Einstein's Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies was a logical, easy to take baby step

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 9:07:37 AM7/13/07
to
One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
from Einstein. That is historically false.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdf
http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/page/1
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm
http://www.brera.unimi.it/old/Atti-Como-98/Giannetto.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

My claim that SR was the next, logical, easy to take baby step can be
supported with a direct quote from Einstein written at the end of his
life in a letter to Carl Seelig:

"There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to be discovered in
1905."

Shubee

Sam Wormley

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 9:37:25 AM7/13/07
to
Shubee wrote:
> One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> from Einstein. That is historically false.
>

Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
did *not* originate with Einstein.

What was uniquely Einstein's was he realized that time and space where
not rigid and fixed, but that they where malleable. Nobody else was
thinking that way.

Adapted from "The Mechanical Universe"
Episode 43: Velocity and Time

In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say
formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of
wire and a bar magnet...


F = qE + qv x B


Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet
produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly
holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil
also produced an electric current in the coil.

But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two
cases were distinct independent phenomena that had
completely different explanations.

When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've
just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are
the same thing".

So it was this little experiment that was really the
start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
motion of the earth through the aether.

With this simple little phenomenon, that of course
everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert
Einstein.

This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his
fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).

In the 200 or so years before 1905, physics had been
built on Newton's laws of motion, which were known to
hold equally well in stationary reference frames and in
frames moving at a constant velocity in a straight line.
Provided the correct "Galilean" rules were applied, one
could therefore transform the laws of physics so that
they did not depend on the frame of reference.

However, the theory of electrodynamics developed by
Maxwell in the late 19th century posed a fundamental
problem to this "principle of relativity" because it
suggested that electromagnetic waves always travel at the
same speed.

Either electrodynamics was wrong or there had to be some
kind of stationary "ether" through which the waves could
propagate.

_______________________

Eugene, re-read the first two paragraphs of Einsteins 4th 1905 paper...

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually
understood at the present time--when applied to moving
bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.

Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action
of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor
and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one
or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the
magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there
arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric
field with a certain definite energy, producing a current
at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.

But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in
motion, no electric field arises in the neighborhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming
equality of relative motion in the two cases
discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the
former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1)
the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold
good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which
will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'')
to the status of a postulate,

and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2)
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.

These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a
simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary
bodies.

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove
to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary
space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.

And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...

_______________________


Ref: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/2/1
Adapted from "Five papers that shook the world"
by Matthew Chalmers
January 2005


True to style, Einstein
swept away the concept of the ether (which, in any case,
had not been detected experimentally) in one audacious
step. He postulated that no matter how fast you are
moving, light will always appear to travel at the same
velocity: the speed of light is a fundamental constant of
nature that cannot be exceeded.

Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics
are the identical in all "inertial" (i.e.
non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a completely new
theory of motion that revealed Newtonian mechanics to be
an approximation that only holds at low, everyday
speeds.

The theory later became known as the special theory of
relativity - special because it applies only to
non-accelerating frames - and led to the realization that
space and time are intimately linked to one another.

In order that the two postulates of special relativity
are respected, strange things have to happen to space and
time, which, unbeknown to Einstein, had been predicted by
Lorentz and others the previous year.

For instance, the length of an object becomes shorter
when it travels at a constant velocity, and a moving
clock runs slower than a stationary clock.

Effects like these have been verified in countless
experiments over the last 100 years, but in 1905 the most
famous prediction of Einstein's theory was still to come.


After a short family holiday in Serbia, Einstein
submitted his fifth and final paper of 1905 on 27
September. Just three pages long and titled "Does the
inertia of a body depend on its energy content?", this
paper presented an "afterthought" on the consequences of
special relativity, which culminated in a simple equation
that is now known as E = mc^2 (Ann. Phys., Lpz 18
639-641).

This equation, which was to become the most famous in all
of science, was the icing on the cake.

"The special theory of relativity, culminating in the
prediction that mass and energy can be converted into one
another, is one of the greatest achievements in physics -
or anything else for that matter," says Wilczek.

"Einstein's work on Brownian motion would have merited a
sound Nobel prize, the photoelectric effect a strong
Nobel prize, but special relativity and E = mc^2 were
worth a super-strong Nobel prize."

However, while not doubting the scale of Einstein's
achievements, many physicists also think that his 1905
discoveries would have eventually been made by others.

"If Einstein had not lived, people would have stumbled on
for a number of years, maybe a decade or so, before
getting a clear conception of special relativity," says
Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton.

't Hooft agrees. "The more natural course of events would
have been that Einstein's 1905 discoveries were made by
different people, not by one and the same person," he
says. However, most think that it would have taken much
longer - perhaps a few decades - for Einstein's general
theory of relativity to emerge.

Indeed, Wilczek points out that one consequence of
general relativity being so far ahead of its time was
that the subject languished for many years afterwards.

The aftermath

By the end of 1905 Einstein was starting to make a name
for himself in the physics community, with Planck and
Philipp Lenard - who won the Nobel prize that year -
among his most famous supporters. Indeed, Planck was a
member of the editorial board of Annalen der Physik at
the time.

Einstein was finally given the title of Herr Doktor from
the University of Zurich in January 1906, but he remained
at the patent office for a further two and a half years
before taking up his first academic position at Zurich.

By this time his statistical interpretation of Brownian
motion and his bold postulates of special relativity were
becoming part of the fabric of physics, although it would
take several more years for his paper on light quanta to
gain wide acceptance.

1905 was undoubtedly a great year for physics, and for
Einstein. "You have to go back to quasi-mythical figures
like Galileo or especially Newton to find good
analogues," says Wilczek.

"The closest in modern times might be Dirac, who, if
magnetic monopoles had been discovered, would have given
Einstein some real competition!" But we should not forget
that 1905 was just the beginning of Einstein's legacy.
His crowning achievement - the general theory of
relativity - was still to come.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:11:59 AM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

> What was uniquely Einstein's was he realized that time and space where
> not rigid and fixed, but that they where malleable. Nobody else was
> thinking that way.

Let's not be too dogmatic here. It could be a realization. And it
could be a mathematical fantasy.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:47:38 AM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
> Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
> did *not* originate with Einstein.

I've attended worship services in Christian churches and physics
classes on relativity. My strongest recollections are that I've seen
greater and more worshipful devotions expressed for Einstein in
physics than Christians confess for Jesus Christ.

Attributing Poincaré's principle of relativity to Einstein, for
example, is undeniably an idolatrous expression of worship.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


Sam Wormley

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:52:01 AM7/13/07
to
Shubee wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> What was uniquely Einstein's was he realized that time and space where
>> not rigid and fixed, but that they where malleable. Nobody else was
>> thinking that way.
>
> Let's not be too dogmatic here. It could be a realization. And it
> could be a mathematical fantasy.
>

A realization it was... It was that simple little phenomenon, the coil
and the bar magnet, that of course everybody knew about, disturbed nobody
else, but Albert Einstein.

Just because many appreciate what Einstein achieved, doesn't mean they
are blind followers. Einstein's work has been tested for over a hundred
years and not found to be wrong. The data tells the story. There has not
been a prediction of relativity that has been contradicted by an observation.

When there is, relativity will be wrong. But there has not been one! Doubt
is at the heart of science. Relativity survives.


Sam Wormley

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:58:31 AM7/13/07
to
Shubee wrote:

>
> I've attended worship services in Christian churches and physics
> classes on relativity. My strongest recollections are that I've seen
> greater and more worshipful devotions expressed for Einstein in
> physics than Christians confess for Jesus Christ.
>

I'm not surprised. Jesus had many teaching--religion would benefit
by concentrating on those teaching. Einstein, on the other hand, gave
us testable theories that have been remarkable tools in furthering
our understanding of nature.

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 11:31:50 AM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 5:07 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> from Einstein. That is historically false.

By what right do you feel you understand what most physicists believe?
Your undergraduate education wasn't in physics. You never completed
your graduate studies - not even a Masters.

After 20 years or so, your only accomplishment is a derivation of the
x,t Lorentz transformations. Which I can do in a much more cleaner and
mathematically precise fashion with ten minutes of work.

[...]


Androcles

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 1:36:48 PM7/13/07
to

"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184332057.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,

My claim that Shubert is a total prat can be supported with a
direct quote from Einstein written in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"


bz

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 2:08:50 PM7/13/07
to
Shubee <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1184338058.854234.249940@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>> > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
>> > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
>> > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>>
>> Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
>> Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
>> did *not* originate with Einstein.
>
> I've attended worship services in Christian churches and physics
> classes on relativity. My strongest recollections are that I've seen
> greater and more worshipful devotions expressed for Einstein in
> physics than Christians confess for Jesus Christ.

Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find your
own path to truth'.

Every powerful religion has been based on ignoring most of those words of
wisdom and finding ways of interpreting those words not ignored so as to
enhance the power of those in power.

Science has its share of 'priests', but science is based upon TESTING
ideas, so even the priests must give advise that -- if followed -- would
lead to their downfall as priests, if the theories they espouse are wrong.

Each year there is a fresh crop of rabble rousers that question everything,
and that is how science advances.

It does NOT advance by trying to PROVE a favorite theory, as many of the
would-be 'religious reformers' that hang around here try to do.

If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable experimentm
that falsifies any part of SR or GR, by all means publicize that fact.

Not a proposed experiment, one that you and others have run.

If you just have a different way of explaining results that are already
well explained, then you are wasting our time and yours until you have DATA
that the current theories can not explain.

On the other hand, if you are one of the potty mouthed 'pseudo scientists'
that hang around here and make scientists _look_bad_ by how you act, then
you are worse than those you denegrate.

> Attributing Poincaré's principle of relativity to Einstein, for
> example, is undeniably an idolatrous expression of worship.
>

Getting hung up on who gives whom credit for what is a sign that you are
NOT spending enough time in the laboratory, testing theories.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 3:11:25 PM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1184338058.854234.249940@

> 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Shubee wrote:
> >> > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> >> > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> >> > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> >> Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
> >> Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
> >> did *not* originate with Einstein.
>
> > I've attended worship services in Christian churches and physics
> > classes on relativity. My strongest recollections are that I've seen
> > greater and more worshipful devotions expressed for Einstein in
> > physics than Christians confess for Jesus Christ.
>
> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
> that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find your
> own path to truth'.

So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?

Shubee

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 3:22:25 PM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

> Science has its share of 'priests', but science is based upon TESTING
> ideas, so even the priests must give advise that -- if followed -- would
> lead to their downfall as priests, if the theories they espouse are wrong.
>

> If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable experimentm
> that falsifies any part of SR or GR, by all means publicize that fact.

What about mathematical models that refute popular myths about
relativity?

Shubert

bz

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 3:35:27 PM7/13/07
to
Shubee <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1184353885....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

....


>>
>> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
>> that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find
>> your own path to truth'.
>
> So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?

That is NOT what I said.

bz

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 3:40:01 PM7/13/07
to
Shubee <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1184354545.1...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

I said:
If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable experiment....

Models are not experiments.

You need to show that the model 'relativity' is refuted by experimental
data.

A mathematical model can not refute anything.
The 'accepted' model must be refuted by data.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 4:35:12 PM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 12:35 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

> Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1184353885....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> ....
>
> >> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
> >> that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find
> >> your own path to truth'.
>
> > So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?
>
> That is NOT what I said.

But can't it be inferred?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

bz

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 4:58:12 PM7/13/07
to
Shubee <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1184358912.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 13, 12:35 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:1184353885....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> ....
>>
>> >> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by
>> >> someone that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you
>> >> must find your own path to truth'.
>>
>> > So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?
>>
>> That is NOT what I said.
>
> But can't it be inferred?

Not by anyone following the rules of logic.

And you are getting far away from the topic of priests of science.

Sue...

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 6:03:26 PM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 4:40 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

> Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1184354545.1...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Science has its share of 'priests', but science is based upon TESTING
> >> ideas, so even the priests must give advise that -- if followed --
> >> would lead to their downfall as priests, if the theories they espouse
> >> are wrong.
>
> >> If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable experimentm
> >> that falsifies any part of SR or GR, by all means publicize that fact.
>
> > What about mathematical models that refute popular myths about
> > relativity?
>
> I said:
> If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable experiment....
>
> Models are not experiments.
>
> You need to show that the model 'relativity' is refuted by experimental
> data.
>
-

> A mathematical model can not refute anything.
> The 'accepted' model must be refuted by data.

Almost... acceptability (or even popularity) does
not seem to trump logic.

<< The essential elements of a scientific method
are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings
of the following [...}
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical
deduction from hypothesis and theory) >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

IOW Ten gazillion experiments that shows

2 + 2 = 3

...will not be scientifically acceptable.
A theory with significant mathematical errors
is disproved by simply locating the errors.

Several well known *interpretations* of SR
contain such errors.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf


Besides, experiments are dangerous. I got the school
globe to deflect an electron beam, but the cat sratched
me for rubbing it on its fur, then I bumped into the
EHT, recoiled, banging my funny bone and now
don't give a #@!& about whether electrons fall
or not. :o)

Sue...

bz

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 6:19:42 PM7/13/07
to
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1184364206.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 13, 4:40 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:1184354545.1...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> Science has its share of 'priests', but science is based upon
>> >> TESTING ideas, so even the priests must give advise that -- if
>> >> followed -- would lead to their downfall as priests, if the theories
>> >> they espouse are wrong.
>>
>> >> If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable
>> >> experimentm that falsifies any part of SR or GR, by all means
>> >> publicize that fact.
>>
>> > What about mathematical models that refute popular myths about
>> > relativity?
>>
>> I said:
>> If you have information about an experiment, a reproducable
>> experiment....
>>
>> Models are not experiments.
>>
>> You need to show that the model 'relativity' is refuted by experimental
>> data.
>>
> -
>> A mathematical model can not refute anything.
>> The 'accepted' model must be refuted by data.
>
> Almost... acceptability (or even popularity) does
> not seem to trump logic.

The implicit assumption is that no model that fails to explain all known
data AND to be mathematically and logically consistent would be 'accepted'
for long.

Peer review brings many challenges and great opportunity to find flaws in
proposed theories.


>
> << The essential elements of a scientific method
> are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings
> of the following [...}
> 3) Predictions (reasoning including logical
> deduction from hypothesis and theory) >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
>
> IOW Ten gazillion experiments that shows
>
> 2 + 2 = 3
>
> ...will not be scientifically acceptable.

They would IF labs all over the world could reproduce the results.

> A theory with significant mathematical errors
> is disproved by simply locating the errors.

Yep.

>
> Several well known *interpretations* of SR
> contain such errors.

Yep. Misinterpretations contain errors. Not news.

> http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>
>
> Besides, experiments are dangerous.

SO is life. Happy Friday 13th.

> I got the school
> globe to deflect an electron beam, but the cat sratched
> me for rubbing it on its fur, then I bumped into the
> EHT, recoiled, banging my funny bone and now

ROTFC.

> don't give a #@!& about whether electrons fall
> or not. :o)

Tomorrow is another day.

Sue...

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 7:44:42 PM7/13/07
to
On Jul 13, 7:19 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

No they wouldn't. One of reasons we have science
is to thawrt churchs all over the world that found
agreement. No logic = no science..

>
> > A theory with significant mathematical errors
> > is disproved by simply locating the errors.
>
> Yep.
>
>
>
> > Several well known *interpretations* of SR
> > contain such errors.
>
> Yep. Misinterpretations contain errors. Not news.
>
> >http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>
> > Besides, experiments are dangerous.
>
> SO is life. Happy Friday 13th.
>
> > I got the school
> > globe to deflect an electron beam, but the cat sratched
> > me for rubbing it on its fur, then I bumped into the
> > EHT, recoiled, banging my funny bone and now
>
> ROTFC.
>
> > don't give a #@!& about whether electrons fall
> > or not. :o)
>

"Tomorrow IS anotha day".
http://www.orsonwelles.co.uk/gonewind.jpg

Sue...


harry

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 9:38:22 AM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 3:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
> Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
> did *not* originate with Einstein.
>
> What was uniquely Einstein's was he realized that time and space where
> not rigid and fixed, but that they where malleable. Nobody else was
> thinking that way.

I hope you don't pretend that your claim that "time and space where
malleable" is physics. And it certainly isn't contained in
Einstein-1905. However, a new VIEW of space and time was indeed
preached years later, by Einstein's mathematics teacher Minkowski.
Minkowski pretended:

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have
sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their
strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by
itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of
union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

Harald

philn...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 10:07:59 AM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 9:07 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdfhttp://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/p...http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relati...http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htmhttp://www.brera.unimi.it/old/Atti-Como-98/Giannetto.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

>
> My claim that SR was the next, logical, easy to take baby step can be
> supported with a direct quote from Einstein written at the end of his
> life in a letter to Carl Seelig:
>
> "There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
> Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to be discovered in
> 1905."
>
> Shubee

You are so out of touch with the history of mathematics that it's
sad. You should educate yourself:

Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085


s...@microtec.net

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 10:17:50 AM7/14/07
to

He later showed that there is no asymmetry with respect
to Maxwell's electrodynamics. See the Einstein-de Haas
effect, and also the Barnett effect, which are practically
never referenced.

It relates the triple orthogonal electro-magnetic-motion
relation of electromagnetic energy.

I wrote this little piece to refocus attention on these effects

http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud3.pdf

The issue hinges on the fact that the loose electrons in
the conductor are held captive by the bar magnet due
to forced reverse alignment of the spins of these electrons,
so when the coil is moved, the electrons tend to remain
stationary with respect to the bar magnet, which causes
them to circulate in the coil if the coil is moved.

the reverse process has the very same cause, if you move
the bar magnet inside the coil, then the electrons will
circulate for the same reason, in this case, they simply
follow the magnet.

> ...
>
> plus de détails »


Shubee

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 1:15:26 PM7/14/07
to
On Jul 14, 7:07 am, philneo2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:07 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdfhttp...

>
> > My claim that SR was the next, logical, easy to take baby step can be
> > supported with a direct quote from Einstein written at the end of his
> > life in a letter to Carl Seelig:
>
> > "There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
> > Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to be discovered in
> > 1905."
>
> > Shubee
>
> You are so out of touch with the history of mathematics that it's
> sad. You should educate yourself:
>
> Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
> Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

The absurdity of your view is very plain from your abstract: "our
objection that Einstein's notion that one point naturally coincides
with another, has no logical content."

Little children know intuitively that a tiny arrow that moves steadily
along a continuum of numbers is a clock. For you to believe that this
childishly simple kindergarten concept is nonsense proves that you
have no understanding of relativity and that children have a better
grasp of reality than you do.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

PD

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 11:37:13 PM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 8:07 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> from Einstein.

I don't know where you got that idea. I wasn't taught that. Nor did I
teach my students that. If you were subject to a mistake on that
score, that's a pity, but by no means should you assume the mistake is
widespread.

What Einstein did is synthesize a number of existing ideas, and he
furthermore carried them further than the others with the preceding
ideas were willing to take them. It is the *latter* that Einstein is
most noted for, not for the pure originality of his ideas. And THAT is
historical fact.

> That is historically false.
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdfhttp://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/p...http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relati...http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htmhttp://www.brera.unimi.it/old/Atti-Como-98/Giannetto.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

PD

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 11:39:00 PM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 9:47 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > One reason that most physicists believe that SR was a big,
> > > revolutionary step is that they are taught that all the ideas came
> > > from Einstein. That is historically false.
>
> > Certainly that is historically false. However it seems to be you,
> > Eugene who had the misconception--Folks know that many of the ideas
> > did *not* originate with Einstein.
>
> I've attended worship services in Christian churches and physics
> classes on relativity. My strongest recollections are that I've seen
> greater and more worshipful devotions expressed for Einstein in
> physics than Christians confess for Jesus Christ.

Then you were in the wrong place. Pity. Perhaps you should have
immersed yourself in a better environment.

PD

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 11:40:01 PM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 3:35 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:35 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1184353885....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> > ....
>
> > >> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
> > >> that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find
> > >> your own path to truth'.
>
> > > So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?
>
> > That is NOT what I said.
>
> But can't it be inferred?

Erroneous and unfounded inferences are the devil's playground.

>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


Shubee

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 12:44:51 PM7/15/07
to
On Jul 14, 8:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What Einstein did is synthesize a number of existing ideas, and he
> furthermore carried them further than the others with the preceding
> ideas were willing to take them. It is the *latter* that Einstein is
> most noted for, not for the pure originality of his ideas. And THAT is
> historical fact.

Ah, but Einstein had always denied this and many physicists still
believe Einstein.

Consider this reference:

Einstein has always denied to have known Poincaré publications. It's
hard to believe as his friends Maurice Solovine and Carl Seelig,
report Einstein had read the Poincaré book " La Science et
l'hypothèse" (no absolute time, no absolute space, no ether ... )
around 1902-1904. This book was commented at their reading commitee «
Académie Olympia » during several weeks (ref. 8, pages 129 et 139 ;
ref. 9, page VIII and ref. 17, page 30) His position at the Swiss
office patent in charge of "electromagnetism" implied that part of his
job was to read and summarize the main publications on this topic ( he
summarized several papers from the French "Academie des sciences").

At the end of his life, Einstein wrote in 1955 in a letter to Carl
Seelig:

«There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to be discovered in

1905. Lorentz already noticed that the transformations ( named Lorentz
transformations) were essential in the Maxwell theory and Poincaré had
gone even further.

At that time I only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but I knew neither
Lorentz nor Poincaré further work.

This why I can say that my work of 1905 was independent » (ref 8, page
11).

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm

Shubee

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 12:41:41 PM7/15/07
to

http://www.clubdelhorloge.fr/einstein_poincare.htm

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

"Shubee" <e.sh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1184517891....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Shubee

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 2:03:47 PM7/15/07
to

Since you are an expert in all things spiritual, please show me where
the Bible teaches "something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you


must find your own path to truth'."

Shubee

PD

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 2:30:05 PM7/15/07
to
On Jul 15, 1:03 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 3:35 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 12:35 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1184353885....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > On Jul 13, 11:08 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> > > > ....
>
> > > > >> Every great religion was founded upon words of wisdom spoken by someone
> > > > >> that said something to the effect 'follow none blindly, you must find
> > > > >> your own path to truth'.
>
> > > > > So you don't think that Christianity is a great religion?
>
> > > > That is NOT what I said.
>
> > > But can't it be inferred?
>
> > Erroneous and unfounded inferences are the devil's playground.
>
> > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

>
> Since you are an expert in all things spiritual,

Another example of erroneous and unfounded inferences.
I sure hope you don't do much fishing in your leisure time.

PD

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 2:34:01 PM7/15/07
to

Which is in agreement with what I said.

> Lorentz already noticed that the transformations ( named Lorentz
> transformations) were essential in the Maxwell theory and Poincaré had
> gone even further.

Which is also in agreement with what I said. You'll note that Einstein
took it further than either Lorentz or Poincare, which is again what I
said.

Wolfgang G. Gasser

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 4:15:28 PM7/15/07
to
Shubee in news:1184517891....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com :

> Einstein has always denied to have known Poincaré publications.
> It's hard to believe as his friends Maurice Solovine and Carl
> Seelig, report Einstein had read the Poincaré book " La Science et
> l'hypothèse" (no absolute time, no absolute space, no ether ... )
> around 1902-1904.

Your presentation of the facts is actually not far away from
dishonesty. Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et
la l'hypothèse". Do you have read this book yourself? Does it
suggest special relativity? And are you sure that noone before
Poincaré ever had the idea that the best way to synchronize
distant clocks is by means of light signals from the center?

The case Einstein-Poincaré is quite similar to the case Einstein-
Hilbert. There is a confusion between

1) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires
des séances de L'Académie des sciences, Volume 140,
(5 June 1905), pp. 1504-1508
2) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo
matimatico di Palermo, Volume 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd,
1905)
3) La dynamique de l'électron, Revue générale des sciences pures
et appliquées 19:386-402 (1908)

and maybe even: 4) La dynamique de l'électron par Henri Poincaré
(Lectures given by Henri Poincaré in July 1912 at the Ecole
Supérieure des Postes et des Télégraphes. Mars 1913, A. Dumas
Editeur, Paris. Published and edited posthusmously by Pomey.)

Even if Einstein had known 1) it would not have helped him a lot
(see appendix below). Five years ago I wrote on this subject:
_______________________________________________________________________

Anyway, a Lorentzian ether is inconsistent with a consistent
generalization of the so-called Galilean relativity principle
to the whole of physics. Such a relativity principle had been
consistently advocated by e.g. Ockham (1290-1348), Nicolaus
Cusanus (1401-1464) and later also by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
So "Lorentzian relativity" is at best a misnomer and at worst a
contradiction.

The classical relativity principle presupposes the inertia
principle (often attributed to Galilei but) advocated at the
latest by Ibn Sina (Avicenna) a millennium ago. Relevant
quotations from Avicenna can be found in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/0c7a6e19aec6ace0

According to the classical relativity principle as conceived
by e.g. Ockham, Cusanus and Kant, all inertial movements are
equivalent. According to the theory of Lorentz and Poincaré
however, that is obviously not the case. Still in June 1905
Poicaré wrote (translated by me):

Lorentz was also led to assume that the moving electron takes the
form of a compressed ellipsoid; ...

... and at the same time [one gets] a possible explanation of the
electron contraction, in assuming that the electron, deformable
and compressible, is subject to a kind of exterior constant
pressure whose effect [travail] is proportional to the variations
in volume. ...

The original:

Lorentz est amené également à supposer que l'électron en mouvement
prend la forme d'un ellipsoide aplati; ...

Mais avec l'hypothèse de Lorentz, l'accord entre les formules
ne se fait pas tout seul; on l'obtient, et en même temps une
explication possible de la contraction de l'électron, en supposant
que l'électron, déformable et compressible, est soumis à une sorte
de pression constante extérieure dont le travail est proportionnel
aux variations du volume.

Poincaré, "Sur la dynamique de l'électron.", Comptes rendues 140

So the reproach that Einstein plagiarized somehow a "relativity
principle" from Poincaré does not even make sense. (The question
however, whether Poincaré profited from Einstein's relativity
paper without attribution when publishing his own "relativity
theory" in 1906 could still be open.)
_______________________________________________________________________
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.science/msg/440485ea71f72b92

This question is still open:

"D'un autre côté, même si Poincaré n'était pas homme à se mettre
sur le devant de la scène, on se demande encore pourquoi la
communication à l'Académie des sciences de Paris du 5 juin 1905,
«Sur la dynamique de l'électron», reçue en juillet 1905, n'a
finalement été publiée qu'en janvier 1906 dans le Circolo
matematico di Palermo, revue scientifique de second ordre alors
que sa renommée lui autorisait plus de visibilité?"
http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/04/19/79680.html

> At the end of his life, Einstein wrote in 1955 in a letter to Carl
> Seelig:
>
> « There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
> Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to be discovered
> in 1905. Lorentz already noticed that the transformations (named
> Lorentz transformations) were essential in the Maxwell theory
> and Poincaré had gone even further.
>
> At that time I only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but I knew neither
> Lorentz nor Poincaré further work.
>
> This why I can say that my work of 1905 was independent » (ref 8,
> page 11).

Think about it, Einstein had a regular work and a family. It was
impossible for him to study all the papers and books that were
published in those days. And how could he have known that the
best candidates for plagiarism would be just Poincaré and Lorentz?

Cheers, Wolfgang
___________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX:

Translated extracts from Poincaré, June 1905:

"... It seems that this impossibility of determining the absolute
motion is a general law of nature.

An explanation has been proposed by Lorentz who introduced the
hypothesis of a contraction of all objects in direction of the
motion; ... Lorentz tried to complete and modify his hypothesis
in order to make it consistent with the postulate of the full
impossibility of determining the absolute motion. ...

The essential point, established by Lorentz, is that the equations
of the e.m. field do not change under a certain transformation
(which I'll call Lorentz transformation) and ...

... These transformations, ..., must form a group; however, for
this to be so, it is necessary that l = 1; hence we are led to
assume that l = 1 and this is a consequence which Lorentz had
found by a different way. ...

Lorentz was also led to assume that the moving electron takes the
form of a compressed ellipsoid; ...

... and at the same time [one gets] a possible explanation of the
electron contraction, in assuming that the electron, deformable
and compressible, is subject to a kind of exterior constant
pressure whose effect [travail] is proportional to the variations
in volume. ...

But that is not enough: Lorentz considered it necessary to
complete his hypothesis by assuming that all forces, of any
origin, are affected in the same way by a translation as the e.m.
forces and that therefore the effect of a Lorentz transformation
is once again defined by the equations (4)."

The originals of the translated extracts:

"... Il semble que cette impossibilité de démontrer le mouvement
absolu soit une loi générale de la nature.

Une explication a été proposée par Lorentz, qui a introduit
l'hypothèse d'une contraction de tous les corps dans le sens du
mouvement terrestre; ... Lorentz a cherché à compléter et à
modifier son hypothèse de facon à la mettre en concordance avec
le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la détermination du
mouvement absolu. ...

Le point essentiel, établi par Lorentz, c'est que les équations
du champs électromagnétique ne sont pas altérées par une certaine
transformation (que j'appelerai du nom de Lorentz) et ...

... L'ensemble de toutes ces transformations, ... , doit former
groupe; mais, pour qu'il en soit ainsi, if faut que l = 1; on est
donc conduit à supposer l = 1 et c'est là une conséquence que
Lorentz avait obtenue par une autre voie. ...

Lorentz est amené également à supposer que l'électron en mouvement
prends la forme d'un ellipsoide aplati; ...

Mais avec l'hypothèse de Lorentz, l'accord entre les formules
ne se fait pas tout seul; on l'obtient, et en même temps une
explication possible de la contraction de l'électron, en supposant
que l'électron, déformable et compressible, est soumis à une sorte
de pression constante extérieure dont le travail est proportionnel
aux variations du volume.

Mais ce n'est pas tout: Lorentz, dans l'Ouvrage cité, a jugé
nécessaire de compléter son hypothèse en supposant que toutes les
forces, quelle qu'en soit l'origine, soient affectées, par une
translation, de la même manière que les forces électromagnétiques,
et que, par conséquent, l'effet produit sur leurs composantes
par la transformation de Lorentz est encore défini par les
équations (4)."


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 6:09:03 PM7/15/07
to
On Jul 15, 1:15 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Shubee innews:1184517891....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> _______________________________________________________________________http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.science/msg/440485ea71f72b92

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 6:10:02 PM7/15/07
to
On Jul 15, 1:15 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Shubee innews:1184517891....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> > Einstein has always denied to have known Poincaré publications.
> > It's hard to believe as his friends Maurice Solovine and Carl
> > Seelig, report Einstein had read the Poincaré book " La Science et
> > l'hypothèse" (no absolute time, no absolute space, no ether ... )
> > around 1902-1904.
>
> Your presentation of the facts is actually not far away from
> dishonesty. Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et
> la l'hypothèse". Do you have read this book yourself? Does it
> suggest special relativity? And are you sure that noone before
> Poincaré ever had the idea that the best way to synchronize
> distant clocks is by means of light signals from the center?

You are arguing about farce. <shrug>

> The case Einstein-Poincaré is quite similar to the case Einstein-
> Hilbert. There is a confusion between
>
> 1) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires
> des séances de L'Académie des sciences, Volume 140,
> (5 June 1905), pp. 1504-1508
> 2) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo
> matimatico di Palermo, Volume 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd,
> 1905)
> 3) La dynamique de l'électron, Revue générale des sciences pures
> et appliquées 19:386-402 (1908)
> and maybe even: 4) La dynamique de l'électron par Henri Poincaré
> (Lectures given by Henri Poincaré in July 1912 at the Ecole
> Supérieure des Postes et des Télégraphes. Mars 1913, A. Dumas
> Editeur, Paris. Published and edited posthusmously by Pomey.)

In the case of Einstein-Poincare, the constancy in the speed of light
was already proposed by Voigt a few months before MMX of 1887. In
doing so, Voigt came up with the Voigt transform to adequately explain
the null results of Michelson's 1881 experiment and then MMX itself.
Noticing the Voigt transform fails the principle of relativity, Larmor
modified it to become the Lorentz transform. Lorentz, Poincare, and
Einstein can only contribute interpretations to the Lorentz
transform. Since all the interpretations are based on the Lorentz
transform, there is absolutely no way to show how each interpretation
is more correct or how different from the others. <shrug>

In the case of Einstein-Hilbert, in 1908 after Minkowski had proposed
the concept of spacetime, Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
himself (the Goettingen group) had started investigating the curvature
of spacetime as the cause of gravitation. Minkowksi died early.
Schwarzschild left for some observatory. The work did not go any
where and was abandoned until 1915.

In the meantime, Einstein being a little bit more challenged mentally
was still struggling to understand Newton's law of gravity. Given him
credit for understanding it, he rediscovered the principle of
equivalence from Newton's law of gravity. The nitwit was almost 300
hundred years too late, for Galileo had beaten Einstein to it.
Einstein never realized Newton's law of gravity is based on the
principle equivalence. After the nitwit Einstein heard about the
Goettingen group's work, he enlisted his classmate Grossmann to apply
the principle of equivalence to the curvature business of spacetime.
Gravity can only be characterized by someone observing how an object
behaves under gravitational effect. Newton did so by observing that
falling apple. Einstein tried to picture himself as the falling
apple. Not surprising, the result was a dead end. Not a single
reference to the field equations is the application of the principle
of equivalence.

After dumping Grossmann and complaining about Grossmann's lack of
progress, the nitwit due to his superb lecture skill or salesman-like
pitch was able to convince the Goettingen group to restart the
research into the physics on the curvature of spacetime. Only after
Einstein had bragged about deriving Mercury's orbital advance after
studying how Gerber did it, Hilbert pulled out the Lagrangian, which
does not even qualify as a Lagrangian, out of his *ss. By taking the
partial derivative with respect to each element of the transpose of
the matrix represented by the metric, the set of field equations is
derived. There is no other way.

Einstein had no influence over the field equations except acting as a
catalyst to force Hilbert to cough them up. I suspect Hilbert had
this all along but was struggling to find the validity of doing so.
Therefore, once again, the nitwit Einstein took no part in
formulations of SR and GR. <shrug>

Alen

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:47:31 AM7/16/07
to
On Jul 14, 12:52 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 6:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> What was uniquely Einstein's was he realized that time and space where
> >> not rigid and fixed, but that they where malleable. Nobody else was
> >> thinking that way.
>
> > Let's not be too dogmatic here. It could be a realization. And it
> > could be a mathematical fantasy.
>
> A realization it was... It was that simple little phenomenon, the coil
> and the bar magnet, that of course everybody knew about, disturbed nobody
> else, but Albert Einstein.
>
> Just because many appreciate what Einstein achieved, doesn't mean they
> are blind followers. Einstein's work has been tested for over a hundred
> years and not found to be wrong. The data tells the story. There has not
> been a prediction of relativity that has been contradicted by an observation.
>
> When there is, relativity will be wrong. But there has not been one! Doubt
> is at the heart of science. Relativity survives.

I agree with Shubee about space and time. That was where Einstein made
his mistake. Everything else is fine: the principle of relativity, the
light
postulate, the explanation of the magnetic force, time dilation and
length
contraction and the transformation equations. When, however, Einstein
interpreted or accepted time dilation and the relativity of
simultaneity to
mean that space and time themselves were not the same for all
observers,
he made a mistake from which physics has never recovered. Indeed, it
has got even worse, by transferring the whole theory, including the
derivation
of the transformation equations themselves, away from Einstein's
original
dynamical basis to the mistaken, static spacetime basis that we see is
preferred today.

This will continue to cause endless trouble for physics, and we may
see
physicists possibly wasting entire careers wrestling, for example,
with the
problem of how to reconcile Minkowski spacetime with the instantaneity
of
quantum nonlocality, until someone discovers that the solution to any
such
problem is to finally recognise and abandon what will turn out to have
been one of the great conceptual errors in the history of science.

Alen

Sam Wormley

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 11:22:56 AM7/16/07
to
Alen wrote:

>
> I agree with Shubee about space and time. That was where Einstein made
> his mistake. Everything else is fine: the principle of relativity, the light
> postulate, the explanation of the magnetic force, time dilation and length
> contraction and the transformation equations. When, however, Einstein
> interpreted or accepted time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity to
> mean that space and time themselves were not the same for all observers,
> he made a mistake from which physics has never recovered. Indeed, it
> has got even worse, by transferring the whole theory, including the derivation
> of the transformation equations themselves, away from Einstein's original
> dynamical basis to the mistaken, static spacetime basis that we see is preferred today.
>
> This will continue to cause endless trouble for physics, and we may see
> physicists possibly wasting entire careers wrestling, for example, with the
> problem of how to reconcile Minkowski spacetime with the instantaneity of
> quantum nonlocality, until someone discovers that the solution to any such
> problem is to finally recognise and abandon what will turn out to have
> been one of the great conceptual errors in the history of science.
>
> Alen
>

That's hard for a lot of people--accepting that space and time are not
absolute but malleable. However, one can't ignore the effects in GPS,
particle accelerators, astrophysical observation such as slowing of
radioactive decay rates and the like.

Androcles

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 1:05:54 PM7/16/07
to

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1184597251.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Fuckin' lunatic.

*plonk*

Alen

unread,
Jul 17, 2007, 9:11:47 AM7/17/07
to

I wouldn't put forward an argument that suggests they should
be ignored. In other words, the abandonment of Minkowski
spacetime will not involve the denial of any established
experimental results. All that is required is an alternative
explanation that satisfies the experimental results. I believe
such an explanation is possible, and will more easily reconcile
SR with QM nonlocality etc.

Alen

Alen

unread,
Jul 17, 2007, 9:34:54 AM7/17/07
to
On Jul 17, 3:05 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>

> : I agree with Shubee about space and time.
>
> Fuckin' lunatic.
>
> *plonk*

I guess you have your sights set on me now?

If I am correct, you are convinced that the Sagnac
effect disproves SR. But I am not convinced that it
does.

Alen


PD

unread,
Jul 18, 2007, 4:14:59 PM7/18/07
to
Perhaps unfortunately, this "alternate explanation" strategy for model-
building or theorizing has little value in science. The way that
competing models are weighed is by locating the places where the
models make *different* predictions of experimental observations, and
then compare those different predictions against the results of an
experiment designed to distinguish between the two.

It is hardly ever the case that a theory is unseated by an alternative
theory that has *identical* predictive power, no matter how appealing
it may be in the mind of the proposer.

This little criterion is one that hobbyists on this group routinely
overlook, or when it is pointed out to them, don't care for.

PD

Alen

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 10:25:12 AM7/19/07
to

That argument is ok, all things being equal. In the case of
Minkowski spacetime, however, which is illustrated by the
corresponding spacetime diagram, the specification that
length contraction exists, whatever the method used to
measure a moving length, can be disproved. The reality is
that length contraction exists only when a moving length
is measured by sending a light ray along it, and not otherwise.
The spacetime rotation model for inertial frames cannot specify
this restriction. This means that the Minkowski spacetime
model cannot be correct, and this is what necessitates an
alternative explanation.

Alen


PD

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 5:31:34 PM7/19/07
to

That is experimentally incorrect. You need to take a look at rapidity
distributions of particles in fixed-target and collider experiments,
where there is no light sent anywhere.

Familiarity with experimental evidence is so crucial to physical
understanding that a lack of the former prevents the latter.

> The spacetime rotation model for inertial frames cannot specify
> this restriction. This means that the Minkowski spacetime
> model cannot be correct, and this is what necessitates an
> alternative explanation.
>

> Alen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jul 19, 2007, 9:00:12 PM7/19/07
to

The "history makers" have gone to great length to promote a nitwit
(Einstein) into the greatest mind through out the entire human
history. However, for the first time, yours truly has pioneered this
field of forensic research through mathematics. Sorting through
pieces of actual historical accounts and applied with appropriate
mathematics to cross check the validity involved, it allows yours
truly to straighten out what exactly happened in this particular event
in history involving Einstein the super nitwit. <shrug>

Just imagine how other historical accounts are also distorted, made
up, and lies. Most of them cannot be cross-checked by mathematics.
Actual history making seems to be what modern history is all about.
It can easily be covered up with peer pressure, over self-esteem,
stupidity, and lack of rationality. <sigh>

Alen

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 12:38:35 AM7/20/07
to

I am already aware of that, and have been given that answer
before. The length contraction of charged particles does not
make what I have said to be experimentally incorrect.

The possible working of photons within the fields of charged
particles cannot be positively excluded from the length contraction
effect in the case of high velocity particles. They cannot
therefore be taken as experimental evidence against what
I said. Even in the case of neutral particles, if any such
evidence exists for neutral particles, lightspeed bosons in
their gravitational fields could be working in the same way
as photons.

The argument I have put forward against length contraction
in the absence of light is incontrovertible, and will not be
contradicted by any experimental evidence.

Alen

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 2:03:01 AM7/20/07
to
On Jul 19, 8:38 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
[...]

> The argument I have put forward against length contraction
> in the absence of light is incontrovertible, and will not be
> contradicted by any experimental evidence.

Why don't you make an argument that makes actual predictions?

"uh, its just like SR only..um..stuff about light so it won't
contradict experiment" isn't good enough.

>
> Alen


PD

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 9:38:50 AM7/20/07
to

I'm not referring to the length contraction of charged particles.
Rapidity distributions do not have anything to do with length
contraction of charged particles. As I said before, familiarity with
experimental evidence is essential to physics and is a prerequisite to
sound theoretical thinking. This is, by the way, true for all
generations of theoretical physicists.

Furthermore, special relativity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon,
nor is it restricted to the domain of electromagnetism. It was
*noticed* in the domain of electromagnetism because the laws there
seemed to require things that were not noticed in other physical laws.
But all physical laws of all interactions, we've found out, are
spacetime covariant at a fundamental level, electromagnetic or not.

PD

>
> The possible working of photons within the fields of charged
> particles cannot be positively excluded from the length contraction
> effect in the case of high velocity particles. They cannot
> therefore be taken as experimental evidence against what
> I said. Even in the case of neutral particles, if any such
> evidence exists for neutral particles, lightspeed bosons in
> their gravitational fields could be working in the same way
> as photons.
>
> The argument I have put forward against length contraction
> in the absence of light is incontrovertible, and will not be
> contradicted by any experimental evidence.

This is what separates you from physicists. You have the belief that
an argument can trump experimental evidence, to the extent that you
firmly believe (without seeing it) that there is no way that any
experimental evidence could possibly overturn the argument.
Scientists, on the other hand, have learned that ANY argument, no
matter how compelling, no matter now logical, no matter how sensible,
is at the mercy of experimental verification or falsification. And
there have been many completely logical, completely mathematically
consistent theories that turn out to be worth the napkin they were
conceived on, once it is discovered that nature simply doesn't work
that way.

PD

Alen

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 10:12:22 AM7/20/07
to
On Jul 20, 4:03 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:38 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > The argument I have put forward against length contraction
> > in the absence of light is incontrovertible, and will not be
> > contradicted by any experimental evidence.
>
> Why don't you make an argument that makes actual predictions?

Yes, that would be the ideal, and I would certainly do so if
possible. But an argument exists on its own terms and doesn't
always conveniently provide an opportunity for special predictions
peculiar to itself.

> "uh, its just like SR only..um..stuff about light so it won't
> contradict experiment" isn't good enough.

Very amusing, I'm sure!

Alen

Alen

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 10:32:26 AM7/20/07
to
On Jul 20, 11:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:38 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > > The reality is
> > > > that length contraction exists only when a moving length
> > > > is measured by sending a light ray along it, and not otherwise.
>
> > > That is experimentally incorrect. You need to take a look at rapidity
> > > distributions of particles in fixed-target and collider experiments,
> > > where there is no light sent anywhere.
>
> > > Familiarity with experimental evidence is so crucial to physical
> > > understanding that a lack of the former prevents the latter.
>
> > I am already aware of that, and have been given that answer
> > before. The length contraction of charged particles does not
> > make what I have said to be experimentally incorrect.
>
> I'm not referring to the length contraction of charged particles.
> Rapidity distributions do not have anything to do with length
> contraction of charged particles. As I said before, familiarity with
> experimental evidence is essential to physics and is a prerequisite to
> sound theoretical thinking. This is, by the way, true for all
> generations of theoretical physicists.

You don't put forward an actual argument. Instead, you are
merely making a general comment on the role of evidence
in relation to theory, that everyone is already conscious of.

> Furthermore, special relativity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon,
> nor is it restricted to the domain of electromagnetism. It was
> *noticed* in the domain of electromagnetism because the laws there
> seemed to require things that were not noticed in other physical laws.
> But all physical laws of all interactions, we've found out, are
> spacetime covariant at a fundamental level, electromagnetic or not.
>
> PD

I don't argue that SR is restricted to electromagnetism. I don't
see why SR would not apply to all interactions involving massless
lightspeed bosons, and not those involving photons only. If you will
say that massive, non-lightspeed bosons can mediate interactions,
I would think that, in reality, any 'interactions' involved, where SR
must be applied, will really also involve massless bosons, whether
they currently exist in the particular theory itself or not.

> > The possible working of photons within the fields of charged
> > particles cannot be positively excluded from the length contraction
> > effect in the case of high velocity particles. They cannot
> > therefore be taken as experimental evidence against what
> > I said. Even in the case of neutral particles, if any such
> > evidence exists for neutral particles, lightspeed bosons in
> > their gravitational fields could be working in the same way
> > as photons.
>
> > The argument I have put forward against length contraction
> > in the absence of light is incontrovertible, and will not be
> > contradicted by any experimental evidence.
>
> This is what separates you from physicists. You have the belief that
> an argument can trump experimental evidence, to the extent that you
> firmly believe (without seeing it) that there is no way that any
> experimental evidence could possibly overturn the argument.

In the case of the SR length contraction argument - yes, I do.

Alen


doug

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 12:51:47 PM7/20/07
to

>
> You don't put forward an actual argument. Instead, you are
> merely making a general comment on the role of evidence
> in relation to theory, that everyone is already conscious of.
>
>
>>This is what separates you from physicists. You have the belief that
>>an argument can trump experimental evidence, to the extent that you
>>firmly believe (without seeing it) that there is no way that any
>>experimental evidence could possibly overturn the argument.
>
>
> In the case of the SR length contraction argument - yes, I do.
>
> Alen
>
>
So in other words, if reality disagrees with you, it is reality
that is wrong?

PD

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 6:36:24 PM7/20/07
to
On Jul 20, 9:32 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

>
> > This is what separates you from physicists. You have the belief that
> > an argument can trump experimental evidence, to the extent that you
> > firmly believe (without seeing it) that there is no way that any
> > experimental evidence could possibly overturn the argument.
>
> In the case of the SR length contraction argument - yes, I do.
>

Well, as I said, this is what separates you from physicists.

PD

Alen

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 11:47:01 PM7/20/07
to

Do you really think I am that silly? Is it not obvious that I am
simply predicting that no experiment will ever appear that will
contradict the argument?

Alen


Alen

unread,
Jul 20, 2007, 11:51:45 PM7/20/07
to

So be it. I am willing to let history be the judge. Physicists can
also
be mistaken, especially, perhaps, when they would have to resist
something like the beauty and neatness of the spacetime
mathematics.

Alen


Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 21, 2007, 1:57:48 AM7/21/07
to

So why are you posting this on a physics newsgroup? Go post it on a
philosophy group, where you can argue until blue in the face.

>
> Alen


Juan R.

unread,
Jul 21, 2007, 9:28:15 AM7/21/07
to
On Jul 15, 10:15 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Shubee innews:1184517891....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Einstein has always denied to have known Poincaré publications.
> > It's hard to believe as his friends Maurice Solovine and Carl
> > Seelig, report Einstein had read the Poincaré book " La Science et
> > l'hypothèse" (no absolute time, no absolute space, no ether ... )
> > around 1902-1904.
>
> Your presentation of the facts is actually not far away from
> dishonesty. Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et
> la l'hypothèse".

Yes, Shubee is there a bit confused. However, the point is not if
Einstein read Poincare during his life. The point is on if Einstein
read Poincare before/during 1905.

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding Einstein work was not
revolutionary, but a continuation of previous research by other
authors. Also the confusion arised because Einstein did not cited the
work of others.

The Nobel laureate for physics Max Born excellently resumed the
impression that one receives when read Einstein paper by the first
time:

{BLOCKQUOTE
[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in
Annalen der Physik [...] contains not a single reference to
previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new
venture.
But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true.
}

Since physicists and historian found striking similarities between
Einstein 1905 paper and previous works by other authors. Einstein was
asked. Einstein reply was

{BLOCKQUOTE
Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895
La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie
der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern
but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré.
In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.
}

Now, we know that Einstein knew Poincare work BEFORE 1905 and used.
For instance, Stephen G. Brush states in Physics Today 2001 54(12):

{BLOCKQUOTE
The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration
for both Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science
and Hypothesis (French edition 1902, German translation 1904)
and discussed it with his friends in Bern. He might also have read
Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which
the synchronization of clocks was discussed-a topic of professional
interest to Einstein as a patent examiner.
}

We know from Einstein friends Maurice Solovine and Carl Seelig that
Einstein read Poincare work during 1902-1904 and they discuss about
it. You can see the two problems historians may solve. If Einstein
knew Poincare work BEFORE 1905 and used parts of it (no absolute time,
principle of relativity, etc.), why did not Einstein cited Poincare
work as reference? That is the first problem. And now the second, why
in posterior years Einstein said there was not read Poincare BEFORE
1905 when Einstein did?

You can find two extreme interpretations. The first, 'politically
incorrect' (e.g. Bjkernes) says that Einstein plagiarized much of
Poincare during development of special relativity and after negated to
know Poincare when Einstein was accused from plagiarism.

The second interpretation (e.g. Stachel) is 'politically correct' and
says

{BLOCKQUOTE
[...] and some very late Einstein letters, answering questions such
as
whether he had prior knowledge of the Michelson-Morley experiment,
what works by Lorentz he had read, the influence of Poincaré, Mach,
Hume, etc., on his ideas; Einstein's replies are not always self-
consistent,
it must be noted.
}

> So the reproach that Einstein plagiarized somehow a "relativity
> principle" from Poincaré does not even make sense. (The question
> however, whether Poincaré profited from Einstein's relativity
> paper without attribution when publishing his own "relativity
> theory" in 1906 could still be open.)

Well, it may not be so nonsense like you believe. Lorentz itself
credited Poincare

{BLOCKQUOTE
This has been done by Poincaré, and later by Einstein and Minkowski.
My formulae were encumbered by certain terms which should have
been made to disappear. [...] I have not established the principle
of
relativity as rigorously and universally true. Poincaré, on the
other hand,
has obtained a perfect invariance of the electro-magnetic equations,
and he has formulated 'the postulate of relativity', terms which he
was
the first to employ.
}

Nobel winner Pauli also wrote:

{BLOCKQUOTE
He stated the relativity principle to be generally and rigorously
valid
}

In a recent treatise about Relativity Brown writtes:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Poincare was the first to extend the relatiivty principle to optics
and
electrodynamics exactly
}

I think you have failed to grasp meaning of Poincare work. Many people
go beyond the PoR and consider Poincare to be one of co-authors of
special relativity. I have got many physicists and historian recent
books on the topic. And this begin to be known to the great public.
E.g. in his celebrated book "The emperor's New mind" Penrose directly
titled the chapter on page 248 "The special relativity of Einstein and
Poincare"

> And how could he have known that the
> best candidates for plagiarism would be just Poincaré and Lorentz?
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang

But, however, from your above writting you are comfortable with the
idea of Poincare openly plagiarizing Einstein so early like 1906, many
years before Einstein turned into a celebrity, no?

Alen

unread,
Jul 21, 2007, 9:58:17 AM7/21/07
to

That is not for you to decide. You have no personal
obligation to be involved with it at all, and likewise no
authority to make any determination about it either.

Alen

Wolfgang G. Gasser

unread,
Jul 21, 2007, 5:05:43 PM7/21/07
to
>> = Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7dv76$g2g$1...@atlas.ip-plus.net
> = Juan R. in news:1185024495.8...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com

>> Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et l'hypothèse".

> However, the point is not if Einstein read Poincare during his
> life. The point is on if Einstein read Poincare before/during 1905.

Once again Einstein:

Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895
La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie
der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern
but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré.
In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.

If one considers "La Science et l'hypothèse" as "consecutive work
of Poincaré" in the relativity domain, then Einstein actually
seems to be liar.

In a similar case, some have accused Einstein of having lied about
the Michelson-Morley experiment. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fd9633ad1115e3e7

I haven't seen until now one single example indicating that
Einstein wasn't honest when he replied to questions concerning
"prior knowledge". Only if one interprets his answers in a
tendentious way, superficial inconsistencies can be constructed.

Priority questions are rather irrelevant. However, the question
of scientific (dis)honesty is crucial.

> Contrary to a popular misunderstanding Einstein work was not
> revolutionary, but a continuation of previous research by other
> authors.

And contrary to a popular misunderstanding, special relativity
is refuted by simple experiments showing that electrostatic
attraction and repulsion are instantaneous actions-at-a-distance
(or at least propagate at v > c):
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=f7182t$kvd$1...@atlas.ip-plus.net

But at least from a philosophical point of view, there is a huge
difference between Lorentz-Poincaré, assuming that matter in
motion wrt the ether is "subject to a kind of exterior constant
pressure", and Einstein's space-time concept.

> Also the confusion arised because Einstein did not cite

> the work of others.

Should he have cited all the books and articles which over years
had helped him to write this article. A correct listing of all
references could have been more work than the article itself.

In any case, it is more honest to publish something without
references than with an incomplete listing of references.

> The Nobel laureate for physics Max Born excellently resumed
> the impression that one receives when read Einstein paper by
> the first time:
>

> [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in
> Annalen der Physik [...] contains not a single reference to
> previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a
> new venture.

I think this comment is malicious for the following reasons.

Einstein was a regular contributor to the 'Annalen der Physik',
having published apart from articles also reviews of works of
others. And in the article he deals with the equations of
Maxwell/Hertz and with Lorentz' electrodynamics.

So the insinuation that by omitting references Einstein tried
to give the impression that he had written this article
independently from all others does not make a lot of sense.

And the Poincaré synchronization procedure is such a basic
thing that it simply is absurd to assume that Einstein could
not have created relativity without having learned this point
from Poincaré.

> Since physicists and historian found striking similarities
> between Einstein 1905 paper and previous works by other
> authors.

Could you cite these "striking similarities"? Where can we
find the claim that inertial frames are generally linked by the
Lorentz transformation? Where can we find the velocity addition
formulas?

Also the 'impossibility to detect the absolute motion' (called
'relativity principle' by Poincaré) was rather an empirical
fact suggested by the many unsuccessful attempts to detect
motion wrt the ether than an insight which must be attributed
specially to Poincaré.

Einstein's relativity principle is rather a further stage
of the same principle as advocated e.g. by Immanual Kant
('Neuer Lehrbegriff der Bewegung und Ruhe', 1758) than an
'impossibility to detect the absolute motion'.

The criticism of the lack of references often boils down to
this: In 1905 Einstein should have given credit to Poincaré's
work of 1905, published however only in 1906.

Cheers, Wolfgang


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jul 21, 2007, 8:00:26 PM7/21/07
to
On Jul 21, 2:05 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

> Once again Einstein:
>
> Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895
> La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie
> der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern
> but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré.
> In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.
>
> If one considers "La Science et l'hyp