Are Poincare and Lorentz the originators of relativity...

[iNow]

There are others such as Preston and DePretto who derived and published articles that included the famous E=MC2 prior to Einstein.

 

Okay. All you're doing now is repeating yourself. I have to ask... Are you simply not reading the responses to your posts? Preston and DePretto got the equation by mistake, ergo... Their contributions were not contributions at all.

[dr.syntax]

Okay. All you're doing now is repeating yourself. I have to ask... Are you simply not reading the responses to your posts? Preston and DePretto got the equation by mistake, ergo... Their contributions were not contributions at all.

 

It is not a long read ,makes it`s points and provides references. A good straightforward to the point article. ...Dr.Syntax

[iNow]

Wasn't it already conceded that Einstein built upon ideas which came before him, just as every other scientist does? I'm not sure I follow the point you're here trying to make. Einstein did not exist in a vacuum, he was able to see as far as he did because he was standing on the shoulders of giants, but what he saw was his own creation and a new way of bringing the various components together.

 

So, again... What point are you trying to make?

[mooeypoo]

Here is a link that discusses the importance of Poincare. [ http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id6.html ]. This link is a short to the point read on the importance of Poincare and Lorentz as to relativity theories with references. D.S.

Dr Syntax, you need to start debating science and not empty claims.

 

Not all websites are valid evidence. There is such a thing called "Peer Review", and articles that went through this process are more reliable - for a reason. Any child can open a site (let alone one on "tripod.com" domain) and preach whatever they think sounds right. That does not lend any credence to your claims, on the contrary, it just goes to show you have no viable evidence.

 

This does not move the debate forward, it just makes it go round and round in circles. It is also directly against our speculation policy and our rules of debate here in the forum. Rules that - I must remind you - you agreed to when you signed in (remember the "I agree to the terms of use of this forum"? that's the one).

 

Please go over our rules. Also, go over the scientific method. Go over what counts as evidence, what peer review is, and how to properly cite and use scientific data in your claims.

 

Until you do that, your claims are empty. They're moot, and so is your proposed conclusion.

 

~moo

[D H]

Here is a link that discusses the importance of Poincare. [ http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id6.html ].

Oh joy. Yet another crackpot site.

 

"3) he suggested that mass depends on speed".

Yep. He, with Lorentz, derived [math]E=3/4mc^2[/math].

 

" 5)...he derived the Lorentz transformations."

Nope. In his work with Lorentz, the Lorentz transformations are axiomatic.

 

That was about as much of that nonsense as I can stand. Besides, the crackpot font hurts my eyes. (Aside: Why do crackpots revel in making their sites painful to read, in both the literal and figurative sense?)

 

I'll finish with this amazingly rich piece of nonsense from the article:

 

"A Timeline of Western Philosophers, by Garth Kemerling in an Internet article dated 1997, 1998, 1999. He is only 1 of 500 philosophers featured on that timeline in the past 2600 years. In math, he is one of the top 26 mathematicians in the past 2600 years (see: Famous Mathematicians on the Internet). Even Einstein recognized Poincares superiority as thinker and author."

 

So far, so good. Poincare ranks right up there amongst the most brilliant minds of all time. So what makes it too rich? The very next sentence:

 

"For Poincare to fade into obscurity requires the cooperation of thousands of physicists."

 

Where is the :rotfl: smiley when you need it? Did the author read what he wrote right before that? Has he read any physics texts? Math texts? Engineering texts?

 

The fact is, Poincare did not make that final step. Physics and math are games for young minds. Poincare was doing what old scientists do at the end of their careers: He was mentoring, in this case, Lorentz. While he did develop a theory of relativity, but it was not Einstein's. It was not nearly as elegant and simple. He still had the Lorentz transformations as axiomatic and he still had an absolute reference frame. To make mattes worse, this absolute reference frame was completely undetectable.

 

It was issues of aesthetics rather than a conspiracy of thousands of physicists (to what end??) that made physicists adapt special relativity over Lorentz Ether Theory.

 

Let's go back in time 300 years before Einstein and Poincare. Tycho Brahe was the mentor to Johannes Kepler. Brahe, like Poincare, went halfway to the new point of view. Brahe developed a mixed model of the solar system, with the planets orbiting the Sun but the Moon and Sun orbiting Earth. He could not make that last step. Kepler could, and he one-upped Copernicus by throwing out the sacred cow of uniform circular motion. Even though Brahe was the mentor, it was his student that earned a big place in history. Brahe's place in history is diminished because couldn't let go of his sacred cows.

 

There are others such as Preston and DePretto who derived and published articles that included the famous E=MC2 prior to Einstein.

What is it with the broken record garbage?

[dr.syntax]

proposition is to provide reliable references to the history of this issue. Statements by people who were alive and involved at that time. People who knew the people involved and corresponded with them. The historical record from the different academic institutions. That`s why I posted it in the GENERAL section of the forum. It has to do with science in a historical way. I`m not attempting to present some theory or new scientific inovation. I guess that link was a good one as to making my point with good references and such. Now you want me to contrive some sort of scientific theory and apply the scientific method and such. You don`t get the answers you want so change the rules. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

[mooeypoo]

proposition is to provide reliable references to the history of this issue. Statements by people who were alive and involved at that time.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.

 

People who knew the people involved and corresponded with them. The historical record from the different academic institutions.

You didn't supply any historical record from the academic institution ,though, you supplied anecdotal hearsay from someone who claims to know someone who perhaps knows someone who was there.

 

That's not evidence.

 

That`s why I posted it in the GENERAL section of the forum.

The *ENTIRE* forum is a science forum, dr.syntax, all posts must adhere to the rules and methodology of scientific method. Even more so when you're making a claim, which you are.

 

It has to do with science in a historical way. I`m not attempting to present some theory or new scientific inovation.

You're not giving anything, not even historical evidence (those need to be corroborated too, you know).

 

I guess that link was a good one as to making my point with good references and such. Now you want me to contrive some sort of scientific theory and apply the scientific method and such. You don`t get the answers you want so change the rules. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

That link is absolutely pointless. First, it's anecdotal evidence, which is invalid. Second, we can't be sure it's even a RELIABLE anecdotal evidence (who the heck is this guy? are you sure he's who he says he is? was it corroborated? if he IS who he says he is, why is he writing in a site like tripod.com ?)

 

In short, YOU are the one who dislikes the fact you have nothing on your favour and when you're called on it, you choose to play innocent and run. You can do that, of course, but that doesn't make your claim plausible, or even remotely scientific.

 

~moo

[D H]

The only way I have of validating anything I say regarding this proposition is to provide reliable references to the history of this issue.

 

I knew there was something else bugging me about one of your posts. This one:

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagarism : " It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pendantic survey of the literature. "

I search the net for quotes by and commentaries on Einstein in which even a small part of the quoted phrase was attributed to Einstein. Nothing -- except for a bunch of anti-Semetic / nutjob / both web sites.

 

Here's the neat thing: The above quoted phrase can be found verbatim on those wacko sites. That nobody but those wacko sites had anything like this and that the wacko sites are word-for-word identical makes my BS alarm ping off-scale high. Particularly troubling is the phrase "In his 1907 paper ... " Which 1907 paper? Einstein published several papers in 1907.

 

My suspicion is that one of those authors simply invented this quote and that the others copied this invented work without attribution. (Hmmm. Fudged quotes in articles that accuse Einstein of fudging the data, plagiarizing content in articles that accuse Einstein of plagiarizing relativity. My irony meter just joined my BS meter at off-scale high.)

 

You can allay my suspicions and you will get an apology out of me if you can perform but one little task regarding that troublesome piece of text:

 

 

Tell me the paper in which the statement was made and a page number. A 'net reference to the paper is preferable.

[dr.syntax]

23 serious scientific blunders to be found at: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes . Tolver and DePretto`s works were rejected by some here because of thier belief in the old aether concept. Somehow or other everything they were correct about such as E=mc2 was invalidated because they were mistaken about this aether concept. More importantly Einstein rejected quantum mechanics from 1927 until his death. I have had it with you smug selfrighteous so called scientists. I spoke ill of the allmighty Einstein. The man was anything but an admirable person in spite of what you were taught in Sunday school. ...ds

Edited September 7, 2009 by dr.syntax
web address problem,same

[mooeypoo]

The link is dead, dr.syntax, can you submit it again?

[dr.syntax]

NO mention of Poincare. Maxwell-Hertz were probably dead and gone. Lorentz he had to mention. By the way Einstein got his equatios wrong about 5 or 6 times over many years regarding that 1905 paper. See http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes regarding that. It is a very short read. ...ds

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here is that link listing Einstein`s 23 biggest mistakes. By the way 7 of them are his attempts to correct those eloquent equations leading to E=mc2.The 7th of which was in 1946,41 years after the great paper was published. Anyway here it is : http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes . Take Care,...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So according to you both of these people arrived at the correct complex equation through lucky mistakes ? It took Einstein 41 years to get his supposedly eloquent equations to actually derive E=MC2. Explain that one. 7 different attempts and failures by the great one. He was using thier equation but could not figure out how to derive it. Whatever, ...ds

Edited September 7, 2009 by dr.syntax
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

einstein wasn't perfect, we know this.

einstein used the work of others, we know this also.

einstein was glorified by the media more than his contempories, yep we know.

there were others at the time who were arguably more deserving of such attention, also known.

 

this does not mean he was a plagiarist. or that he didn't discover anything. or even that he wasn't deserving of praise.

 

when is it going to get through to you?

[swansont]

23 serious scientific blunders to be found at: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes . Tolver and DePretto`s works were rejected by some here because of thier belief in the old aether concept. Somehow or other everything they were correct about such as E=mc2 was invalidated because they were mistaken about this aether concept. More importantly Einstein rejected quantum mechanics from 1927 until his death. I have had it with you smug selfrighteous so called scientists. I spoke ill of the allmighty Einstein. The man was anything but an admirable person in spite of what you were taught in Sunday school. ...ds

 

What's your point? As I posted earlier, the deification of Einstein is in popular writings, not within physics itself. Things are not accepted simply because Einstein said so. he is recognized because of some very important contributions; it's not just the equations, but also the concept underlying them. Nobody (within the science community) is claiming he was infallible.

 

You have failed to convince anybody of your position because you start from a false premise, your reasoning is incorrect and supporting evidence is lacking. That dubious trifecta is the reason this thread is now closed

Edited September 7, 2009 by swansont