History of relativity
Juan R.
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
I would thank "d_hainz" who pointed inaccuracies on former translation
(from German) of Einstein letter. "d_hainz" also remarked Larmor
contributions to the subject.
Thus the part on other contributors is rewritten and now also includes
Larmor and FitzGerald names.
Partially in reply to Harry's complainst I also added Stachel quotations
on Einstein's lack of consistency when replying the issue of priority.
--
I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Dono
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Lady Chacha
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha
Dono
JuanShito Alvarez, you blew your "cover", you old fart:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Lady Chacha
you old fart http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Koobee Wublee
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> I would thank "d_hainz" who pointed inaccuracies on former translation
> (from German) of Einstein letter. "d_hainz" also remarked Larmor
> contributions to the subject.
>
> Thus the part on other contributors is rewritten and now also includes
> Larmor and FitzGerald names.
The whole thing would not be possible if Voigt had not derived the
Voigt transform based on the constancy in the speed of light to
explain the null results of the MMX.
dx' = dx - v dt
dy' = dy sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
dy' = dz sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
Larmor was the one who went beyond Voigt to recognize the following
general transform also satisfies the null results of the MMX which, of
course, is also based on the constancy in the speed of light.
dx' = k (dx - v dt)
dy' = k dy sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
dy' = k dz sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
Larmor also went on to realize that in order for Voigt's Voigt
transform to satisfy the principle of relativity the constant above
must be the following.
k = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
Only the symmetry, the Lorentz transform is possible. In doing so, we
end up with the stupidity of the twin's paradox where all these
physicists *believe in* miracles to resolve in this paradox. This is
physics today. It is absolutely embarrassing.
Also, the principle of relativity was already discovered 400 years ago
by Galileo. When Larmor applied the principle of relativity, he was
regarded as a dud. However, when Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar re-discovered the principle of relativity, it became the
best thing after sliced cheese. This is absolutely crazy.
Oh, when Newton applied the principle of equivalence discovered by
Galileo and wrote down the law of gravity, it was not even noted by
many physicists. However, when Einstein finally understood the
Newtonian law of gravity and rediscovered the principle of
equivalence, it also became the best thing after sliced cheese.
So, why do physicists worship a mediocre intellect like Einstein? Are
they morons? Well, judge for yourself. The metric has been regarded
as observer invariant since the days of Ricci and Levi-Civita.
Mathematics below clearly shows that the metric must be observer
dependent. And this is very simple math. It is absolute elementary.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j = [g] * [dq^2]
Where
** ds^2 = Description of the invariant geometry
** g_ij = Elements to the metric [g], a matrix
** dq^i dq^j = Elements to [dq^2] (properties of BASIS VECTORS)
** [] * [] = Dot product of 2 square matrices as defined above
Clearly, if ds^2 is invariant, [g] and [dq^2] must vary. In fact,
each observer using his own choice of coordinate systems would utilize
a particular combination of [g] and [dq^2] to describe the geometry,
ds^2.
Thus, the matrix [g], the metric, must be observer dependent. The
metric cannot be a tensor.
> Partially in reply to Harry's complainst I also added Stachel quotations
> on Einstein's lack of consistency when replying the issue of priority.
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He had absolutely no
contributions in the hypotheses of relativity besides giving them the
names as we know them today. <shrug>
It is people like Mr. Stachel that made a learning-challenged person
namely Einstein (a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar) into a super
genius. These people would go on to mutilate a historical document
(Hilbert's papers) to do so. This is absolutely sickening that these
usurpers are doing. What the f*ck is the academics doing to rectify
this situation? Nothing! They must are busy indulging in sticking
their heads in their anuses. Can anyone think of a better reason?
Artful
news:634640e9-dfe3-4d97...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> So, why do physicists worship a mediocre intellect like Einstein?
They don't
Androcles
"Artful" <art...@dodger.com> wrote in message
news:13s2pri...@corp.supernews.com...
They do, cretin.
*plonk*
Artful
news:rWdwj.16534$jH4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Physics is not about worship.
Artful
news:rWdwj.16534$jH4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Are you jealous that they don't worship you instead?
Juan R.
> On Feb 23, 6:46 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez < wrote:
>
>> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>>
>> I would thank "d_hainz" who pointed inaccuracies on former translation
>> (from German) of Einstein letter. "d_hainz" also remarked Larmor
>> contributions to the subject.
>>
>> Thus the part on other contributors is rewritten and now also includes
>> Larmor and FitzGerald names.
>
> The whole thing would not be possible if Voigt had not derived the Voigt
> transform based on the constancy in the speed of light to explain the
> null results of the MMX.
The list was not complete. In fact,
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
{BLOCKQUOTE
Special relativity was mainly an achievement from joining efforts of
Henri Poincaré, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Joseph Larmor, George
FitzGerald, and other authors.
}
> Only the symmetry, the Lorentz transform is possible. In doing so, we
> end up with the stupidity of the twin's paradox where all these
> physicists *believe in* miracles to resolve in this paradox. This is
> physics today. It is absolutely embarrassing.
It was just a page about history of science. No scientific analysis of
relativity was made.
> Also, the principle of relativity was already discovered 400 years ago
> by Galileo.
Yes, but the main merit of Poincaré was to develop a new mechanics (no
Galilean) in basis to a generalized principle of relativity taking all
recent innovations and EM knowledge up to early 20th.
> When Larmor applied the principle of relativity, he was
> regarded as a dud. However, when Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> and the liar re-discovered the principle of relativity, it became the
> best thing after sliced cheese. This is absolutely crazy.
I think i has expressed my point about this on
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
{BLOCKQUOTE
We may agree here with Charles Nordmann:
All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time
of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery
to him.
}
> Oh, when Newton applied the principle of equivalence discovered by
> Galileo and wrote down the law of gravity, it was not even noted by many
> physicists. However, when Einstein finally understood the Newtonian law
> of gravity and rediscovered the principle of equivalence, it also became
> the best thing after sliced cheese.
The principle of equivalence in GR is not exactly the principle of
equivalence in NG.
> It is people like Mr. Stachel that made a learning-challenged person
> namely Einstein (a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar) into a super
> genius. These people would go on to mutilate a historical document
> (Hilbert's papers) to do so.
Well, we know today physicists/historians went to burn the Newton papers
they dislike. If they has succeed *that would falsify* history of the
subject.
Physicists are actually *rewritting* the history of physics once again.
Just attributing to physicists stuff was actually done by other people.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/full/411408a0.html
Therefore, it seems there exists *a tendency to rewrite* here, with the
history of relativity being just another case.
Dono
Dono
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Ah, this is the "paper" (better said, DUNG) you were working on :-)
Koobee Wublee
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He had absolutely no
> > contributions in the hypotheses of relativity besides giving them the
> > names as we know them today. <shrug>
>
> > It is people like Mr. Stachel that made a learning-challenged person
> > namely Einstein (a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar) into a super
> > genius. These people would go on to mutilate a historical document
> > (Hilbert's papers) to do so. This is absolutely sickening that these
> > usurpers are doing. What the f*ck is the academics doing to rectify
> > this situation? Nothing! They must are busy indulging in sticking
> > their heads in their anuses. Can anyone think of a better reason?
> They [physicists] don't [worship a mediocre intellect
> like Einstein]
This is plainly wrong on your part. Have you not noticed Einstein was
named as the man of the century?
> Physics is not about worship.
That is correct. Physics should not be about worship, but in reality
modern physics is about worshipping SR and GR with Einstein being the
messiah. <shrug>
> Are you jealous that they don't worship you instead?
What gives you that idea? Just because the fact that modern physics
is about the worship of Einstein is exposed, you become bitter about
it. That is your problem. <shrug>
Keep worshipping your messiah, Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar.
Dono
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrot:
> > The whole thing would not be possible if Voigt had not derived the Voigt
> > transform based on the constancy in the speed of light to explain the
> > null results of the MMX.
>
> The list was not complete. In fact,
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> Special relativity was mainly an achievement from joining efforts of
> Henri Poincaré, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Joseph Larmor, George
> FitzGerald, and other authors.
'The others' include Voigt. By far, he had the most contribution to
the development of relativity. Apparently, you have missed that one.
After all, you want to rewrite the history as it actually happened, do
you not?
Hint: In this case, the mathematics can easily be the forensic
evidence supporting your research. The usurpers can foul historic
accounts and records, but they cannot f*ck with the mathematics.
> }
> > Only the symmetry, the Lorentz transform is possible. In doing so, we
> > end up with the stupidity of the twin's paradox where all these
> > physicists *believe in* miracles to resolve in this paradox. This is
> > physics today. It is absolutely embarrassing.
>
> It was just a page about history of science. No scientific analysis of
> relativity was made.
Voigt was truly a genius. I am just surmising here. Voigt could have
easily discovered the general transformation that Larmor
rediscovered. Voigt could have easily applied the principle of
Relativity to filter out the Lorentz transform. Voigt could have
noticed the twin's paradox associated with the Lorentz transform and
abandoned it in favor of the Voigt transform. I think you owe him
that one.
> > Also, the principle of relativity was already discovered 400 years ago
> > by Galileo.
>
> Yes, but the main merit of Poincaré was to develop a new mechanics (no
> Galilean) in basis to a generalized principle of relativity taking all
> recent innovations and EM knowledge up to early 20th.
What mechanics are you referring to? Relative simultaneity by any
chance?
The MMX actually proves relative simultaneity wrong. Any
interferometer cannot function under relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> > When Larmor applied the principle of relativity, he was
> > regarded as a dud. However, when Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
> > and the liar re-discovered the principle of relativity, it became the
> > best thing after sliced cheese. This is absolutely crazy.
>
> I think i has expressed my point about this on
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> We may agree here with Charles Nordmann:
>
> All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time
> of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery
> to him.
Yes, I agree. Thanks.
> }
> > Oh, when Newton applied the principle of equivalence discovered by
> > Galileo and wrote down the law of gravity, it was not even noted by many
> > physicists. However, when Einstein finally understood the Newtonian law
> > of gravity and rediscovered the principle of equivalence, it also became
> > the best thing after sliced cheese.
>
> The principle of equivalence in GR is not exactly the principle of
> equivalence in NG.
Well, that is very debatable. Perhaps in another chapter of rigorous
discussions.
> > It is people like Mr. Stachel that made a learning-challenged person
> > namely Einstein (a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar) into a super
> > genius. These people would go on to mutilate a historical document
> > (Hilbert's papers) to do so.
>
> Well, we know today physicists/historians went to burn the Newton papers
> they dislike. If they has succeed *that would falsify* history of the
> subject.
>
> Physicists are actually *rewritting* the history of physics once again.
> Just attributing to physicists stuff was actually done by other people.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/full/411408a0.html
>
> Therefore, it seems there exists *a tendency to rewrite* here, with the
> history of relativity being just another case.
Keeping the historic records straight reflects the integrity of the
people promoting the subject. <shrug>
PD
> On Feb 24, "Artful" wrote in several messages:
>
>
> That is correct. Physics should not be about worship, but in reality
> modern physics is about worshipping SR and GR with Einstein being the
> messiah. <shrug>
>
Nonsense. There's been a ton of stuff produced since then that is even
more practically valuable than the stuff that Einstein produced. The
only one who has eyes fixed solely on Einstein, and the only one that
is making croaking noises because of a bone stuck in the throat, is
you.
PD
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 24, 10:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > That is correct. Physics should not be about worship, but in reality
> > modern physics is about worshipping SR and GR with Einstein being the
> > messiah. <shrug>
>
> Nonsense. There's been a ton of stuff produced since then that is even
> more practically valuable than the stuff that Einstein produced.
Since SR and GR are about the second order effects, just about
anything based on these fouled conjectures differ from reality in the
second order effect. <shrug>
> The
> only one who has eyes fixed solely on Einstein, and the only one that
> is making croaking noises because of a bone stuck in the throat, is
> you.
No, you are worshipping Einstein. I have merely pointed out that the
man of your worship was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. In
fact, there is no quality of worshipability in Einstein himself. If I
were wrong, you would not even have raised any issues. Since you know
I am right, you have become angry and belligerent. In fact deep
inside, you are so thoroughly disgusted with yourself for worshipping
Einstein after all these years, but your ego keeps you from admitting
otherwise --- the very truth itself. It is proven time after time
that it is very difficult to admit not seeing the Emperor's Clothes.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 24, 6:53 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrot:
> > > The whole thing would not be possible if Voigt had not derived the Voigt
> > > transform based on the constancy in the speed of light to explain the
> > > null results of the MMX.
>
> > The list was not complete. In fact,
>
> >http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> > {BLOCKQUOTE
> > Special relativity was mainly an achievement from joining efforts of
> > Henri Poincaré, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Joseph Larmor, George
> > FitzGerald, and other authors.
>
> 'The others' include Voigt. By far, he had the most contribution to
> the development of relativity. Apparently, you have missed that one.
> After all, you want to rewrite the history as it actually happened, do
> you not?
There is more to relativity than the Lorentz transform. Which you
don't understand, as evidenced by all this WHINING about the Lorentz
transform and its' the historical nobodies who derived it but kept it
to themselves.
[snip junk]
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 24, 9:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > That is correct. Physics should not be about worship, but in reality
> > > modern physics is about worshipping SR and GR with Einstein being the
> > > messiah. <shrug>
>
> > Nonsense. There's been a ton of stuff produced since then that is even
> > more practically valuable than the stuff that Einstein produced.
>
> Since SR and GR are about the second order effects, just about
> anything based on these fouled conjectures differ from reality in the
> second order effect. <shrug>
Do not use words you do not understand - like "second order".
[snip]
PD
> On Feb 24, 9:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > That is correct. Physics should not be about worship, but in reality
> > > modern physics is about worshipping SR and GR with Einstein being the
> > > messiah. <shrug>
>
> > Nonsense. There's been a ton of stuff produced since then that is even
> > more practically valuable than the stuff that Einstein produced.
>
> Since SR and GR are about the second order effects, just about
> anything based on these fouled conjectures differ from reality in the
> second order effect. <shrug>
Then QED should not be correct to 12 decimal places where the second-
order effect is on the order of 0.01. However, it is. This leads to an
immediate problem with your premise.
>
> > The
> > only one who has eyes fixed solely on Einstein, and the only one that
> > is making croaking noises because of a bone stuck in the throat, is
> > you.
>
> No, you are worshipping Einstein.
Sorry, no, I'm not. Unless you can derive telepathic signals from
mathematics.
> I have merely pointed out that the
> man of your worship was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. In
> fact, there is no quality of worshipability in Einstein himself. If I
> were wrong, you would not even have raised any issues. Since you know
> I am right, you have become angry and belligerent.
Oh, BS of the highest order. This is you mandating that errors deserve
no correction or comment, and only correct statements will draw a
reaction. This is one of the most common self-serving delusions of
cranks world-wide on this group and throughout its history: if I were
wrong, they would say nothing, but since they say something, I must be
right. If you want to see the company you're in, visit crank.net and
see how many of your schizo compatriots hold EXACTLY the same
delusion; while you're there, take a look at the babble that you've
associated yourself with by that very delusion.
> In fact deep
> inside, you are so thoroughly disgusted with yourself for worshipping
> Einstein after all these years, but your ego keeps you from admitting
> otherwise --- the very truth itself. It is proven time after time
> that it is very difficult to admit not seeing the Emperor's Clothes.
> <shrug>
And this is the part you don't seem to get at all. If holding the
status quo were important AT ALL to physicists, then quantum mechanics
and relativity and string theory would never have been put forward by
their proponents, because it would have been career suicide. What has
ALWAYS been true is that novelty (but only CORRECT novelty) is one of
the most bits of fun a physicist can have, which is exactly why these
revolutionary ideas came to light and were in fact celebrated in their
experimental vindication rather than being suppressed. Now it appears
that you think something happened somewhere around 1915, where all the
fun and adventurousness of a revolutionary idea suddenly got replaced
by jealous protection of statis.
But this is because you are an obsessed loon who HATES the idea of
anyone drawing fame for skill. If someone gets famous, it's EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT to you to take them down a peg by any means necessary: by
pointing to their predecessors as more worthy recipients (the diffuse-
the-fame strategy), by concocting conspiracy (the they-didn't-have-
anything-worthy-but-had-to-award-a-prize-to-somebody theory), by
pretending to outdo them (the heck-I'm-just-a-retired-aerospace-
engineer-and-I-can-see-it-more-clearly-so-it-can't-be-special
strategy). I'll bet you ALWAYS root for the underdog in the SuperBowl,
too, because it would just rankle you to no end that there would
actually be someone *deserving* of winning the title.
PD
Lady Chacha
Ah, you were working on http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
u are http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Lady Chacha
harry
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <ju...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02...@canonicalscience.com...
> The section on history of relativity has been updated
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> I would thank "d_hainz" who pointed inaccuracies on former translation
> (from German) of Einstein letter. "d_hainz" also remarked Larmor
> contributions to the subject.
>
> Thus the part on other contributors is rewritten and now also includes
> Larmor and FitzGerald names.
>
> Partially in reply to Harry's complainst I also added Stachel quotations
> on Einstein's lack of consistency when replying the issue of priority.
Interesting!
- I didn't know that Newton wasn't only interested in (al)chemistry but that
in fact it was his major interest.
- Where you wrote "Basic ideas of relativity theory", you meant in fact
"Basic ideas of special relativity theory".
- Where does the Charles Nordman quote come from?
- When you wrote "They recognized the existence of a cut-off in a posterior
communication and then suggest that was made by Hilbert himself!", you
failed to acknowledge their line of argument that "it is possible that
Hilbert himself cropped off the top of p. 7 to include it with the three
sheets he sent Klein, in order that they not end in mid-sentence" (see
Wikipedia for a more neutral discussion starting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#Did_Einstein_develop_the_field_equations_independently.3F )
.
Regards,
Harald
Juan R.
>> Partially in reply to Harry's complainst I also added Stachel
>> quotations on Einstein's lack of consistency when replying the issue of
>> priority.
>
> Interesting!
>
> - I didn't know that Newton wasn't only interested in (al)chemistry but
> that in fact it was his major interest.
>
> - Where you wrote "Basic ideas of relativity theory", you meant in fact
> "Basic ideas of special relativity theory".
Yes, that paragraph is about special relativity. I will change for
avoiding confusion, thanks.
> - Where does the Charles Nordman quote come from?
I think was from Charles Nordman, Einstein et l'univers, translated by
Joseph McCabe as "Einstein and the Universe," Henry Holt and Co., New
York (1921); pp. 16.
Nordman also said:
{BLOCKQUOTE
They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently
attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré
}
> - When you wrote "They recognized the existence of a cut-off in a
> posterior communication and then suggest that was made by Hilbert
> himself!", you failed to acknowledge their line of argument that "it is
> possible that Hilbert himself cropped off the top of p. 7 to include it
> with the three sheets he sent Klein, in order that they not end in
> mid-sentence" (see Wikipedia for a more neutral discussion starting from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Relativity_priority_dispute#Did_Einstein_develop_the_field_equat
ions_independently.3F
> ) .
I do not think so. Indeed i do not see any "line of argument" on their
work. I wrote
{BLOCKQUOTE
They recognized the existence of a cut-off in a posterior communication
and then suggest that was made by Hilbert himself!
}
From the same page you cite:
{BLOCKQUOTE
Cory et al offer the following alternative speculation: "it is possible
that Hilbert himself cropped off the top of p. 7 to include it with the
three sheets he sent Klein, in order that they not end in mid-sentence.
}
Their speculation has been addressed by a number of authors e.g.
Winterberg, Wuensch.
Dono
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> Their speculation has been addressed by a number of authors e.g.
> Winterberg, Wuensch.
>
Winterberg , the old nazi.
Wuensch, the new nazi
JuanShito, the nazi apologist.
Tom Roberts
> The section on history of relativity has been updated
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst, as it does not consider the evolution of ideas,
which at base are a major driving force of history, ESPECIALLY in
science. In particular, it fails to mention that Einstein was the
originator of the central idea of (special) relativity: the laws of
physics are unaffected by reference to different inertial frames, and
this can be consistently applied to electrodynamics as well as
mechanics. That website also fails to mention that Einstein's approach
is simpler, more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other
authors it mentions. While Poincare' died before this was sorted out and
well established, Lorentz said it himself in several places (most
notably his revised edition of _Theory_of_Electrons_).
And even more importantly: Einstein's approach has led to all of the
fundamental theories of modern physics; it is quite clear that Lorentz's
approach would not have done so.
Tom Roberts
Dono
Well, what do you expect? It is the website of a neo-nazi.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
I forgot to add that I do agree that SR was the result of a group of
physicists, not just Einstein. SR "was in the air" in 1904-5, but
Einstein brought a unique approach that ultimately proved more
appropriate than the other physicists. The key idea, reinstating the PoR
as a fundamental postulate, was solely due to Einstein.
Tom Roberts
Dono
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> --
> I followhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
No, you don't, you despicable piece of nazi shit.
Here is your code:
"{ human race
Members will not discriminate against others because of sex, creed,
religion, race, color, national origin, economic status, cultural
mores, or organizational affiliation."
But this is not what you do on your web page , nor in your postings,
you stinking piece of lard.
PD
This is the part that generates much of the noise from cranks who, on
the basis of magazine articles, coffee-table books, and television
programs, believe that Einstein was given sole credit for all of
relativity (and in fact all of modern physics) and is as a result
swathed in some papal robe. It is a wrong perception, of course, but
it fuels the need to dissipate any accolades given to Einstein's work
by any means necessary, whether grounded or not. It is the peanut
gallery's tendency to root for the underdog and devalue the
accomplishments of the leader, just for the sake of doing so. It is an
inescapable neurosis and compulsion to do so.
PD
Juan R.
[sniped biased and ignorant comments]
>
> Tom Roberts
Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts.
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts. Feb 2008
harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cdBwj.12513$J41....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> The section on history of relativity has been updated
>> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than than
> any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist history
> at its worst, as it does not consider the evolution of ideas, which at
> base are a major driving force of history, ESPECIALLY in science. In
> particular, it fails to mention that Einstein was the originator of the
> central idea of (special) relativity: the laws of physics are unaffected
> by reference to different inertial frames, and this can be consistently
> applied to electrodynamics as well as mechanics.
Sorry but that is plain wrong; nearly all recent history of science articles
recognize the fact that Poincare was the originator of that idea (the PoR
should be valid for all laws of physics, including electrodynamics and
mechanics). I'm amazed to see you make such a blunder, after claiming that
*someone else* is guilty of "revisionist history at its worst, as it does
not consider the evolution of ideas".
> That website also fails to mention that Einstein's approach is simpler,
> more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other authors it
> mentions.
Although that would certainly be nice, it is not required of a website which
purpose is to correct errors, that it should also provide a balanced
overview of what is correct (Juan please confirm that such is your
intention). If indeed it is meant to be a kind of errata on fables, it may
be considered a shortcoming but not a failure!
> While Poincare' died before this was sorted out and well established,
> Lorentz said it himself in several places (most notably his revised
> edition of _Theory_of_Electrons_).
That is correct. But you ask for balance? Not everyone agreed with Lorentz -
in particular Poincare didn't appreciate it. Also Einstein himself later
criticized his own approach in favour of one that is based on dynamics, see
for example "Einstein's misgivings about his 1905 formulation of special
relativity", Harvey R Brown, Eur. J. Phys. 26 No 6 (November 2005) S85-S90.
> And even more importantly: Einstein's approach has led to all of the
> fundamental theories of modern physics; it is quite clear that Lorentz's
> approach would not have done so.
If you mean Einstein's unique approach of deriving fundamental physical
equations from a few simple considerations, I agree; and it was his success
formula for all his achievements of that time. However, apparently that kind
of unverifiable opinions is not discussed in Juan's website.
Harald
Lady Chacha
Lady Chacha
Lady Chacha
Dono
JuanShito, you blew your own cover , old Juan Alvarez fart
Juan R.
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
[sniped biased comments]
[sniped wrong comments]
> Sorry but that is plain wrong; nearly all recent history of science
> articles recognize the fact that Poincare was the originator of that
> idea (the PoR should be valid for all laws of physics, including
> electrodynamics and mechanics).
And gravity also, 1905-1906.
>> That website also fails to mention that Einstein's approach is simpler,
>> more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other authors it
>> mentions.
>
> Although that would certainly be nice,
"simpler", "more general", and "more elegant" all are on the eye of the
reader.
> it is not required of a website
> which purpose is to correct errors, that it should also provide a
> balanced overview of what is correct (Juan please confirm that such is
> your intention).
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
At its very start one can read,
{BLOCKQUOTE
One of the objectives of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) is to divulge
modern historical views about the development of science.
In some occasions the history of science has been distorted because
political, sociological, or even economical issues. In others, the
discovering of new historical material as print proofs, correspondence,
and unknown manuscripts –stored during decades in some old library or
recovered from familiar archives– has changed the accepted historical
view.
In general, the role of physics has been usually overemphasized in
history of science, and this program tries to balance the contributions
done by other disciplines.
}
I have confirmed the need for such one program from a reading of the
historically inaccurate comments done by some very biased people at this
newsgroup.
Lady Chacha
DonoShito, you blew your own cover , old Dono fart
Juan R.
> On Feb 25, 9:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
[...]
> This is the part that generates much of the noise from cranks who, on
> the basis of magazine articles, coffee-table books, and television
> programs, believe that Einstein was given sole credit for all of
> relativity (and in fact all of modern physics) and is as a result
> swathed in some papal robe. It is a wrong perception, of course, but it
> fuels the need to dissipate any accolades given to Einstein's work by
> any means necessary, whether grounded or not. It is the peanut gallery's
> tendency to root for the underdog and devalue the accomplishments of the
> leader, just for the sake of doing so. It is an inescapable neurosis and
> compulsion to do so.
>
> PD
Your post mixes apples
{BLOCKQUOTE
is Albert Einstein the father of relativity theory?
For general public the reply may be a sound yes. It is popularly believed
that Albert Einstein was the only originator of both the special and the
general theory of relativity. The names of important authors as Hendrik
Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, Marcel Grossmann, and David Hilbert remain
unknown for the general public. Scientists recognize those authors –e.g.
celebrating Grossmann's contributions to physics, Marcel Grossmann
Meetings, since 1975– but still latest views on the history of relativity
are not common.
}
with oranges
{BLOCKQUOTE
Recent research and the discovering of new historical data –for instance
a print proof of a crucial Hilbert paper on general relativity was
discovered a few years ago on an old set of archives in a library–
modifies traditional views about the development of the theories of
relativity.
Juan R.
> On Feb 24, 6:53 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrot:
>
>> > The whole thing would not be possible if Voigt had not derived the
>> > Voigt transform based on the constancy in the speed of light to
>> > explain the null results of the MMX.
>>
>> The list was not complete. In fact,
>>
>> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>>
>> {BLOCKQUOTE
>> Special relativity was mainly an achievement from joining efforts of
>> Henri Poincaré, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Joseph Larmor, George
>> FitzGerald, and other authors.
>
> 'The others' include Voigt. By far, he had the most contribution to the
> development of relativity. Apparently, you have missed that one. After
> all, you want to rewrite the history as it actually happened, do you
> not?
Program goals are expressed at very start.
{BLOCKQUOTE
One of the objectives of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) is to divulge
modern historical views about the development of science.
In some occasions the history of science has been distorted because
political, sociological, or even economical issues. In others, the
discovering of new historical material as print proofs, correspondence,
and unknown manuscripts –stored during decades in some old library or
recovered from familiar archives– has changed the accepted historical
view.
In general, the role of physics has been usually overemphasized in
history of science, and this program tries to balance the contributions
done by other disciplines.
}
The others include any other author who did contributions to the theory
but is not being actually listed in explicit form.
You think that Voigt would be included, ok, I have not studied this with
*detail* and prefer to avoid that by now. Future updates would reflect
better knowledge of this complex subject.
>> > Also, the principle of relativity was already discovered 400 years
>> > ago by Galileo.
>>
>> Yes, but the main merit of Poincaré was to develop a new mechanics (no
>> Galilean) in basis to a generalized principle of relativity taking all
>> recent innovations and EM knowledge up to early 20th.
>
> What mechanics are you referring to?
That statement refers to the "New Mechanics" Poincaré was refering in his
papers and lectures.
Again i reminder this all is about (and only about) history.
>> The principle of equivalence in GR is not exactly the principle of
>> equivalence in NG.
>
> Well, that is very debatable. Perhaps in another chapter of rigorous
> discussions.
Of course everything is debatable.
Dono
> I have confirmed the need for such one program from a reading of the
> historically inaccurate comments done by some very biased people at this
> newsgroup.
>
> --
> I followhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
SCUMBAG.
PD
<j...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> PD wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:56:07 -0800:
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > This is the part that generates much of the noise from cranks who, on
> > the basis of magazine articles, coffee-table books, and television
> > programs, believe that Einstein was given sole credit for all of
> > relativity (and in fact all of modern physics) and is as a result
> > swathed in some papal robe. It is a wrong perception, of course, but it
> > fuels the need to dissipate any accolades given to Einstein's work by
> > any means necessary, whether grounded or not. It is the peanut gallery's
> > tendency to root for the underdog and devalue the accomplishments of the
> > leader, just for the sake of doing so. It is an inescapable neurosis and
> > compulsion to do so.
>
> > PD
>
> Your post mixes apples
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> is Albert Einstein the father of relativity theory?
>
> For general public the reply may be a sound yes. It is popularly believed
> that Albert Einstein was the only originator of both the special and the
> general theory of relativity. The names of important authors as Hendrik
> Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, Marcel Grossmann, and David Hilbert remain
> celebrating Grossmann's contributions to physics, Marcel Grossmann
> are not common.
The general public is misinformed about a number of things. 2/3 of
American adults do not believe in evolution. This will in no way
persuade physicists to argue for a change in the way that physicists
recognize the accomplishments of Einstein, just so that the general
public will not be so easily misinformed.
PD
>
> }
>
> with oranges
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> Recent research and the discovering of new historical data -for instance
> a print proof of a crucial Hilbert paper on general relativity was
> discovered a few years ago on an old set of archives in a library-
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
> I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
This message orinated from
NNTP-Posting-Host: eYqIc6QzOSwNSV62q9WuBQ.user.aioe.org.
The previous message from "Lady Chacha",
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f1bea7d071c04b66?dmode=source
| Supertroll PD trolled:
| http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
| --
| Dono is concubine Lady Chacha
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono
also originated from
NNTP-Posting-Host: eYqIc6QzOSwNSV62q9WuBQ.user.aioe.org
This effectively proves that you are "Lady Chacha".
Being in obvious conflict with your first guideline, do you think
that all neo-nazis are dishonest hypocrites?
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
> The general public is misinformed about a number of things. 2/3 of
> American adults do not believe in evolution. This will in no way
> persuade physicists to argue for a change in the way that physicists
> recognize the accomplishments of Einstein, just so that the general
> public will not be so easily misinformed.
{Apples}
There is nothing wrong with correcting public misinformation about the
history of relativity.
{Oranges}
The page is about *history of science*. This is a discipline done by
historians of sience, with specific literature: papers, monographs,
books...
The way that physicists (I mean being no-historian expertises) recognize
the accomplishments of Einstein do not count. Physicists are physicists.
Dono
>
> This message orinated from
> NNTP-Posting-Host: eYqIc6QzOSwNSV62q9WuBQ.user.aioe.org.
>
> The previous message from "Lady Chacha",
> | Supertroll PD trolled:
> | http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
> | --
> | Dono is concubine Lady Chacha
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono
> also originated from
> NNTP-Posting-Host: eYqIc6QzOSwNSV62q9WuBQ.user.aioe.org
>
> This effectively proves that you are "Lady Chacha".
> Being in obvious conflict with your first guideline, do you think
> that all neo-nazis are dishonest hypocrites?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Of course he's "Lady Chacha", the old fart nazi blew his own cover
very early in the game.
It is fun to watch him continue after his pants have been pulled
down :-)
Lady Chacha
> This effectively proves that you are "Lady Chacha".
--
Lady Chacha
Dono
Juan R. Gonzalez Alvarez is Lady Chacha.
Juanshito had his balls cut off and served for breakfast. This is how
he became Lady Chacha :-)
Lady Chacha
Lady Chacha
> Dono had his balls cut off
> and served for breakfast. This is how he became Lady Chacha :-)
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Lady Chacha
Dono
> Supertroll Dirk Van de moortel trolled:
>
Juanshito
Stop masturbating, you'll go blind and dumb :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
3b57af7d-61d5-453a...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com
Fun indeed - "I AM NOT A CROOK - Look, actually I'm my
sister, and I can't control her, so I must - erm - she will continue."
Reminds me of good old El Hemetis and his friend "Lady Sanity".
THAT was fun :-)
Dirk Vdm
Lady Chacha
> Donoshito
>
> Stop masturbating, you'll go blind and dumb :-)
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
Lady Chacha
Dirk Van de moortel
pan.2008.02...@trolltech.nl
Well done:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IFollowGuidelines.html
"I Follow Guidelines"
Dirk Vdm
Dono
>
> > Supertroll Dirk Van de moortel trolled:
>
> "I Follow Guidelines"
>
> Dirk Vdm
Naile the motherfucker!
Good job!
Lady Chacha
Lady Chacha
Good http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
Paul B. Andersen
>
> The MMX actually proves relative simultaneity wrong. Any
> interferometer cannot function under relative simultaneity. <shrug>
Can you show us that proof?
--
Paul
Koobee Wublee
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> > The section on history of relativity has been updated
> >http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
> than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
> history at its worst, as it does not consider the evolution of ideas,
> which at base are a major driving force of history, ESPECIALLY in
> science.
You are finding excuses to continue to worship of Einstein, the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Of course, you are free to
worship whoever or whatever you choose to. <shrug>
> In particular, it fails to mention that Einstein was the
> originator of the central idea of (special) relativity: the laws of
> physics are unaffected by reference to different inertial frames, and
> this can be consistently applied to electrodynamics as well as
> mechanics.
This is utterly bullsh*t and full of lies. The central idea of the
special theory of relativity, merely a conjecture, is the constancy in
the speed of light and the principle of relativity. Voigt was the
first to realize only the constancy in the speed of light would
explain the null results of the MMX. He then went on to modify the
Galilean transform into the Voigt transform in 1887. The principle of
relativity was older than Voigt. Galileo had already discovered it as
a fundamental principle 400 years ago. At least, the principle of
relativity still holds for low speed. Have you not heard of either
Voigt or Galileo?
> That website also fails to mention that Einstein's approach
> is simpler, more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other
> authors it mentions.
Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform was utter bullsh*t. He
knew the answer before hand. How can the approach of a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar be simpler, more general, and more elegant than
others?
> While Poincare' died before this was sorted out and
> well established, Lorentz said it himself in several places (most
> notably his revised edition of _Theory_of_Electrons_).
Historical facts should not have anything to do if Poincare were to
stay alive for a few more years unless you are talking about man-made
historical facts. <shrug>
> And even more importantly: Einstein's approach has led to all of the
> fundamental theories of modern physics; it is quite clear that Lorentz's
> approach would not have done so.
What is this approach that you are referring to? Einstein's works are
all wrong and full of plagiarism of the wrong stuff. As I said,
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar cannot even tell
what he stole was good stuff or not. <shrug>
> I forgot to add that I do agree that SR was the result of a group of
> physicists, not just Einstein. SR "was in the air" in 1904-5, but
> Einstein brought a unique approach that ultimately proved more
> appropriate than the other physicists.
As I said, there was no uniqueness in what Einstein plagiarized.
> The key idea, reinstating the PoR
> as a fundamental postulate, was solely due to Einstein.
Well, when Larmor derived the Lorentz transform, he had to re-instate
the principle of relativity to do so. So, how is that Einstein's
plagiarism being so unique?
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee skrev:
> > The MMX actually proves relative simultaneity wrong. Any
> > interferometer cannot function under relative simultaneity. <shrug>
>
> Can you show us that proof?
Well, do you not understand the concept of relative simultaneity
versus absolute simultaneity?
Dono
Simultaneity, relative or otherwise doesn't even intervene in the MMX
computations, shithead.
Other computations do, do you know which? Every time you get
challenged to write some computations, you "disapear".
harry
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <ju...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02...@canonicalscience.com...
> harry wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:43:39 +0100:
>
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> [sniped biased comments]
>
> [sniped wrong comments]
>
>> Sorry but that is plain wrong; nearly all recent history of science
>> articles recognize the fact that Poincare was the originator of that
>> idea (the PoR should be valid for all laws of physics, including
>> electrodynamics and mechanics).
>
> And gravity also, 1905-1906.
>
>>> That website also fails to mention that Einstein's approach is simpler,
>>> more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other authors it
>>> mentions.
>>
>
> "simpler", "more general", and "more elegant" all are on the eye of the
> reader.
>
>> it is not required of a website
>> which purpose is to correct errors, that it should also provide a
>> balanced overview of what is correct (Juan please confirm that such is
>> your intention).
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> At its very start one can read,
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> One of the objectives of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) is to divulge
> modern historical views about the development of science.
>
> In some occasions the history of science has been distorted because
> discovering of new historical material as print proofs, correspondence,
> recovered from familiar archives- has changed the accepted historical
> view.
>
> In general, the role of physics has been usually overemphasized in
> history of science, and this program tries to balance the contributions
> done by other disciplines.
> }
OK, my impression was correct then. However, it's a bit foggy. To make sure
that no false expectations occur (such as here above!), you could for
example add in bold red capitals something like:
"Disclaimer: The information here below is merely meant as a supplement to
the cited information sources, in order to balance them. Therefore, it is
not meant to be read on its own."
Just my 2 cts. ;-)
Regards,
Harald
> I have confirmed the need for such one program from a reading of the
> historically inaccurate comments done by some very biased people at this
> newsgroup.
>
>
Juan R.
> OK, my impression was correct then. However, it's a bit foggy. To make
> sure that no false expectations occur (such as here above!), you could
> for example add in bold red capitals something like: "Disclaimer: The
> information here below is merely meant as a supplement to the cited
> information sources, in order to balance them. Therefore, it is not
> meant to be read on its own."
> Just my 2 cts. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Harald
Do you think that disclaimer would avoid some of the misguided comments
and insults read here?
Hum... no.
The only way to avoid those insults and misguided comments would be
writting just they want read, but then i would falsify the history of the
subject. I will not do that.
I know some topics are debatable and there is no consensus today.
Therefore, a *future* part of the site will contain *invited* works from
recognized expertises from different Schools and way of thinking.
Readers will read both opinions and will take a decision regarding the
disputable topics.
This policy is also applicable to the rest of sections of website.
*That is by large more accurate, honest, and fair way of work than usual
in academic sites, biased relativity FAQS...*
Paul B. Andersen
No, I don't not understand.
Yes, I do understand.
Can you show us that proof now, please?
--
Paul
harry
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <ju...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02...@canonicalscience.com...
>
>> OK, my impression was correct then. However, it's a bit foggy. To make
>> sure that no false expectations occur (such as here above!), you could
>> for example add in bold red capitals something like: "Disclaimer: The
>> information here below is merely meant as a supplement to the cited
>> information sources, in order to balance them. Therefore, it is not
>> meant to be read on its own."
>> Just my 2 cts. ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Harald
>
> Do you think that disclaimer would avoid some of the misguided comments
> and insults read here?
>
> Hum... no.
Maybe not... but after such a Perfectly Clear statement, a few of such
comments would certainly look Very Stupid! ;-)
Anyway, misguided comments are certainly not worth of your consideration.
Instead, the general readers *are* worth of your consideration and they
would certainly benefit from such a clear statement. Regretfully, many
readers are entirely ignorant regarding issues of bias and balance. It's
little taught in the education system.
> The only way to avoid those insults and misguided comments would be
> writting just they want read, but then i would falsify the history of the
> subject. I will not do that.
>
> I know some topics are debatable and there is no consensus today.
>
> Therefore, a *future* part of the site will contain *invited* works from
> recognized expertises from different Schools and way of thinking.
That would certainly be good too!
> Readers will read both opinions and will take a decision regarding the
> disputable topics.
>
> This policy is also applicable to the rest of sections of website.
>
> *That is by large more accurate, honest, and fair way of work than usual
> in academic sites, biased relativity FAQS...*
Be careful with such extreme claims, they suggest a lack of modesty.
Regards,
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1204036...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
| Be careful with such extreme claims, they suggest a lack of modesty.
Be careful with such prejudiced comments, they suggest a lack of
intelligence.
Juan R.
> "Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <ju...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.02...@canonicalscience.com...
>> harry wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:31:12 +0100:
>>
>>> OK, my impression was correct then. However, it's a bit foggy. To make
>>> sure that no false expectations occur (such as here above!), you could
>>> for example add in bold red capitals something like: "Disclaimer: The
>>> information here below is merely meant as a supplement to the cited
>>> information sources, in order to balance them. Therefore, it is not
>>> meant to be read on its own."
>>> Just my 2 cts. ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Harald
>>
>> Do you think that disclaimer would avoid some of the misguided comments
>> and insults read here?
>>
>> Hum... no.
>
> Maybe not... but after such a Perfectly Clear statement, a few of such
> comments would certainly look Very Stupid! ;-)
But they look that way without needing my assistance ;-)
> Anyway, misguided
> comments are certainly not worth of your consideration. Instead, the
> general readers *are* worth of your consideration and they would
> certainly benefit from such a clear statement. Regretfully, many readers
> are entirely ignorant regarding issues of bias and balance. It's little
> taught in the education system.
This is a good point, specially since the website is not complete and
readers cannot go to get more information.
I have done some 'disclaimer':
{BLOCKQUOTE
The information here below is merely meant as a balancing overview to the
complex subject of the history of science. Information is based in a
number of formal publications on the subject appeared during last few
years, and it may disagree from older publications or from recent authors
with different views.
}
Still I want to remark again that authors (historians) with different
views and opinions will get a chance to defend their view in another part
of the website.
>> The only way to avoid those insults and misguided comments would be
>> writting just they want read, but then i would falsify the history of
>> the subject. I will not do that.
>>
>> I know some topics are debatable and there is no consensus today.
>>
>> Therefore, a *future* part of the site will contain *invited* works
>> from recognized expertises from different Schools and way of thinking.
>
> That would certainly be good too!
>
>> Readers will read both opinions and will take a decision regarding the
>> disputable topics.
>>
>> This policy is also applicable to the rest of sections of website.
>>
>> *That is by large more accurate, honest, and fair way of work than
>> usual in academic sites, biased relativity FAQS...*
>
> Be careful with such extreme claims, they suggest a lack of modesty.
Actually science (Goverment funded science) is a very buroucratic and
socialized discipline. I know this for biology, chemistry, and physics at
least. From Physics Today:
{BLOCKQUOTE
In the present system, scientists
feel lots of pressure to follow estab-
lished research programs led by pow-
erful senior scientists.
}
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-6/pdf/vol58no6p56_57.pdf
And this is well reflected in most of academic sites.
Some relativists even have decided to use their academic sites for *ad
hominem* attacks over authors with different views to their own. The page
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
cites the recent case of *ad hominem* attacks by Renn, Corry, and Stachel
to other historians. And the apologizing note by the Max Planck Institute
of Berlin.
The full note can be read here:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/texts/Winterberg-Antwort.html
Adittional resources:
Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. 1961. Science, 134,
596-602. Barber, B.
Not in our Nature. 1993. Nature, 361, 488. Campanario, J.M.
Suppressing research data: Methods, context, accountability, and
responses. 1999. Accountability in Research, 6, 333-372. Martin, B.
Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific
Discoveries. 2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 77-104. Sommer, T.J.
harry
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <ju...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
Thanks, good try... but sorry still not good: people easily confuse
"balancing" with "balanced"! The point is that (at this time) you do not
pretend that your information is balanced by itself, only in addition to
other publications.
> Still I want to remark again that authors (historians) with different
> views and opinions will get a chance to defend their view in another part
> of the website.
Yes that's very good.
>>> The only way to avoid those insults and misguided comments would be
>>> writting just they want read, but then i would falsify the history of
>>> the subject. I will not do that.
>>>
>>> I know some topics are debatable and there is no consensus today.
>>>
>>> Therefore, a *future* part of the site will contain *invited* works
>>> from recognized expertises from different Schools and way of thinking.
>>
>> That would certainly be good too!
>>
>>> Readers will read both opinions and will take a decision regarding the
>>> disputable topics.
>>>
>>> This policy is also applicable to the rest of sections of website.
>>>
>>> *That is by large more accurate, honest, and fair way of work than
>>> usual in academic sites, biased relativity FAQS...*
>>
>> Be careful with such extreme claims, they suggest a lack of modesty.
>
> Actually science (Goverment funded science) is a very buroucratic and
> socialized discipline. I know this for biology, chemistry, and physics at
> least. From Physics Today:
>
> {BLOCKQUOTE
> In the present system, scientists
> feel lots of pressure to follow estab-
> lished research programs led by pow-
> erful senior scientists.
> }
>
> http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-6/pdf/vol58no6p56_57.pdf
Interesting!
> And this is well reflected in most of academic sites.
>
> Some relativists even have decided to use their academic sites for *ad
> hominem* attacks over authors with different views to their own. The page
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> cites the recent case of *ad hominem* attacks by Renn, Corry, and Stachel
> to other historians. And the apologizing note by the Max Planck Institute
> of Berlin.
>
> The full note can be read here:
>
> http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/texts/Winterberg-Antwort.html
I had not seen that note. Good of them.
> Adittional resources:
>
> Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. 1961. Science, 134,
> 596-602. Barber, B.
>
> Not in our Nature. 1993. Nature, 361, 488. Campanario, J.M.
>
> Suppressing research data: Methods, context, accountability, and
> responses. 1999. Accountability in Research, 6, 333-372. Martin, B.
>
> Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific
> Discoveries. 2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 77-104. Sommer, T.J.
Thanks.
Regards,
Harald
maxwell
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:634640e9-dfe3-4d97...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So, why do physicists worship a mediocre intellect like Einstein?
>
> They don't
Have you ever been in a physics department?
maxwell
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > [...]
>
> I forgot to add that I do agree that SR was the result of a group of
> physicists, not just Einstein. SR "was in the air" in 1904-5, but
> Einstein brought a unique approach that ultimately proved more
> as a fundamental postulate, was solely due to Einstein.
>
The PHYSICS of the Principle of Relativity (PoR) is that no observer
can MEASURE anything that would tell him that he was moving at a
constant speed. The PoR is not (contra Minkowski) that the FORM of
the EQUATIONS does not change when some mathematical transformations
are applied - this is Platonic mysticism. As a good mathematician,
Minkowski was an explicit Pythagorean, as was Plato and so are most of
today's theoretical 'physicists'.
Eric Gisse
They don't here....maybe we're too rural for Einstein worship?
Juan R.
>> I have done some 'disclaimer':
>>
>> {BLOCKQUOTE
>> The information here below is merely meant as a balancing overview to
>> the complex subject of the history of science. Information is based in
>> a number of formal publications on the subject appeared during last few
>> years, and it may disagree from older publications or from recent
>> authors with different views.
>> }
>
> Thanks, good try... but sorry still not good: people easily confuse
> "balancing" with "balanced"! The point is that (at this time) you do not
> pretend that your information is balanced by itself, only in addition to
> other publications.
"balancing" --> "balanced"
Done.
DH
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> > The section on history of relativity has been updated
> >http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
>
> That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
> than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
> history at its worst, as it does not consider the evolution of ideas,
> which at base are a major driving force of history, ESPECIALLY in
> originator of the central idea of (special) relativity: the laws of
> physics are unaffected by reference to different inertial frames, and
> this can be consistently applied to electrodynamics as well as
> is simpler, more general, and more elegant that that of any of the other
> well established, Lorentz said it himself in several places (most
> notably his revised edition of _Theory_of_Electrons_).
>
> fundamental theories of modern physics; it is quite clear that Lorentz's
> approach would not have done so.
>
Not Einstein, but Poincare was the first to propose Lorent-
invariance for *all* forces of nature. (Which was in some respect also
done by Lorentz in 1904). For example, Poincare wrote in June 1905
*********
Poincaré (Dynamcis of the electron, 1905):
But this is not all; Lorentz, in the quoted reference, has judged it
necessary to complete his hypothesis by supposing that all the forces,
whatever their origin, should be affected by a translation, in the
same manner as the electromagnetic force, and that, consequently, the
effect produced on their components by the Lorentz transformations is
still defined by equations (4). It is important to examine this
hypothesis more closely, and in particular to find what modifications
it will oblige us to make in the aws of gravitation. This I have
decided to do; I was first led to suppose that propagation of
gravitation is not instantaneous, but it propagates with the velocity
of light.
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/P-1905-1.pdf
English translation in:
http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Scie...
*********
and in July 1905 Poincare wrote:
*********
Poincaré (Dynamics of the electron, published 1906):
But there exist other forces to which an electromagnetic origin cannot
be attributed, such as gravitation, for example. It may in fact
happen, that two systems of bodies produce equivalent electromagnetic
felds, i.e., exert the same action on electrified bodies and on
currents, and at the same time, these two systems do not exert the
same gravitational action on Newtonian masses. The gravitational field
is therefore distinct from the electromagnetic field. Lorentz was
obliged thereby to extend his hypothesis with the assumption that
forces of any origin whatsoever, and gravitation in particular, are
affected by a translation (or, if one prefers, by the Lorentz
transformation) in the same manner as electromagnetic forces.
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/P-1905.pdf
English translation by Walter in:
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/
*********
So Einstein's statement is in fact not really correct. It also must be
said that Poincare already argued in 1898 (La Mesure du Temps) and
1902 (Science and Hypothesis) that there is no absolute space, time,
or simultaneity. And it is reported by Einstein's friend Solovine,
that Einstein read "Science and Hypothesis" in 1904 (in German or
French).
It's also interesting, that in Poincare's 1900-paper on the reaction-
principle, Poincare introduced the following notions:
http://www.physicsinsights.org/poincare-1900.pdf
a) He introduced the "principle of relative motion"
b) He introduced the interpretation of Lorentz's local time as the
result of clock synchronization by lightsignals,
c) He argued that the mass density of electromgnetic energy is
proportinal to E/c²,
d) He discovered a radiation paradox, which is very similar to that
one of Einstein in his first (1905) paper of E=cm²,
e) and Poincare developed a description of the center-of-mass theorem
within electrodynamics, which was according to Einsteins own words,
eqivalent to Einsteins description from 1906.
In June 1905, Poincare was the first one to formulate
a) the complete lorentz-covarient form the equations of
electrodynamics,
b) he published the modern notation for the Lorentz transformations
(LT) by setting the speed of light to unity,
c) he discoverd the group-characteristics of LT,
d) he expanded lorentz-invariance to alle forces of nature, icluding
gravitation.
e) he said, that the impossibilty of determing absolut motion is a law
of nature and must be treated as a postulate within every theory.
In July 1905 (published January 1906) Poincare expanded his ideas and
introduced the "postulate of relativity", he said that the LT is a
rotatin within four-dimensional space witt ict as the fourth coordinat
and he used four-vector notation - all before Minkowski.
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Regards,
DH
Juan R.
> On 25 Feb., 16:33, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> > The section on history of relativity has been updated
>> >http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html
[snipped]
We know more. Einstein was not only reading Poincaré book on relativity
but actively discusing it with his colleagues at Bern during weeks.
> It's also interesting, that in Poincare's 1900-paper on the reaction-
> principle, Poincare introduced the following notions:
> http://www.physicsinsights.org/poincare-1900.pdf a) He introduced the
> "principle of relative motion" b) He introduced the interpretation of
> Lorentz's local time as the result of clock synchronization by
> lightsignals, c) He argued that the mass density of electromgnetic
> energy is proportinal to E/c²,
> d) He discovered a radiation paradox, which is very similar to that one
> of Einstein in his first (1905) paper of E=cm², e) and Poincare
> developed a description of the center-of-mass theorem within
> electrodynamics, which was according to Einsteins own words, eqivalent
> to Einsteins description from 1906.
>
> In June 1905, Poincare was the first one to formulate a) the complete
> lorentz-covarient form the equations of electrodynamics, b) he published
> the modern notation for the Lorentz transformations (LT) by setting the
> speed of light to unity, c) he discoverd the group-characteristics of
> LT, d) he expanded lorentz-invariance to alle forces of nature, icluding
> gravitation. e) he said, that the impossibilty of determing absolut
> motion is a law of nature and must be treated as a postulate within
> every theory.
>
> In July 1905 (published January 1906) Poincare expanded his ideas and
> introduced the "postulate of relativity", he said that the LT is a
> rotatin within four-dimensional space witt ict as the fourth coordinat
> and he used four-vector notation - all before Minkowski.
Poincaré was who first introduced invariant s^2.
Also Poincaré was the first to define four-momentum, four-force and the
first to find the four equations of motion relating both.
Poincaré also introduced four-potential, four-density and four velocity by
the first time and proved its LT invariance.
Poincaré presented covariant equations as a consequence of the least
action principle.
Already was discussing the constancy of c in 1902 as one *postulate*.
About gravitation, Poincaré was who first predicted gravitational waves.
> See also
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> Regards,
> DH
See also October 2003 page
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html
{BLOCKQUOTE
He is acknowledged as a co-discoverer, with Albert Einstein and Hendrik
Lorentz, of the special theory of relativity.
}
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt