThe problem and likely cause of this thread is the oversimplification of\nhistory by physics text books.\n\n> As to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works\n> of other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is\n> way too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the\n> pre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the\n> evidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren\'t crooks too.\n\nThe evidence about others being crooks too has little to do with the\nevidence of a certain individual being a "crook". But surely a patent\noffice is usually a very good location to enable one to be aware of the\nlatest publications.\n\nHarald\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message
news:4304ce52$0$29152$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43019a48$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > So? I really can't follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a
> > similar text about Einstein.
>
> Certainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was
> completely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among
> which the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur
> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving
> Bodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn't
> won WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little
> employee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of
> the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The
> relativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the
> Poincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.
The above text that you wrote left out the similarity points that I
referred to and therefore should have been in there. For example, you
"overlooked" to mention his skin colour and his religion, while you
emphasized those of Poincare. On top of that, you made a statement that
is both correct and extremely misleading: in 1905 he was indeed *not*
ascribed the paternity of the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of
the establishment. Did you consider to go in politics?
> First, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became
> Poincaré. Who is next in the list?
That question is also incorrect. Corrected: "From a flood of pertinent
evidence, Poincare played an important role in the development of
special relativity. *Lately*, according to her family and someone who
had seen the manuscript, his wife was co-author. Who is next in the
list?" I can tell you: Larmor and Fitzgerald are also sometimes given
some credit in more elaborate reviews. My excuses if I still overlooked
someone who should be mentioned.
> I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
> writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
> as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
> group, but acting on what? He never says it.
He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as
published in 1904, and which was in part a reply to Poincare's earlier
writings. From what you state here above, I dare conclude that you did
*not* study those writings nor the 1904 paper of Lorentz, but just that
one note.
> Poincaré was rather a
> mathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also
> not very comfortable with the physical reality.
With such a misguided remark you support my above conclusion.
> Now the relativity, like every theory, isn't a collection of formulas,
> but a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model
> derives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the
> physical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.
> Are you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that
> such a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are
> of good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has
> any bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to
> see his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,
> it's the time.
Indeed Poincare didn't do so, as far as I am aware of. He considered
Lorentz to be the father of the new mechanics, not himself. He incited
Lorentz (and as it turned out, Einstein) to develop the right theory,
and next polished it up by presenting the Lorentz transformations. And
as you hopefully know, the first verification of SRT was of Lorentz'
prediction of the precise electron trajectory. For that reason I
consider that Poincare may indeed be simply labelled initiator as well
as discoverer and perfectioner of SRT, while Lorentz could be called the
main architect. I think that Einstein was the first to show that the
Lorentz transformations can be directly derived from the PoR. How should
we call him for that? Maybe the "perfector" of SRT?
> Analogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at
> least one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the
> non-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for
> describing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The
> Hamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle
> is mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave
> (eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of
> linear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as
> the pioneers of quantum mechanics?
I'd say that that disqualifies Plack as "The True Discoverer" of quantum
mechanics.
The problem and likely cause of this thread is the oversimplification of
history by physics text books.
> As to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works
> of other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is
> way too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the
> pre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the
> evidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren't crooks too.
The evidence about others being crooks too has little to do with the
evidence of a certain individual being a "crook". But surely a patent
office is usually a very good location to enable one to be aware of the
latest publications.
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>"Javier Bezos" <see_below_no_spam@yahoo.es> wrote in message\nnews:1124536551.841389.320750@g49g2000cwa .googlegroups.com...\n> Harry:\n>\n> > In addition to my other posting about Maxwell\'s law (accepted by both\n> > Poincare and Einstein) that light emission is independent of the state\nof\n> > motion of the emitter, I found _that_ literally in Poincare 1898,\nPoincare\n> > stated about measurements in inertial frames:\n> >\n> > " [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its\n> > speed is the same in all directions.\n> > Now that\'s a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could\nbe\n> > attempted."\n> > (translation mine)\n>\n> Yes, I knew that. However, he does not say in relation to what.\n\nYes he did and as I wrote above: he discussed observations in inertial\nframes that move relative to each other.\n\n> It was commonly accepted it was in relation to the ether.\n\nYou missed the point:\n- While he emphasized that wrt the ether *no speed can be measured*, and\nthat the ether concept perhaps would be abolished;\n- Here he discussed *measurements in inertial frames*: in order to even be\nable to define a system of reference, light speed must be assumed to be the\nsame in all directions *in the used inertial frame* (just read that text\nagain...)\n\n> The problem was if the ether was in rest or moved with bodies.\n\nI have not seen that dragged ether concept in the writings of Poincare;\ninstead he advocated the stationary ether concept of Lorentz, as he also\ndemonstrated in the thought experiments that I know of.\nThus: reference please!\n\n> As of 1908 Poincaré was still concerned\n> with this issue and even accepts the _ad hoc_ partial\n> drag as a demonstrated fact (by then, the drag coefficient\n> was explained in terms of the SR by Laue, including an\n> additional term which was proven to be true by Zeeman\n> shortly after).\n\nReference?\n\nHarald\n\n> So may question remains.\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:1124536551.841389.320750@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Harry:
>
> > In addition to my other posting about Maxwell's law (accepted by both
> > Poincare and Einstein) that light emission is independent of the state
of
> > motion of the emitter, I found _that_ literally in Poincare 1898,
Poincare
> > stated about measurements in inertial frames:
> >
> > " [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its
> > speed is the same in all directions.
> > Now that's a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could
be
> > attempted."
> > (translation mine)
>
> Yes, I knew that. However, he does not say in relation to what.
Yes he did and as I wrote above: he discussed observations in inertial
frames that move relative to each other.
> It was commonly accepted it was in relation to the ether.
You missed the point:
- While he emphasized that wrt the ether *no speed can be measured*, and
that the ether concept perhaps would be abolished;
- Here he discussed *measurements in inertial frames*: in order to even be
able to define a system of reference, light speed must be assumed to be the
same in all directions *in the used inertial frame* (just read that text
again...)
> The problem was if the ether was in rest or moved with bodies.
I have not seen that dragged ether concept in the writings of Poincare;
instead he advocated the stationary ether concept of Lorentz, as he also
demonstrated in the thought experiments that I know of.
Thus: reference please!
> As of 1908 Poincaré was still concerned
> with this issue and even accepts the _ad hoc_ partial
> drag as a demonstrated fact (by then, the drag coefficient
> was explained in terms of the SR by Laue, including an
> additional term which was proven to be true by Zeeman
> shortly after).
Reference?
Harald
> So may question remains.
Homo Lykos
Aug25-05, 03:48 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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:430cb353\\$0\\$3414\\$626a14ce@n ews.free.fr...\n>> >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L\'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,\n>> >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):\n>> >>\n>> >> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon\n>> >> à la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l\'impossibilité\n>> >> complète\n>> >> de la détermination du mouvement absolu. C\'est ce qu\'il a réussi à\n>> >> faire dans son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system\n>> >> moving with any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de\n>> >> l\'Académie d\'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).\n>> >>\n>> >> L\'importance de la question m\'a déterminé á la reprendre; les\n>> >> résultats\n>> >> que j\'ai obtenus sont d\'accord sur tous les points importants avec\n>> >> ceux\n>> >> de *Lorentz*; j\'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les\n>> >> compléter dans quelques points du détail. "\n>\n> I wrote:\n>\n>> > Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.\n>\n> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 430a3ede_1@news.bluewin.ch...\n>\n>> No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):\n>>\n>> 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz\n>>\n>> 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz\n>>\n>> 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by\n>> Lorentz/Poincaré\n>\n> Don\'t know and don\'t care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking\n> about the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue.\n\nIt\'s not a question of language, but of physics/mathematics. In [3] there\nare only the results of [4]: read also chapter LT in [4].\n\n> No reference of\n> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has\n> been given in this thread.\n>\n> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any\n> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,\n> therefore it can\'t be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,\n> changed only details.\n\nWithout these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the\nMaxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.\n\nHomo Lykos\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:430cb353$0$3414$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>> >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
>> >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>> >>
>> >> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon
>> >> à la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité
>> >> complète
>> >> de la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à
>> >> faire dans son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system
>> >> moving with any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de
>> >> l'Académie d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>> >>
>> >> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les
>> >> résultats
>> >> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec
>> >> ceux
>> >> de *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les
>> >> compléter dans quelques points du détail. "
>
> I wrote:
>
>> > Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.
>
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 430a3ede_1@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>> No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
>>
>> 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
>>
>> 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
>>
>> 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
>> Lorentz/Poincaré
>
> Don't know and don't care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking
> about the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue.
It's not a question of language, but of physics/mathematics. In [3] there
are only the results of [4]: read also chapter LT in [4].
> No reference of
> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has
> been given in this thread.
>
> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
> changed only details.
Without these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the
Maxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.
Homo Lykos
<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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message\nnews:430cb353\\$0\\$3414\\$626a14ce@news. free.fr...\n> > >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L\'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,\n> > >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):\nSNIP\n> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 430a3ede_1@news.bluewin.ch...\n>\n> > No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):\n> >\n> > 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz\n> >\n> > 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz\n> >\n> > 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by\n> > Lorentz/Poincaré\n>\n> Don\'t know and don\'t care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking\nabout\n> the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue. No reference\nof\n> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has\nbeen\n> given in this thread.\n\nI really wonder... why you present irrelevant arguments as if they have any\nrelevance.\nDon\'t you know that nobody at that time - including Einstein - spoke about\nthe "relativity theory"?\n\n> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any\n> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,\n> therefore it can\'t be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,\nchanged\n> only details.\n\nThat\'s not clear from the title, just as it\'s not clear from Einstein\'s\ntitle "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS\nOF MOVING BODIES". Apart of that, Einstein\'s relativity as you present it\nhere is not distinguishable as a different theory of physics. For that one\nneeds to have in principle a possible measurable distinction, obtainable\nfrom measurements.\n\nRegards,\nHarald\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message
news:430cb353$0$3414$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> > >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
> > >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
SNIP
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 430a3ede_1@news.bluewin.ch...
>
> > No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
> >
> > 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
> >
> > 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
> >
> > 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
> > Lorentz/Poincaré
>
> Don't know and don't care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking
about
> the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue. No reference
of
> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has
been
> given in this thread.
I really wonder... why you present irrelevant arguments as if they have any
relevance.
Don't you know that nobody at that time - including Einstein - spoke about
the "relativity theory"?
> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
changed
> only details.
That's not clear from the title, just as it's not clear from Einstein's
title "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES". Apart of that, Einstein's relativity as you present it
here is not distinguishable as a different theory of physics. For that one
needs to have in principle a possible measurable distinction, obtainable
from measurements.
Regards,
Harald
Javier Bezos
Aug26-05, 01:57 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>Harry wrote:\n\n> > As of 1908 Poincar=E9 was still concerned\n> > with this issue and even accepts the _ad hoc_ partial\n> > drag as a demonstrated fact (by then, the drag coefficient\n> > was explained in terms of the SR by Laue, including an\n> > additional term which was proven to be true by Zeeman\n> > shortly after).\n>\n> Reference?\n\nScience and Method. At the end of the section about\naberration (chap. 2) he says on Fizeau\'s experiments\nand the ether: "Those experiments have confirmed the\nthe Fresnel\'s hypothesis of partial drag". To me it\'s\na mistery why Poincar=E9 returned to the ether after\nalmost rejecting it. As to the Laue\'s paper, Ann.\nPhys., 1907, 989, but that result was, IIR, already\nfound by Lorentz using quite different reasonings.\n\nJavier\n-----------------------------\nhttp://www.texytipografia.com\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>Harry wrote:
> > As of 1908 Poincar=E9 was still concerned
> > with this issue and even accepts the _ad hoc_ partial
> > drag as a demonstrated fact (by then, the drag coefficient
> > was explained in terms of the SR by Laue, including an
> > additional term which was proven to be true by Zeeman
> > shortly after).
>
> Reference?
Science and Method. At the end of the section about
aberration (chap. 2) he says on Fizeau's experiments
and the ether: "Those experiments have confirmed the
the Fresnel's hypothesis of partial drag". To me it's
a mistery why Poincar=E9 returned to the ether after
almost rejecting it. As to the Laue's paper, Ann.
Phys., 1907, 989, but that result was, IIR, already
found by Lorentz using quite different reasonings.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Cl.Massé
Aug28-05, 02:27 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>I wrote :\n\n> > Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any\n> > velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,\n> > therefore it can\'t be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,\n> > changed only details.\n\n"Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n430d1f72\\$1_3@news.bluewin.ch...\n\n> Without these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the\n> Maxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.\n\nNo, Poincaré acknowledged that the Maxwell equations are invariant under\nthe Lorentz transformation. The details concern the dynamics of the\nelectron calculated from this transformation. Poincaré try incorrectly\nand unsuccessfully to derive the relativity principle, by postulating\nthat the electron is flatten by a constant force.\n\n"Le point essentiel, *établi* par Lorentz, c\'est que les équations du\nchamp electromagnétique ne sont pas altérées par une certaine\ntransformation ([...]) et qui est de la forme suivante:" (Poincaré, _Sur\nla Dynamique de l\'Electron_ June 5th 1905, emphasis is mine)\n\n[The basic point, *found* by Lorentz, is that the equations of the\nelectromagnetic field aren\'t changed by a given transformation ([...]),\nwhich is in the following form:]\n\nActually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present\nformulation of Relativity. If Einstein hasn\'t the priority, Lorentz has\nit and not Poincaré.\n\nI\'m afraid some people don\'t know French enough, and think to have read\nwhat was never written.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>I wrote :
> > Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> > velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> > therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
> > changed only details.
"Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
430d1f72$1_3@news.bluewin.ch...
> Without these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the
> Maxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.
No, Poincaré acknowledged that the Maxwell equations are invariant under
the Lorentz transformation. The details concern the dynamics of the
electron calculated from this transformation. Poincaré try incorrectly
and unsuccessfully to derive the relativity principle, by postulating
that the electron is flatten by a constant force.
"Le point essentiel, *établi* par Lorentz, c'est que les équations du
champ electromagnétique ne sont pas altérées par une certaine
transformation ([...]) et qui est de la forme suivante:" (Poincaré, _Sur
la Dynamique de l'Electron_ June 5th 1905, emphasis is mine)
[The basic point, *found* by Lorentz, is that the equations of the
electromagnetic field aren't changed by a given transformation ([...]),
which is in the following form:]
Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present
formulation of Relativity. If Einstein hasn't the priority, Lorentz has
it and not Poincaré.
I'm afraid some people don't know French enough, and think to have read
what was never written.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Homo Lykos
Aug30-05, 03:07 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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:4310a880\\$0\\$315\\$626a14ce@ne ws.free.fr...\n>\n> Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present\n> formulation of Relativity. If Einstein hasn\'t the priority, Lorentz has\n> it and not Poincaré.\n\nExactly this has written Poincaré himself at 5 June 1905 and he never\nchanged his mind. This you find in my first note here and in my note of\nyesterday again. But because all important more philosophical ideas come\nfrom Poincaré and because the proofs of Lorentz 1904 were not fully correct\n(and convincing) and because Lorentz not really fully understood his own\ntheory 1904 I think its correcter to give priority to Lorentz/Poincaré.\n\n> I\'m afraid some people don\'t know French enough, and think to have read\n> what was never written.\n\nMy knowledge of foreign languages (english, french, italian and spain) is\nreally bad, but I\'m sure, that I have understood correctly - better then you\nin your mother-language - the following passage in the note of Poincaré of 5\njune 1905 with the most important results of his great SR-article of july\n1905 (NOT 1906 as most people write here incorrectly!):\n\n" Lorentz a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la\nmettre en concordance avec le postulat de l\'impossibilité complète de la\ndétermination du mouvement absolu. C\'est ce qu\'il a réussi à faire dans son\narticle intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any\nvelocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l\'Académie d\'Amsterdam,\n27 mai 1904). "\n\nEspecially:\n\n"le postulat de l\'impossibilité complète de la détermination du mouvement\nabsolu"\n\nis a very short and pretty formulation (as postulate) of the PoR before\nEinstein did it. And don\'t forget: Einstein may have read this note of\nPoincaré before finsishing his own paper about SR (the comptes rendus were\nat that time a very well known scientific weekly magazine!)\n\nAnd don\'t think that Einstein based firstly on the principle of the contancy\nof c and not on the postulate of PoR:\n\n1905 Einstein did not think so: In "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von\nseinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" he wrote in the footnote **:\n\n" Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der\nKonstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen\nGleichungen enthalten.. "\n\n\nHomo Lykos\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4310a880$0$315$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>
> Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present
> formulation of Relativity. If Einstein hasn't the priority, Lorentz has
> it and not Poincaré.
Exactly this has written Poincaré himself at 5 June 1905 and he never
changed his mind. This you find in my first note here and in my note of
yesterday again. But because all important more philosophical ideas come
from Poincaré and because the proofs of Lorentz 1904 were not fully correct
(and convincing) and because Lorentz not really fully understood his own
theory 1904 I think its correcter to give priority to Lorentz/Poincaré.
> I'm afraid some people don't know French enough, and think to have read
> what was never written.
My knowledge of foreign languages (english, french, italian and spain) is
really bad, but I'm sure, that I have understood correctly - better then you
in your mother-language - the following passage in the note of Poincaré of 5
june 1905 with the most important results of his great SR-article of july
1905 (NOT 1906 as most people write here incorrectly!):
" Lorentz a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la
mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la
détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans son
article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie d'Amsterdam,
27 mai 1904). "
Especially:
"le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la détermination du mouvement
absolu"
is a very short and pretty formulation (as postulate) of the PoR before
Einstein did it. And don't forget: Einstein may have read this note of
Poincaré before finsishing his own paper about SR (the comptes rendus were
at that time a very well known scientific weekly magazine!)
And don't think that Einstein based firstly on the principle of the contancy
of c and not on the postulate of PoR:
1905 Einstein did not think so: In "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von
seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" he wrote in the footnote **:
" Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der
Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen
Gleichungen enthalten.. "
Homo Lykos
Cl.Massé
Sep1-05, 05:25 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><cmaj10@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:\n1125200589.467827.52920@g14g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...\n\n> I\'ve suspected for a while that you were yet another victim of the very\n> widespread misconception about Einstein\'s so-called repudiation of\n> absolute motion. It is true that he repudiated it, but only \'hand\n> wavingly\' in his opening paragraphs of his 1905 paper. His 1916 paper\n> on GR is the first occasion he actually put his money where his mouth\n> was. If you erased the opening paragraphs of the 1905 paper, you\n> couldn\'t possibly tell whether Einstein was a relationist or an\n> absolutist: because he subsequently refers every velocity with respect\n> to the same "system at rest K". Take a look again, you\'ll see it is\n> true.\n\n"Wir nennen dies Koordinatensystem zur *sprachlichen* Unterscheidung von\nspäter einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen und zur Präzisierung des\nVorstellung das \'ruhende System\'." (A. Einstein, _Zur Elektrodynamic\nbewegter Körper_, I §1, june 30th 1905, emphasis is mine)\n\n[We name this frame of reference, to distinguish it *verbally* from the\nframes to be introduced later, and to clarify the discussion, the \'frame\nat rest\'.]\n\nIt appears it is only a language convention, without the implied\nsemantics.\n\n> He may or may not have done this purposely, but the hard reality is\n> that his paper could have been written by an absolutist. Despite that\n> fact, Einstein arrived at a consistent theory. The same goes with\n> Poincare-Lorentz.\n\nI disagree. With an absolute frame of reference there is something, at\nleast formally, that distinguishes it. In Einsteins relativity, every\nframe has exactly the same properties, as well physically as\nmathematically. In Poincaré, the absolute frame is distinguished by a\nspherical electron.\n\nAnyway, Einstein would be early in his time, since we now know that\nthere is a preferred frame, the one where the momentum and the angular\nmomentum of the Universe as a whole are zero, the one of the 3K\nradiation.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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><cmaj10@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1125200589.467827.52920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om...
> I've suspected for a while that you were yet another victim of the very
> widespread misconception about Einstein's so-called repudiation of
> absolute motion. It is true that he repudiated it, but only 'hand
> wavingly' in his opening paragraphs of his 1905 paper. His 1916 paper
> on GR is the first occasion he actually put his money where his mouth
> was. If you erased the opening paragraphs of the 1905 paper, you
> couldn't possibly tell whether Einstein was a relationist or an
> absolutist: because he subsequently refers every velocity with respect
> to the same "system at rest K". Take a look again, you'll see it is
> true.
"Wir nennen dies Koordinatensystem zur *sprachlichen* Unterscheidung von
später einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen und zur Präzisierung des
Vorstellung das 'ruhende System'." (A. Einstein, _Zur Elektrodynamic
bewegter Körper_, I §1, june 30th 1905, emphasis is mine)
[We name this frame of reference, to distinguish it *verbally* from the
frames to be introduced later, and to clarify the discussion, the 'frame
at rest'.]
It appears it is only a language convention, without the implied
semantics.
> He may or may not have done this purposely, but the hard reality is
> that his paper could have been written by an absolutist. Despite that
> fact, Einstein arrived at a consistent theory. The same goes with
> Poincare-Lorentz.
I disagree. With an absolute frame of reference there is something, at
least formally, that distinguishes it. In Einsteins relativity, every
frame has exactly the same properties, as well physically as
mathematically. In Poincaré, the absolute frame is distinguished by a
spherical electron.
Anyway, Einstein would be early in his time, since we now know that
there is a preferred frame, the one where the momentum and the angular
momentum of the Universe as a whole are zero, the one of the 3K
radiation.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Cl.Massé
Sep1-05, 05:29 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>"Joe Rongen" <joerongen@sprint.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:\n005a01c5ac13\\$30c4ff20\\$2723fea9@research ...\n\n> Poincare, on the other hand, could well be called the first "relativist",\n> but he did not have a complete theory."\n\nThe first relativist was Galileo. It may seems strange, but the ether was\na way to restore the relativity principle which was seriously challenged by\nthe Maxwell equations. The material waves, although their description\nimplies a preferred frame of reference, abide by the classical relativity.\nThat because the laws of physics must be formulated by taking into account\nthe state of the medium, after which they are independent of the frame. The\nMM experiment had the purpose to measure the speed of the earth with respect\nto ether. One of the explanations of its result was that the earth should\ncarry the ether along. A theory without ether could break the relativity\nprinciple, since there would be a "metaphysical" absolute frame. The name\nof the theory we are speaking about is "relativity", which introduces that\nconfusion. Special relativity is only a relativist theory without (use of\nan) ether. Actually, Poincaré said something slightly different: "We can\'t\ndetermine the absolute motion", which doesn\'t exclude the existence of an\nabsolute frame.\n\n"Il semble que cette impossibilité de démontrer le mouvement absolu soit une\nrègle générale de la nature." (H. Poincaré, _Sur la Dynamique de\nl\'Electron_, June 5th 1905.)\n\n[It seem that this impossibility to show the absolute motion be a general\nrule of nature.]\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>"Joe Rongen" <joerongen@sprint.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
005a01c5ac13$30c4ff20$2723fea9@research...
> Poincare, on the other hand, could well be called the first "relativist",
> but he did not have a complete theory."
The first relativist was Galileo. It may seems strange, but the ether was
a way to restore the relativity principle which was seriously challenged by
the Maxwell equations. The material waves, although their description
implies a preferred frame of reference, abide by the classical relativity.
That because the laws of physics must be formulated by taking into account
the state of the medium, after which they are independent of the frame. The
MM experiment had the purpose to measure the speed of the earth with respect
to ether. One of the explanations of its result was that the earth should
carry the ether along. A theory without ether could break the relativity
principle, since there would be a "metaphysical" absolute frame. The name
of the theory we are speaking about is "relativity", which introduces that
confusion. Special relativity is only a relativist theory without (use of
an) ether. Actually, Poincaré said something slightly different: "We can't
determine the absolute motion", which doesn't exclude the existence of an
absolute frame.
"Il semble que cette impossibilité de démontrer le mouvement absolu soit une
règle générale de la nature." (H. Poincaré, _Sur la Dynamique de
l'Electron_, June 5th 1905.)
[It seem that this impossibility to show the absolute motion be a general
rule of nature.]
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Homo Lykos
Sep19-05, 04:56 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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:432b0511\\$0\\$21745\\$626a14ce@ news.free.fr...\n> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 431b8b0f\\$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...\n>\n>\n>> And don\'t forget: If Einstein should have really read the note of\n>> Poincarè of 5 june 1905 before finishing his SR-paper he had 1907 very\n>> strong reasons to emphasize his difficulty of access to the library of\n>> the university of Bern.\n>\n> If so, he had only a few days to understand Poincaré and to write a paper\n> completely different in form, a still bigger genius then.\n\nIf it was so, he had about two weeks, and I had written at the end of\naugust in an older answer to you:\n\n" This note [paper of 5 june 1905] may have been helpful for Einstein to\nfinish his own SR-paper in a shorter time. "\n\nI formulated so because it is known that Einstein was working on his own\nSR-paper since about april 1905. And that Einstein was indeed extremely\nfast in incorporating results of others into the framework of his own\npapers is today very well known because of the "Hilbert-affair" in\nnovembre 1914.\n\n\nHomo Lykos\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:432b0511$0$21745$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 431b8b0f$1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>
>> And don't forget: If Einstein should have really read the note of
>> Poincarè of 5 june 1905 before finishing his SR-paper he had 1907 very
>> strong reasons to emphasize his difficulty of access to the library of
>> the university of Bern.
>
> If so, he had only a few days to understand Poincaré and to write a paper
> completely different in form, a still bigger genius then.
If it was so, he had about two weeks, and I had written at the end of
august in an older answer to you:
" This note [paper of 5 june 1905] may have been helpful for Einstein to
finish his own SR-paper in a shorter time. "
I formulated so because it is known that Einstein was working on his own
SR-paper since about april 1905. And that Einstein was indeed extremely
fast in incorporating results of others into the framework of his own
papers is today very well known because of the "Hilbert-affair" in
novembre 1914.
Homo Lykos
Homo Lykos
Sep19-05, 04:57 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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\nnews:432c386b\\$0\\$20609\\$626a14ce@ news.free.fr...\n>I wrote:\n>\n>> > France and Germany were then "hereditary enemies", and\n>\n> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 43190459\\$1_1@news.bluewin.ch...\n>\n>\n>> > Einstein used the two postulates on an equal footing, they are both\n>> > necessary.\n>\n>> The interpretation is very clear and simple: 1905 Einstein saw the\n>> constancy of c in all inertial systems as a consequence of the constancy\n>> of c in the "Ruhesytem" (because of Maxwell) + the PoR.\n>\n> Not at all. Read the original paper:\n>\n> "Die folgenden Überlegugen stützen sich auf das Relativitätsprinzip und\n> auf das Pinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindingkeit, welche beiden\n> Pinzipien wir folgendermassen definieren." (_Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter\n> Körper_, §2, A. Einstein, 30 June 1905)\n>\n> [the following discussion rest on the principle of relativity and on the\n> principle of the constancy of the light speed, which both principles we\n> define as the following.]\n>\n> Einstein made no use, and even no reference to the Maxwell equations.\n\nIn his next paper of 27 sept. 1905 "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von\nseinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" wrote Einstein in the footnote ** on the\nfirst page:\n\n" Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der\nKonstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen\nGleichungen enthalten.. "\n\n> Actually, they aren\'t needed even to derive the Lorentz transformation.\n> The latter is universal, and consequently the Maxwell equation *have to\n> be* invariant under it. Still a big difference with Poincaré.\n\nDo you know, what you say? The main principle was for Poincaré PoR and\nfor Einstein - in the sense I explained - too and it\'s clear that\nEinstein learned this by the lecture of Poincaré (e.g. in La Science et\nl\'Hypothèse, chapter 10). It seems that Einstein had often difficulties\nto differentiate between own ideas and ideas he had read before.\nEspecially at the end of §2 and at the begin of § 3 of Einsteins paper\nit\'s obvious that he was using old ideas of Poincaré, but without\nreferencing (and fully understanding) Poincaré.\n\n\nHomo Lykos\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:432c386b$0$20609$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>I wrote:
>
>> > France and Germany were then "hereditary enemies", and
>
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43190459$1_1@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>
>> > Einstein used the two postulates on an equal footing, they are both
>> > necessary.
>
>> The interpretation is very clear and simple: 1905 Einstein saw the
>> constancy of c in all inertial systems as a consequence of the constancy
>> of c in the "Ruhesytem" (because of Maxwell) + the PoR.
>
> Not at all. Read the original paper:
>
> "Die folgenden Überlegugen stützen sich auf das Relativitätsprinzip und
> auf das Pinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindingkeit, welche beiden
> Pinzipien wir folgendermassen definieren." (_Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
> Körper_, §2, A. Einstein, 30 June 1905)
>
> [the following discussion rest on the principle of relativity and on the
> principle of the constancy of the light speed, which both principles we
> define as the following.]
>
> Einstein made no use, and even no reference to the Maxwell equations.
In his next paper of 27 sept. 1905 "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von
seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" wrote Einstein in the footnote ** on the
first page:
" Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der
Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen
Gleichungen enthalten.. "
> Actually, they aren't needed even to derive the Lorentz transformation.
> The latter is universal, and consequently the Maxwell equation *have to
> be* invariant under it. Still a big difference with Poincaré.
Do you know, what you say? The main principle was for Poincaré PoR and
for Einstein - in the sense I explained - too and it's clear that
Einstein learned this by the lecture of Poincaré (e.g. in La Science et
l'Hypothèse, chapter 10). It seems that Einstein had often difficulties
to differentiate between own ideas and ideas he had read before.
Especially at the end of §2 and at the begin of § 3 of Einsteins paper
it's obvious that he was using old ideas of Poincaré, but without
referencing (and fully understanding) Poincaré.
Homo Lykos
Cl.Massé
Oct4-05, 03:39 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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n433bc3a0\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n\n> I never heard such a similar accusation against Poincare, that he didn\'t\n> properly acknowledge others. Quite to the contrary, I have the impression\n> that he too much emphasized the achievements of others, thus minimizing\n> his own achievements.\n\nHe had friends, but that doesn\'t prove he didn\'t used material from\nnon-friends without acknowledging it. Now, all what is important is that\nthe work of Einstein is original, and he couldn\'t loot it from others.\n\n> Thanks to discussions like these, there is finally proper recognition for\n> his contributions to SRT.\n\nThanks to discussions like these, a cabal against a non-member of the\nestablishment has been exposed.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
433bc3a0$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> I never heard such a similar accusation against Poincare, that he didn't
> properly acknowledge others. Quite to the contrary, I have the impression
> that he too much emphasized the achievements of others, thus minimizing
> his own achievements.
He had friends, but that doesn't prove he didn't used material from
non-friends without acknowledging it. Now, all what is important is that
the work of Einstein is original, and he couldn't loot it from others.
> Thanks to discussions like these, there is finally proper recognition for
> his contributions to SRT.
Thanks to discussions like these, a cabal against a non-member of the
establishment has been exposed.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
<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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message\nnews:4342b9b2\\$0\\$629\\$626a14ce@news.f ree.fr...\n> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:\n> 433bc3a0\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n>\n> > I never heard such a similar accusation against Poincare, that he didn\'t\n> > properly acknowledge others. Quite to the contrary, I have the\nimpression\n> > that he too much emphasized the achievements of others, thus minimizing\n> > his own achievements.\n>\n> He had friends, but that doesn\'t prove he didn\'t used material from\n> non-friends without acknowledging it.\n\nIt can happen to everyone. Still, I know of some striking examples of\nEinstein doing just that, but not of Poincare doing that.\n\n> Now, all what is important is that\n> the work of Einstein is original, and he couldn\'t loot it from others.\n\nThis thread is about the achievements of "the mathematician" Poincare before\nthe work of Einstein.\nIn that context, the originality of Einstein\'s work doesn\'t really matter.\n\n> > Thanks to discussions like these, there is finally proper recognition\nfor\n> > his contributions to SRT.\n>\n> Thanks to discussions like these, a cabal against a non-member of the\n> establishment has been exposed.\n\nI haven\'t got a clue what you might mean with that!\nThe only thing that that comes to my mind, is that a apparently a "cabal"\nagainst a member of the scientific establishment has been exposed.\nBut that wasn\'t explicitly stated as it all happened a long time ago and the\nevidence is only indirect.\n\nHarald\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>"Cl.Massé" <toto@tata.ti> wrote in message
news:4342b9b2$0$629$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 433bc3a0$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > I never heard such a similar accusation against Poincare, that he didn't
> > properly acknowledge others. Quite to the contrary, I have the
impression
> > that he too much emphasized the achievements of others, thus minimizing
> > his own achievements.
>
> He had friends, but that doesn't prove he didn't used material from
> non-friends without acknowledging it.
It can happen to everyone. Still, I know of some striking examples of
Einstein doing just that, but not of Poincare doing that.
> Now, all what is important is that
> the work of Einstein is original, and he couldn't loot it from others.
This thread is about the achievements of "the mathematician" Poincare before
the work of Einstein.
In that context, the originality of Einstein's work doesn't really matter.
> > Thanks to discussions like these, there is finally proper recognition
for
> > his contributions to SRT.
>
> Thanks to discussions like these, a cabal against a non-member of the
> establishment has been exposed.
I haven't got a clue what you might mean with that!
The only thing that that comes to my mind, is that a apparently a "cabal"
against a member of the scientific establishment has been exposed.
But that wasn't explicitly stated as it all happened a long time ago and the
evidence is only indirect.
Harald
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.