Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- From: "Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:20:00 -0400
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193650873_2880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Howdy Harold!
That claim does not appear to originate with "crackpots" of physics but it
is an accusation made by some history of science researchers.
It was due to the fact that I found this in a highly respected history book
by Whittaker, who is no crackpot that's for sure. That was what suprised me.
I did some checking in other books like Pais and read a few articles from
Am. J. Phys. too. I'm now reading the one by Holton which is a well known
paper on the history of special relativity. I can upload that paper on my
website if anyone wishes to read it.
That topic is not physics although it has to with the practice of science.
The history of physics can, at times, provide insight into modern physics or
unresolved classical problems.
The answer, of course, is no.
"Of course"? Have you ever heard of "observer bias"? ;-)
:)
I'll upload a few Am. J. Phys. articles on one of my websites for your
reading if you're interested on this subject. They are at
http://www.geocities.com/pmb_phy/ajp_sep1964_scrib.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/pmb_phy/schw_ajpfeb1965.pdf
Quite a number of people have already done that, and as a result there are
even websites with comprehensive lists of papers from which readers can
draw their own conclusions.
I was obviously unaware and assumed that there were readers who were also
unaware of it also.
Do you call Sir Edmund Whittaker also a "crackpot"?
No way Jose!
- A book about "aether theories" won't say much about Einstein: he didn't
propose a clear ether model.
The section was about the history of relativity. Not about the aether. Its a
strange title he gave that book because it gives the impression that the
book speaks of nothing else.
- Recently I posted a links to the NYT of 1920 according to which Einstein
and Lorentz agreed that *special* relativity was their theory. It was
called "relativity" until Einstein relabled it "SRT".
On the Other hand Pais gives the credit to Einstein for special
relativity.
I think Pais didn't know Lorentz personally, while he did know Einstein.
But you have in the title "Poincare". I also read his book and was
surprised to see how Pais stressed that Einstein appears to have been
dishonest about his knowledge of the writings of Poincare.
I left Lorentz out of the title because I have only heard of this question
about Poincare. Lorentz himself gave Einstein all the credit for relativity
and cited the "Lorentz transformation" so I didn't think Lorentz is related
to this so-called "plagerism" nonsense.
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- From: harry
- Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- References:
- Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- From: Pmb
- Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- From: harry
- Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- Prev by Date: Sagnac Experiment "OR" Higgs Field theory is ***FALSE***
- Next by Date: Re: Sagnac Threads United
- Previous by thread: Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- Next by thread: Re: Poincare and Einstein on Relativity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
