Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: =?unknown?q?Cl=2EMass=E9?= <toto@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC)
<juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
3041.217.124.88.135.1124696816.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Above are own words by Poincaré on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
> of reference
Where does that come from? Poincaré never assumed it, and never derived it
too.
In fact, the independence of c is highly counter-intuitive, and that's why
all the physicists were kept at bay since the MM experiment, and even since
the Maxwell equations. A bold vision of physical reality was necessary, AND
for postulating the independence of c, AND for postulating other
counter-intuitive principles, such a the relativity of simultaneity and the
mixing of space and time.
Einstein did them all, Poincaré did neither. For instance, the formula of
the Lorentz contraction doesn't mix space and time, but only modifies the
length of physical objects. It uses an absolute velocity, even though no
physical experiment should be able to measure it. In Einsteins Relativity,
this velocity is the relative one of two frames of reference, and that's
what make the conceptual difference (and the name of the theory), and the
bigger predictive power of Relativity.
I would do another parallel. Newton postulated the existence of two
different masses, AND their equality, and that's what make the difference
between Kepler and Newton. The moon fall on the earth AND the moon doesn't
fall on the earth. Clearly, Newton has the priority, even though the
formula of an orbit is the same. Newton dynamics has obviously a bigger
predictive power.
> As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
> others. Why would it be different on SR?
Why not?
I wrote:
> > The Lorentz contraction achieves this goal.
> No comment!
And for a reason. Lorentz contraction was designed in order to predict the
non-displacement of the interference fringes in the MM experiment, and it
succeeded. Now, there were no more experiment able to spot the absolute
motion, fulfilling the weak "relativity principle" of Poincaré, or rather
the "extended relativity principle of Galileo."
Notice the formulation: "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." where this absolute motion is explicit. There is no absolute
motion, explicit or implicit, In Einsteins Relativity, just a transformation
of space-time for a frame in a *relative* motion.
> 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?
I really don't care about an emotional and irrelevant plea. Is there a
trace, in the form of a writing, yes or no?
> But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is completely
> unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis.
That's your opinion.
> There is no
> formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
> before the `annus mirabilis'.
I never saw any of those purported concepts, in a constructed form. You
provided no further cite. The debate is closed.
> 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.
Well, really it's closed. A mathematician works in a predefined
mathematical system, for instance arithmetic with the Peano's axioms etc.
But the constancy of c obviously doesn't belong to such a system, and would
even be a revolutionary *novelty*. Poincaré didn't explicit it, but it is
taken for
granted? I really can't follow such an oriented logic.
Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
[Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la lumière
est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
misunderstood genius, even by himself?
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Maxwell's theory is not Poincare invariant.
- 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
|
