Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)


by
Tags: continuation, history, poincare, relativity, theory
=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#19
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#20
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#21
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#22
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#23
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#24
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#25
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#26
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#27
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#28
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#29
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#30
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#31
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#32
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#33
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#34
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#35
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.


=?UNKNOWN?Q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
#36
Oct12-06, 04:34 AM
P: n/a
<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3201.217.124.69.219.1125758580.squir...calscience.com...

> Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
> (really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
> theories and do not apply in the field of the other.


All theories are approximate. Classical mechanics is approximate, although
it was thought exact and final before ~1900, and is used most of the time
since then, so what? A theory must describe all the known facts. QM and GR
can't alone, therefore they aren't theories. QM + GR is one, but it is
mathematically incoherent. Some persons have difficulties to tell the
difference between physics and mathematics, that's all.

> The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others


It is precisely because he don't that we have this debate. Poincaré *never*
wrote down his postulates in an unambiguous and workable way. If not,
please answer my challenge, quote him and work out the purported "Poincaré
theory".

> As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
> postulates.


Einstein didn't rejected all the postulates used by non-relativistic
mechanics, that's not the issue at all. What is important is the new
principles he introduced and made clear, without which special relativity
doesn't work, and the hidden assumption he identified and dispelled. This
great discovery doesn't deserve this nitpicking.

> I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect.


Well, let's say you are right, but nevertheless entirely unconvincing.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.




Register to reply