Re: Mileva Maric Einstein
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:30:59 -0700
Bill Hobba <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:z%8Mc.13042$K53.5648@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:41010de1$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:bi6Mc.12795$K53.12307@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:4100c9ae$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > > > > > > Did Poincare at the 1911 Solvay conference show no
> > > > > > > understanding of relativity, the theory that Einstein
> > > > > > > supposedly stole from him - Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow! I never heard that rumour - and I doubt it because I know
> > > > > > from his writings that he understood it better than Lorentz. Do
> > > > > > you have a reference?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is no rumor - see page 170 - Pais - Subtle is the Lord.
> > > > > Einstein meet Poincare for the first time at the Solvay conference
> > > > > of 1911 and is it reported that Poincare showed little of no
> > > > > understanding of relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW Harry I highly recommend the above source for the true facts
> > > > > about Einstein. It is not just the authors view - the extensive
> > > > > bibliography it is based on is amazing.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have the book, so please give me the reference it provides
> > > > so I can look it up - if it has such a reference!
> > >
> > > The reference that supports it is E12 but for some reason does not
> > > actually appear in the bibliography.
It's a really amazing bibliography in this case -- as the reference for this
particular statement is not included in the bibliography. The characters
"E12" do not constitute evidence.
> > > > "it is reported" is definitely a rumour - except if you can specify
> > > > who reported it and on what basis, so we can judge for ourselves
> > > > how likely it is to be correct.
> > >
> > > Come on Harry - Pias is a reputable source and he quotes Einstein as
> > > actually saying it. I am sure Pias can back it up.
> >
> > If according to Pias Einstein made a bad remark about Poincare then the
> > contents of that remark must be correct?!
> > Come on!
>
> Yep Harry I see your point. I remember actually thinking that as I was
> writing the reply. One could even argue, if Einstein did actually 'pinch'
> Poincare's idea, then it may have been a natural reaction. Of course I do
> not agree with that view - I think it is more likely Poincare actually
> did not understand it. I also believe it is more than rumor - Einstein
> actually did say it - but acknowledge the issue.
It's still a rumor, even if Pais says that Einstein started the rumor.
Einstein wasn't God. And -- as you admit yourself -- this could have simply
been a natural reaction of a 'pincher.' Yet you reported Poincare's
response as 'proof' that Einstein hadn't 'pinched' Poincare's work!
What an amazing distortion you are pushing here.
1) Pais prints an undocumented claim about something Einstein said.
2) Bill snips up the quote from Pais, eliminating the Einstein source
(leaving a sentence fragment only).
3) Bill reports the claim as 'fact.'
4) Bill uses the 'fact' as evidence that Einstein could not have 'ripped
off' Poincare, because Poincare didn't even understand SR.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
