Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: "Javier Bezos" <see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:24:14 +0000 (UTC)
Hello again,
In this thread there are in fact four topics (very likely
even more, but I think there are four important ones):
1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
PoR and the LT.
2) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and Poincaré's
papers.
4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
These topics are independent and my personal conclusions are:
1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
PoR and the LT.
That SR was the work of Einstein only is definitely false,
as I said in a paragraph you have omitted in your answer. So,
agreed.
2) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
This is definitely true. Just compare the Einstein's paper with
Poincaré's to see the latter gives references for almost everything.
None can claim this is false for obvious reasons.
3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and
Poincaré's papers.
I think we'll never know if that's true, but I'm convinced
(and this is just an opinion) he *did* know at least part of
their work, as well as the LT as proposed by Larmor in 1900,
and the 4D space and the local time as proposed by Voigt in
1887. And I'm convinced Poincaré knew them, too. Very likely
he even knew the Poincaré idea that associates to the EM field
a ficticious fluid with mass density related to energy density
by c^2, to preserve the principle of reaction (even if the
formula *looks* very similar, Eintein's E=3Dmc^2 is quite
different physically and appears in a different context).
4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
You are claiming this is true but I and most of researchers
and scientists don't think so, including Lorentz himself. In
fact, I find things like the relativity of simultaneity
in clear contradiction with Poincaré's PoR as he formulated
it (IMO). Point 4 a has *no* relation with the fact 1 is false
and 2 is true. Even if Einstein were the most vile being in
the universe, that won't change the content of his SRT and
the novelty of most (but not all) of it.
And somewhat OT...
Formerly I sympathized with the idea that Poincaré was
the actual author of the SR, but after reading the originals
several year ago I changed my mind. Recently I read Science
and Method (1908) and while I was reading it I couldn't
avoid having the impression Poincaré was answering Einstein's
thories (just an opinion, but I discovered I'm not alone and
that there are some people who had the same impression). Why
did Poncaré never cite them? Why did Poincaré return to the
ether? Why was Poincaré still concerned with light velocity
in relation to the ether (as classically a wave needs a medium,
which also affects its velocity)? Why does Poincaré still
consider the Abraham's theories after implicitly rejecting
them in 1905? Why does he still formulate the PoR in classical
terms? Why is he still saying the mechanical mass is different
from the EM mass? I think we'll never know, but this book
definitely convinced me SR was quite different from Poincaré
ideas.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: juanrgonzaleza
- Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Prev by Date: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Next by Date: Re: The time it takes to emit one photon
- 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
|
Loading
