Next it is 'detailed' the recent rejection by moderators at
sci.physics.research of the defense of Juan R. to the direct attack by
two authors in the thread about the history of relativity.

Javier Bezos and C.L Masse attacked to me, /WHICH violates
basic sci.physics.research guidelines/.

C.L Masse Oct 17 said

"Well, you continue to present irrelevant material. The paternity of
relativity doesn't depends on the opinion of other physicists, however
great they may be. It depends on the writing of the presumed father.
Like physics, history rests on data, not on theories, but there are no
new data, whatever the new theories may be."

I did several attempts to reply this nonsense, but i was rejected by it
is "overly repetitive" by the moderator I.K. Fortunately Harry wrote a
reasonable reply therein

"I'm quite sure that Juan meant with "new", new in the sense of
data-mining,
just as a recent archaeological find is "new" but at the same time very
old
and thus in that sense not new at all. See for example:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/litse...s/Chapter3.pdf

IOW, that last objection is itself completely irrelevant.
But for reasons of time, I'll stop trying to avoid that this discussion
will
end with another misconception."

Thanks Harry by your reasonable replies!

However, Javier Bezos wrote (Oct 15)

"It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."

THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK (flame), WITHOUT BASIS, TO Juan R. Moreover,
the rest of the post regarding Pauli thougths is pure nonsense.

Since that J.B is launching unfounded accussation against me, my reply
was

***********************************

"Javier Bezos wrote:
It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

I already used that quote before in sci.physics.research.

The rest of the post is a clear personal attack and violates basic
sci.physics.guidelines. However i am happy, because your 'personal
attack' may mean that you have no arguments for sustaining your
personal -distorted, as was proven here many times- thesis.

Of course, i do NOT truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of their authors, in fact, i copied and posted exactly the
quote obtained from preface of reference [11] on

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...story-of-relat...
y-theory.html

In page 3 of [11] one can read

"Both Einstein and Poincare, took their stand on the preparatory work
of H.A. Lorentz, who had already come quite close to the result,
without however quite reaching it. In the agreement between the results
of the methods followed independently of each other by Einstein and
Poincare I discern a deeper significance of a harmony between the
mathematical method and analysis by means of conceptual experiments
(Gedankenexperimente), which rests on general features of physical
experience" (W. Pauli, 1955).

What is EXACTLY i wrote in my previous post (and in others here in
sci.physics.research).

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example).

I already answer this. Read my posts before reply to me!!!

I already explained that in 1921 Pauli claimed that Einstein was the
father of relativity. BUT, and this is the part that you carefully
omit, in posterior years Pauli *changed his mind* and claimed

"In the *** agreement *** between the results of the methods followed
independently of each other by Einstein and Poincare".

Poincare obtained *before Einstein* SR and formulated a pionnering
relativistic gravitation in 1905-6.

***********************************

My defense against J.B. unfounded accusations was rejected by the
moderator P.H:

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because this thread has become too
repetitive."

A new submission was rejected by moderator I.K.

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly repetitive."

Then i explained again that Javier Bezos launched an unfounded
personal atack against me, violating basic sci.physics.research
guidelines: Flames. And rejected again at 9.29 and 9.36 AM

overly repetitive?

Is not Javier Bezos direct atack to me a violation of basic
sci.physics.guidelines.

Do i cannot defend me of UNFOUNDED acusations of manipulations of quotes
by citing reference from where i got it?

Whatever the arguments, this thread has been going in circles and there
is no reason to continue it. Also, please be mindful of the moderator's
rejections. The alternative is a permanent ban from posting to this
group.

What?

Whatever the arguments? That is even if basic sci.physics.research
guidelines are violated.

is "The alternative is a permanent ban from posting to this group" some
kind of 'menace'?

Some additional correspondence in this topic was:

"Please read WHY i am writting it. I was unjustily accused of

"you very often truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors"

by Javier Bezos and therefore if i CANNOT prove that his accusation is
unfounded because i post exactly the quote (without truncations) from
the
source (i am citing) then you would erase Javier bezos post, because is
a
direct unfounded attack to me person and violate newsgroup guidelines.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)"

NOTE that IF moderators want close the thread because in their opinion
"this thread has been going in circles and there is no reason to
continue it" i offered the option of erasing J.B unfounded post. The
reply i received to this option was NONE.

However, it is difficult to understand that the thread was being
'closed'. In a open letter to i
said

"I am sorry to say this but this rejection favoures a clear violation
of
sci.physics.research basic rules.

I am not saying that the post was repetitive ot not. I am not claiming
continuation for the thread. I am saying that i was personally attacked
(violation of point 1 "Personal attacks (i.e. flames)" of SPR
guidelines)
by Javier Bezos.

he said that i had manipulated cites in the past, which is not correct
(moreover he offered no data for that!). Moreover, i am offering AGAIN
to
you two possible aceptable solutions:

1) To aceppt my post where i introduce the reference from where i got
the
quote. This proves that i do no manipulate the quote, i literally
copied
it.

2) Elimination (was other alternative i offered to moderators) of
Javier
Bezos FLAME post.

I wonder like at one hand it is argued that "Whatever the arguments,
this
thread has been going in circles and there is no reason to continue
it."

Probably this is true (and in that case above point 2 would hold), but
then why after of Javier Bezos unaceptable post of Oct 15.

They appeared

Cl.Massé Oct 17
Cl.Massé Oct 17
Harry Oct 17
Harry Oct 17
harry Oct 19
Cl. Massé Oct 20

Whereas i am unable to explain since (Oct 15) to readers that the quote
that Javier Bezos Oct 15 claims to be manipulated, is EXACT.

Sincerely, I do not understand this as i do not understand "The
alternative is a permanent ban from posting to this group."

Really what this mean?

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)"

I continue waiting a formal reply to my plea of either post my reply
where i prove that i do NOT truncate the quote, offering the page and
reference from where i obtained or -the other option i offered to
moderators- the elimination of Javier Bezos unfounded post from the
archives of sci.physics.research.

If this week, this problem is not satisfactorily solved, then I
personally will take all oportune actions until that this unjustice was
solved, including the popularization of the unpleasant situation in
media.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R. wrote:

Javier Bezos and C.L Masse attacked to me, /WHICH violates
basic sci.physics.research guidelines/.

On the contrary, the moderator was very "polite" when
accepted two messages (at the beginning of the thread)
where you said I was making "bold questions" and my
comments were "childish". It's you who began with
attacks.

[Javier:]
"It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."
[Juan R.:]
I already answer this. Read my posts before reply to me!!!

I already explained that in 1921 Pauli claimed that Einstein was the
father of relativity. BUT, and this is the part that you carefully
omit, in posterior years Pauli *changed his mind* and claimed

You haven't read it. If you had bothered to read it you
would have __immediately__ noticed it wasn't written in 1921
because it begins with:

Thirty-five years ago this article on the theory of
relativity, written by me at the rather young age of
21 years [...]

The Preface was written in 1956! You are so busy trying to
discredit Einstein that you have no time to pursue the truth
or simply to read the sources you are citing. Very likely
the moderator knew the preface was written in 1956, that you
are inventing stories and that you are not interested at all
in the history of physics. Further, as of 1921 Pauli
already had read the Poincaré's papers or otherwise he would
have had telepathic powers, since his papers are cited very
often in the book. On the contrary, if instead of repeating
over and over again the same error(s) you would have given
the reference I was asking for, I'm pretty sure your message
would be approved by the moderators, but clearly you just
know neither the reference nor the context (very likely you
learnt the citation you gave from a paper which, in turn,
doesn't give the reference but only when a translation into
Russian was published by Nauk).

Unlike Harry, who has been polite with interesting posts
(which I don't share, but that's another matter), your
attitude from the very beggining was, simply, arrogant. And
if you would read the answer Harry gave to my post you could
have even read the Preface since he gave a link were the
preface was reproduced. Which makes your attitude even more
arrogant.

THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK (flame), WITHOUT BASIS, TO Juan R.
Moreover,
the rest of the post regarding Pauli thougths is pure
nonsense.

Saying you were lying is not an attack, as clearly you were
lying.

Now, since you haven't arguments you have decided to begin a
crusade against me and the moderators of s.p.r, as if we
were the responsible for your mistakes. As we Spaniards
say: "La ignorancia es muy atrevida" ("ignorance is very
bold") and therefore the only answer is...

PLONK

Javier
-----------------------------
¿Tu verdad? No, la verdad;
Vamos juntos a buscarla.
La tuya quédatela -- Antonio Machado
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com

Javier Bezos wrote:
Juan R. wrote:

Javier Bezos and C.L Masse attacked to me, /WHICH violates
basic sci.physics.research guidelines/.

On the contrary, the moderator was very "polite" when
accepted two messages (at the beginning of the thread)
where you said I was making "bold questions" and my
comments were "childish". It's you who began with
attacks.

Hum! I do not remember that! Still, to say that an argument is "bold"
or any comment "childish" is an attack to either the *argument* or the
*commentary* NEWER to the author, who can be an excellent guy :-)

You have *not* attacked to arguments or comments, you launched an
unfounded accusation against ME, and any posterior attemtp for proving
that your accusation was unfounded was rejected by moderators at
sci.physics.research until now.

[Javier:]
"It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

is FALSE, since I NEWER changed or truncated citations. In fact, the
Pauli quote of 1955 was literally copied in bulk and posted by me. Any
posterior attempt to submit to sci.physics.research that i obtained the
quote from pag 3 of reference [11] and that your personal accusation
has not foundation WAS ignored in basis of "this thread has becomed too
repetitive". ????

The other option i provided, that of erasing your *unfounded* personal
attack was also IGNORED by moderators at sci.physics.research.

I see that you continue to maintain your personal accusation without
basis, which indicates the kind of guy that you are. If you were a
honest man, once you are discovered that i do NOT manipulated truncate
or modified the Pauli's quote, you would personally write a new post
with a honest rebutal, expressing that Juan R. posted EXACTLY the quote
and did NOT manipulate or truncate IT. In its defect, you would
personally solicite to the moderators of sci.physics.research the
correction or elimination from the archives of your unfounded post.

I, at least, would do that in the inverse situation.

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."
[Juan R.:]
I already answer this. Read my posts before reply to me!!!

I already explained that in 1921 Pauli claimed that Einstein was the
father of relativity. BUT, and this is the part that you carefully
omit, in posterior years Pauli *changed his mind* and claimed

You haven't read it. If you had bothered to read it you
would have __immediately__ noticed it wasn't written in 1921
because it begins with:

Thirty-five years ago this article on the theory of
relativity, written by me at the rather young age of
21 years [...]

The Preface was written in 1956! You are so busy trying to
discredit Einstein that you have no time to pursue the truth
or simply to read the sources you are citing.

Was ALL the preface of the '1956 edition' written in 1956, or only the
'introductory' part explaining the 50th Anniversary of the first papers
of Einstein on relativity and some other paragraphs like the
aknowledgements to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and to
the Dr. Gerard Field?

What about the letters where Pauli expresed his doubts about the
paternity of special relativity? Do not forget that in 1921, Pauli was
a young man and that Klein was an fervent admirator of Einstein.

That about the quote of 1955 i cited?

You said in two occasions -in sci.physics.research and here-

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."

The LAST paragraph (see the link provided by Harry)

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=refr...7419&type=book

says (SEE page vi)

I gratefully acknowledge the excellent help of the translator, Dr. Gerard
Field, of the Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Birmingham.

and the previous one is

I am grateful to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton for affording
me the opportunity of writing the Supplementary Notes, pp. 207-232, during my
stay there early in 1956. And I should like to thank my colleagues at
Princeton with whom I discussed many of the problems in these notes.

Therefore YOUR

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."

is WRONG.

How would i interpret this in the light of your replies and insistence?
I see three possibilities:

a) Perhaps you 'truncate citations' for manipulating opinion of
readers.

b) You did make an error in your post and after repeated it.

c) Perhaps you are citing some version of the 1921 monograph.

I do not can know if the correct is (b) or (c) therefore i NEWER could
take the option (a) as true, specially in an open forum that can be
read my many people.

However, in my own case in sci.physics.research, you neglected both (b)
and (c) possibilites and directly asummed -without objective proof and
in fact now discredited by reference [11]- that i "manipulated the
quote".

***Which i remark again completely FALSE.***

Very likely
the moderator knew the preface was written in 1956, that you
are inventing stories and that you are not interested at all
in the history of physics. Further, as of 1921 Pauli
already had read the Poincaré's papers or otherwise he would
have had telepathic powers, since his papers are cited very
often in the book.

It is clear for anyone who studied Poincaré research in detail that
Pauli is not citing *all* relevant papers.

The rest of your post is, again, a clear attack to me person. Curiously
many authors agree with me thoughts in the history of relativity -they
appear cited in the aknowledgements of article i prepared-. One
historian -who contacted personally with me- said that my work was
balanced. Of course, i did errors -sure- but i did not MANIPULATED
quotes.

On the contrary, if instead of repeating
over and over again the same error(s) you would have given
the reference I was asking for, I'm pretty sure your message
would be approved by the moderators, but clearly you just
know neither the reference nor the context (very likely you
learnt the citation you gave from a paper which, in turn,
doesn't give the reference but only when a translation into
Russian was published by Nauk).

I submitted several times to sci.physics.research the correct page and
reference from where i OBTAINED the Pauli's quote i cited in
sci.physics.research. I explained this several times in my above post
where i reproduce e-mails with sci.physics.research moderators.

Even if the source i used was wrong, it is PROVED that i do not
manipulated or truncate the quote, which WAS your UNFOUNDED accusation.

Therefore, in sci.physics.research your unfounded accusation against me
remains posted and all my attempts to prove that i do not truncate or
manipulate the quote were rejected by administrators, which is clearly
an unjustice.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Since after more than a week, the incorrect post by Javier Bezos
-claiming manipulation of quotes- has been not eliminated of the
thread, and moderators at sci.physics.research rejected any post mine
for introducing the reference and page from where I got the Pauli quote
-therefore this reference and page proves that i do not manipulated
quote, that was unfounded Bezos' claim!- I am obligated to take all
public and personal actions on this topic i consider needed, including
popularization of the unjustice in the media.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

I have had several posts to s.p.r. refused and felt offended.
Because it is a moderated group it gives the impression of being where
the serious physics lies. But really it is just where the accepted
physics lies, where accepted is based on the moderators beliefs. They
are free to do whatever they want. They can refuse you because your
theory competes with theirs if they choose. Though the reason will
certainly be the ususal crap. It is not the place for free perusal of
ideas. But sci.physics is. The only time I post to s.p.r is mistakenly
because I do not study what groups a message goes to. So wade through
all of the personal attacks and ego trouncing that is par for the human
race and find/post some good morsels on sci.physics. Forget about
s.p.r.

-Tim

Juan R. wrote:
Since after more than a week, the incorrect post by Javier Bezos
-claiming manipulation of quotes- has been not eliminated of the
thread, and moderators at sci.physics.research rejected any post mine
for introducing the reference and page from where I got the Pauli quote
-therefore this reference and page proves that i do not manipulated
quote, that was unfounded Bezos' claim!- I am obligated to take all
public and personal actions on this topic i consider needed, including
popularization of the unjustice in the media.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

"Timothy Golden http://www.BandTechnology.com"
wrote in message
ups.com...
| I have had several posts to s.p.r. refused and felt offended.
| Because it is a moderated group it gives the impression of being where
| the serious physics lies. But really it is just where the accepted
| physics lies, where accepted is based on the moderators beliefs.

They have allowed me to present some of my whacky concepts so it is more
than just "accepted" physics. I really think it has more to do with how
you "deliver" it and interact with others there than anything else. I
see other "not so mainstream concepts" on there also besides mine, so I
think you are being a little bit extreme. If its about physics and
might be interesting to others, I think it will be posted.

FrediFizzx

Thanks Tim, during many time i was forced to 'accept' s.p.r moderators
complete ignorance of advanced topics and often they rejected post that
they obviously do not understand. Often they appear like undergraduate
students.

However my claim now is different. It is about unjustice and
manipulation of readers. Two guys did personal attack -which a priori
is not permited in spr-. Fortunately Harry was able to post a reply to
one of the guys, but all my attempts to reply to Javier Bezos were
rejected by moderators.

The UNJUSTICE was that Bezos argued that i manipulated quotes and that
the Pauli quote that i cited had been manipulated by me. The quote
showed that Bezos ideas on the thread were wrong and he offered not
other argument for his personal attack that his 'belief'...

I did an attempt to submit the page and reference from where i obtained
the quote, which PROVES that i do not manipulate the quote for changing
the true ideas of Pauli -as Javier Bezos claimed-. I simply copied and
submited Pauli quote for proving that Bezos is wrong -in fact, none
serious historian of science follow him those days-.

All my attempts and explaining were rejected by moderators with this
thread is overly repetitive.

Now any guy reading spr -fortunately are little because there is little
useful data- can read Javier Bezos unfounded acussation against me and
think that it is true that i manipulated the Pauli quote. BUT IS FALSE.

But i do not manipulated the quote, therefore i am taking all actions
and popularizing that moderators at sci.physics.research permit both
unjustice and personal attack. I already contacted by several news
services and with some journals for submiting an open letter.

If Javier Bezos was a nice guy once he has discovered from where i
obtained the quote, and once he can verify himself that i do NOT
manipulate the Pauli quote, he would eliminate his unfounded accusation
but he did not.

I have had several posts to s.p.r. refused and felt offended.
Because it is a moderated group it gives the impression of being where
the serious physics lies. But really it is just where the accepted
physics lies, where accepted is based on the moderators beliefs.

Sincerely, the level of spr is very low. It appears more a site for
posting undergraduate queries and purely speculative posts as those of
Baez and company. I did not know spr and i began to post some time ago,
now i forget spr.


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R.:

I've come across your post when Googling the newsgroups.
This will be my last word except if you stop this flame and
rectify.

The UNJUSTICE was that Bezos argued that i manipulated
quotes and that the Pauli quote that i cited had been
manipulated by me.

1) I never claimed you changed or manipulated the quote.
NEVER EVER. This is FALSE. (I think you have been influenced
by the meaning of the Spanish word "truncar", which has
indeed very negative connotations. This word is very
similar to the English "truncate", but they are not the
same.)

2) Don't blame me by the moderators decision to ban you.
I'm not responsible for their decisions. Anyone can see I'm
willing to admit an error and to rectify. I'm willing to
admit my wording was not very fortunate, but I'll never
admit I said something I never said.

3) You have not provided yet a reference to see the context
_where Pauli said that_, which is what I was asking for to
see the true intentions of him. What we have is just an
extract (which by definition implies the original text has
been truncated somehow) you have taken literally from a
paper and which you have repeated over and over again like a
stuck record so that I have almost learnt it by heart. If
you don't know where Pauli said that (and _not_ where you
took the quote from) or the context just say something like
"I took the quote from that paper, but it in turn doesn't
give any reference either" instead of digging in with a
flame.

4) Go and buy a copy of Pauli's book (it's Dover, therefore
it's cheap). Read the Preface, but read as well the notes
he wrote in 1956 -- 24 pages where the name of Poincaré
doesn't appear at all (on the contrary, he says his original
attribution to Schwarzschild and Poincaré of the Lorenzt
invariance of the action integral was a historical mistake
since it was stablished by Larmor in 1900; see p. 216).
I'm just trying to understand the _apparent_ contradiction
between your quote and this book and the only way to do that
is if I (we) have the proper context and, therefore, the
original reference of the quote.

Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com

Javier Bezos ha escrito:

Juan R.:
The UNJUSTICE was that Bezos argued that i manipulated
quotes and that the Pauli quote that i cited had been
manipulated by me.

1) I never claimed you changed or manipulated the quote.
NEVER EVER. This is FALSE. (I think you have been influenced
by the meaning of the Spanish word "truncar", which has
indeed very negative connotations. This word is very
similar to the English "truncate", but they are not the
same.)

From http://www.allwords.com/word-truncate.html

"To cut something, eg a tree, word, piece of writing, etc, so as to
shorten it"

On my personal dictionary Englisd-Spanish one can read "truncate" =
"truncar". Also would cite the dictionary?

Perhaps i would remember to our readers the polemic post.

Javier Bezos 15 oct 13:02 in sci.physics research thread "Why isn't
the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of
special relativity?" wrote

"It would be interesting to know the reference to see the
context (1955 was an interesting year for several reasons).
As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors.

Read the Preface of the Theory of Relativity where Pauli
categorically claims: "Eintein, the creator of the theory
of relativity". And please, read the _whole_ Preface since
it repeats this claim several times (the last paragraph,
for example)."

The Pauli quote i cited was:

"Both Einstein and Poincare, took their stand on the preparatory work
of H.A. Lorentz, who had already come quite close to the result,
without however quite reaching it. In the agreement between the results
of the methods followed independently of each other by Einstein and
Poincare I discern a deeper significance of a harmony between the
mathematical method and analysis by means of conceptual experiments
(Gedankenexperimente), which rests on general features of physical
experience."

I do NOT truncate the citation in order to change the true intentions
of theirs authors that was your UNFOUNDED acusation. I copied and
pasted the EXACT quote i obtained from reference i cited many times.
Therefore your claim i truncated the citation in order to change the
true intentions of theirs authors WAS an UNFOUNDED acusation.

If you are a honest man you would recognize that your acusation was
unfounded and you would retire it now once you are verified by yourself
i did not truncate anything "in order to change the true intentions of
theirs authors".

If you do that here now, i will explain in my open letter that you are
did a simple mistake but rectified. Therefore i would see no problem
with you and the only remaining problem would be with moderators on
sci.physics.research who blocked to me from post the page and reference
from where i obtained the Pauli quote.

2) Don't blame me by the moderators decision to ban you.
I'm not responsible for their decisions. Anyone can see I'm
willing to admit an error and to rectify. I'm willing to
admit my wording was not very fortunate, but I'll never
admit I said something I never said.

I am not blaming you by moderators decision. I am just proving that you
acusation was unfounded and I am NOT doing you responsible from
moderators decision, but obviously you are part of the problem and
therefore your name was cited. If you admit that your acusation was
unfounded and i simply copied and paste the Pauli quote without
truncation for -in your OWN words "in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors" then people would understand -i am sure-
that you did an initial error but just corrected it after. There is not
problem for doing mistkaes if one correct them. I also make mistakes.

3) You have not provided yet a reference to see the context
_where Pauli said that_, which is what I was asking for to
see the true intentions of him. What we have is just an
extract (which by definition implies the original text has
been truncated somehow) you have taken literally from a
paper and which you have repeated over and over again like a
stuck record so that I have almost learnt it by heart. If
you don't know where Pauli said that (and _not_ where you
took the quote from) or the context just say something like
"I took the quote from that paper, but it in turn doesn't
give any reference either" instead of digging in with a
flame.

I did, i cited the EXACT page and reference from where i obtained the
quote. I am not discussing with you if the quote is acurate or not or
what was the proper historical context. You EXACTLY claimed that

"As it has been shown here repeated times you very often
truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors."

And i PROVED that i copied and pasted the EXACT quote i obtained from
the reference i cited MANY times without truncations. This thread is
not about if the quote is correct, incorrect, real, irreal, etc. I
COPIED word by word from Logunov article, therefore your accusation was
UNFOUNED. That is all!

4) Go and buy a copy of Pauli's book (it's Dover, therefore
it's cheap). Read the Preface, but read as well the notes
he wrote in 1956 -- 24 pages where the name of Poincaré
doesn't appear at all (on the contrary, he says his original
attribution to Schwarzschild and Poincaré of the Lorenzt
invariance of the action integral was a historical mistake
since it was stablished by Larmor in 1900; see p. 216).
I'm just trying to understand the _apparent_ contradiction
between your quote and this book and the only way to do that
is if I (we) have the proper context and, therefore, the
original reference of the quote.

I already read the preface of Pauli book and also the chapter about
history he wrote. I also read some correspondence with Klein where
Pauli expressed his doubts about Einstein paternity and Klein who was a
fervent admired of Einstein did pressure on Pauli for him changed 'his'
view of history and the initial version of the book was newer
published. Then Klein was an important guy and remember Pauli was a
young man (still without Nobel). Perhaps this can help you to
understand why Pauli maintained two versions. He recieved presure for
writing that Einstein WAS the father of relativity. Somewhat as last
year, Winterberg paper (AGAINST Einstein priority) was rejected by
Science without serious arguments (Winterberg explains the polemic of
rejection in appendix of paper). Or somewhat as some months ago, Peter
Woit received radical presure from string theorists his book critizing
string theory was newer published. Etc, Etc.

If you rectify your unfounded acusation against me i will forget this
unpleasant part of our debate on history of relativity and will send
to you a copy of manuscript i am preparing.

In that manuscript you are aknowledged because you pointed a previous
error mine in spr. However, i will continue my publicitation of
moderators unjustice in media and also i will add an apendix on this
unpleasant topic in the final version of the manucsript.

If you rectify your unfounded accusation, you rectification will be
introduced into the appendix.

The same if moderators also rectity buy by now they have not formally
reply.

That is all by my part here.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Juan R.:

If you are a honest man you would recognize that your
acusation was unfounded and you would retire it now once
you are verified by yourself i did not truncate anything
"in order to change the true intentions of theirs authors".
[....] "As it has been shown here repeated times you very
often truncate the citations in order to change the true
intentions of theirs authors."

But I've already said:

Anyone can see I'm willing to admit an error and to
rectify. I'm willing to admit my wording was not very
fortunate, but I'll never admit I said something I never
said.

And I repeat: my wording was not very fortunate -- I was
rectifying! But note I haven't said you manipulated the
Pauli's _quote_ (as opposed to the _intentions_, something I
certainly said thanks to an unfortunate wording) as you are
claiming -- now it's up to you to rectify. What I meant is
that I'm a very skeptip person and I need to read the
originals, particularly when a quote comes from nowhere.
Simply, I don't trust a quote without a reference (and the
paper afaik doesn't provide it), because the meaning of a
sentence can be modified easily by omitting the context (I'm
not saying you have done it, I'm just saying that can be
done and this is the very reason my wording was
unfortunate).

And i PROVED that i copied and pasted the EXACT quote i
obtained from the reference i cited MANY times without
truncations.

And again, I've already said:

What we have is just an extract (which by definition
implies the original text has been truncated somehow) you
have taken _literally_ from a paper
[italics are new]

I've never said you have modified the quote, but if this was
not clear enough, I've said here explicitly you copied
_literally_ the extract from the paper. It would be stupid
from my part to claim the opposite, as that would be clearly
false.

This thread is not about if the quote is correct,
incorrect, real, irreal, etc.

OK.

If you rectify your unfounded acusation against me i will
forget this unpleasant part of our debate on history of
relativity and will send to you a copy of manuscript i am
preparing.

Not necessary, thanks. And I have to agree this part of our
debate has been unpleasant particularly as it was based on
words and misunderstandings and not on ideas. I'm not
interested at all in arguing -- to me it's a waste of time.
I've learnt several things from the (often, but not always)
interesting thread about Einstein and Poincaré, but when
threads are sooo long unfortunate wordings are not rare. A
simple request to rectify would have been enough and I
hope you'll admit your reaction in this group has been
somewhat excessive, perhaps because you were very
upset for the rejection of your post in s.p.r. (which explains
why in turn my first reaction was also excessive).

I'm very interested in History of Physics and right now I'm
reading two books: A History of Mechanics by R. Dugas, and
particularly L'evolution de la matiére by Gustave Le Bon (in
a translation into Spanish published long ago in Mexico), a
French who proposed, a few years before Einstein, that
energy in the Sun comes from the "dissociation" of matter
and that therefore atoms are a fabulous reserve of energy
(an idea Poincaré rejected in a letter to Le Bon on the
grounds that atoms would be then very unstable). The Le
Bon's book is very interesting to know the historical
context and it itself is of historical interest.

And finally, why did I say 1955 was an interesting year?
Because 1954 saw the centenary of the birth of Poincaré and
many people were still susprised (or even shocked) for the
fact Poincaré's papers contained several formulae which are
very similar (or even exactly the same) to those of
Einstein. That can be seen, for example, in the Note II of
A History of Mechanics.

Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com