Talk:Henri Poincaré

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.88.65.217 (talk) at 19:42, 6 February 2006 (→Field Equations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archives

Unreadable IPA characters

[The following the first paragraph content was shortened because its IPA characters were unreadable in some browsers:]

Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: [ˈpwæŋ kæ reɪ]; AmE: [ˌpwɑːŋ kɑː ˈreɪ] [1]; Fr: [pwæ̃ ka ʁe])

Harald88 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincaré

A debate contests the significance of Poincaré's contributions to the special theory of relativity. The details of that debate are in the archives of this page. Following is the summary of that debate:

Some physicists (Lorentz and Pauli), science historians (Janssen and Sir Edmund Whittaker), and text books make some of the following claims:

  • Poincaré corrected Lorentz' Transformations (LT) into their classic modern form by imposing the Principle of Relativity and the Speed of Light requirement, making them attain perfect invariance of Maxwell's equations. Lorentz, however, had missed Lorentz Velocity Transformations.
  • Poincaré understood time dilation before Lorentz in the sense that the t in the LT represents physical clock time.
  • With Poincaré's LT correction, he derived the correct equations of Relativity before Einstein.
  • Poincaré developed a mature theory of special relativity before Einstein.
  • Einstein relied heavily on Poincaré's discussions of relative space and time but failed to credit Poincaré.
  • Poincaré anticipated Albert Einstein's work with a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity.
  • Poincaré published the main features of special relativity before Einstein.
  • Poincaré introduced the 4-space notation that Hermann Minkowski became known for.

Others take a stance closer to the mainstream:

  • Larmor first predicted time dilation and Poincare was surprised by Lorentz's acknowledgement of it.
  • Poincaré's algebraically equivalent (after Galilean transformation) version of Lorentz' Transformations emphasized symmetry that Lorentz missed, but even Poincaré credited the transformation to Lorentz and said he merely drew consequence from them.
  • Poincaré's correction of Lorentz was not in the transformation itself but in an early application of it. Specifically, Poincaré corrected the electric charge density in a moving system by using the relativistic velocity addition law that Lorentz failed to appreciate.
  • Poincaré did not "anticipate" Einstein's work since their postulates were different and Poincaré's piece on the relativity of simultaneity is only a preliminary version of the principle of relativity, which is only part of the overall theory of special relativity.
  • Most believe that Einstein's derivation is essential for the full formulation of the Theory of Special Relativity, so it is unencyclopedic to state that Poincaré was the first to correctly formulate and publish the theory.
  • Poincaré did not anticipate Einstein (or Planck) because he did not believe that radition had mass and never showed the general interchangeability of radiation energy with other forms of enery.
  • Per [[WP:NPOV], this article should present the mainstream opinion first and the minority opinion second.

Since Wikipedia is not the place to debate such points, a suggestion for NPOV is to avoid making claims or allegations.

References about this debate:

The following talk subsections continue the above debate. I will be refactoring them over the next few days into summary form. The Rod 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interpretation of last credit of Poincare to Lorentz

It is arguable that Poincare consistenly called it (and what is "it"?) Lorentz's theory, as he wrote: "Lorentz has tried to modify his hypothesis so as to make it in accord with the the hypothesis of complete impossibility of measuring absolute motion" -- which modern POR, as we know from Lorentz, stems from Poincare.

However, what E4 apparently tries to make the article point out is IMO contained in the following passage:

"... at every moment [the twenty physicists from different countries] could be heard talking of the new mechanics which they contrasted with the old mechanics. Now what was the old mechanics? Was it that of Newton, the one which still reigned uncontested at the close of the nineteenth century? No, it was the mechanics of Lorentz, the one dealing with the principle of relativity; the one which, hardly five years ago, seemed to be the height of boldness ... the mechanics of Lorentz endures ... no body in motion will ever be able to exceed the speed of light ... the mass of a body is not constant ... no experiment will ever be able [to detect] motion either in relation to absolute space or even in relation to the aether."

I tended to think that the citation is more at its place in the article about Lorentz, where indeed it is cited; but I had not reflected much on the important conclusion that we can draw from it.

I infer from this that Poincare did not regard the New Mechanics according to Einstein (=SRT) to be notably different from what he himself called the New Mechanics: Lorentz's mechanics. And thus, that in the end he gave most credit for special relativity to Lorentz instead of to himself (since he commented Einstein's contributions with a loud silence, I think we may safely say that he definitely didn't credit Einstein for it).

IMO we can put such an inference in the article without falling into WP:OR, as long as we all agree that the phrasing is not speculative or reasonably debatable. Harald88 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS as a sidenote: does anyone know what conceptual difference he made between absolute space and the ether?Harald88 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald, yes, I'm not afraid to say it. One can still today keep a concept of ether, as attached to absolute space, the marker of which are the remote fixed stars or equivalently the Cosmic microwave background, with respect to which astronomers today commonly measure the absolute velocity of the Earth.69.22.98.162 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would the following phrase be factual:
"Thus, Poincare regarded special relativity to be the mechanics of Lorentz." Harald88 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this absolute space is then what? I don't see any other role for absolute space separate from the ether concept than as a desciptor for immobility of the proposed ether (which of course might be not correct). Harald88 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. These uppity relativists laugh at anything absolute but they are mistaken. One can still today keep a notion of ether, as the fabric of space if nothing else. And no one can deny space. And Newton's concept of absolute space is still today perfectly defendable.69.22.98.162 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani (1965) wrote that the general theory of relativity is in no sense a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity. --- IT IS A SHAME that this quote of Keswani cannot be fitted into the article somewhere -- it shows that the Special Theory of Relativity is actually the one and unique Theory of Relativity. 69.22.98.162 05:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact GRT has been abandoned, but almost miraculously, its conclusions for gravitation could be salvaged. See talk:principle of relativity , top. Harald88 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he, Poincare, was very very impressed with Lorentz's local time, what we would now call the relativity of simultaneity. Over and over again he refers to it, explains, it calls it names like "ingenious", "wonderful invention". (I think that is very impressive the first time one sees it, can you remember, probably in Einstein?) Both Lorentz and Poincare, at almost the same time (Poincare first), in their earlest publications on optics used the "retarded" pontential idea, the idea familar to every astronomer, that the image one sees is not happening now. Lorentz went a step futher with local time, it implicitly involves clock synchronisation (as Poicare delights in saying, so many different times) though I dodn't know if Lorentz said this (where can we get full text of his 1895 Book "Versuch ..." so we can see what he actually said about it). The first version (pre-1899) did not include time dilation, butit was enough to show first-order invariance - and it was this that (I think) impressed Poincare so much, since he had dicussed but not solved the simultaneity problem in his 1898 "Measure of Time". 220.237.80.193 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was also impressed IMO about how so many of Lorentz's ideas, which Poincare wouldn't 100% accept at first ("too many hypotheses", length contraction, mass increase with velocity, time dilation, all forces transform like electro-magnetoc forces) all turned out to be correct. Of course he was also impressed with Maxwell-Lorentz theory itself, Zeeman effect, light dispersion, refraction and so on. I think it is the natural awe of a theoretican for a practical physcist, and Lorentz's natural awe of practical physcist for a great mathematician and philospher. 220.237.80.193 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Still, Poincare refused to show any appreciation for Einstein's contributions to the popularisation and further development of SRT (incl. the elegant derivation which everyone else incl. Lorentz appreciated). I know of no other explanation for that lack of public appreciation than that Poincare deeply felt plagiarised by Einstein, IOW, that his silence was his way to express his discontent about Einstein's behaviour. Harald88 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of anotehr explanation. Poincare sincerely believed that it would be bad form for a "Johnny-come-lately" like him, to correct a mistake in a theory Lorentz had been working on for 10 years, and claim it as his own. He knew the normal rules of precedent and etiquette. If he was discontented with Einstein, it could just be that he thought (quite rightly) that Einstein SHOULD have made a similar introduction in his paper, as Poincare had. Poincare thought that Einstein should have said something like "I agree on all essential points, show a new feature of the transformations and draw some new conclusions". In fact, Einstein could not even say "I have corrected him on one small point" because Einstein considered only the Maxwell equation for free space, div E = 0, he did not consider the equation for charged filled space div E = rho, the transformation of which Lorentz had got wrong. (Although perhaps Einstein could say he didn't need to consider it, who cares what's going on inside the electron where the RHS is not zero; he needed only the transformed force-on-a-moving-charge equation). And it is possible that Poincare couldn't discuss Einstein 1905 paper without pointing out the bad form/inadequate referencing of earlier work/inadequate researching of earlier work by Einstein which he didn't want to do. He didn't seem to hold any animosity to Einstein (see the reference for the University position). In 1909 lecture he again says he is talking about Lorentz's theory. So Occam's razor tells me that Poincare means exactly what he said. E4mmacro 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a fundamental difference between your explanation and mine; as far as I can see, I just formulated it a bit sharper. If Poincare believed that Einstein had developed this all independently (as Einstein suggested), or even if he thought it quite possible, then I don't see why he would not at least have given him his due for the contributions that were really new.
On other points: your argument about not at all mentioning Einstein because of deficiencies in Einstein's paper doesn't make sense to me, and the reference for the university position corresponds well with my expectation from someone with a worn-off grunt about Einstein's actions who is asked to give such a reference -- he again completely omitted Einstein's prestations on relativity. BTW, thanks for telling the interesting detail about div E that had escaped me. Harald88 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harald, the differce I think is this. Your explanation is Poincare is annoyed that Einstein plagarised Poincare. My explanation is that Poincare (if annoyed) is annoyed that Einstein plagarised Lorentz. The big difference is that the first explanation enlists Poincare on the side of "Poincare desreves the credit"; the second explanation enlists Poincare on the side of the "Lorentz deserves credit". A clear difference, as I see it. E4mmacro 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: The paragraph on the discovery of E=mc2 sort of pooh-poohs Poincare's marvelous discovery of E=mc2 for the special case of radiation. The paragraph's wording reads: Obviously...But... --- Isn't there a nicer way to rephrase that please ? Also, shouldn't Keswani's quote be inserted in the article to put all into perspective ? 69.22.98.162 15:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Keswani have information about Poincare that we don't have, or did he have an appropriate citable opinion about Poincare's achievements? If so, what exacty? Harald88 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll insert his exact quote right now, you'll see how it fits nicely, putting all into perspective.69.22.98.162 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one we already discussed above, it's not at all about Poincare. You could try to add it to another article, maybe in "history of special relativity". Harald88 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it would greatly interest people interested in Poincare. Couldn't it be inserted somewhere on the Poincare page ? 69.22.98.162 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Keswani added those remarks at the very end of a lengthly discussion on Poincare, to put Poincare into perspective. So, would you mind if I put it back up there ? 69.22.98.162 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think of a way to condense Keswani and somehow put it there somewhere. 69.22.98.162 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF someone wants to insert the name Einstein, then please insert at the same time the word later, for correctness. 69.22.98.162 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote all this up condensed in French on Wikipedia Francais. I have a friend who will soon put in on Wikipedia in German as well. 69.22.98.162 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

superfluous last phrase, unsourced

The relativity section now has the following phrase added as last phrase:

"thus the growing opinion mentioned above generally sees the issue not in terms of Lorentz's priority, but only in terms of priority for Poincaré as opposed to Einstein and Minkowski."

That additional phrase is a whole new claim about a certain opinion that, if useful at all, needs sourcing. But it looks superfluous to me, and I personally like the ending without that addition better: it neatly concludes the section without adding new, debatable claims (since nearly all textbooks emphasize this):

"The modern view sees the group property and the invariance as the essential points."

The readers can from that draw their own conclusions about the importance of Poincare's contributions, incl. priority issues. Harald88 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: Invariance was always regarded as the essential point, that is why Einstein's 1905 paper was hailed as the discovery -- but the point of the article is that Poincare first showed Invariance, before Einstein, So, the last paragraph is OK, but without Einstein in it.69.22.98.162 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: Please, specifically, what was Einstein's contribution ? Why do you mention him at all in the last paragraph ? Please explain yourself, or remove his name from that final paragraph. 69.22.98.162 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. To Harald: Poincare made the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity on June 5. Einstein's first paper was three months later. So remove his name from that final paragraph. 69.22.98.162 13:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you apprently fully agree with me but (as so often) you don't know it... It is me who suggests to remove that last additional phrase about Einstein.
BTW (but not relevant here), Einstein's most valued contribution was his direct derivation of the LT from the PoR. Harald88 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is easy when you already know the right answer (LT). 69.22.98.162 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein incorrectly derived another right answer in 1905, Poincare's formula E=mc2. 69.22.98.162 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: There are contradictions in article of the sort of Cognitive Dissonance if not outright Schizophrenia. On one hand the article correctly says that Poincare made the final step in the discovery of the theory, but the article elsewhere says things like Poincare deserves more credit for the development of the theory, or some go much further. --- Don't forget the article itself says Poincare made the final step in the discovery, so those schizophrenic passages need be removed for consistency, although you could I guess leave it as is. 69.22.98.162 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove the statement that Poincare deserves more credit for the developemt, since he made only the final step. I think though the article says some people think Poincare deserves more credit, but I think they means more credit than Einstein.
OK I see you already removed it. IMO opinion that ending is even more forceful, highlighting the importance of Poincare's contribution despite his modesty about it. Harald88 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More irony. Don't you think that the modern view (invariance is what matters) was settled upon when it was learned that all the physical effects had been discovered by Lorentz, not Einstein (i.e. it was slightly pro-Einstein biased view)? Here you are turning that veiw against Einstein in favor of Poincare, when it seems to me a pretty clear case of simultaneous discovery - not very unusual when the issue has been "floating in the aether" for 10 years. Just to clarify, even if Einstein had read everything that Lorentz and Poincare had written on the subject, it is clear that Poincare had read all that before Einstein, yet only "beat him" by less than 1 month. If I were to define the essential point as "abolishing the aether", then I could think Poincare is eliminated, since Poincare continues to mention the aether. E4mmacro 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Who is putting Poincare vs Einstein ? For what ? I'm just writing facts about Poincare, that's all. Einstein doesn't really interest me. 69.22.98.162 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Why are you so worried about ether ? What difference does it make ? Dirac said that one can still always keep a concept of ether. It is superfluous. Can't you get that into your head ? 69.22.98.162 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was meant to suggest that some people have been claiming that whatever Poincare did is the essencce of relativity and hence Poincare gets all the credit (by definition). I think there are even statements above in upper case letters shouting that "Poincare discovered relativity, end of story" which are based on a view of what relativity is, which seems like it was specifically designed to credit Poincare and exclude others. One can define the essence of relativity in any way you like if you want to give the credit to a particular person (and I have heard people try the aether argument, which I gvae as an example, to give all the credit to Einstein). I would not do that. In my opinion, for what it is worth, Larmor-Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein-Minkowski all deserve some credit.

Or think of it this way - if the theory is a mathematical theory, rather than a physical theory as the modern view seems to imply, why was it Lorentz, the physcist, rather than Poincare the mathematician, who first (of those two) correctly wrote the LT (x',t') = f(x,t) of coordinates? E4mmacro 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Because Lorentz was an experimentalist. He noticed that certain new equations were needed, but could not prove them. Poincare was a theoretician, and that is what theoreticians are for. 69.22.98.162 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't someone once say "it is easy if you know the answer?" It surely has to be easier to write the Lorentz transformations and prove their group property, when Lorentz has already given them to you, than it would be to start from scratch, wouldn't you think? E4mmacro 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert and GR not relevant

I see the Einstein-the-plagarist view had to creep in again. This is a page about Poincare. It is OK I guess to mention that Poincare tried to develop a theory of gravity consistent with Lorentz's theory of relativity ("The new mechanics"), and in the "late career" is an OK place to put it. Shouldn't you say also that nothing came of it, (not as far as I know).

To E4: Read Langevin's glowing description of Poincare's relativistic theory of gravity, a remarkable first step in GR, completed by Hilbert. Poincare led the way, and Hilbert's equation was a further refinement. 69.22.98.162 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Read also Keswani(1966) who also describes Poincare's work on GR. 69.22.98.162 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But David Hilbert and general relativity and that debate has NOTHING to do with Poincare. Is anyone suggesting Einstein stole GR from Poincare? Or the Hilbert stole GR from Poincare? E4mmacro 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so sensitive. Poincare made a remarkable first step in GR, followed by Hilbert. That is the historical record. I didn't even mention Einstein, it has nothing to do with him. 69.22.98.162 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed have everything to do with Hilbert --- Hilbert and Poincare were friends and Hilbert built directly on Poincare's efforts towards GR. It is important as it ties Poincare to GR in a very intimate fashion. 69.22.98.162 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep fighting me Michael Macrossan ? I have been proved correct on all points. You should thank me, if anything. 69.22.98.162 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to insert a giant heading CREDIT FOR THE THEORY, but they inserted it in the wrong place,after the paragraph that states that Poincare made the final step in the discovery of the theory. In science, he who completes and publishes first gets the credit, always. 69.22.98.162 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additional section name?

I disagree with a section name that suggests that there is a focussed discussion about "who discovered" SRT. The article discusses is how much Poincare contributed to the development of relativity, and the "discovery" is just an aspect of that, and depending on anyone's personal judgment. I also see no use for an additional section name like "Poincare's contributions to SRT", as that's what that whole chapter is about already. Apparently, 69.22.98.162 agrees with me on that. Harald88 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not sure what it should be called. But after the statement that Einstein's paper was submitted ... (only relevant to a priority argument?) there are lots of different opinions by Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein, and a mention of three papers (including Whittaker) who are talking about priority, which is said to be a growing opinion. Then there is an opinion about what the modern view on the essence of relativity is. Whatever all this is, it is not about Poincare's work on relativity as far as I can see, the description of that stopped in the first half. What is it about? "How much credit does Poincare deserve?" perhaps? E4mmacro 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's what I would expect from an opiniated journal article about relativity, but not from an encyclopdia article about Poincare. Of course, this is a matter of feeling/taste, but I expect an encyclopdia article about Poincare to not care much about such debates. Instead I have been working all along to assist with providing a fair, accurate and neutral account of his most notable contributions to the development of relativity. Of course, contributions of him that were published "too late" are of little relevance, except for showing how far he had developed the theory independently, and it appears by itself , from the presentation of facts, that his discovery of the group properties was an important milestone, if not the decisive one, in the development of the theory. I don't think that it's indicated to discuss the debate about when SRT saw the day, and thus who had "priority" over the launching of SRT: depending on one's POV, one may claim Lorentz 1904, Poincare 1905, or Einstein 1905. I now think Poincare 1905 is most correct. But such a discussion would fit better in special relativity than a triplication on the pages of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Stop clouding the water. The definition of the discovery is the content of Einstein's 1905 paper, which is identical to Poincare's earlier 1905 paper. And you already know that I'm sure. 69.22.98.162 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery of the theory is already buried in the article, which correctly states that Poincare made the final (actually three) steps in the discovery of the theory. He found the correct form, found the missing transformations, and demonstrated perfect invariance. That should be mentioned in the Introduction. It is already in the Introduction of the Poincare page in Wikipedia in French, and belongs in English also. I had put it in the Intro but someone deliberately tried to mask it as group properties so as to hide it from the average person. 69.22.98.162 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, as it was not Poincare but Einstein'who first published the velocity sum equations, and I even explained that in the comment. I'll correct it agian if I see that it's again wrong. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back in the Introduction, it is precisely what Einstein is known for by his later 1905 paper. Good for the goose good for the gander. 69.22.98.162 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem in the article regarding E=mc2. It says this is not what he meaned here. Are you a mind reader ? How do you know what was going through his mind ? I personally think it is obvious he did know the formula had broader applications. At any rate, E4 should not play psychologist and that sentence needs to be removed. 69.22.98.162 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many mind reader's are writing this page? Does Poincare in 1900 claim that mass of a material body depends on its energy content? ----Who wrote this ? Poincare corrected derived E=mc2 for radiation, still a current usage today.

I removed that pschoanalysis sentence of E4 regarding E=mc2. Also, E4's sentence about Poincare denying Newton's Laws is out of context. Poincare only pointed out that is seems at first to contradict Newton. So that misleading sentence needs to be removed. There is also a lot of other junk that E4 interjected into the article which I'll just let pass. 69.22.98.162 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, I am not a mind-reader. I am a reader of the published paper (1900) and I stand by my claim that Poincare nowhere in the paper makes any suugestion that about ponderable matter being converted to radiation. I am also a reader of his discussions on the topic in two later books. E4mmacro 13:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker presented Poincare's E=mc2 as the first discovery of the equation, Whittaker calls it Poincare's E=mc2. We should present it as did Whittaker, without adding your psycho-babble qualifiers. 69.22.98.162 13:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess Whittaker has not read the same Poincare 1900 that I have. I will read it more closely and if I am wrong I will get back to you; if Whittaker says Poincare got half of the meaning of E = mc^2 then he is not too far wrong. We already know Whittaker doesn't put on weight on Poinacre's opions of his own work, so why would he accept what Poincare says about what he emant by the equation. But if he implies Poincare derived e-mc^2 in the einstein sense, thaen I would guess Whittaker is mistaken. E4mmacro

Whittaker did not pooh-pooh Poincare's E=mc2, he calls it Poincare's E=mc2, So we should do the same. 69.22.98.162 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting too much into one paragraph and mixing things, so I separated it to another paragraph where you can have your little playpen and write whatever you want. 69.22.98.162 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been ample papers that debunked that conclusion by Whittaker. If you insist, it's just a matter of time and we'll add that, why not. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such papers exist, Harald. 69.22.98.162 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, several years ago. Wait and see. Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who just put that group properties imply the velocity addition ? That is absurd. 69.22.98.162 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Michael Macrossan: Wipe your nose. I have been proved right on all points, it is time for you to apologize. 69.22.98.162 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: Einstein's first mention of the velocity addition rule (transformations) was his 1905 paper AFTER Poincare's 1905 paper. So please leave the Introduction alone. Thanks.69.22.98.162 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have explained to you several times that (if we're not blind) Poincare did not publish that in 1905, and apparently nobody can prove that Poincare derived those before Einstein. If you think that we're blind, then cite the passage with page number, and we'll verify your claim Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We went through this before. E4 can re-explain it to you also, that in order to achieve invariance (Poincare 1905) he necessarily had the velocity addition rule. See the letter to Lorentz, where Poincare shows Lorentz the demonstration of invariance, it is based on the velocity addition rule. Can't you see that in the letter? That is the ONLY way to show invariance is through the velocity addition rule. (Poincare no doubt also demonstrated this in conference to the Académie, when he submitted the note of 5 June, or they would not have recognized the note). Read carefully the Introduction that is what it says. E4 knows this. Einstein did the same thing, later. 69.22.98.162 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Harald: please make a copy of that, or better yet tatoo it to your arm, because I'm not going to keep re-typing it to you. 69.22.98.162 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald have you not noticed that the Introduction is directly word for word out of the article. LOOK AT THE ARTICLE -- about half way down, just under the equations. 69.22.98.162 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Harald, if you want to take that out of the Introduction, you FIRST need to try to take it out of the article itself ! 69.22.98.162 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Someone keeps trying to put Poincare's M=e/c2. ---Whittaker always called it Poincare's E=mc2 so let's stay with that please. 69.22.98.162 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To anon: Please stop quoting me as supporting your views about the velocity addition. Read above to see what I said (summary: HP could have but did NOT publish the vel.addition law in 1905. A letter to Lorentz doesn not count as publication), and what I said about Whittaker (summary: Whitattaker is outrageously wrong to call E = mc^2 Poincare's equation. I would not be surprised if Whittaker never read Poinacre 1900 but based it all second hand on Ives. But even Whittaker says Poincare gave virtually no proof of this famous equation, a weasel-word way of sying that Poincare meant nothing like what Einstein/Planck meant. Even Ives said correctly, that Poincare ONLY derived m_r = E/c^2 -- equivalent mass of radiation; Ives credited Planck (not Poincare) with the meaning that Einstein is famous for in the equattion E = mc^2, that the mass (inertia) of matter (m) depends on its energy content, its temperature for example. This is a similar but different equation. It has two meanings. Note that Ives is anti-Einstein but he backs up his claims. You and Whittaker have no evidence for your extrapolation of credit to Poincare. I do not know of any method of deriving the Einstein/Planck's meaning from Poicare's result m_r = E/c^2 which does not use the variation of mass with velocity m = \gamma m_0. If you can find one, please tell us. Although Lorentz had published a first version of this in 1899, POINCARE in 1900 did not use in his paper and NEVER wriote in that paper E = mc^2. That's enough debate for me. The talk page about is full of refutations of just about all you say. Regards, E4mmacro 09:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4, thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected. Harald88 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT confirmmation ? of WHAT ? --- DON'T TAG THE ARTICLE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOURCES, I HAVE PRODUCED SOURCES.69.22.98.162 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4 (Michael Macrossan, Engineer): My such sour grapes ! Sir Edmund Whittaker is just a little bit more of an expert than you. 69.22.98.162 13:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Poincare correctly derived E=mc2 for radiation, Max Planck correctly derived E=mc2 for massive particles. Einstein did not derive E=mc2 at all, as both Planck and Ives pointed out. Also, the velocity addition rule is necessarily built in to Poincare's paper, necessary in his proof of invariance, as the letter to Lorentz proves. Also, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia, and cite sources. 69.22.98.162 13:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: How do you justify cutting up the article ? You have produced NO sources to contradict my sources. Were you threatened by someone ? What happened to you ? 69.22.98.162 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DID THEY threaten to cut off Wikipedia's money ? 69.22.98.162 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald, is that you cutting up the article ? You suddenly cut it up, without producing any sources to contradict my sources ? 69.22.98.162 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald ? Answer me. 69.22.98.162 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the article sections, in a logical manner. Nothing was removed. The section on work now comes last, so people can read in general about Poincare befiore getting in the disputsed sections on realativity. By the way, is it Wikipedia correctness to removed a POV or disputed tag put there by someone else? E4mmacro 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose whole new page

I suggest we start a whole new page "Poincare and the theory of relativuity" so that we can remove this unseemly debate from the main Poincare page. Transfer the entire discussion page, because we wouldn't want to lose all the evidence on which Harald and I base our edits. Speaking of which, is it Wikipedia correctness to delete entire sections of the talk page? E4mmacro 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is doing this ? ---CENSORSHIP ! --- I think it is Michael Macrossan who is censoring Wikipedia, because he can supply no sources for his arguments, just like the Inquisition ! 69.22.98.162 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if someone is deleting sections of any talk page, that is vandalism. 69.22.98.162, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility and cool down a bit. --DanielCD 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An edit of 15:15, 27 Jan 2006, by 69.22.98.162 removed about 3 screens full of discussions between someone with that IP address and me and Harald. That looks like censorship to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs)
YO Who put in all the neutrality and POV tags? I just want to know for my info. And sign your edits or I will strike them. --DanielCD 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel, we have spent several weeks constructing the Poincare page, I have provided SOURCES from top scientific journals, and Michael Macrossan can not produce any sources to contradict mine. So he has suddenly cut up the entire aticle. It is CENSORSHIP just like the Inquisition. 69.22.98.162 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: please reinstate the Poincare page just as it was this morning. Someone has suddenly and with no prior warning or explanation, cut up the entire article. 69.22.98.162

I removed NOTHING from the Poincare page or discussion. -- I want everything reinstated just as it was this morning. 69.22.98.162 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I looked and didn't see any removal of material. Unfortunately I have to go and don't have time to look further at the moment. I'm sure no one is censoring you. At best it's probably a bit of miscommunication, which you could help by chilling out. You guys try to shake hands and discuss the matter in a civil manner. Then you are much more likely to reach a consensus you all can live with. I will check back later to see what has come of it, but if there's a bunch of slash and burn editing, I'm just going to put it up for RfC and get some outside comments. Just chill out; no one is here to censor anyone else. Try to cooperate.
Ok, sorry I don't see that the bit is missing now. It seemed to me when I compared edits at that time that a whole section of this discussion page was missing. Sorry once again. E4mmacro 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't just revert it like that without reading more, and I've been caught at a bad time. It will be tended to though. Ya'll go get a soda or somethng and take a break; perhaps come back after you've rested a bit. --DanielCD 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now occupied with other things, so just a few comments:
  • I think that, after deleting all speculation as well as all disputed and erroneous comments, the total article size remains short enough to make a separate page unnecessary. But I don't mind either option. Let's see what the other Wikipedia editors of Poincare think about it.
  • 69, if you're not the victim of a technical failure: please don't vandalise this Talk page, it's definitely against Wikipedia rules. If you want to archive, go ahead but do it properly!
  • 69, as far as I can see, all your recent words apply more to yourself than to any other editor here. Sorry, but you leave no other option for others than to clean up after you.
  • Daniel, for your info: this article has been recently POV'd by Fastfission because he had the impression that it made biased Poincare propaganda without proper sourcing. I think we have since done a good job of including proper sources while eliminating unsourced editor POV's, but mostly "thanks" to 69, at this moment the article states possibly more disputed pro-Poincare opinions as matter-of-fact than at the time... Harald88 22:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want everything reinstated exactly as it was this morning --- It is CENSORSHIP to suddenly and without any discussion, cut up the entire article just like that ! 69.22.98.162 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent three weeks constructing the article, point by point, argument by argument, supplying SOURCES (top sources) at each step, and then someone just steps in and with no discussion just cuts up the entire article. 69.22.98.162 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one like that: Some of us (mainly M4 and me) spent more than a month on adding sources and refining the text, making it as neutral and objective as possible, but now and then some anonymous editor comes in and messes up the article, reintroducing disproved claims with all kinds of erroneous arguments... Harald88 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So please put it back as it was. Thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: Put it back, I am waiting... 69.22.98.162 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who put in the disputed and pov tags, I thhought that was clear in the edit history. Sorry if I wasn't logged in. I changed nothing of what 69 wrote, I merely added the subsection title to show which section i was disputing. I re-arranged the section order, putting "work of relativity" into the otehr section "work", where it needed to go. I did not remove anything. I promise I won't delete anyting 69 writes; I will just put in a disputed and pov tag. E4mmacro 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was you Michael Macrossan. -- CENSORSHIP is live and well in Amerika. You have NO justification to change the article in any way unless you provide SOURCES, which you cannot. -- So put the article back as it was this morning or I will raise holy hell with Senior Editors --- NO CENSORSHIP OR INTELLECTUAL DISCRIMINATION ! 69.22.98.162 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DARE YOU DO THAT WITH NO DISCUSSION ! 69.22.98.162 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it all back, Michael Macrossan, I am waiting.... 69.22.98.162 23:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Michael Macrossan: the article is not in proper order, put the sections back into order. 69.22.98.162 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You are right. I have no source to prove that the present contents order looks coorect to me. This is what it is, nothing has been deleted. Contents 

   * 1 Life
         o 1.1 Education
         o 1.2 Early career
         o 1.3 Late career
   * 2 Character
         o 2.1 Toulouse' characterization
   * 3 Honors
   * 4 Publications
   * 5 Philosophy
   * 6 Work
         o 6.1 The three-body problem
         o 6.2 Work on relativity
         o 6.3 Poincare and E = mc2
   * 7 References
         o 7.1 References on work on relativity
   * 8 External links

The only thing wrong with it is that E=mc^2 should be a subsection of relativity and the other sub-section of relativity heading Poincare on gravitation has been removed. But I promised not to undo anything 69 changes, so I will levae it as it is, even though I thought that my subheading made sense (and indentified the bits I disputed). E4mmacro 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you guys go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and put a request for comment there (RfC). It's likely an administrator with more knowledge of this subject will come and help you sort it out. I simply don't know enough to know how to help. Please at least go to that page and read the material. There are ways set up to deal with these sorts of squabbles; believe me, they happen all the time. --DanielCD 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking for now is that the Three Body Problem and Relativity be moved back into the body of the text, and not way down under the references. 69.22.98.162 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily protected the page until we can decide on a way to decide this dispute in a civil manner. It is only temporary. --DanielCD 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

What's wrong with having it where it is? It seems logical that the life material comes first, then details of his ideas and such. --DanielCD 00:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the relativity references? --DanielCD 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Poincare page -- inbetween EARLY CAREER and LATE CAREER there is nothing. -- That is where Relativity belongs, obviously. 69.22.98.162 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why does it say TEMPLATE POV in the Introduction ? 69.22.98.162 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is there to stop people from messing the article up again in the future ? 69.22.98.162 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say, as I don't see a problem. Why are you so adimant to have that info in that particular spot? --DanielCD 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is where it always was, and obviously LATE CAREER should be afterwards. -- Also why are there disputed signs ? -- Macrossan cannot produce any sources that contradict the article, and I have provided sources for each point in the article. 69.22.98.162 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, Why are there suddenly DISPUTED Signs everywhere ? 69.22.98.162 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why DISPUTED signs ? Macrossan and I have constructed the article slowly, point by point, with sources at each step, and now that it is all finished, Macrossan suddenly slaps DISPUTED signs everywhere? Why ? 69.22.98.162 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did is fix the template syntax. E4mmacro why the POV signs? I'm going to remove them for now. Anyway, we certainly don't need three.
On the other issue: that's a stylistic change. How does it change the communication of the information in such a way to make you so zealous? What does that have to do with censorship? Please help me understand. --DanielCD 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, don't you agree that his active career activities (relativity) belongs inbetween his 'EARLY CAREER and LATE CAREER ? -- ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS ?? 69.22.98.162 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the story of his life, it should be EARLY CAREER - ACTIVE CAREER - LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162And WHY all the DISPUTED signs all of a sudden ???? 69.22.98.162 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the DISPUTED signs are gone. --Now, his life should be in temporal chronology. LATE CAREER belongs after relativity. 69.22.98.162 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done to prevent Macrossan from someday again just slapping DISPUTED signs everywhere ?? 69.22.98.162 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be either way, but it is not obvious. As a writer, I can say this. Let me get E4mmacro's reasoning. Perhaps he'll agree to put it there. I did move the works section up a bit.
Just let me know about the POV signs and I'll ask him to give a valid reason. --DanielCD 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and un-protect it. I don't see it needed now. But don't go to town on it, please. With some proper mediation/communication I don't see why this can't be solved peacefully. --DanielCD 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel I don't want a word of it changed --- I am just saying that in any normal encyclopedia it is in chronological order. Someone reading the article will get to LATE CAREER and it appears to be the end of the article. Relativity belongs inbetween EARLY and LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to prevent Macrossan from doing all this again ??? 69.22.98.162 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL encyclopedias are in chronological order. Please put Relativity in chronological order, before the LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check on it and ask about. And I'll also expect a reply from E4mmacro or the other guy as to their reasoning. If the other parties don't reply, we'll just arrange it so. Just be patient, please.
The solution we decide on here will be the one that sticks, and this discussion will serve as the reasoning behind whatever is decided. If we reach a consensus and someone backs out, that'll be tough for them. The burden of proof will then be on their shoulders and their changes won't stick until they can give firm reasons why. I don't think he's online now, and I'm going to do some other things. It'll hold for now. --DanielCD 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrossan didn't personally like it so he just slapped it at the end, deliberately out of chronological order, and slapped DISPUTED signs everywhere. It belongs back in chronological order. 69.22.98.162 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrossan created a giant mess --- what is there from preventing him from deliberately doing this again in the future ??? 69.22.98.162 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DANIEL can you explain to Macrossan not to just slap DISPUTED signs everywhere, unless he can produce SOURCES that contradict anything in the article ?? Please do this. 69.22.98.162 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't do anything if he's not online for me to interact with. I don't see any need whatsoever for POV signs and he'll need to tell me why or I'll take them out. It's on my watchlist and I'll see it first thing when I get back online. --DanielCD 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Daniel, I'm going out for awhile, but everything from THREE BODY PROBLEM -RELATIVITY- AND E=MC2 --- it all correctly belongs immediately after EARLY CAREER. That is where it belongs chronologically, and it always was there until Macrossan did all this.69.22.98.162 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, if possible, remove Macrossan from this page altogether. thank you. 69.22.98.162 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, just look at the Poincare page, WHERE is his MIDDLE CAREER ? --Macrossan deliberately put it at the end to hide it and slapped DISPUTED signs everywhere. Terrible! 69.22.98.162 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I have a printout of the CONTENTS as it was before the page was vandalized. The Work on Relativity was indeed in between the EARLY CAREER and the LATE CAREER, where it belongs. Please put it back there to be chronological, because Relativity is his MIDDLE CAREER. Macrossan should just go back to the original Table of Contents before the page was vandalized, that would satisfy me. 69.22.98.162 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Michael Macrossan: You vandalized this page, now Go back to the original Table of Contents how it was. 69.22.98.162 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four reasons for my POV tags

To Daniel. I thought I had listed my reasons in an email to you. Here they are: E4mmacro 05:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. it is highly misleading to claim in the introduction that Poincare discovered the equation E = mc^2. Poincare and Einstein discovered two different aspects of the equation m = E/c^2. Poincare’s result was that radiation had an equivalent mass (he said it was like a fictitious fluid with a certain mass density and momentum). Einstein’s result m = E/c^2 was that energy in general had an equivalent mass – that matter and energy were interchangeable – something that Poincare had no idea of in the 1900 paper and makes clear he still has no idea of in his books published in 1902 and 1904 . 69 has a good discussion the two different meanings of m = E/c^2 in Ives, who he quotes. As a technical point, Poincare (1900) discovered m = E/c^2, but 69 changes it to the form above which everybody will associate with Einstein. Thus the mistaken impression that Einstein somehow took this from poincare is re-inforced. E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. in the body of the page, where m = E/c^2 is explained, 69 has added the gratuitous insult to Einstein that his derivation of m = E/c^2 was flawed (according to Ives) and the false statement that Planck also thought Einstein was wrong. Planck thought Einstein’s derivation was an approximation only and derived it by another method. There is not need to insult Einstein. And even if Ives is right, it does not follow that Poincare discovered m = E/c^2. It means that Poincare and Planck discovered m = E/c^2, which is what Ives claims; there is no way to say Poincare discovered all of m = E/c^2 (even though Whittaker asserts this without a shred of proof). E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. there is the highly misleading and contentious claim that General relativity also depends ‘’essentially’’ on Poincare’s work on gravity. The page implies that Hilbert discovered general relativity (a gratuitous insult to Einstein). Hilbert/Einstein happened after Poincare’s death, and the argument over the priority for general relativity has no place here (and the argument has never been about anyone building on Poincare’s work on gravity). It is also irrelevant on the Poincare page to tell us that “general relativity is nothing but a theory of gravity”. E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. an issue that Harlad88 has been fighting is 69’s claim that Poincare discovered EVERYTHING there is to know about relativity and published it first. I agree with Harald88 that Einstein deserves some credit, but have left Harald88 to fight that fight.

E4mmacro 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. The following quote from the article is just exaggeration:
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary. Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light, as being massless yet possessing momentum, as in the case of photons." E4mmacro 09:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an exaggeration, it is precise. 69.22.98.162 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To E4: Sir Edmund Whittaker is my source here --He calls it Poincare's E=mc2. He is the top British Historian of science of the 20th century. 69.22.98.162 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Planck criticized Einstein's derivation of E=mc2, and Ives proved in published journal that Einstein did not derive E=mc2 at all. --It is not an insult of Einstein, it is a fact in published journal by Ives. 69.22.98.162 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I could change that one word essential, if you like. That is no reason for you to put giant Disputed signs. 69.22.98.162 05:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: It is a fact that Hilbert published the Field Equation before Einstein, and it is a fact the Field Equations are the cornerstone of General Relativity, which is all I said! -- Also it is a fact that Hilbert's Field Equations followed in the path of Poincare's field equations before him, to find a covariant equation that is consistent with the principle of Relativity that could better explain the Perihelion of Mercury. Poincare did it first , then Hilbert's equation was a further refinement, that is a fact. Poincare had the design first, and Hilbert's approach was absolutely in the same sequence. That is all I wrote there! --You are reading things in that are not there. 69.22.98.162 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: You are well aware that Poincare's 1905 paper was identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper. That is why Sir Edmund Whittaker calls it Poincare's Special Relativity. My source is Sir Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: To say that General Relativity is only a theory of gravity is absolutely correct and it puts Special Relativity in a different light, which is educational and totally relevent to assess Poincare's work. 69.22.98.162 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: That refutes all of your overly sensitive comments here enumerated. Now, why did you change the Table of Contents around, to hide Poincare's Work. ---Change it back. 69.22.98.162 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: I wrote all of this up on WIKIPEDIA Francais, on the Poincare page all in French, and nobody criticized it at all, no one. -- So what is wrong with E4 ? --You'd think I'm pulling out his teeth ! 69.22.98.162 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: All I want at this point, is that E4 change the Table of Contents back to how it always was. 69.22.98.162 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: As you can see the sections "early career" and "late career" relate his life, the jobs he had. I took all the scattered references to his work and put them in one place, under the title work, with sub-titles. I don't car where that section goes in the article. I merely gathered all things together under the one heading. There is one piece of his work left in late career - the Poincare conjecture which should go as a subsection of work. In fact the sections early career and late career should just be one section "Career". I think what I did was a logical arrangement, but of course that is a matter of opinion. I put three disputed signs because I thought I had to indicate which three bits I disagreed with, sorry about that. One is enough, if you say so. But the page is not NPOV according to me. I have learnt it is futile to modify anything 69 writes. He has already told me he is always right (see above) and he always undoes any changes I make. So the best I can do is put the POV warning. E4mmacro 09:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: I use only published facts from scientific journals. -- E4 has no justification for changing the Table of Contents around -- He only did that to hide Poincare's Work on Relativity. It is absurd that there is nothing inbetween Early Career and Late Career, Relativity belongs there like it was before he vandalized the article. --He must go back to the original Table of Contents as it was before he vandalized the article, that is all I am asking at this time. 69.22.98.162 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with 69 on the problem about how to order the article: it's difficult to group the article in a correct way with both career and works, since they partially overlap. I think hte advantage of chronological sequence is that it's simpler, but some little commented important facts of his life could then be difficult to locate; while splitting it up like E4 now did, demands some summaries at places about stuff elsewhere on the same page, and that's at the moment not accomplished to satisfaction I'd say.
I fully agree on the esential points with E4: with his commnets on 05:37, 28 January 2006 he gave a good summary of the situation about the presentation of facts.
As long as 69 doesn't understand Wikipedia policies (and we referred to it exhaustively!), this and other pages will remain troubled. For example, he still doesn't understand that it's no good to have Wikipedia state, as a matter-of-fact :
"Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light" ...Harald88 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Einstein page it is chronological. -- Poincare's page WAS chronological before E4 vandalized it to hide Poincare's Work on Relativity. --It proves his prejudice, therefore E4 should recuse himself from the article altogether. 69.22.98.162 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't checked my email. I don't know about relativity stuff; I thought this was about moving the works section. I agree with Harald88's last statement there. I'll have to read the rest.
"Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light" Even knowing as little as I, this statement isn't right. --DanielCD 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary. Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light, as being massless yet possessing momentum, as in the case of photons." You are going to need some very solid refereces to claim any of this. True as it may be, the currency here is not truth, it is verifiability.
Perhaps "led to" could be changed to "contributed to".
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary." - This should be easy to cite. --DanielCD 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Daniel, remove it if it bothers you, it changes nothing really. I was simply pointing out that Poincare's concept of light as massless yet possessing momentum is a description of the Photon in Modern Physics, but if that bothers you, remove it, it changes nothing to do so. 69.22.98.162 14:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he said that before anyone else, it probably should be noted. You might just phrase it a bit differently. --DanielCD 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, I deleted that one sentence from the article, it changes nothing, it's done.69.22.98.162 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There I took out the word essential that E4 didn't like, it changes nothing, it's done. 69.22.98.162 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing now is to get the article chronological again, like it always was. -- Just needs go back to the original Table of Contents, that's all, please do. 69.22.98.162 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bold face in long quotations?

I now followed the trend of this article (who started it?) to make the parts of citations bold for a specific argument; but citing is itself already an emphasis, and such bold face is not what I expect to see in any encyclopedia. In particular, it looks inappropriate to me in view of WP:NPOV : Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.

Anyone with other ideas? Is there perhaps already a guideline about it? Harald88 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he "disliked logic"?

The article now reads:

He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic. He believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.

I don't see a source mentioned but apparently it's supposed to be by Darboux; I find it rather strange. Who of you provided it? Please provide a precise reference. Harald88 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

references

There is still a lack of references: for example I would very much like to read "Langevin 1914". 69, if it was you who cited it, please add the necessary info to references - Thanks in advance! Harald88 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: It is a beautiful description by Langevin, I'll cite it precisely for you in a moment. I have it in original French 1914. -- I'm sure E4 has it too. --It is a description of the first general relativity, the forerunner to Hilbert's Field Equation. 69.22.98.162 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS to HARALD: Can you please put the article back into proper chronological order please. Relativity belongs where it was, inbetween Early Career and Late Career, that's where it was. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald here is the reference. Article called Le Physicien by Paul Langevin in book Henri Poincare Librairie Felix Alcan (1914). The page of interest is at the very end of chapter Vll of the article. 69.22.98.162 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: If it would please you I can change the word flawed to inexact. As for Ives' paper it is published in correct scientific journal and was never refuted, it stays. 69.22.98.162 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who flagged the article and specifically why ? If you cannot say, then don't do it. 69.22.98.162 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged the article (the reasons are above). At least we are advancing on one issue: the proof of e = mc^2, and we may get it right eventually. According to Ives, Plank said Einstein's proof was approximate, not inexact and there is a nuamce. Can we get Plank's paper? E4mmacro 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll change it to approximate if that pleases you. I'll do it right now. I have a description of Planck's paper in French from the Ecole Polytechnique, it says that Planck criticized Einstein's derivation. 69.22.98.162 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Could you please go back to the original Table of Contents to have chronological logic in the article please, as in any encyclopedia. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I added for massive bodies to distinguish it from Poincare's for radiation. Anything else bother you in the article ? Let's fix whatever, right now. 69.22.98.162 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4, please put the CONTENTS in chronological order, like in any encyclopedia. Relativity and Three Body Problem go inbetween Early Career and Late Career, by chronological logic. 69.22.98.162 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity theories

Getting the direction of the advance of Mercury's perihelion advance is not such a big deal, is it? In Science and Method 1908 Poincare describes Lorentz's relativistic theory of gravity, for which "the principle of relativity will not be violated". (the "one of which I shall speak is that of Lorentz" but it is just possible that is is Poincare's own construction). The theory includes the radiation of energy by the orbiting body (gravity waves I guess you might call that, though he says "acceleration waves" - it is an electromagnetic-style theory of gravity, and I think the radiation is the same as the Larmor radiation of an accelerated electron). He says Lorentz's theory predicts 7" advance (compared to 38" experiment). He also says Tisserand assumed Weber's law of electrodynamics applied to gravity and predicted 14". I think others managed to predict an advance, but not the correct one. Is Langevin perhaps decsribing Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory? E4mmacro 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langevin's very beautiful full page on this does not mention Lorentz at all. 69.22.98.162 21:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the direction of the perihelion is PRAISED in no uncertain terms by Langevin. Read his glowing page (1914). 69.22.98.162 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else ? Let's settle anything else right here right now. I don't want any more Disputed signs. And why have you not re-established chronological order ? 69.22.98.162 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4 is that you flagging the article again ? -- Why ? -- What else would you like me to change ? 69.22.98.162 21:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4 is that you who flagged the article ? Why ? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 21:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E4, the chronology looks fine. If there is anything else you would like me to change just ask me right here, thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I see you would like Einstein's name next to Hilbert, that is fine if you put proper scientific credit with it -- Hilbert published the field equations first and as Kip Thorne said Credit Must go to Hilbert. So I will remove Einstein and you may please try re-inserting his name in a more correct fashion. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit MUST go to Hilbert. - Kip Thorne. 69.22.98.162 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important, to put Poincare's Special Relativity into perspective, to add the words of Keswani, that General Relativity is really only a theory of gravity. Only then can Poincare be understood in perspective. -- HARALD long ago approved this -- there is no reason to change that now. It is vandalism to change it now at this late date. 69.22.98.162 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please check publication dates, rather than rely on second-hand opinions. There are far more opinions that Einstein deserves credit for GR. If GR must be mentioend, which I doubt, then I guess both names have to be mentioned. Just to repeat one of my reasons for disputing the article is NPOV. It appears to be on a mission to put down Einstein and deprive him of any credit for anything. E4mmacro 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so sensitive. 69.22.98.162 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely I am not talking about GR, I am talking about the Field Equation. Hilbert was on 20 Nov 1915. The Field Equation follows in the path of Poincare's earlier efforts. 69.22.98.162 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Poincare page in French Language reads this way, why not English. 69.22.98.162 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel for being there watching, it helps. thanks. 69.22.98.162 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: I am happy with the article as it is, if only vandals can be kept off of it in the future.69.22.98.162 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question already states that GR is a theory of gravity, adding "is really only a theory of gravity" reads poorly and adds no new information. There is no question that GR is a theory of gravity, so there is no need for a source quotation characterizing it as such. This addition harms the clarity of the writing without clarifying or specifying. Please edit to improve style. Ben Kidwell 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Ben: No Sir, I disagree. The field equation is a gravitational equation, yes, But then, most people don't understand that so is also the so called Theory of General Relativity only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: I am happy with the article. E4 appears to have no more objections. So I trust there will be no more Disputed signs. Thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is the style, not the content. This sentence does not read well in English. If you think the NAME "Theory of General Relativity" is misleading in this context, why not remove it entirely? Just end the sentence after it mentions Einstein's field equation, no need to say GR specifically and follow with this quote. I am just trying to help the readability of the text and remove something that seems awkward to me as a native english speaker. I think all the content is very good. Ben Kidwell 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Ben: I am a native English speaker born in the USA. I think the sentence is fine. Apparently you are new and don't know from previous discussion, that the reason General Relativity is mentioned here, is to put Special Relativity in the greater context of Relativity overall, so average people can put Poincare into proper perspective in the greater context. --That is one reason why we keep theory of general relativity mentioned there, it is important to not cover it up. -- It is I think a dynamite ending to a great article. 69.22.98.162 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the section should be expanded somewhat. You are absolutely correct that I am new to the article and don't know the history. I think other people who use this article as a reference will also be new to it and may have the same difficulty understanding as I do. How about adding a few more sentences or another paragraph to provide this context? Also, is there a specialized article on Poincare and relativity? The subject seems to deserve one, and the main article is already quite long. Ben Kidwell 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Ben: Yes, if someone wanted to add to the last paragraph that is fine as long as they don't vandalize it by striking anything. A good thing to add would be Langevin's 1914 glowing description of Poincare's forerunner theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone else removes my pov flag doesn't mean I have no more objectiions. I have no time to engage in a delete war, but that is different. My objections are all on this discussion page. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know which Paper/paeprs of Poincare's that were cited by Langevin, containing his field equation? E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with Ben (as I suggested before) a seperate page on Poincare and rel;ativity would be a good idea. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Ben is absoultely correct that the redundant mention of "really only a theory of gravity" is very silly and jarring. It suggests that the writer is concerned about something else, other than Poinacre. E4mmacro 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the whole last section about Einstein/Hilbert is completly irrelevant to Poinacre; this is the first suggestion I have seen that Hilbert got it from Poincare, or Einstein got it from Poincare. Why is the section there? The controversy about Einstein/Hilbert is covered on the history of general relativity page.

To E4: Can't you find something else to do rather than denature this Poincare page ? --I explained to Ben why the quote from Keswani is relevent to Poincare. -- Didn't you read it ? Look at my answer to Ben for your answer -- Do not remove Keswani's quote -- you would be vandalizing this page to remove Keswani's quote -- Do not touch it.-- 69.22.98.162 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: Can you please REMOVE Macrossan from this page before he does any more damage ? -He is a madman. 69.22.98.162 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently anyone else but 69 are madmen... I think quite the contrary, but usually I would abstain from articulting such personal opinions on talk pages. And sorry, currently I'm occupied with other subjects. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New mechanics and astronomy

I still think the gravity section is a bit of a dead-end as far as Poincare is concerned. But can someone else read "The new mechanics and Astronomy" from "Science and Method", Parts I and II and IV (omitting the "clearly wrong theories" in section III), about 7 pages. Is Poincare there describing only one theory of gravity due to Lorentz? or is he perhaps building a new theory himself by modifying Lorentz? Thanks. E4mmacro 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrossan in the article you misquoted Poincare. -- Poincare pointed out that there are MANY such solutions of gravity, ONE of which was given by Lorentz. Langevin pointed out in the memoire (1914) that Poincare possessed himself numerous solutions for gravity. 69.22.98.162 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 69, I already asked you to send me a copy of Langevin 1914. my email: harrylin at gmx dot net. Thanks in advance!

I have it in the original crumbling 1914 book, too fragile to email it. ha ha. 69.22.98.162 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know the problem, I have that with Ives' articles: I have them all but only on paper. Then please now finally give the reference on the article page: that helps me to get it, and also it's necessary to have any comments about it verifiable. Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What papers did Langevin quote showing that Poincare had many theories of gravity (which I do not doubt; theories of gravities at the time were a big issue.)? Did Langevin quote the exact equation of Poincare's that he admired? E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langevin and Poincare were best friends, they went together to St. Louis for the 1904 International Expo. 69.22.98.162 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was parphrasing a particular book (see above request for someone else to read it) I was not talking of these other papers that Langevin may know of, but I don't know of. I gave the exact reference of what I was paraphrasing in the page, but my paraphrase has been changed by 69.22.98.162. That's ok, but I am asking if anyone else has read the few pages I was paraphrasing. I agree it is not 100% clear whose theory Poincare is talking about - I think it is about 90% clear that he is talking of Lorentz only. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are not fluent in French. I stated precisely what he stated. 69.22.98.162 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fluent in French. I was paraphrasing an English edition of the book, under the assumption that the translator was fluent in French. If someone else can read the original and answer my question above I am more than happy to hear from them. E4mmacro 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Macrossan: Sir Edmund Whittaker called it Poincare's E=mc2. -- Do not try to cover it up and hide it as M=e/c2. -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of science of the 20th century. I don't want to have to repeat this again, understood, Macrossan ? 69.22.98.162 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: Please recuse Macrossan from this page. 69.22.98.162 13:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for clearing up the mystery of what you have been trying to prove: that Special relativity (as discovered by Poincare?) is the "one and Unique" theory of relativity. I still think you should start a different page on that topic and leave Poincare out of it. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani (1966) said it -- I quote sources, unlike yourself 69.22.98.162 21:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why I placed the POV tag E4mmacro 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave the relevant quote from Poincare 1900 previously in this talk page:

Nous pouvons regarder l’energie electromagnetic comme une fluide fictive dont la density J/c^2 et qui se deplace dans l’espace conformement aux lois de Poynting.

J is the magnitude of the Poynting vector (energy/unit volume). This is the only place in the paper where Poincare writes the equivalent of m_R = E/c^2. (I am using Ives's notation, the subscript R refers to radiation, equivalent mass of radiation). Poincare never writes E = mc^2 and he does not mean by it what Einstein meant, which is m_I = E/c^2. (The subscript I means inertia of ponderable matter, see Ives). Poincare does NOT say that the emitter has lost mass when the radiation was emiited (read his repeated discussions of this in Science and Hypothesis 1902 and Value of Science 1904 if you don't have the original of Poincare 1900). He could not possibly derive the Einstein meaning without Lorentz's variation of mass with velocity (); and in 1900 he did not know it. Sir Edmund Whittaker at least says that Poincare gave "practically no proof of E = mc^2" (in fact Poincare gave NO proof at all in the EINSTEIN sense m_I = E/c^2). Sir Edmund Whittaker repeats a few derivations of m_I = E/c^2, none by Poincare, all of which rely on which comes from Lorentz 1904. Sir Edmund Whittaker is mistaken and must not have read Poincare 1904 (The Value of Science, CH VIII). Look there for Poincare's three problems (mass conservation, momentum conservation, energy conservation). No one who understood m_I = E/c^2 in the Einstein sense could write that Chapter without mentioning E = mc^2 which solves all those problems. I hope Harald will find those papers where Sir Edmund Whittaker's book has been heavily criticised. The claim in the page that Poincare in 1900 published E = mc^2, is POV, Whittaker's POV, which is easily shown to be wrong. I will replace my tag, and hope that Wikipedia ettiquette will stop anyone else removing it. E4mmacro 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Quote your sources -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of the 20th century. Who are YOU to say he is wrong. 69.22.98.162 21:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Don't you tag or delete anything, until you quote your sources. 69.22.98.162 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69, I didn't look, but almost certainly the NPOV tags were placed because you continued the forbidden practice of having Wikipedia state what instead the special opinion was of one person... Right? Such claims are to be either DELETED or ATTRIBUTED, as you know very well by now. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harald I use only published sources. What passage are you referring to ? 69.22.98.162 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Harald, I will make the attribution for him in the page. E4mmacro 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But as we see (check history and comment below), the correct attribution can only survive on the page for approximately one minute. E4mmacro 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For whom, what page ? what is this ? 69.22.98.162 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed referencing like that does not belong in any Introduction section. 69.22.98.162 00:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ives was talking about as applies to massive bodies, Whittaker was talking radiation. There is nothing new in Ives' paper. It changes nothing.69.22.98.162 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will make it clear Whittaker was talking only about radiation, if you like. I was under the mistaken impression that "only radiation" was what you didn't want to say. E4mmacro 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it myself into the text a long time ago for radiation, where have you been ? 69.22.98.162 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Whittaker, it is very clear that although he knows Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only, he jumps a page or so later to the assertion that Poincare meant the same as Einstein, i.e. ponderable matter. Anyone can make this mistake, which you have not made, so it helps to state in the Introduction that Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only. Something we all agree on. E4mmacro 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Whittaker's book, he repeatedly calls it simply Poincare's E=mc2, WITHOUT ADDING ANY QUALIFIERS. -- We should do as Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker did not go around stating it like that. -- Also, detailed qualifiers do not belong in any Introduction, they belong in the text where I put it myself long ago. 69.22.98.162 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in Bjerknes' books he says Poincare had E=mc2 before Einstein, it's everywhere, get used to it. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find no one to contradict Whittaker. -- Oh they can bitch about him, but they don't contradict him. 69.22.98.162 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I thought we just agreed that Poincare mean radiation only. Have you switched back to “Poincare meant ponderable matter”? There is no reason why we have to follow Whittaker's confusing way of expressing himself. If he meant radiation only, why should we not make that clear (especially when it is true that Poincare meant radiation only, as we all agreed a minute ago). E4mmacro 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is crystal clear in the text, I wrote it there myself. STICK TO WHITTAKER. 69.22.98.162 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing average people with your upside down formulas. Make it recognizable. --Stop clouding the water. 69.22.98.162 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E4, I thought you were supposed to be a teacher somewhere ? -- how is it you have been 24 hours a day on the internet for three straight weeks now ? 69.22.98.162 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker : POINCARE'S E=MC2. 69.22.98.162 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that Poincare was talking only of radiation, not ponderable matter. So can we have quick recap of exactly why you replaced the unambiguous and correct statement

Poincare first published the formula for the equivalent mass of radiation , or in 1900.

With the ambiguous statement

Poincare first published in 1900.

Just to clarify, what your objection to the first sentence is, and to have it all in one place. Thanks E4mmacro 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections at all to clarifications, but not when it is deliberately confusing in a concise Introduction. -- OUT OF PLACE THERE. 69.22.98.162 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker calls it REPEATEDLY Poincare's E=mc2. -- Stick to the expert.-- And YOU are NOT the expert here.69.22.98.162 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to stick to the expert. So why did you delete, from the introduction, the attribution to Whittaker of this statement? E4mmacro 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because references don't belong in an Introduction. 69.22.98.162 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean citations I guess. And there is a Wikipedia policy page or something else that establishes the "citations-do-not-belong-in-introduction" rule is where?? E4mmacro 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1905/1906 issue again!

The publication date was 5 June 1905. Went to printer 8 June, distributed 9 June. 69.22.98.162 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just the record can you clarify what was your objection to the sentence in the introduction

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations in 1905 and published them in 1906, to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

which you replaced by

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

Why delete the reference to when he published it?

I thought, see the endless circular discussion above between you me and Harald, that you finally aggreeed that a paper in a journal dated 1905 (short version of paper "Sur l'dynamique ..." links given everywhere) does not explicitly contain the velocity addition formula, and that a private letter to Lorentz does not count as a publication. Thanks once again for the clarification. E4mmacro 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 June note is identical in contents. 69.22.98.162 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that in the article you talk of short paper, then long paper, it's all in the note of 5 June, the only paper that matters. Read Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You scroll back to where I asked Harald to tatoo it to his arm -- the same goes for you. Scroll back and read and don't forget it ever again. I can't repeat myself endlessly to people with 5 min memory span. -- And re-read Whittaker, and tatoo it to your arm so you don't forget again. 69.22.98.162 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 June, tatoo that date to you forehead then every time you look in the mirror you won't have to ask me. 69.22.98.162 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way to find out what is in the 1905 paper is to read it - not rely on what Whittaker says. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of French, can see that the velocity addition equation is not in the 1905 paper; nor is it in the translation of the 1905 paper into English by Keswami and Kilmister. And it is very difficult for someone not fluent in French (or anyone I would have thought) to see how a paper a few pages long (1905 short paper, link and Journal reference given) contains everything published in 1906 in a paper of 50 pages or more (second paper, long version, link and Journal reference given). But there is no reason to repeat yourself. We now know why you deleted the clarification dates of 1905 and 1906 - because Whittaker says a paper 5 pages long published in 1905 is the same as a paper 50 pages long published in 1906. Thanks. E4mmacro 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Physics, if you were a physicist, you would know that it is common for a short note to be submitted, followed by a longer paper expounding on equivalent material, as in Hilbert's 20 Nov 1915 note on his discovery of the field equations, followed by its longer publication in full article form in 1916, but it is recognized as 20 Nov the discovery. Get used to it. 69.22.98.162 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: No more 1905 1906 issue again crap. -- You scroll back to where I told Harald to tatoo it to his arm, and you do the same. If you don't want to scroll back to it then just ask Harald to read it off his arm and email it to you. 69.22.98.162 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Macrossan: There is no debate in recorded scientific publications about 1906 vs 1905, nowhere, so do NOT add it to the article -- it is something just in YOUR little mind. 69.22.98.162 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Francais

This article on Poincare should have been very easy to write up, but you two guys are both MISERABLE. -- I wrote this all up for Wikipédia Francais in just a few minutes time, with no fuss, no muss. 69.22.98.162 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I am not fluent in French. But where exactly does it say in the following introduction to the Poincare page in Wkipedia Francais, the extravagent and disputed claims that Poincare discovered E = mc^2 in 1900, and everything about relativity; claims you keep re-inserting in the English introduction, and insist that no one can clarify? The French claim is fairly extravegant, but at least it mentions Lorentz in the introduction in connection with special relativty, which might give a clue that Poincare did not do everything.

Henri Poincaré, né le 29 avril 1854 à Nancy et décédé à Paris le 17 juillet 1912, fut un mathématicien et physicien français. Artisan de génie, il est l'homme de l'ombre de la relativité générale. En relation avec un physicien expérimental, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, il mit en équation la théorie de la relativité restreinte, sur les observations de son collègue.
Arrière petit fils d'Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, il est le cousin de l'homme politique et président de la France Raymond Poincaré et de Lucien Poincaré, directeur de l'Enseignement secondaire au Ministère de l'Instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts. Brillant élève, il passe successivement par Polytechnique puis l'École des Mines; en 1879 il obtient un doctorat de mathématiques sous la direction de Charles Hermite, puis est détaché à la Faculté des Sciences de Caen. Deux ans plus tard, il obtient ses premiers résultats marquants en mathématiques (sur la représentation des courbes et sur les équations différentielles linéaires à coefficients algébriques), et rapidement, il s'intéresse à l'application de ses connaissances mathématiques en physique et plus particulièrement en Mécanique. Il occupera notamment la chaire de Physique Mathématique et de Calcul des probabilités de la Faculté des Sciences de Paris en 1886, succèdant à Gabriel Lippmann, puis la chaire d'Astronomie mathématique, succédant à Félix Tisserand, c'est Joseph Boussinesq qui le remplace à la chaire de physique mathématique. Il est en 1901 le premier lauréat de la Médaille Sylvester de la Royal Society. Il a été président de la Société mathématique de France en 1886 et en 1900 et président de la Société française de physique en 1902.

I am aware that you have slipped your disputed claims (disputed because they are misleading) into the body of the French page, and I was the one who dated them (but maybe the dates are gone by now). Maybe if you insert your misleading claims in the French introduction, someone might notice them. Thanks in advance for the French lesson. Does any one know if the Russian wiki page claims a Russian discovered everything in relativity? E4mmacro 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Macrossan: Whittaker wrote it, Poincare's E=mc2, and he is NOT disputed on this point anywhere in published scientific litterature, it is ONLY disputed in YOUR little mind, so do NOT insert it into wikipedia. QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. -- WHO are YOU to dispute Whittaker. -- Stop vandalizing Wikipedia.69.22.98.162 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Macrossan: you better need to learn German and Italian etc as well, because in Europe it is well known the Poincare discovered relativity before Einstein. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Macrossan: NEVER AGAIN insert YOUR debate of 1906 vs 1905 into wikipedia French or English, because NO such debate exists in the published scientific litterature. --QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Macrossan, all this detail you added about Einstein belongs either on the einstein page or the e=mc2 page. 69.22.98.162 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edmund Whittaker called it POINCARE's E=mc2 -- Tatoo it to your forehead Macrossan. 69.22.98.162 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E = mc^2 again

I know this has been discussed here before, and I am newly arrived, but isn't the following paragraph misleading if Poincare's formula applied only to radiation but not to non-zero rest mass particles? If so, the paragraph should be modified to accurately reflect Poincare's achievement.

"Poincaré first derived E = mc2 in his paper of 1900 where Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction. He showed that according to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory the stream of radiation could be considered as a "fictitious fluid" with a mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2, or E = mc2. Max Planck (1907) derived E = mc2 for massive bodies and Planck criticized Einstein's 1905 derivation as only approximate. H. E. Ives (1952) wrote that Einstein's derivation was a tautology ( 0 = 0 ), due to Einstein's incorrect use of approximations." green 64.136.26.226 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone commented earlier that the text should follow Whittaker, who allegedly wrote "Poincare's E= mc^2". Given the purpose of Wikipedia, additional clarification is called-for. Otherwise the reader, unless very sophisticated, will surely get the impression that Poincare's derivation is equivalent to, and preceded Einstein's. green 64.136.26.226 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph clearly said for radiation, and Planck's for massive bodies, How much clearer could that be ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Poincare's usage of the formula for radiation, and Planck's usage for massive bodies, are CORRECT usages. --That is why Whittaker credits Poincare first. -- What is wrong with that ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained it. Unless the reader is fairly sophisticated, he/she will not understand the fine distinction. The article should make the distinction clear so there is no possibility of confusion. Why would you object to that? green 64.136.26.226 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Green. No one should object to clarification. E4mmacro 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose more ? -- the distinction was quite clear if you can read english. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mystery to what we propose. We propose that you stop deleting the clarification sentences. Since you have deleted them many times, I guess you know what we mean. E4mmacro 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Harald: user Green cannot answer my questions, so please revert it back immediately. thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 69; when you wrote this, you hadn't given me time to respond. Look at the time tags. That's not nice!

Daniel are you there ?? 69.22.98.162 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel please revert the page back. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrossan WHERE is there any debate in science journals over 1905 vs 1906 ? -- You are a liar if you cannot produce any such debate in the litterature, which there is none. --Don't post something with ZERO sources. 69.22.98.162 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising the itroduction? Do you think there is no debate over priority for Poincare vs Einstein? And we have agreed never to discuss again the fact that you think a paper of 5 pages long in 1905 contains all the information contained in a paper of 50 pages llong published in 1906. E4mmacro 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating the rules of Wikipedia. YOUR opinion does not matter, what matters are SOURCES and you have NONE. 69.22.98.162 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion that the paper in 1905 was 5 or so page long and the paper in 1906 was more than 50 pages long. It is not my opinion that the second paper contains many more things than the 1905 paper. We have the two papers. We can read. Anyone can check these simple statements. We do not need to read someone else's published opinion to state these simple facts.

And please start a separate page "Poincare discovered everything that Einstein is famous for" and express youself there as much as you like. Include your theory that because Hilbert was a Friend of Poincare, that Poincare is also responsible for General relativity. E4mmacro 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein was a FRAUD and YOU know it. 69.22.98.162 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Einstein derive the mass-energy formula in his 1905 paper? I can't find it. In any event, even if Poincare's work on relativity is not sufficiently recognized, it is still necessary to clearly distinguish his formula's applicability from Einstein's. I see there is a new paragraph that replaces the one I copied above, and it just as deficient on this issue. green 64.136.26.226

Mavrossan all the long winded junk you wrote into article on Einstein belongs on the Einstein page, NOT here. 69.22.98.162 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green. I re-inserted the clarification: readers will now not be confused into thinking Poimcare discovered Einstein's meaning of E = mc^2. At least they won't be confused while the clarification reamins; but past history suggests it will remain no more than two minutes. I suggest you add a tag, when the clarification is removed. Though, I have tried this, and that doesn't work either. A pov tag has a half-life of about one minute. E4mmacro 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. The article is much improved, but I still have an issue with the following paragraph:
"Poincaré derived the equivalent mass of radiation, a consequence of Maxwell-Lorentz theory, as a criticism of that theory. He repeated this criticism in "Science and Hypothesis" (1902) and "The value of Science" (1904). In the latter he discussed the problem of three violations of classical conservation laws: (1) non-conservation of mass implied by Lorentz's variable mass γm (2) non-conservation of momentum implied by the recoil of an energy emiitng device and (3) the non-conseravtion of energy in the radium experiments of Madame Curie. Poincaré pointed out that new interpretations in Physics were necessary. It was the insight that the body emiting radiation was losing mass of amount m = E / c2, which resolved these problems."
The inference is that since Poincaré had the insight in 1904, he, not Einstein, is the true discoverer of the formula that Einstein is usually given credit for. This is OK with me, if it is true. Is it? green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Green. I originally wrote "Einstein's insight". I thought the sentence "Poincare pointed out that new interpretations ..etc" was so obviously devoid of any content that no one could take it seriously, and not worth deleting. (That is, everybody in 1904 knew that "new interpretations in Physics were necessary" - Lorentz's work made that obvious). However, I see that with the sentence placed where it is, it does suggest the false idea that Poincare might have suggested that the emitting object was losing mass. All the preceding sentences were supposed to make it clear he had no idea of that, that is why he had such a problem with the three violations of conservation laws that he discussed. I have said this above, more than once, I think. E4mmacro 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I think the article should be expanded to delineate what aspects of relativity Poincaré discovered, that have been defacto historically credited to Einstein. One that comes to mind is the Principle of Relativity. It might also be worthwhile to distinguish the differences between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of relativity. green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is general relativity relevant on this page

Does any agree with me that the last section on general relativity is irrelevent to a page on Poincare? It seems to be nothing more than a statement that Einstein was wrong to call his theory of gravity, the General Theory of Relativity. So what? What possible relevance does that have to Poincare? Did Poincare ever say there was "one and Unique Theory of relativity". Not as fas as I know. Did Poincare discover General Relativity? No. Was Poincare dead in 1915/16? Yes. Shouldn't it be on the Einstein page or the General Relativity page?

Poincare had a GR before anyone, and GR is NOT relativity. -- Poincare is rightfully the creator of relativity therefore, yes, very important here. -- Keswani stressed this point. 69.22.98.162 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you still have not told us where Poincare published general relativity. Nor have you told us a reference to any work of Poincare's that Langevin gave in his "glowing memoire". You have the original. Can you answer some questions about the Langenvin "glowing memoire"?
  1. Does that memoire give any references at all?
  2. Does that memoire quote Poincare's gravity equation?
  3. does that memoire have any equations?
Thanks. This would be important information. E4mmacro 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling Langevin a liar ? -- Langevin is specific, I quoted him. He described what indeed we call today GR. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling Langevin a liar. I am asking which papers of Poincare's he was talking about. Three very simple questions, that you can answer, since you have a copy, and I do not. E4mmacro 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrossan, old friend, you do have it, Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself had cited. Get it translated, it is very similar to Langevin, and will suffice. --Published by Poincare himself, GR. 69.22.98.162 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langevin is a published source of top qualifications, one of the top scientists of the period. 69.22.98.162 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you yourself gave Poincare's own pages where he describes solutions of what we call today GR. -- If you could read French you would know that. -- Try to get translated for yourself Poincare's Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself cited. -- Langevin corroborates it. -- it is GR-- 69.22.98.162 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is GR?
  1. And gives an advance of the perihelion of Mecury of 7" rather than the correct 35". I thought GR gave something like 34".
  2. Does it predict bending of light by gravity? That is not mentioned in the chapter of the book I cited.
  3. Is Langevin refering to the theory that Poincare describes in the book I cited and then credits to Lorentz?
These are simple questions, that you can answer by reading Langevin, YOu have a copy, we don't. E4mmacro 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK if you think the theory of gravity described in "Science et Methods" is GR, I will leave it that. E4mmacro 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani stressed this point, yes, it is important here. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEE believe it or not, it is a miracle, I think the article looks pretty fair right now. Shall we shake on it ? 69.22.98.162 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is OK now. I think it is emmbarassing for Whittaker to have his opinion quoted so prominently - it will make him look biased. I think the GR section is irrelevant, but it doesn't worry me. E4mmacro 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good I accept. 69.22.98.162 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are now old friends, I'll answer some questions you were interested in. Poincare wrote of curved space, so perhaps also light bending is somewhere there too. He was very interested in Mercury. -- I quoted Langevin on that. -- Langevin no doubt had Science et Methode in mind when he wrote that memoire, and other writings of Poincare too I'm sure. --Also, very importantly, Poincare wrote in Science et Methode that Lorentz had ONE such solution while Poincare says that he himself had MANY such solutions, please understand that, and Langevin corroborates, he also says in the memoire that Poincare had multiple such solutions. 69.22.98.162 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)69.22.98.162 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from this, that Langevin (1914) did not specifically state what he was thinking of. Gave no citation of any specific paper of Poincare's? E4mmacro 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science et Methode. 69.22.98.162 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The memoire Le Physicien is 86 pages long, he cites many of Poincare's writings. Much of Langevin's words which I quoted into the article he no doubt took straight from Science et Methode. Get a good translation, you'll find what you want there.69.22.98.162 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4, Don't worry I'm not asking for any changes in the article, we have both agreed on that. I just was curious to ask you a question. You know who I credit with E=mc2. Who do you credit with E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.162 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I credit Einstein with the insight that the mass of a body decreased when it emitted radiation, or heat, though as Ives notes, there were plenety of indications of this floating around (Hasenohtrl, for example and Whittaker meantions a few as well). I don't know of any specific paper where someone else talked of the momentum of radiation before Poincare in 1900, but it would not surprise me if someone did, since Maxwell's radiation pressure was well known, and that is all Poincare was talking about in 1900. So I accept Ives credit to Poincare for half of the meaning of m = E/c^2. E4mmacro 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you contradict yourself ? you credit Einstein for a concept, that plenty of others had as well ? how can you credit then Einstein for that concept if others held it also ? 69.22.98.162 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is not clear. Let me ask again, whom do you credit for the formula E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll certainly not change the article now, but I personally see E=mc2 as Poincare's because in science when one correctly derives an equation even for a special case, and said formula be later generalized, the first publication for the special case does get the first credit for discovery. Whittaker is right. But as promised I won't touch the article. -- Please do answer more precisely, because you didn't really answer the question, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 03:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my answer. You think I am wrong. Let's leave it that. Thanks E4mmacro 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I see what may be the trouble. You ask who I credit the equation to. I answer a different quiestion: who do I credit with predicting the physical effect associated with the equation. i.e. the physical meaning of the equations. Which is all that interests me. Since there are two physical meanings I follow Ives in assigning credit to each meaning seperately. E4mmacro 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one and unique theory of relativity

The following paragraph must have been written by our nameless, resident Einstein-hater, "69". It claims that Hilbert published the field equations before Einstein. I am aware of a claim alleging Einstein's plagiarism of Hilbert's work, but whatever the case, I believe the order of publishing stated in this paragraph is factually incorrect. Let's get it right and resist the temptation to indulge Einstein bashing.

"After the death of Poincaré, David Hilbert first, followed later by Albert Einstein, each published the same covariant equation of gravity, the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory. The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer; it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity."

Wrt the above paragraph, I also don't like the hair splitting as to whether Einstein's GTR is a theory of relativity or just a theory about gravity. The GTR is a covariant theory that is based on, and satisfies the General Principle of Relativity. Hence, the usual name it goes under is reasonably descriptive. I agree that we must explain the significance of Poincaré's work, but this can be done by explaining what priority his work has wrt relativity theory as of 1905.

green 65.88.65.217 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Green, for your answer see David Hilbert and read Einstein-Hilbert action. -- Hilbert published the famous field equations first -- Einstein could not do it. I see you are not a Physicist: there is NO SUCH THING as a Principle of General Relativity, it does not exist. The word covariance is used very differently in the context of GR. Also, you need read Keswani he states that GR is IN NO SENSE a general theory of relativity. - And now you know why, Mr. Green, - Hair splitting it is not. -- And this is why Keswani adds immediately that GR is really only a theory of gravity. Anything else, Mr. Green? 69.22.98.162 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Yes. Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would cease being snotty. I know you're French and I have nothing against France. But there is no need to be supercilious. Secondly, as to physics, is it not the case that Einstein's field equations are covariant; i.e., they have the same mathematical form in all frames of reference? Is this not the Principle of Relativity in the context of the GTR? (I should not have written "general principle of relativity" when I meant the principle of relativity as it appears in the GTR.) I will check the Hilbert link, but I am suspect of your interpretations because you clearly have an anti-Einstein ax to grind. I just want the facts. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green, do yourself a favor, read Keswani so you'll know what you're talking about. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Hilbert links don't reference where he published the field equations, so I am still not sure if he published them before Einstein. However, the text states that Einstein first had the idea that mass-energy warps spacetime, and consulted with Hilbert to derive the equations. So I would have to assume that it was Einstein's physical intuition that stimulated Hilbert to derive the equations first, if that's what in fact occurred. green 64.136.26.226 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green do yourself a favor, read Folsing for the dates. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further research on your statement above that "Einstein could not do it [derive the field equations]." According to my source -- http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html -- he derived them a few days after Hilbert, sometime in late November 1915, when his paper was accepted for publication. You are losing credibility. green 64.136.26.226 06:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The Russian physicist Volk said that Einstein's calling it general relativity, proved that Einstein never understood the theory. 69.22.98.162 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I am sure Einstein had some idea what it was about, having worked on it for about 10 years. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have said many times that in my opinion that last paragraph is irrelevant to this article on Poincare, and should be deleted. Why get involved ina Hilbert/Einstein priority issue at all. All 69 wants to prove is that Poincare has copyriight on the term "relativity". Others, think special relativity is "owned" in various degrees by (alphabetical order only) Einstein/Larmor/Lorentz/Planck/Poincare. There is no need to mention Hilbert/Einstein and I don't want to get into that argument. First we should delete the HIlbert/Einstein controversy, which is actually irrelevant to what 69 (via Keswani) is trying to assert. E4mmacro 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To: E4: NO CENSORSHIP , IT IS VERY PERTINENT and Green agrees it remain. E4 you agreed to the article, don't betray your word.. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the place of Poincare in the history of physics, and specifically relativity, is an interesting and important subject that should not be ignored. I am therefore against deleting the paragraph. I just want the history presented objectively. green 65.88.65.217 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about if the last bit reads:
The one and unique Theory of Relativity
The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer. Although many assume it is the complete theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity.
I think this focuses on what 69 is trying to assert. Concentrate on that - Hilbert/Einstein is a distraction. E4mmacro 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO CENSORSHIP, KEEP YOUR WORD. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to point out that that the claim about 'one and unique' theory of relativity, and that GR is only a theory of gravitation is in direct contradiction to the wikipedia article on general relativity itself (see heading "Fundamental Principles". Also, while never finishing a doctorate in physics, I completed graduate level work in GR and have read a several of the classic full mathematical treatments of it. Yet it comes as a complete surprise to me that it isn't a theory of relativity as well as gravity. Trivially, it says the manifold mapping group is a symmetry group for any admissable physical law - not in any way restricted to gravitation. This is exactly analogous to the Lorentz group being a symmetry group for Special Relativity. Further, quite a number of experiments have been done to probe whether all physical phemonemena respond to gravitation and accelaration as predicted by this principle (independent of specific field equations). I would argue that this whole section be removed. 209.6.255.15 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

READ KESWANI. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is partly right, as you can see from the inconsistency of that same article: in the introduction, general relativity is claimed to be a "theory of gravitation". I objected to that on the talk page, but probably they didn't understand the problem. It is a fact that it started out as a theory of general relativity, but this fails for changing acceleration. You may try to improve the intro of that article. -> See also twin paradox.
Thus, about this one (I still haven't read the last version): if not removed, for sure the phrasing needs to be improved, just as the intro to the GRT article needs to be improved. Harald88 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it fail? (Changing acceleration? Do you mean a frame whose acceleration is not constant? Does GR fail in this case, and if so how?) green 65.88.65.217 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed: in the Twin paradox article, Builder is cited about the "how", and Cleonis also explained it on its Talk page. I suppose that around that time (due to Builder?) GRT was starting to be called a theory of Gravitation, abut it may in fact have happened earlier, I really don't know. The GRT article doesn't give a clue, instead it simly wipes the whole issue under the rug. Maybe we should tag it with a warning banner. Maybe 209 is willing to take care of that? Harald88 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the word 'failure' is not correct. Afaik, and cmiiaw, no argument that the theory fails have been presented, since failure, by definition, means an incorrect prediction. What has been argued, and with which I agree to the extent I understand it, is that Einstein's use of the Equivalence Principle to solve the Twin Paradox is not plausible. Do you see the difference? green 65.88.65.217 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
: "GRT" referred to his general relativity principle, as applied by him on the Twin paradox: it's his claim that acceleration is relative. And that failed, as documented. See also general relativity, where GRT is not portrayed as Einstein announced it, but as Keswani and Builder portrayed it. The difference is essential. Also in Newtonian mechanics we can make use of a weak equivalence principle, see centrifugal force; but no claim is made that pseudoforces are real. Harald88 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory." (emphasis added) What is the theory that GR completed? It can't be SRT, since that would make GR a relativity theory, which the next senetences claims it is not. Is this trying to suggest that GR is the completeion of Poincare's unknown theory of gravity, the one for which we have no journal reference. I think that is what it was originally meant to say - now it just looks like a contradiction of the next sentence. E4mmacro 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: It is in very plain English, it says clearly that Hilbert completed GR, which is not even relativity, just gravity. No contradiction whatsoever. 69.22.98.146 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I want the article to give a clear statement of which theory was completed, that's all, so people don't have to read the discussion page to try to find out. So it seems you mean to say "the famous field equation ... completed the theory of gravity". Is that correct? And if so, I was just pointing out that you could clear up any misunderstanding by saying so explicitly, ie add the words "of gravity". And if you mean "completed the theory of gravity started by Poincare" then say so explicitly, because this will at least show why the sentence is there on the Poincare page. It also makes it easier for people to know if they agree with you. E4mmacro 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poincare fits prominately right into the development of the theory of gravity which Einstein incorrectly called general relativity. Read Langevin for this. Hilbert's completion of the theory of gravity follows through directly from Poincare's efforts and therefore is perfectly relevent to Poincare, Hilbert was the very next step which should definitely be pointed out. Especially considering that Hilbert's theory of gravity (misnomered GR) is very very important to Poincare's place in history because as the article points out, GR is only a theory of gravity, therefore Poincare's Special Relativity is the unique theory of relativity. VERY VERY important for Poincare's place in history -- So the paragraph stays. Macrosan had agreed to this and should not go back on his word. 69.22.98.146 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: You still have not read Science et Methode so you still don't know what you're talking about do you. 69.22.98.146 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. To E4: please answer, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.146 16:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is above, in the previous section. E4mmacro 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. To Green, Stop your LOL. -- Hilbert sent the field equations in a letter to Einstein, only then did Einstein publish them himself. Read Folsing. 69.22.98.146 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once, here 69 appears to have his facts right, I also read that. But all that is not about Poincare... wrong article! Harald88 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the title of Keswani's book or anything about him on the web. How about the title and some links? The link I provided says that Einstein and Hilbert had been working on deriving the field equations starting in the summer of 1915. I never heard that Hilbert sent the equations to Einstein. Is this firm or just someone's hypothesis or suspicion? Does Folsing offer proof? Since Einstein brought the problem to Hilbert, it would seem appropriate that Hilbert would have done that if he found the solutions before Einstein. And that sequence wouldn't be surprising since Hilbert was consulted precisely because of his immense mathematical talents. So it is foolish to denigrate Einstein if this is how it transpired. Whatever the case, you completely ignore the key fact that it was Einstein who brought the problem to Hilbert based on his physical intuition that matter-energy warps spacetime. In any event, I do believe that without bashing Einstein -- your obvious agenda that is counterproductive for an objective history -- it would be very useful to provide in the article an objective assessment of Poincare's contribution to relativity. Also, the article on General Relativity should reflect objective history about the field equations, etc. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani made it clear, GR is not relativity just gravity. -- Poincare's is the unique. 69.22.98.146 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"just gravity". LOL! LOL! LOL! ... Now if you don't mind, please define what a "relativity" theory must contain to be bonafide relativity. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, you are indeed Green, you are new here and have not followed the pages and pages of discussion.

I only appear green from the pov of your snottiness. I don't know how far to look back or where. If you know so much, you can surely state in a few sentences, maybe by cutting and pasting from your previous Talk comments, what a theory would have to contain to be considered "relativistic", and what the GTR lacks in this regard. It can't be so hard for a brilliant Frenchman as yourself. You remind me a little of Harald who claims the GTR "fails" for "changing accelerations", but when I ask him to explain himself, he is silent. Please desist from your supercilious posturing and give me a concise answer. As for Einstein getting the field equations from Hilbert, what is the biographer's specific source? green 65.88.65.217 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, Go read Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 1965-6, and Folsing. I'm not paid to educate you. 69.22.98.146 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cop-out, and in your usual snotty style. green 65.88.65.217 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read it you will find answers to all what you are now asking, I am certainly not going to repeat everything just for you. Also, Go to any bookstore and ask for Folsing's biography on Einstein, many of your answers are there too. 69.22.98.146 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To MICHAEL MACROSSAN: The last paragraph of the article (on so called GR), with the paragraph on GR just preceding it, follow in perfectly logical chronological sequence, each sentence. -- Don't you even think about going back on your word. -- Do not delete a thing it would be CENSORSHIP. 69.22.98.146 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested, I did not change or censor anything. I thought I had expressed your claim exactly. But it now seems there may be two claims 1) Poincare-Hilbert derived the correct theory of gravity 2) Einstein, as usual, got it all wrong. I have just been criticizing the writing style, trying to clarify what exactly you mean to say. E4mmacro 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to E4, see below i answer. 69.22.98.146 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Since you think Langevin was a liar, put this in your pipe: Poincare presented his solutions of gravity in conference in Goettingen in April of 1909 and in Lille in July, Recueil Gabay.

I never said Langevin was a liar; I asked what papers Langevin referred to. But I now have an answer to a supplementary question: where did Poincare publish his theory of gravity? Thanks. (Now could 69 confirm that this 1909 paper is one of the papers Langevin refers to, just in case there are some others). Has anyone got a copy of Poincare's 1909 paper? Thanks. E4mmacro
What's your claim -- that Poincare had the field equations in 1909 and it's been forgotten, or he discovered some other theory of gravity that has been forgotten? This makes no sense. How could someone of Poincare's prominence solve such a deep problem (gravity) and no one knows about it but you and presumably a few other Poincare devotees? green 65.88.65.217 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green, if you read more, you would know about it too. 69.22.98.146 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More posturing! I read plenty, but there is plenty I don't know, and most important I am open to changing my positions. All I am requesting is a decent substantive window into your position. You can't keep making claims that are outside the mainstream without providing some facts, unless you care not a whit about credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, Keswani is perfectly mainstream. I quote top sources. 69.22.98.146 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not well-known in the physics community. If he were, we wouldn't still be referring to Einstein's General Theory of RELATIVITY. Let's stop the BS and cut to the chase. Say something substantive about Poincare's theory of gravity, why it is relativistic and Einstein's gravity theory is not relativistic. Everyone here is very, very interested if there is a factual basis underlying your claims. If you don't want to do it, I have to conclude you're blowing smoke up our collective butts. green 65.88.65.217 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green: You know nothing of the topic, and I am not here to babysit you. Get up off your rear end and go to the library. I told you where to look.69.22.98.146 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given enough substantive information to convince me it's worth my time. You come off as an Einstein hater and a French ultra-nationalist. Iow, I see a lot of emotion but no substance -- the hallmark of crank analysis. green 65.88.65.217 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green: Snotty ? -You just look back at the pages and pages and pages of discussion where Michael Macrossan threw up every single possible obstacle to truth that he could possibly think of, even writing his own opinions into the article without any source referencing, something I forced him to drop several times. He made me prove ten times over each word, but I overcame his obstacles and I like the article. - Snotty ? - You bet I am angry. 69.22.98.146 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I just now noticed your message, suggesting completed the theory of gravity. The sentence is about general relativity already, so wouldn't people know that the theory refers to GR ? I think it is clear already. 69.22.98.146 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I think it is clear as it is: Poincare was forerunner to GR. Hilbert completed GR. Which is only gravity. --- I think the sequence is clear. 69.22.98.146 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I just read the last paragraph again. I think it is clear that completed the theory refers to GR, because that whole section is about GR. -- Only in the last sentence does it revert back to STR. I think it's OK. 69.22.98.146 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was unsure, I think it follows that the sentence is unclear. I saw two possible meanings. I will add the words "of gravity" since that is what you mean. Just trying to be helpful. E4mmacro 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green. Somewhere back in the history of the Poincare page, when Langevin's memoire on Poincare's theory of gravity was first introduced, it said Poincare's theory gave the correct direction of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. There was a clear inference that it did not get the magnitude correct. I notice that this has now gone, and a casual reader might conclude Poincare 1909 had the right value. Like you, I doubt very much a correct theory of gravity by Poincare could today be unknown, but until we get the papers who knows? Getting the direction of the advance of the preihelion correct is not big deal, Poincare mentions two theories one of Lorentz and one of Weber which at least get the direction correct but the magnitude very much smaller. When Einstein (1911? perhaps earlier?) got a value very close to the correct value, from his early versions of GR (equivalence principle only) this was not considered such a big deal since the physical effect was already known - it was a "post-diction" not a prediction. The predictions in Einstein 1911, perhaps even 1908, were "gravitational red-shift" (gravitational time dilation) and bending of light. The bending of light turned out to be half the final value, but they wer brave predictions. E4mmacro 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to any possibility, but since 69 refuses to say anything substantive about Poincare's alleged theory of gravity, or why GR is not a relativistic theory, or what a relativistic theory must contain to be considered such, my skepticism grows and my interest wanes. Given the defacto non-existent status of Poincare's gravity theory in the history of physics, he has the burden to show that his claims are not wishful thinking. It is clear that he has not met that burden. green 65.88.65.217 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Poincare's 1909 conferences in Goettingen and Lille are permanently archived, I have seen extensive quotes from them. No doubt Langevin had them in mind as well as others. 69.22.98.146 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: OK you're right it does look better with of gravity. Very good. thanks. And it ties well to the following sentence about Keswani. 69.22.98.146 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was Poincare's theory of gravity? E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The only references that has been suggested for Poincare's theory of gravity are

  1. H. Poincare, La mecanique nouvelle, Congres de Lille 1909, published in a book collection of same title, Gauthier-Villares, paris 1924. Enrico Giannetto, in a conference paper "The rise of Special Relativity: Henri Poincare's works before Einstein" (google will find it), says a new versuion of this conference paper was reprinted as Chapters X, XI and XII in "Science et Method" 1908 which doesn't make a lot of sense; the conference paper in 1909 may have been a new version of the 1908 book chapters.
  2. H. Poincare Die neue Mechanik, conference paper, Wissenschaften Vereins zu Berlin, 13 Oct 1910.

"The new mechanics" is of course, the term Poincare always uses to refer to Lorentz's theory, or what we now call Special Relativity (see the quotes already on the page, or any number of mentions throughout Poincare's work).

Anon69, who has the original of the Langevin memoire has not specifically told us what papers Langevin is referring to in that memoire, when he speaks of Poincare's gravity theory, but has suggested I read "Science et Method" since it is "all there". I have read an english translation of Science et Method, which contains a preface by Poincare in which Poincare says "I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Halsted, who has been so good as to present my book to American readers in a translation, clear and faithful". In that book, we find

Gravitation ... “upon this subject we can only make hypotheses, but we are naturally led to investigate which of these hypotheses would be compatible with the principle of relativity. There are a great number of them; the only one of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz, which I shall briefly expound”. This is followed by 1 1/4 pages explaining Lorentz's electromagnetic theory of gravity. Then
“Such is the hypothesis of Lorentz , which reduces to Franklin’s hypothesis for slight velocities; it will therefore explain, for these small velocities, Newton’s law. Moreover, as gravitation goes back to forces of electrodynamic origin, the general theory of Lorentz [here he means the Lorentz transformations] will apply, and consequently the principle of relativity will not be violated.”

Since Lorentz's theory is an electromagnetic one, an orbiting body will emit a very small amount of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves (Poincare calls it the "wave of acceleration" - the radiation from an accelerated electric charge). I wonder though if this radiation is what many have seized upon as Poincare's gravity waves? If so, they are Lorentz's gravity waves.

KESWANI 1966 wrote that Poincare even spoke of gravity waves.69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what evidence did Keswani quote? E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Keswani, he is still active. I just cite him as a proper source. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Poincare does not discuss any theory of his own in this chapter - as is so often the case, Poinacre is expounding Lorentz.

LANGEVIN 1914 wrote it was Poincare, no mention of Lorentz by Langevin. 69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess Langevin was not talking about Science and Method afterall. But that doesn't tell us what he was talking about. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Science et Methode, and no doubt also the Goettingen conferences of April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that Langevin does not mention Lorentz then he is not talking about "Science and Method", unless Langevion does not beieve Poincare when he wrote, in "Science and Method",

"the only [theory] of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz". I would not credit Langevin of overlooking that statement, so I assume Langevin must have been talking of something else. E4mmacro 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the Poincare theory of gravity?

Can anyone with the French text of "Science et Method" confirm that the above is a translation of that book? Can anyone give any French text from that book where Poincare says he is describing his own theory of gravity?

Many thanks, in advance. E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There in Science et Methode where Poincare says there are a great number of them Poincare certainly means his own solutions. -- Langevin's memoire confirms, saying Poincare had many solutions. 69.22.98.146 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it then my English translation is a faithful rendition. Now I know the sentence where you think Poincare is talking about his own theory. You assume Poincare meant his own solutions (which he doesn't bother to describe). Even so, I assume Poincare presents the best solution he knows of, in this case Lorentz. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You assume way too much there 69.22.98.146 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langevin's memoire (1914) states clearly that it was Poincare: il a trouvé plusieurs solutions..., it follows then exactly the quote of Langevin which I put in the article. -- Langvin did not mention Lorentz there at all. -- It was Poincare, Langevin is clear. 69.22.98.146 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Langevin can make a mistake. If Langevin gives no reference for the many solutions Poincare found, then his testimony is hearsay. We have no evidence from this what the solutions are. Langevin may have thought Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory was a description of Poincare's own theory. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see Goettingen conferences April 1909, also Lille that summer. -- Langevin was not stupid, and he knew Poincare's work very closely. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume il a trouve plusieurs solutions is what Halsted translates as "there are a great many of them" which is immediately followed by "The only one of which I will speak is " Lorentz's. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Langevin corroborates, that Poincare had his own plusieurs solutions. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this "overlooking of Lorentz" happens a lot with Poincare fans. A good example is the St Louis 1904 lecture, which so often gets praised (rightly). But notice in Poincare's letter to Lorentz May 1905, Poincare says "I spoke of your 1904 paper in St Louis" or words to that effect. As usual Poincare is describing Lorentz; if French authors get confused or ignore Lorentz's work, that might be understandable. But shoudn't Poincare's own statements about what he did, count more that Langevin's second-hand statements? E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs Lorentz ? 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poincare in recorded lecture in Goettingen of April 1909 presented covariant solutions which gave proper direction of the precession of Mercury. -- No doubt this is one such place which Langevin was referring to. 69.22.98.146 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but what is the covariant solution? Again, you say "No doubt" when "probably" or "possibly" might be more appropriate. If Langevin does not say to what he is referring, then we have to guess, or deduce. We do not know beyond doubt. And thanks for confirming that it got the direction (but not the magnitude?) correct. Does he give the magnitude? If the magnitude conincides with that given by Lorentz's theory described in "Science and Method", that would be interesting. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get the transcripts of Goettingen, I know that Poincare presented it there. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation concerning Poincare's theory of gravity is as I expected. No confirmed documentation; rather, just self-serving inferences by Poincare devotees (groupies?). If Poincare really had discovered something fundamentally new about gravity that has been inexplicably forgotten, anyone who knew about it would be shouting from the rooftops and giving previews. The fact that 69 refused to be explicit on some basic points was telling. I've seen this sort of thing before. I would surmise that his various references are interesting. However, I am convinced they will not establish his excessive claims. green 65.88.65.217 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see Goettingen April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. Langevin and Poincare are not liars. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard process when one obtains revolutionary results, important results, or even modestly interesting results, is to publish the finding in a peer reviewed journal. Public lectures don't cut it. Are the lectures you cite available on the Internet? If so, please provide the links, and if you are feeling generous, the specific sections that allegedly support your claims. green 65.88.65.217 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, you go get them. 69.22.98.146 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've concluded that it's not a productive use of my time. Presumably you have read them, yet show no willingness whatsoever to seriously preview the alleged revolutionary findings. And you use the usual repertoire of evasive tactics to avoid discussing the issue substantively. As a result, from my pov your claims have zero credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Look again at the quote from Science et Methode you posted. It says Lorentz had only ONE such solution, out of many. 69.22.98.146 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't Lorentz publish his solution? Has history also conspired against Lorentz? This gets more and more implausible. green 65.88.65.217 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were recorded in conferences. 69.22.98.146 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded, but the results were not published and presumably not available on the Internet. And those that know the contents are what -- sworn to secrecy? LOL. green 65.88.65.217 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent records. You can order them. 69.22.98.146 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when I order them, they are likely to be in French. If they're so important, I wonder why they are unavailable online. Anyway, as I said, given your extreme reluctance to discuss the substantive content, I can only conclude that you have misinterpreted what you have read. green 65.88.65.217 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive and refactor talk page

This page has grown too large, so I will archive and refactor it. I will do my best to summarize conversations that are still relevant, but please let me know here if there are topics/posts that seem important to keep. The Rod 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you must archive, I suggest you retain as current starting from section 32 (Gravity theories) and archive what's above. Personally, the page as is does not seem too long. green 65.88.65.217 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I just gave my opinion. That's it. No big deal among mature individuals. Certainly not worth a hostile comment. Unfortunately Mr. "69" has a habit of manifesting bad manners. He is irritated by the fact that I (and others) have shown he is unable to validate his claim that Poincare discovered a covariant theory of gravity before Einstein -- something he desperately wants to include in the article. He is what I would call a Poincare '"groupie". The fact that he and Poincare are both French, juxtaposed with his bad attitude, is sufficiently explanatory.
green 65.88.65.217 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice on what to retain. This talk page is much too long for new participants to read quickly, so I will summarize the content related on ongoing content discussions, including that from the Gravity theories section forward. I will also remove personal attacks and other comments not directly related to advancing the article. The Rod 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Talkpage is the place to argue issues, and sometimes the disputes get hot and personal. This is in the nature of reality and cannot be avoided. It is not right for the sake of political correctness to edit anything before it is archived. green 65.88.65.217 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and WP:No personal attacks disagree with you on that. If you create an account, we can discuss this matter further on your talk page. The Rod 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one and unique Theory of Relativity (again)

Let me make two points about the following, concluding paragraph:

"The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer; it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity."

Firstly, we need a full reference to Keswani in the reference section. Secondly, without a brief explanation as to why Einstein's "gravity" theory is not a relativity theory, readers will be scatching their heads. This is why I have asked Mr. 69 for his definition of 'relativity'. If we decide not to clarify this issue, then the paragraph above should be deleted from the article. green 65.88.65.217

To Green, call ANY physics professor or even undergrad student in Physics -- any one of them will tell you that GR is a misnomer, and only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.146 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69.22.98.146 needs to read WP:CIVIL. The Rod 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To "69": Firstly, I strongly suggest that you restrain your inappropriate hostile attitude. I should also remind you that the function of Wikipedia is to make things clear; not to induce head scratching. Most readers will surely not understand the basis of the last paragraph, and will not have a physics professor to call. Also, unless you dispute that the field equations of GR are covariant, then for those of us who know the definition of the 'Principle of Relativity', GR will continue to be considered a 'relativistic' theory (as well as a theory of gravity). Hence, unless the last paragraph is modified in an informative way as I suggest, it should removed. I am not alone in that opinion. Here is something recently posted that deserves re-reading:

"I would like to point out that that the claim about 'one and unique' theory of relativity, and that GR is only a theory of gravitation is in direct contradiction to the wikipedia article on general relativity itself (see heading "Fundamental Principles". Also, while never finishing a doctorate in physics, I completed graduate level work in GR and have read a several of the classic full mathematical treatments of it. Yet it comes as a complete surprise to me that it isn't a theory of relativity as well as gravity. Trivially, it says the manifold mapping group is a symmetry group for any admissable physical law - not in any way restricted to gravitation. This is exactly analogous to the Lorentz group being a symmetry group for Special Relativity. Further, quite a number of experiments have been done to probe whether all physical phemonemena respond to gravitation and accelaration as predicted by this principle (independent of specific field equations). I would argue that this whole section be removed. 209.6.255.15 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"

Whoever wrote that, I don't believe you. - No one could get that far along in GR without ever even hearing that GR is only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.146 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

green 65.88.65.217 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one and unique paragraph is perfectly clear even to lay persons. 69.22.98.146 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a phone call, any physics prof will tell you what I am telling you, it is common knowledge that GR is a misnomer. A General Theory would require a Principle of General Relativity. Please state for me such principle. You can't. It does not exist in reality. Oh yes you can pretend, like Einstein had hoped, but GR does not satisfy one. Keswani is a world expert in GR, he is in published record that GR is in no sense a general theory of relativity. Have you read his article yet ? Do that first, before bothering anyone again. Keswani (1966). 69.22.98.146 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates by SOURCES. Have you a SOURCE that says Keswani is wrong ? No you have not. 69.22.98.146 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read wikipedia's article on general covariance -- it says Einstein WANTED to demonstrate covariance in the normal sense, but GR cannot do it. Read Keswani. 69.22.98.146 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would surely read Keswani's article if it were on the Internet; but alas, it is not! If he's such an authoritative source, why is it I could find not a single reference to him in a Google search (maybe it was on page 100!)? Anyway, this is beside the point. There is a general impression that GR is a covariant theory, and when I last consulted physicists who are knowledgeable about this subject, they agreed. Hence, I think the last paragraph should be enlarged with pertinent information, inclusive of a link to the Wikipedia article on General Relativity and/or Covariance. The paragraph as is, simply causes head-scratching to those who believe what you disbelieve, or have mathematical grounds for affirming that the field equations in GR are covariant. As for the 'General Principle of Relativity', it means that the laws of physics -- in this case the field equations -- have the same form in all frames of reference. Insofar as they are written in tensor form and transform as four vectors, the consensus is that the field equations satisfy the principle of covariance. If they do not, then explain this (succinctly if possible) in the last paragraph, instead of mindlessly referring to an electronic non-person (Keswani); that is, someone whose work is electronically inaccessible. Instead of waving a flag, please make some subtantive statements (if you can). I will shortly read what Wikipedia has to say concerning general covariance and GR. green 65.88.65.217 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just did a scan of Wiki articles on General Relativity and General Covariance, and I find nothing to support your claim that Einstein's GR is not a covariant theory. Please point me to the exact passages you have in mind. Also, these articles confirm what I have alleged about GR -- that it is a covariant theory, with the definition that I gave above. If this is incorrect, and it might be, then the Wiki articles I just cited should be modified. green 65.88.65.217 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT MIGHT BE ?? SORRY BUT IT'S NOT. 69.22.98.146 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you shouting? I went to the Wiki articles you suggested and found they do not support your claim. In fact, both articles basically stated what I have been stating. From my pov, I can't make a categorical judgement that the Wiki articles are incorrect. But they might be.

Correct, you cannot make a judgement, so you should just drop out, you're way out of your field. 69.22.98.146 04:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just being careful. I can't make a definitive (negative) judgment as to the merits of your case. I mean, of course, that I am giving you something you don't seem worthy of -- the benefit of the doubt. Instead of substance, you persist in ad hominem remarks. I am beginning to believe that you have a poor grasp of the subject. Otherwise, you would have argued with some hint of persuasiveness much earlier. Istm now that you're a paper tiger and resent being exposed. green 65.88.65.217 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani is I believe retired, perhaps not active on the net, I haven't checked.

Neither Keswani's article nor the two lectures by Poincare are available electronically. This is why you have a hard time making your case. We can't evaluate what was claimed. And as for Lorentz covariant gravity solution and Poincare's many such solutions, they were not presented in peer-reviewed journals, so there is nothing to rely on except hearsay. The fact that they weren't published suggests that after some initial enthusiasm, something awry was uncovered. I mean; what other possible reason could there be for not publishing such allegedly important results?

GO TO THE LIBRARY. - ORDER IT IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT. 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had made a decent plausibility argument, I would have already gone to some library. But you have not. And from your comments below, I am wondering if you know this materal as well as you claim.

A General Principle of Relativity would state that the laws of physics are the same for ALL observers, inertial OR accelerated. Unfortunately, as any physicist can tell you, it does not exist. In accelerated frames one must introduce fictitious forces.

If I am in a rotating frame, I will experience a fictitious force called the centripetal force (or centrifugal). This is very old news. Why EXACTLY is this a violation of the General Principle of Relativity or General Covariance? Afaik, there is no principled requirement that all observers experience the same forces or make the same measurements. In general, they do not.

CORRECT !!!! -- SO TRUE GR DOES NOT EXIST -- YOU FINALLY GOT IT !!!!! 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an enlightening statement. Maybe you don't understand what I was getting at. E.g., in SR there is no principled requirement that all observers measure the same forces and make the same measurements. In fact, this rarely occurs; hardly ever. But the laws of physics still have the same form in all inertial frames. Iow, the Principle of Covariance or Relativity in SR does not demand that all observers make the same measurements -- only that the relationship among the measurements they do make, have the same form. This is what the Principle of Covariance is. E.g., two observers will measure different E and B fields when observing the same phenomena, but Maxwell's equations hold for both observers. OK? Now apply or extend this example to GR, where not all observers measure or experience a fictitious force. So what? This, in itself, does not show a violation of general covariance. If it is a violation, something must be added to the argument. I am quite willing to concede a violation of general covariance in GR, but you have not offered a sufficient argument, or anything close. When/if you do, one of us will edit all the Wiki pages with the allegedly wrong description of GR.

You concede a violation of general covariance in GR ? GOOD ! THAT KILLS GR, there is no such thing, it is a misnomer, we agree. 69.22.98.146 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You completely misread my meaning, perhaps because English is not your native language. I simply meant that I am open to the possibility of a violation of general covariance. I am willing to agree to your pov IF AND ONLY IF you are able to present a sufficient argument. So far you have not done so. See comments below.

Nature does not respect this would-be principle.

Where or what is the principle that is violated?

MY GOD CAN'T YOU READ ENGLISH ? - I NEED TO REPEAT IT AGAIN ? 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above paragraph. If the Principle of Covariance does not require that all observers make the same measurements, of force or anything else, how does the existence of a fictitous force in some accelerating frame imply a violation of said Principle? Calm down and see if you can give a reasoned response. I'd like to agree with you, but so far your argument is insufficient.

accelerating frames are not equivalent to inertial frames, so GR does not exist in nature. 69.22.98.146 04:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the field equations apply in inertial frames, then general covariance is alive and well. You really need to demonstrate that they do not. I haven't seen that argued. Istm that they would be trivially satisfied for a frame with a=0. E.g., if all accelerating frames are equivalent, then one can consider an accelerating frame whose acceleration is non-zero but very small. This would be close to an inertial frame and the field equations would apply. I would think they would also apply in the limit as the frame's acceleration tended to zero (a true inertial frame).

Even Einstein eventually realized this simple fact of nature. What is misleadingly called covariance in GR today, is an artifice. 69.22.98.146 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

green 65.88.65.217 02:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
green 65.88.65.217 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
green 65.88.65.217 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write Keswani and tell him you think he is wrong. 69.22.98.146 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I had read his paper and came to the same conclusions as stated above. All I can do here is point out the insufficiency in what YOU have presented -- that it does not prove your case. My position is that an inertial frame is just a special case of an accelerating frame, so the field equations should apply, and therefore general covariance should be satisfied. So far, all you have done is shout and make appeals to authority (the obvious tone of your latest remark). Why don't you focus on making your case? Why don't you explain exactly why the existence of fictitious forces in accelerating frames causes a violation of general covariance? Does their existence somehow cause the field equations to change form in inertial frames? This is where the rubber hits the road and I am open to a decent argument, but so far none has been presented. green 65.88.65.217 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr. "69": If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would summarize your degrees, subjects of concentration and professional affiliations. I request this information out of curiosity because you assume absolute superiority in this discussion, but in fact have never presented a substantive argument or adequately answered any of my objections to the few hints of substance contained in your remarks. You actually seem like someone who has no technical training and has no appreciation or concept wrt what a real argument is. Pauli's remark seems to apply; you're not right and not even wrong. Thank you. green 65.88.65.217 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to Keswani when you write him.. 69.22.98.146 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now obvious to me, and I would think to anyone reading this discussion, that you are not qualified to intelligently (and civilly) discuss this issue. I will change the article text as I deem appropriate. This concludes my discussion with you. green 65.88.65.217 14:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: Wikipedia operates by SOURCES. see Keswani 1966. You have no source that says Keswani is wrong. 69.22.98.146 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is essentially hearsay. We have no assurance it exists, and if it does, we have no idea as to its precise content since it is unavailable on the Internet for calibration. All we have are your extreme and rudely presented claims that cannot be minimally characterized as poorly argued since you are clearly incapable of making a bonafide argument worthy of serious consideration. Also, there are a plethora of sources that state that GR is a covariant theory. I, and others, have given you more than sufficient opportunity to make a decent case, but you have not. I consider the discussion closed. green 65.88.65.217 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 1965-6, is available at ANY major university library. 69.22.98.146 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming body of references assert that GR is a covariant theory. Period. Bonafide sources are preferable to an alleged dissident opinion (Keswani) which a true believer (Mr. "69") is utterly incapable of describing with any coherence or rigor. Additionally, your responses above show that you don't even understand the meaning of covariance. Stop pestering us with your obsession. green 65.88.65.217 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to Keswani. Write him a letter. 69.22.98.146 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. I have a better suggestion. Explain why the existence of fictitious forces in accelerating frames contradicts General Covariance. If you can do that, we can make some progress. I don't think you can. It is easier to blow smoke than make a serous argument. green 65.88.65.217 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the tenth time, and I want you to tatoo this to your arm so you don't have to ask me again, accelerating frames are in no way equivalent to inertial frames, fictious forces would have to be introduced to keep the laws of physics the same. 69.22.98.146 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. green 65.88.65.217 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is waiting for you in Keswani's article. GO GET IT. 69.22.98.146 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT INTERESTED!!!! READ MY LIPS. NOT INTERESTED!!!! There is nothing new in the fact that an observer in an accelerating frame will experience something indistinguishable from a force causally attributed to the acceleration, aka a "fictitious" force. If you are so knowledgeable, you can surely explain why the existence of this "force" contradicts covariance. If you can't give a plausibility argument, let's terminate the discussion, as it is going round in circles. green 65.88.65.217 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are too lazy to go to the library to read Keswani, that's your problem, not mine, good bye. 69.22.98.146 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cop-out, exactly what I would expect from a game player. I see what you've been up to on the Einstein Talkpage, distorting the position of Kip Thorne on Hilbert's GR work vs Einstein's, etc. When you burn your credibility in the context of an arrogant style of communication, your sources become tainted. green 65.88.65.217 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Solutions Consistent with Relativity

I edited this section consistent with the known facts and without introducing a pov. I don't like the header and would entertain suggestions. green 65.88.65.217 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section header to "Work on Gravity" to make it consistent with the other header ("Work on Relativity"), and because the old header assumed something we don't know for sure; namely, that Poincare's solutions were consistent with relativity. Without any published solutions, the issue of consistency is indeterminate. green 65.88.65.217 04:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green. Good luck with trying to argue with 69.
Wrt arguing with "69", it's a waste of time. He adamantly refuses to provide any substantive motivation for his position that GR is not a covariant theory, and his arrogant mode of communication seriously harms his case. He claims to have a Ph'D in physics from UCLA (see Einstein Talkpage). If true, I hope he isn't teaching physics at some university, since his (negative) attitude problem will serve his students poorly. green 65.88.65.217 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for removing the Einstein/Hilbert dispute which is clearly irrelevant to Poincare. In the book I quoted, Science and Method, Poincare means something very limited by a gravity theory that "satisfies the principle of relativity", it seems to me. I think he means, if you had a theory of gravity for bodies orbiting the sun then you should get the same results if the sun were moving at any speed w.r.t the aether (i.e. we can not detect the motion of the sun from any effect in the orbits or any gravity effects). In this case, the sun would suffer lenbth contractions, the orbits of the planets would suffer length contractions, the physical effects would propagated at the speed of light. He means only, as fas as I can see, that Newton's gravity clearly has to be modified if what he called "Lorentz's new mechanics", what you would call "Special Relativuty", is true. That is why, in his book Science and Methhod, the ONLY theory he described (besides some older clearly wrong ones) was Lorentz's electromagnatic theory - it automatically satisfied Lorentz's electrodynamics and therefore the Principle of Relativity that Poincare was talking about. I don't think Poincare ever meant what Einstein meant by General Relativuty. E4mmacro 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: With respect to the sentence in the article quoted below, is it correct as I stated in article, that the equations were never published? I read the sentence below to suggest a qualitative description. green 65.88.65.217 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) "In "Science and Method" (1908, Book III, Chapter III "The New Mechanics and Astronomy"), Poincaré describes solutions for a theory of gravity which satisfy the principle of relativity, and in which gravity propagates at the speed of light."[reply]

He gives a 1 1/4 page description of Lorentz's theory of an electromagnetic origin for the gravity force. He says the only planent for which it would differ from Newton is Mercury (it was the fastest moving planent). He gave results (but not the calculations) of the rate of energy radiated away by Lorentz's theory and concluded it was insignificant (he quoted some number of billions of years before the total energy radiated away was significant). He gave numerical result, but not the calculation of 7" for the advance of the Mercury perihelion (comapred with 35" measured). My guess is that Poincare is quoting a paper by Lorentz, but I am not sure which one. The book is a "popular one" and Poincare in these series of popular science book rarely cited the original papers. E4mmacro 09:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third paragraph in this section is irrelevant to Poincare and can be removed. green 65.88.65.217 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: I edited this section again, adding a few points as provided by E4 comments above, removing some typos, and retrieving some lost information. Please check it for accuracy. Yesterday I removed all the date links from the article (retaining the raw dates as text only). Imo, links should exist for words and phrases directly related to understanding the article. Finally, I edited the References section, fixing some typos, removing a non-existent link to Lorentz's 1904 paper, as well as putting a Poincare 1897 reference in correct chronological order. I have a guestion about the reference, "Lorentz, H. A. (1911) Amersterdam Versl. XX, 87". Is "Amersterdam" an incorrect spelling or correct Dutch? Thanks for any input. green 65.88.65.217 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, I have a newly acquired respect for you since you called Einstein a plagiarist. -- I'd like to see E4 do the same. 69.22.98.146 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Green, I would prefer that you not go re-writing the article the way you have, because you have no background in Physics, so please first suggest changes here in the discussion section, the way Harald has done here below, then allow people with more background to discuss your suggestion before re-writing the article, thanks. 69.22.98.146 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a background in physics (and mathematics, and computer science), and you will notice that my edits did not introduce any errors in substance or tone. As I previously stated, I am careful in making judgements. green 65.88.65.217 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK but please out of courtesy post your suggestions here first and let at least someone respond first before jumping into the text. thanks. 69.22.98.146 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My first suggestion is to entirely remove the section entitled "The one and unique Theory of Relativity" unless we can offer a plausibility argument explaining why GR is not a relativistic theory. Regardless of what you claim, many people believe it is covariant, including physicists I have had contact with from time to time. The point of this activity is to make issues as clear as possible; not muddy the waters with defacto non-mainstream claims. green 65.88.65.217 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me explain to you ONCE MORE why Keswani categorically states that GR is NOT a GR. There is no such thing as a Principle of GR in nature, it does not exist. There is no such thing as a TGR in nature, it is forbidden by the laws of physics. Einstein was HOPING to create one but he realized himself that such a thing does not exist. The word covariance in the context of GR is used in quite a different sense, it is an abstract mathematical definition that exists only in the construct of space-time, not real space, it is an ARTIFICE, do you understand now ? Please go to UCLA near you in Riverside and read Keswani because I am not going to repeat all this again just for you. 69.22.98.146 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell it to me! Tell it to the reader! Anyway, you have not made anything close to a plausibility argument. All you have done is repeat your position with different words. Tell the reader why the Principle of Relativity in SR -- that the mathematical forms of the laws of physics are inertial frame invariant -- is in principle different from, or somehow contradicts, the (alleged) invariance of the GR field equations.

Yes I could write all this into the article, but the article tells them where to find the detailed reasoning. -- That is called a SOURCE, and suffices. 69.22.98.146 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single, defacto dissident source interpreted by a highly biased reader (you) is not what I would consider high on the scale of reliability. If you were on really firm ground, you could produce (and would want to!) a plausibility argument in one paragraph. green 65.88.65.217 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt your claim of some agreement between you and E4; I read many of the exchanges and I see no fundamental agreement. He suggests, quite correctly imo, that there are no papers with Poincare's theory of gravity -- with his alleged "numerous" solutions -- and I note that you were unable to give any citations wrt said alleged solutions. So what do we really have here -- just someone (you) peddling hot air. Hey, Poincare was a genius, but he did not anticipate anything as radical as GR. You can take that to the bank! green 65.88.65.217 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe E4 is satisfied with the quotes from Langevin and Minkowski, the article is very clear. 69.22.98.146 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're dreaming (again!). green 65.88.65.217 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To MR 69: AGREEMENT OFF!!! Anon 69 is clearly a deceitful individual who cannot be trusted. He has the unmitigated gall to request that I discuss changes here before implementing them, but went ahead and made major changes in the gravity section without any prior consultations. What it now contains is BS/propaganda suggesting that Poincare's work on gravity in some substantial sense anticipated GR. Poincare was on the wrong track entirely. He was thinking of an electromagnetic theory of gravity, a la Lorentz, and never published any equations. 69 is a loose cannon with no ethics. I don't know what we can do about it. Go to Einstein Talkpage and see my proof that he speaks from both sides of his mouth. green 65.88.65.217 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To green, What you don't realize is that E4 and I have spent a month, hammering out all the details in the article. There is a reason for everything there, which you don't understand because you came in here late, and are not aware of the reasoning behind the wording. When you simply start hacking away you don't realize why the wording is the way it is. So abide by Wikipedia ethics and first post your questions here always. 69.22.98.146 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

newly discovered transformations?

"the first to present Lorentz's (1904) newly discovered transformations in their modern symmetrical form."

I think that "newly discovered" is both unsupported and irrelevant for this article. What was the purpose of not simply stating : "the first to present Lorentz's transformations in their modern symmetrical form." ? Harald88 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Harald I agree, they were hardly newly discovered in 1904, they had been around longer than that. It should be removed. 69.22.98.146 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Isn't it important to know when the Lorentz transformations were discovered? Just to make it clear that Poincare and Einstein did not discover them? E4mmacro 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who may be overly sensitive, I want it clear that I am in no way implying in the article that GR belongs to Hilbert instead of Einstein -- I am simply writing down in chronological correctness for the article. 69.22.98.146 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the comment I removed concerning Hilbert's priority in deriving field equations is clearly out of place in this article since without any published papers by Poincare wrt his gravitational results, the assumption that he in some way anticipated GR is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. Btw, I also happen to be pretty sober when it comes to making historical judgements. green 65.88.65.217 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is why I wrote in the two quotes, one of Langevin and one of Minkowski, both quotes confirm Poincare's anticipating GR. As if that were not enough, quotes from Poincare's lectures on gravity are abondant, this alone proves that Poincare's concepts of gravity were indeed published, because how else could his lectures be extensively quoted in books today. Specifically Poincare's 1909 Goettingen lectures were published in 1910 in Leipzig, I have extensive quotes from that publication. There is no question whatsoever of Poincare's anticipating GR. Also, note that just lecture presentations in themslves at prominant places like Goettingen do greatly influence the scene, just the lectures themselves influenced the thinking you must admit. Please go back to the article and read the quotes of Langevin and Minkowski which both confirm Poincare's influence on GR concepts, and you will have to agree. Thanks for asking your question here on the discussion page. PS I think you are in Riverside, my PhD in Physics is from UCLA, they have Keswani's papers. Do go read it, it's not far. 69.22.98.146 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you are dreaming and don't know it. After SR, there were dreams of a covariant theory of gravity. But what Lorentz and Poincare came up with is INDETERMINATE, since we don't have any peer reviewed papers! Lectures are just hot air for the public and don't amount to a hill of beans -- or maybe to just that! Secondly, if Poincare was thinking of an electromagnetic theory of gravity, as seems the case, in no substantial way did he anticipate GR. It's fine to include what he did, or tried to do, but don't mislead the reader into thinking that he really anticipated GR because some of his intuitions and theorizing were linguistically similar to GR -- like gravity propagating at lightspeed. He and Lorentz were on the wrong track, at least in the sense of anticipating something as conceptually radical as the GR we know and love(?). green 65.88.65.217 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling Langevin and Minkowski liars ? 69.22.98.146 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why liars? My impression is they were mistaken. It's called "human error". Is there any evidence, I mean real evidence, that Poincare was thinking in terms other than an electromagnetic theory of gravity? If you have such evidence, I will revaluate my position. Can you quote anything in Poincare's lectures that suggest this? ANYTHING? green 65.88.65.217 03:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langevin and Minkowski were both wrong ? -- It is more likely you are wrong. 69.22.98.146 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop the bull? You say you have copies of Poincare's lectures. Great! Now produce the evidence that his gravity theory was other than electromagnetic! Do it, or have the decency to admit you're winging it. My guess is that L and M thought EM was the way to go. green 65.88.65.217 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guess too much. -- Provide SOURCES please. 69.22.98.146 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Goettingen 1909 lectures of which I have extensive exerpts, he does not call it electromagnetic, but gravitational waves. 69.22.98.146 04:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you claim to be a physicist from a prominent university? Calling them 'gravitational waves' does not ipso facto equate them to GR gravity waves. But this is elementary! The gravity waves in GR are not electromagnetic. Look deeper into this and tell us from your original source material what is beneath the superficial linguistic equivalency. Are Poincare's gravity waves electromagnetic or not? If you're not sure, the section you have re-written is on shaky ground. green 65.88.65.217 04:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He called it ONDES GRAVIFIQUES. - You tell me what that means. 69.22.98.146 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the game of shifting burden of proof. You have the source material, so you should be able to definitively determine whether he has an electromagnetic theory in mind, or not. It's really elementary that the two words cannot be ipso facto equated to what exists in GR. This is elementary and doesn't need to be argued. green 65.88.65.217 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gravitational. 69.22.98.146 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A typo above or an act of desperation? Offer some salient Poincare quotes, and include them in the article, as proof that Poincare's theory of gravity is not electromagnetic. I honestly don't believe you can do it. green 65.88.65.217 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Minkowski in 1907/6 or Langevin in 1914 could credit Poincare with discovering General Relativity. They didn't know what GR was, since it hadn't been published then. If they claim that Poincare had the correct theory of gravity that is useless as a source to prove that Poincare's theory is superior to GR. We need to have the theories to compare them and decide which is better, which Minkowski and Langevin did not have before 1915. It could be that Poincare wrote the exact equation - but I doubt it. If he did someone should be able to supply a source we can all check, or even quote exactly from that source. E4mmacro 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but 69 is claiming that Poincare's theory was the conceptual forerunner to GR. It would be perhaps, if there were any evidence whatsoever that Poincare was thinking in terms of, say, Lorentzian manifolds. This is what 69 can determine from his source material. My guess is in the negative. I think he is making invalid inferences based on superficial linguistic similarities in concepts -- like gravity transmission at lightspeed. green 65.88.65.217 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not say solutions, I say concepts, and they are indeed the correct concepts employed in GR today. 69.22.98.146 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field Equations

Who censored the last step in the chronological sequence ? -- The Field Equation incorporates Poincare's concepts. 69.22.98.146 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"incorporates Poincare's concepts" is contested. You haven't come anyway near showing that. It cannot be confirmed by anyone's opinion published before 1915. If the field equation has nothing to do with Poincare, as appears likely, then the statement about who discovered General Relativity is irrelevant, as I have always said. The only result of that statement is to start a fight about priority for GR, a fight which should take place elsewhere. E4mmacro 05:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not starting any such debate. I am simply crediting Poincare for his concepts, which are incorporated into GR still to this day, ie., the speed of gravity is c, propagation of gravity waves, requirement of satisfying Principle of Relativity, etc are all embedded in the Field Equations. 69.22.98.146 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not credit Lorentz? Poincare describes Lorentz's theory in 1908 which includes these concepts? E4mmacro 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhaaa! So GR does satisfy the Principle of Relativity! Game over. green 65.88.65.217 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the way you think. 69.22.98.146 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do us all a favor, including yourself, and incorporate the GR revised Principle of Relativity into the article so we can evaluate whether it is something that Poincare had in mind or not? Stop with the arcane hints. Your intuition in these matters has shown some kinks of late. green 65.88.65.217 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Who is censoring the clear fact, given the quotes of Langevin and Minkowski, that Poincare's concepts are imbedded into Hilbert's Field Equation ? -- Please identify yourself.69.22.98.146 05:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. Not me. green 65.88.65.217 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are Lorentz's concepts. We have Poincare's word for the fact that Lorentz had these concepts before 1908, (and incidentally that Weber had a theory of gravity which propagted gravity at speed c). You have only said Poincare had these concepts in 1909 and 1910. By the usual priority rules then, they are Lorentz's concepts. However I think they are so obvious and commonplace that they are nobody's or everybody's concepts. I think I could find a theory of gravity by Sir Oliver Lodge at about the same time that had these concepts as well. So what? I could now make the statement that new theories of physics are needed. When the next new theory appears that actually works, will I get the credit? E4mmacro 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article does not actually quote Langevin and MInkowski, does it? It looks like a paraphrase to me. We have asked many times that you actually quote something from Langevin. A list of citations would help. E4mmacro 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we relying of Keswani to know that Poincare wrote of gravity waves? Can't we have the quotes where Poincare does so? What paper is Keswany refering to? How about some information? How do we know, if we don't have the original papers which he is paraphrasing, that Keswan's interpretattion is not eccentric? E4mmacro 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is why I have repeatedly requested that 69 explain the manner in which GR violates covariance as per Keswani. If he did so, we could judge whether this interpretation is eccentric, erroneous, or worthy of high exposure on Wiki. But 69 is an intellectual coward who hides behind his references. green 65.88.65.217 19:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: at the (Paris) Ecole Polytechnique (the MIT of France) there is for consultation a massive reference book compiled by Jules Leveugle Poincaré et la Relativité: Question sur la Science where all these quotes you are asking for are compiled and recorded. 69.22.98.146 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: First, the principle of equivalence is not original to Einstein at all. -- Newton saw inertial and gravitational masses as equivalent, indeed there is only one symbol m in Newton's equations. Einstein tried to make it appear as something new, which it was not. 69.22.98.146 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an idiotic evaluation and very old news to boot. When did you become a mind-reader? You always seem to know Einstein's motives. Einstein was not operating in a vacuum and Newton did not claim that acceleration was indistinguishable from gravity, only that for some unknown reason, the two m's were numerically identical. green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: Second, it was Poincare's approach to employ his Principle of Relativity to derive gravitation, using of course floating around assumptions such as the speed of light. But Poincare's Principle is central to the approach, Poincare's approach is without any question a forerunner to GR, as seen in the quotes of Minkowski and Langevin. 69.22.98.146 12:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all hearsay! Produce a Poincare quote or cease this nonsense! green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To E4: It is painfully obvious that discussing these issues with 69 is a complete waste of time and energy. He never provides any direct evidence of his claims even though we have repeatedly requested such evidence. He references various works as authoritative -- most importantly Poincare's lectures -- without ever providing direct quotes. If Poincare anticipated GR in any substantial way, we could surely verify this from carefully selected quotes from his lectures, but 69 has consistently failed to produce them. After repeated failures to make his case notwithstanding ample opportunities and a plethora of requests, one must conclude he cannot do so. Instead he now offers a new defacto inaccessible reference in a Paris library. As for Poincare's theory that gravity goes at the speed of light, this is a no-brainer if one believes that gravity is electromagnetic. Other than superficially, it is hardly a precursor of GR. The fact that 69 does not see this, makes his analytical skills highly suspect. green 65.88.65.217 18:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green, I have to agree. I suggest you put a pov warning on the page. 69 will remove it, which is against Wiki policy. You can then, if you like, report him. I support the first re-write you did on the silly claims about GR. E4mmacro 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do it but don't know the procedure. green 65.88.65.217 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henri_Poincaré&oldid=38499843"