DH, Thanks for your thoughtful reply here.
Although I agree that Einstein built on others he didn't do it without choosing.
If you have an idea that you want to prove to others, you will look for already existing evidence for it.
That's how I see Einstein 'building' on others, not unlike most of us:) when/if we believe we got something interesting/new.
As an example I would like to point out that even when he a good idea of how acceleration equalized gravity he still didn't have the math for describing it.
This I hope explains how I see Lorentz and Poincaré work, as relating to Einstein.
First you need to 'invent' SpaceTime, then see the implications, and search/find the appropriate math for describing it.
That as you naturally will use/look for the best tools you can find, to define your thoughts that others might accept them.
I'm not saying that he was 'alone' either.
But he developed a very new 'vision' of Space and Time, and thereafter kept building mathematical and experimental evidence for it.
Not 'alone' any more, but that first 'vision' of his, that was his own.
And that is to me 'pure physics'.
Somewhat like 'magic':)
---------------
Fra we seem to be thinking along similar lines here.
Popper is interesting.
He says that you should make your most daring theory and then test it for fallibility.
If it fails in any way it would be proved false, As when a hypothesis fails to describe reality.
(although he changed/loosened up that view later if I got it right?)
Also he found no proofs to be without reasonable doubts.
His view (as I understand it) was that there was no 'archetypal' truths at all.
Although falsifications there existed in abundance :)
In a way he is similar to George Berkeley.
Berkeley said " To be is to be perceived "
Both refused to believe in any ultimate truth.
For myself I find Berkeley to be nearer my view of the world than Popper though.
That as it's the observer that is the final arbiter of 'reality'.
So where Popper is trying to create a phenomenological world 'outside' ourselves when 'spliting' our experience of the world in those three parts.
The 'material' world, (stars, Earth etc), the world of our 'experiences' and the world of 'produce' from our thoughts and endeavors.
Berkeley instead goes to the 'center' of all phenomenology, namely consciousness itself.
Which after all is the very thing making any 'sense' out of SpaceTime:)
"There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there´s no one about in the Quad."
Dear Sir,
Your astonishment´s odd
I am always about in the Quad.
And that´s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God"
And yes, Berkeley was a priest.
But then again, there are Gods and there are Gods:
(Sorry but I just had to rewrite this..
The 'flow' of it was terrible.)