Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:26:52 +0000 (UTC)
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> The claim of incorrect derivation [of Emc^2] is
> RIGOROUS and was also stated by Planck and by J. Stark.
So what? On the other hand, Planck derivation of his law was
wrong (oscilators with energy n h nu, for example) and Einstein
gave a correct one.
****************************
If Einstein own `derivation' of Emc^2 is partial and incorrect (as shown
by many people) and formula was previously known on literature, then
Einstein copied from some part without acknowledging. Moreover, Poincaré
obtained before.
There are other derivations and proofs by Einstein that suggest that he
copied things. For example, his standard derivation of LT from the two
postulates of relativity is completely wrong in mathematical details, and
imply that Einstein known previously the LT and simply did an irrelevant
attempt to derive it from an `axiomatic basis'.
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Contrary to popular belief, I see no significant role of
> Einstein except, perhaps, like an `organizer' of the work
> of others.
So, Einstein said the same as Poincaré and Lorentz.
****************************
Compare by your-self Einstein postulates with
`The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion.'
`From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
exceed the velocity of light.'
Above are own words by Poincaré on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
of reference -Poincaré used the LT where this is already implicit- and
since 1904 < 1905, then Einstein postulates are simply Poincaré
postulates. Priority is for Poincaré.
As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
others. Why would it be different on SR?
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
>
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
So, Einsteis didn't say the same as Poincaré and Lorentz. ;-)
****************************
I already explained that. Look the difference between CKC and MTE
formulations of classical thermodynamics. Is thermodynamics an outcome of
Tisza and Callen?
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Three points:
1) I wonder if Poincaré realized this, and apparently he didn't.
I would like to know if there is something in the Poincaré's
work revealing he realized this (because I don't have all his
papers) but it seems you think that's a bold question and
you refuse to answer it (which, btw, is not very polite).
3) The constancy of c is implicit not only in LT but in
Maxwell's equations. However, that doesn't mean Maxwell is
the author of SR.
2) You are saying Poincaré developped a formal system based in
other principles and postulates. Then, that's not Einstein's SR,
it's another system developped by Poincaré and therefore SR
cannot be credited to him. I've never seen the Poincaré system,
but if you are saying his system was developped by him, I must
agree. But at least, you are recognizing Einstein's postulates
are by him, not by Lorentz or Poincaré.
Javier
****************************
1) The theory of relativity was formulated in a number of papers by
Poincaré and Lorentz. I already cited main work where he developed the
theory of relativity (even invented the name!!!!) BEFORE Einstein's annus
mirabilis. Extended pointers to Poincaré works are in some of general
works I referenced.
3) The constancy of c was known before Maxwell's equations, e.g. in Weber
electrodynamics. The last part of your comment is childish. Einstein is
not the father of the theory of relativity, because just copied and
reorganized the work of others, did not cited them, and after claimed in
public that he did not know (when is proven that this is false).
For example, I have new data on Einstein `plagiarism'. I cited his letter
to Carl Seelig on <a
href"http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html";>what
is history of relativity theory?</a>
Einstein said that at that time he only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but he
knew neither Lorentz nor Poincaré further work. I showed that Einstein
said not the true and read fundamental Poincaré works on relativity on
1902-1904. Probably he learned the absence of aether from Poincaré
readings.
Now I would ask, if Einstein DID NOT know Lorentz work posterior to 1895,
why Einstein used the SAME notation that Lorentz used in his paper of
1904?
2) You are misleading, I already shown that Einstein postulates are
Poincaré 1904 postulates more the LT (and its constancy of c).
This is the reason that when it was suggested that Nobel prize were
awarded to Einstein by relativity, Nobel committee decided that Poincaré
had played an very important role and would be an injustice to award to
Einstein. But Poincaré had died years before (The Nobel is for living
people) and then the Nobel prize was finally for Einstein's work on
photoelectric work.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
3059.217.124.69.211.1124300113.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In 1904, Poincaré stated the two basic principles of relativistic theory:
>
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
> for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
Dating back to Galileo, hardly ascribable to Poincaré.
****************************
but `easily ascribable to Einstein'. No?
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
> whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
The Lorentz contraction achieves this goal.
****************************
No comment!
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
> which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
> exceed the velocity of light."
The rule follow from the dynamics, not the other way round like in
Relativity. The Lorentz contraction is also a new kind of dynamics, while
the Relativity is a new kind of space-time transformation.
****************************
No comment, except the beauty of the limit c -> infinite!
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> The idea of absence of aether is not new of Einstein and probably Einstein
> learned it also from Poincaré (probably read on La Science et
> l'hypothèse).
> There is historical evidence (shown in above web document) that Einstein
> plagiarized work of others.
While there is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such in the said
works.
****************************
As explained, Einstein `organized' the work of others. Note: without
acknowledging.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> There is also historical evidence that
> Poincaré did most of the work on some topics but left the paternity to
> others.
There is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such from others.
****************************
If had no `trace', then Einstein would NEWER be asked if he read works of
Lorentz or Poincaré, He would NEWER be accused of `plagiarism' and he
would NEWER say not the true in his writings, such as his letter to
Seelig. Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to reference
previous works no the topic (read Born comment again, please)? Why, if
there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Poincaré when did?
Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Lorentz
works of 1904 when copied even the notation?
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> It is also interesting to note that the Nobel Committee decided to award
> Einstein the price, but was objected that Poincaré was who had found
> special relativity. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that time
> Einstein was awarded the Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric
> effect. It is important to remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee.
The price has been founded by Nobel in order to reward the people who bring
something useful to humanity. The Relativity doesn't, the photo-electric
effect does, and the motives of the Nobel jury are kept secret.
etc...
****************************
`The price has been founded by Nobel in order to reward the people who bring
something useful to humanity. The Relativity doesn't' by `tototatati'
No comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
You didn't give the basis yourself, that is, the writing from Poincaré or
someone else that contain the "theory of relativity" as such. That is, not
only a mathematical model, but also physical assumptions and an
interpretation. Your gave only fragmented data, that put together don't
yield a complete theory with physical predictions.
****************************
Already explained that Poincaré believed that was doing no just math. His
own words are self-explicative. There is no further physical work below
Einstein own writings, just recollection of data from others and, this is
important, without acknowledging them.
You appear blocked to my comments or just replying to other. Please read
with care my posts and links before reply. AS SAID, relativity theory is
from Poincaré, Lorentz, and others. There is nothing wrong with a theory
that arises of collective effort. A fabulous example is classical
thermodynamics. But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is
completely unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis. There is no
formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
before the `annus mirabilis'.
People would be informed!
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
Of course, since the answer is 'no', and that closes the debate
definitively.
****************************
Absurd! For a mathematician (and Poincaré was, and great!) implicit
hypothesis do not need to be highlighted because arise easily from
mathematical manipulations.
If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
(especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
which follow from above one.
Constancy of c is implicit on the LT, which Poincaré knew. To believe that
Poincare, probably the most important mathematician of his époque, not
considered that c was the same on
x' (x ??? vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
is ridiculous, since the transformation has mathematical inverse.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
Again, the Lorentz contraction *is* a different formal system with the same
equations, but it lost.
Anyway, the Lorentz contraction, followed by the Relativity of Einstein
which won because it was more predictive, is written in all history books.
It is an epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics.
Therefore, I don't see any kind of change, save for the role of Poincaré in
the *Lorentz contraction*, but here it seems Poincaré looted Lorentz. So
let's give back the Poincaré group to Poincaré, the Lorentz contraction to
Lorentz, and the Einsteins theory of relativity to Einstein, to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar, and "much ado for nothing", or like would have stated
Poincaré after La Fontaine: "La montagne a accouché d'une souris."
****************************
`to Caesar what belongs to Caesar'.
1) All formulas of relativity are not from Einstein, therefore Emc^2 and
Einstein mass formula and ... are not from Einstein.
2) Einstein postulates are literally copied from previous work of
Poincaré; therefore, they are Poincaré postulates.
3) The rest of machinery was developed by Lorentz and others, doing the
theory of relativity one work of Poincaré, Lorentz, and others.
4) Regarding GR, since Einstein field equations were previously obtained
by Hilbert, and it has been historically proven that Einstein said not the
true in pioneering issues (modified his wrong equations after read Hilbert
work), the field equations of GR belong not to Caesar or Einstein, belong
to Hilbert.
5) People are very, very, very misguided. Would popular biographies on
Einstein not claim that none of works of Einstein on relativity was
pioneering one? I already cited an example of wrong biography on the
Internet, where it is suggested that Einstein arrived to physics with a
number of equations totally unknown for rest of scientists, when true is
that Einstein copied the formulas and principles from others. Or perhaps
has Einstein become the best piece of marketing for physics?
-------
Juan R. Gonz1lez-varez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: =?unknown?q?Cl=2EMass=E9?=
- Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Latest psychophysics/QM brain article
- Next by Date: Re: Michelson-Morley vs. astronomical data [was "Why Poincare ..."]
- Previous by thread: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by thread: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
