Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2005

Harold If you will email me I'll send you a picture clearly showing my
inertia time lapse        Reality is I'm old enough to be this groups
Grandfather. However I'm a fun kind of guy,and found away to create body
cells faster than they die. Hair went back to pepper,and my top of my
head bald spot has filled in nicely.  Bert

 My credentials are these. At 8 got a toy gyro,and science has been my
love from then on. In 1952 I sat with Einstien(one on one),and we talked
about gravity and inertia. I know relativity,and QM very well. I have
lived longer than Einstien. I am more knowledgable than him for
accelerators have been in use all my life.  My G=EMC^2 takes in E=MC^2
I have many original theories. I can stop light an inch and a half from
its source. I have one of the fastest pictures in the world showing
inertia has a time lapse. I build sail boats and like Einstien love to
sail.  Einstien did not wear socks,and I only wear white socks.  Many of
my theories have been discussed in countries all over the world.   I'm
old enough to be the father of everyone in this group.   If 'you all'
like the idea you can call me "Father Bert"

Is that not supposed to be possible?

Dear Joe Fischer:

No.  More like "goaded by Jew haters".  Not everyone that attacks
a theory does so in a scientific manner.  To do so
scientifically, one needs to make a prediction using the theory,
then use experiment to disprove its conclusions.  The "rabble"
don't understand the theory, so cannot make a prediction.  And
then when they do, they construct their experiments out of
plywood, and run them in their garage (or whatever) and expect
results accurate to 9 sig figs or better.

Not a good thread title for this intent.  But whatever.

The excitement has moved to other fields.  Currently the sounds
from string theorists are quite party-like.

Yes, they have their function.  Wolves preening the herds of
reindeer, for example.  The entire herd is strengthened and made
healthy by tearing down and destroying the sick and infirm.
Tearing down buildings that are at their limits of safety just
standing, to build new communities.

I wouldn't go so far as "Logan's Run" however... our "four score
and ten" seems to appropriately limit the amount of damage a
single generation can do.

I agree that creation is rewarding.  I submit that maintenance
can also be rewarding, though this is really hard to see.  I
submit further that regardless of your personal beliefs,
that-which-destroys has an important role.  In other contexts,
such "destructers" are called "the top of the food chain".  We
are destructers.

But in the context of your intended direction, the "destructers"
are the turds in the grass beneath the herd.  Making a great
stink, and attracting flies, but only serving to soften the steps
of those passing by.

Dirk has the right idea.  Catch them at the height of their
"glory", and ensconce them in a place of worship.  A suitable
location for those who let "feelings" guide "logic".

David A. Smith

Fischer  Reality is three men got Nobels from Einstien's theories. A guy
from the U of Chicago even got his Nobel trying to prove Einstien was
wrong. go figure  Bert

         It is more than that, cutting edge science is somewhat like
looking for something, but not knowing where to look or what
it looks like.

         It is the models that provide clues to what to look for,
and may give an idea of where to look.

         A formal education not only teaches what is known, but
also teaches what can be learned without the frustration of
looking where others have looked, and the places to look.

         So it is a good idea to get a formal edcuation, but
with full knowledge that some things learned may change.
         
          There is no joy in disproving a model, the joy is in
finding a model that predicts and describes things that
hold up to attempts to disprove them.

          Which is why I claim that most of the antagonists
here are bizarre egotists, not scientists.
          Some may just enjoy playing king of the hill, but
it is pretty obvious that some have dreams of fame and
fortune, and are unwilling to accept that it won't happen.

           What I can't figure out, is why there seems to
be some geographical patterns to the disillusioned and
complete jackass mentality.  :-)

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer ha escrito:

Well, I clearly stated that if reading of last advances in history of
relativity make some trouble for your, then do not read them!

Your pontification dogma, "Einstein did this" "Einstein did this
another", is fascinating.

The celebrated historian of relativity John Stachel says:

"I believe that the problem of how Einstein discovered the special
theory of relativity (SRT) falls into this category of "puzzling
questions," that "are not beyond all conjecture."

Let me begin by explaining why. When I started work on the Einstein
Papers, there was already a large literature on the origins of SRT
compared, say, to the rather scanty amount published on the origins of
the general theory of relativity (GRT). So I assumed that the
development of SRT must be fairly clear. However, I soon learned that
the amount of work published on the origin of SRT and GRT are just
about inversely proportional to the available primary source material."

"For SRT we have the paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, in
which the theory was first set forth in 1905 in its finished form,
indeed a rather polished form (which is not to say that it bears no
traces of its gestation process). The only earlier documentary evidence
consists of literally a couple of sentences to be found in the handful
of preserved early Einstein letters (I will quote both sentences
later). We do have a number of later historical remarks by Einstein
himself, sometimes transmitted by others (Wertheimer, Reiser-
Kayser, Shankland, Ishiwara, for example), which raise many problems of
authenticity and accuracy; and some very late Einstein letters,
answering questions such as whether he had prior knowledge of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, what works by Lorentz he had read, the
influence of Poincaré, Mach, Hume, etc., on his ideas; Einstein's
replies are not always self-consistent, ***it must be noted***."

Emphasis above is mine.

Stachel adds, "Yet the urge to provide an answer to the question of the
discovery of SRT has proven irresistible to many scholars. It is not
hard to see why" A twenty-six year old patent expert (third class),
largely self-taught in physics, who had never seen a theoretical
physicist (as he later put it), let alone worked with one, author of
several competent but not particularly distinguished papers, Einstein
produced four extraordinary works in the year 1905, only one of which
(not the relativity paper) seemed obviously related to his earlier
papers."

"These works exerted the most profound influence on the development of
physics in the 20th Century. How did Einstein do it? Small wonder that
Tetu Hirosige, Gerald Holton, Arthur I. Miller, Abraham Pais, John
Earman, Clark Glymour, Stanley Goldberg, Robert Rynasiewicz, Roberto
Torretti, et al., have been moved to
study this question."

After Stachel recognizes:

"Contrary to my original, naive expectation, no general consensus has
emerged from all this work."

and

"I now believe that the most one can hope to do in discussing the
discovery of SRT is to construct a plausible conjecture."

The Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) has simply contructed one pausible
conjeture: that SR was basically an outcome of Lorentz and Poincaré.

If you do not agree, simply take your above post, and submit it for
publication :-)

In another part Stachel says: "He undoubtedly got some help from his
readings of Mach and Poincaré."

Remember that Einstein said that his relativity theory was novel and
said us that newer (repeat NEWER) read Poincaré before publishing his
1905 paper on relativity.

Above Stachel words are available at *The American Institute of
Physics*

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

That Poincaré obtained some basic points of SR before Einstein (for
example that time is relative two clocks can run at different rates) or
that Hilbert obtained the field equations of GR first appears at *The
Nobel foundation*

http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html

That Einstein had not obtained the correct field equations of GR and
luckily Einstein computed the Mercury perihelion anomaly using the
incorrect version of the field
equations was recently explained by Tilman Sauer of the *Einstein
Papers Project*

Etc.

;-)

1) Lorentz (who then was one of smarter physicists) clearly emphasized
that was Poincaré who obtained SR.

2) Poincaré who was the most nominated scientists to the Nobel Prize
newer cited Einstein (because simply repeated his own ideas). Poincaré
newer obtained the Nobel, it appears because he was too bright and had
serious enemies on the Nobel Commite.

3) Max von Laue (Nobel Prize for physics 1914) recognized:

"[T] he young man who met me made such an unexpected impression on
me, that I did
not believe him to be capable of being the father of the theory of
relativity."

4) Minkowski, -one of those contributors to special relativity- was
Einstein's professor and found it difficult to believe that
'lazy' - Minkowski's own words-
Einstein had written the 1905 paper.

5) Mileva Einstein-Marity, who was known to be exceptionally bright,
said of Einstein:

"He is only a civil servant in the patent office, and he has no
serious thoughts about
science, much less about experiments."

6) Pauli (Nobel Prize) changed his mind and in 1950 aknowledged that
Einstein had been not the only father of relativity.

7) Wilhelm Wein -Nobel Prize for physics 1911- proposed in 1912 that
the Nobel Prize was awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein (Poincaré
had passed away and Nobel Prize is NOT for dead people), stating:

"One should therefore assess the merits of both investigators as
being comparable."

8) After of deliverations and the blocking of members of the comitte.
Einstein was rejected for the Nobel Prize for relativity and just
received it for the photoelectric effect.

9) Max Born (Nobel Prize for physics) expressed similar thoughts:

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

10) Max Planck (Nobel Prize for physics) also critiqued Einstein's
original 'deduction' of the mass-energy equivalence, and gave a
more general and comprehensive argument.

11) The physicist Johannes Stark (Nobel Prize for physics 1919)
prompting an angry letter in 1907 from Einstein regarding several
pionnering issues. Stark maintained that Einstein newer derived E=mc^2.

12) Etc

;-)

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)