Why Einstein is the founder of special relativity


by Charles Francis
Tags: einstein, founder, relativity, special
thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com
#55
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
Carlo Rovelli discusses the topic in this thread on page 2 of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 . This paper is quite
interesting in other respects, too.

thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com
#56
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
Carlo Rovelli discusses the topic in this thread on page 2 of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 . This paper is quite
interesting in other respects, too.

thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com
#57
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
Carlo Rovelli discusses the topic in this thread on page 2 of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 . This paper is quite
interesting in other respects, too.

thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com
#58
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
Carlo Rovelli discusses the topic in this thread on page 2 of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 . This paper is quite
interesting in other respects, too.

thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com
#59
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
Carlo Rovelli discusses the topic in this thread on page 2 of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 . This paper is quite
interesting in other respects, too.

Harry
#60
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#61
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#62
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#63
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#64
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#65
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#66
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#67
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#68
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#69
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#70
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#71
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald


Harry
#72
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a

"Charles Francis" <charles@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mNz1YzQK49GDFwTF@clef.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't think this so much a matter of who found what equation, or of
> what property is implied by what they said. Einstein reduced special
> relativity to the empirical study of how we actually go about measuring
> things.


Hmm.. your above statement that "Einstein reduced special relativity" does
not match with your claim that "Einstein is the founder of special
relativity".

If you meant that Einstein founded the modern way of presenting SRT, I think
that most people will agree.

> This did not require a prior knowledge of Maxwell's equations,
> but an observation about how we use light in the empirical *definition*
> of time and space coordinates.


> The MM experiment was not strictly
> required, but had light not behaved in the way it does, it is not just
> relativity which would be wrong, but we would have no meaningful
> definition of the metre,


At that time there was a very meaningful definition of the metre, and we
could have kept it.

> and would not be able to state Maxwell's equations.


I wonder...

Harald




Register to reply