Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:29:53 +0000 (UTC)
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
3041.217.124.88.135.1124696816.squi...lscience.com...
> Above are own words by Poincare on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
> of reference
Where does that come from? Poincare 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, Poincare 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.
****************************
The idea of constancy of c is implicit in many writings of Poincare and
also in his formulas. There is amephasis on shown that like he did not
used that as postulate his theory is inferior or impredictive, but is not
true. Poincare computed many things Einstein newer imagined. In fact,
Einstein was unable to obtain a relativistic mechanics since was unable to
obtain the relativistic generalization of forces, which was done by
Poincare. At the best, Einstein obtained (copying others) a kinematics.
Poincare was able to say (1905)
"If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light."
This and the fact of that always worked with c constant on different
frames establish that he was really formulating relativity theory.
Poincare do not need use constancy of c like a postulate like Tisza-Callen
formulation do NOT formulate zero law. But since that does not imply that
Callen has no idea of thermodynamics, that does not imply that Poincare
had no idea of relativity.
The others "counter-intuitive principles, such a the relativity of
simultaneity and the mixing of space and time." Are NOT from Einstein. One
finds again in Ppoincare writings. He assumed explicitly that traditional
understanding of simultaneity was incorrect and developed a new mechanics
around the new relative simultaneity (even Einstein clock synchronizing is
based in Poincare previous method).
The full mixing of space and time was done by Poincare who discovered the
4D formulation (ct, x) find four components of impulse, force, etc and his
mechanical equations. Obtained the 4D invariant before Minkoski, etc.
began to extend the relativity principle to gravitation a decade before
Einstein (who only worked on EM). Einstein did noting really new or
important on our current understanding of relativity. When Einstein still
was thinking in derivation of LT fro EM phenomena, Poijcaré was already
computing Mercury perihelion from his new mechanics. He obtained a better
result that with Newtonian theory but now we know that the full result is
obtained with GR.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
> others. Why would it be different on SR?
Why not?
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Because the historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of others,
e.g. Hilbert without even cite to him in his 1915 paper containing correct
GR field equations imply the kind of "gentleman" that Einstein was. And
this sustains the thesis of that plagiarized SR work.
Why would he say that newer read Poincare and just an old paper by Lorentz
when was not true. Only a man sure that his work is not very different of
work of others or only a man knowing that plagiarized would follow so
dishonest attitude.
Why would Einstein no notice a work of author who he READ (Poincare) that
says that there is no absolute time and not absolute motion, just
relative.
Regarding absolute motion and aether, Please, notice that in posterior
years, Einstein recovered the concept of aether like needed.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is completely
> unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis.
That's your opinion.
****************************
That is, Einstein is the only father of relativity theory when
1) copied main ideas from Poincare and others (e.g. absence of absolute
time or absolute motion)
2) based all his work on the work of Poincare and Lorentz (e.g. clock
synchronization method is directly based in a previous model by Poincare)
3) developed just basic elements of formulation, nothing about groups,
nothing about spacetime metric, nothing about four velocity, nothing about
mechanical equations of 4D...
4) Failed to aknowledge the work of others authors, offering the idea of
that all his work was novel.
5) Formulated exactly none formula of supposed theory of physics that he did.
6) At the best Einstein was a kind of Maxwell, organizing work of others,
but nobody cite Maxwell like the only father of EM, and nobody call to
Coulomb law the law that Maxwell obtained by first time for example.
7) Einstein had no a good understanding of relativity theory. In fact, he
common claim that he derived SR consequences from his two postulates
already known to others is incorrect. Einstein derivation of LT from "his"
two postulates is full of implicit assumptions and incorrect mathematical
details. Poincare newer could publish that nonsense (sic sound
mathematical errors on nine equations!!!), and this would be his great
mistake to the eyes of people like you.
8) Etc.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- 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
|
|
