"SamtheBam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Per the adage about going to the source, and seeing
this is the Year of Physics, how readable are Einstein's
original 1905 papers?

They have been reprinted now in a few books, and I
would like to try it. Is it reasonable for someone
with an engineering degree?

Sam

I'd say yes: if you already know the basics - for example from your
mechanics courses - then they're quite readable, at least the papers on and
related to relativity.
At some points he doesn't clearly define his variables or state what he does
in derivations but if you get stuck on some points you may find clarifying
remarks by searching this newsgroup.
Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two mistakes
on subjects that you may not be interested in anyway: one related to a mass
definition that is obsolete now, and one related to stellar aberration. As
far as I know the rest is quite ok - perhaps one or two glitches - despite
persistent claims of countless errors by people who don't understand his
paper.

Cheers,
Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...
| Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two
mistakes

You don't think the definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A was a
mistake, then?
Oops.. Did I say 'turtle'?... Sorry, 'light'.
Androcles

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
| Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two
mistakes
[...]
| As far as I know the rest is quite ok

You don't think the definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A was a
mistake, then?
Oops.. Did I say 'turtle'?... Sorry, 'light'.
Androcles

Certainly not: it came from a necessity of enabling oneself to do
measurements. It was the way it was already done and Poincare had explained
it befo otherwise even no inertial measurement system could be set up at
that time!
Just think of currents: also the convention was made that currents flow from
+ to - .

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Harry" wrote in message
| ...
| | Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two
| mistakes
| [...]
| | As far as I know the rest is quite ok
|
| You don't think the definition that the "time" required by a turtle
to
| travel
| from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A was
a
| mistake, then?
| Oops.. Did I say 'turtle'?... Sorry, 'light'.
| Androcles
|
| Certainly not: it came from a necessity of enabling oneself to do
| measurements.

I see. How do we enable a phuckwit like you to do the measurements?
Put a turtle at the end of a metre rule, hold up the lettuce, time the
turtle
over a distance of one metre. Pick up the turtle, turn it round, run to
the other
end of the room and hold up the lettuce.
The "time" required by a turtle to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A.


| It was the way it was already done and Poincare had explained
| it befo otherwise even no inertial measurement system could be set
up at
| that time!
| Just think of currents: also the convention was made that currents
flow from
| + to - .
|
| Harald

LOL! "Just think of"... We don't you just think?

Androcles.

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member!"--"Groucho"
Marx