sci.physics.relativity

"harry" <@> wrote in message
news:1203325736_2132@sicinfo3....
|
| "Juan R. González-Álvarez" wrote in message
| news:fp4gfs$osu$1@...
| > harry wrote on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:07:27 +0100:
| >
| >> "Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in message
| >> news:fp42me$ap3$1@...
| >>> sal wrote on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:15:14 +0000:
| >>>
| >>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:53:40 +0000, Androcles wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>> This paper is occasionally cited as containing most of the content of
| >>>> Einstein's 1905 electrodynamics paper, which, it is sometimes
claimed,
| >>>> he plagiarized from Poincar.
| >>
| >> Nice to see that paper in English! :-)
| >>
| >>> One of reasons which Einstein has been acused of plagiarism is because
| >>> Einstein said not the truth when affirmed several times "I did not
know
| >>> Poincare work before 1905". We know from several sources (including
| >>> Einstein colleagues at Bern) that Einstein read Poincar works *before*
| >>> 1905.
| >>
| >> When and where did he show such a general amnesia? Usually he was
| >> smarter than that and only claimed that at the time he was not familiar
| >> with Lorentz's 1904 paper (which I believe to be true), without
| >> mentioning Poincare at all.
| >
| > In the famous letter to Carl Seelig:
| >
| > {BLOCKQUOTE
| > 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 is why I can say that my work of 1905
was
| > independent.
| > }
|
| I'm afraid that you are right, I see no other way of interpreting that
than
| claiming that in 1905 he did not know Poincare's work of after 1895.
|
| Harald
|
| > Einstein's friend Maurice Solovine confirmed they both read and discuss
| > Poincare in Bern around 1904, kepting them "breathless for weeks on
| > end." [1]
| >
| > Even a pro-Einstein like J. Stachel recognizes Einstein version of the
| > history cannot be trusted (becasue inconsistency) [2]:
| >
| > {BLOCKQUOTE
| > We do have a number of later historical remarks by Einstein himself,
| > sometimes transmitted by others (Wertheimer, Reiser-Kayser, Shankland,
| > Ishiwara, for example), which raise many problems of authenticity and
| > accuracy; 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.
| > }
| >
| >> See also: /home/kmath305/
| >>
| >> Regards,
| >> Harald
| >
| >
| > [1] /template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611?
| > &print=yes
| >
| > [2] /history/einstein/
| >
| > --
| > I follow /en/miscellaneouszone/
|
What does it matter which one got it wrong? It's still fuckin' stupid.