"PD" wrote in message SNIP

Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding.

SNIP

Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important aspect. It makes
statements about the manifest covariance of the kinematics, but also
about the manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is, the nature
of the physical laws that govern the interactions. All of them. About
this, LET is silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this matter that
makes it more successful than LET.

Now that's really astounding. ;-)

Harald

Bill Hobba ha escrito:

Juan R. wrote:
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.

Try this for starters. Your link states:
Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré. Their
views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some other
authors.

Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
Special Relativity.'

Precisely Pais is often presented as a model of earlier biography that
is not very accurate in many crucial points. Pais' work is critized in
both my paper and references i cited.

The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
analysis of the evidence.
.

No comment except that your 'analisys' is very superfitial!

Bill


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
SNIP

Poincare did not submit for publication to a physics journal
the THEORY of relativity. That's the point!

According to Poincare, a good theory of relativity for which he had asked
some years earlier was finally provided (with some flaws that he corrected)
by Lorentz in 1904. He didn't realise that at that time Lorentz had not yet
fully understood his own local time, so that such a publication could be
regarded by himself as a usurpation. Instead he simply pointed out that
Lorentz's theory was conform to the PoR and in his later publications he
consistently referred to Lorentz when discussing relativity, without credit
to himself or Einstein.

Yes, as I recall Poincare did say that LET is consistent with the
principle of covariance of Maxwell's equations, but that is a very
different thing from the strong meaning to the PoR, which says that,
All inertial frames of reference are completely equivalent for all
physical purposes, and in every physical respect, both in measurement
and in theoretical construction, for the formulation of the laws of
electrodynamics (early 20th century version). The justification a
priori of covariance of the equations of electrodynamics is justified
if one assumes that electrodynamics is a generalization of Newtonian
mechanics, for mechanics had built-in covariance principle revealed in
it, called the Galilean transformation.

Covariance of equations of electrodynamics under Lorentz transformation
is the weakest form of the PoR in electrodynamics. That form would have
never satisfied Einstein though, because Einstein was out to formulate
a minimalist ontological foundation to physics.

You have to try to appreciate the huge paradigm shift that occurred
between LET and SR. First, a theory of electrodynamics at that time was
not "just another subject in physics." It was the foundation to physics
for that day. In LET one had to deal with the Mechanical Program and
what that meant: It meant an ontology of point mass particle, forces
acting at a distance (failing even in LET), and a separate kind of
matter called ether.

Einstein wanted to replace the ontology of the etherists with this:
point mass particle and fields. Relativity was intended to be a field
theory from inception. This EM field was not reducible to ether states.
In fact, the E and B fields were treated as completely irreducible to
anything else, and determined by (the Hertz form of ) the Maxwell
equations.


Perhaps the 1905 version of SR would have been less confusing to people
if Einstein had titled it: A new foundation to electrodynamics. Or, A
minimalist foundation to electrodynamics. Or, A field foundation to
electrodynamics.

So, from Einstein's point of view, Poincare's notion of "relativity"
(embodied in covariance) was not nearly relative enough to bother with.
Strunk and White say in their style manual (The Elements of Style) that
a paragraph should have no unnecessary words even as a machine should
have no unnecessary parts. Einstein added in like manner to that, that
a physical theory should have no unnecessary parts either (parsimony).
To him, ether became an unnecessary part of the foundation to physics
for his day, and he removed it from the ontology of the basis of
physics. The Mechanical Program failed to provide a satisfactory basis
for modern physics.

Harry ha escrito:

"Juan R." wrote in message
oups.com...
Harry ha escrito:

"Juan R." wrote
Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational
principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first
rejecting Lorentz absolute aether,

In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's
ether concept?

Harald

Poincaré is difficult to understand at first. One may read many
Poincaré papers for follow his FULL program. Poincaré emphasized that
time was relative, neglected Newtonian absolute motion studied many
interesting stuff as action-reaction principle bodies contraction, etc.
and remarked delay of EM and gravity interactions. From all this
follows that Poincaré aether cannot be absolute with respect to our
measurements.

I am mainly inspired on arXivhysics/0408077 v4 6 Jul 2005. See here
references and quotes

That Poincaré abandoned the absolute aether frame measured by true
Lorentz time was discussed by own Lorentz in 1914 in his "The two
papers by Henri Poincar´e on mathematical physics.
Others authors expressing similar thoughts[*]

Well, I read that paper by Lorentz (I can send you the PDF), and I can
state with confidence: no such thing!

Ok! i do not mean that Lorentz explicitely said "Poincaré aether is
relative"! I mean as authors of above preprint that Lorentz clearly
emphasized that his absolute time and his local time difference vanish
in Poincaré work who introduced four-dimensional points (t, r) as
fully equivalent.

It is possible that i was wrong here. I will devote a specific work -in
a near future- to attempt to clarify this question on relationships
between Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein-Mach aethers.

Another flaw that I spotted in your article: the E=mc^2 derivation is
generally considered to be non-circular, as explained in articles that
comment on the one by Ives. I agree with them that he was mistaken on that
point.

I was not based explicitely on Ives criticism. In fact, if i remember
correctly i cited that Ives already did comments on this not that ves
was perfect.

Also Nobel winners Planck and Starck did similar claims. AS above i
left this stopped by now until a new research -specific in this point-
provides us more data for the debate.

BTW, I found your addition on Einstein and Hilbert very interesting, and I
look forward to see criticism on that. For me, it represents real new
information.

Best regards,
Harald


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

ha escrito:
I have no doubt that Einstein was partially inspired by Poincare's
writings, but Poincare did not invent SR, no matter how "close" people
say he got to it. You either got it or you didn't get it. Simply
espousing a few relativistic principles is NOT enough!

I think that Poincaré obtained almost "all" -if not "all"-.
Or, in other words, what was obtained by Einstein that was not obtained
previously by Poincaré or Lorentz? This is addressed in literature I
cite on

[http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...y-theory.html]

About who did invented special relativity, the celebrated historian of
relativity John Stachel says at The American Institute of Physics

[http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...lativity.htm]:

"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."

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 finalizes this introduction with

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

I have simply contructed one plausible conjetu that SR was basically
an outcome of Lorentz and Poincaré, and Einstein obtained main basic
ideas from previous works of others and after do not cite them! This is
rather different form popular version claiming that Einstein obtained
alone both SR and GR.

Poincare did not invent the PoR. Galileo did centuries prior to
Poincare! Einstein did not need Poincare for him to be a total believer
in the PoR. This is quite evident from Einstein's thought experiment he
had when he was 16 years old. He talked about what a light wave would
look like as you ran abreast of it. The point to make of this is:
Einstein did not say in the formulation of this experiment that one had
to first identify the rest frame of the ether and then perform the
experiment in THAT frame. Any inertial frame was fine for this
experiment (SPoR).

If one understands PoR in a general sense, of course Galilean
relativity is previous to SR, but then the first Einstein postulate (as
is called in Jackson standard textbook) may be called Galileo
relativity postulate. If one understand PoR according to new
simultaneity principle introduced by retarded actions, then the
priority is for Poincaré. In any case Einstein is not pionner and name
it "first Einstein postulate" is at best inaccurate.

About the supposed way Einstein obtained SR, it is not clear as clearly
emphasized by Stachel.

Einstein gave a very clear exposition on his motivations for SR in his
essay "Relativity and the Problem of Space" (Ideas and Opinions), in
which he said (368-369):

Interesting, in Science 2005, 307, 866. The historian of science Michel
Janssen stated that popular idea Einstein invented special relativity
to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, is just part of legend.
About quoting Einstein's own words, it has been noted in many sites
that Einstein was not sincere and his words manipulated. Above cited
Stachel words are interesting

"Einstein's replies are not always self-consistent, it must be
noted."

In other words, to Einstein, the most important sticking point he had
against the Lorentz theory was precisely that it violated the PoR by
insisting that one inertial frame was special above all the rest!

Precisely this was main motivation of Poincaré (before Einstein)!

Yes history is not one of exact science, but one can 'prove' things at
a reasonable level. Einstein said that newer read Poincaré and just a
ten years ago paper by Lorentz.

Where is your reference for this bizarre claim about Poincare and
Lorentz?

Letter to Carl Seelig [Carl Seelig. Albert Einstein. Europa Verlag:
Zürich, 1960, p130.]:

"There is no doubt, if we look back to the development of the
Relativity theory, special
Relativity was about to be discovered in 1905. Lorentz already noticed
that the
transformations (named Lorentz transformations) were essential in the
Maxwell theory
and Poincaré had gone even further. At that time I only knew Lorentz
work of 1895,
but I knew neither Lorentz nor Poincaré further work. This is why I
can say that my
work of 1905 was independent."

Note that above Stachel recognizes that Einstein is not a good source
for understanding pioneering issues. Many authors have noted that
Einstein read papers of others and after said did not. Stachel assures
us that Einstein read Poincaré, others also prove this. Einstein said
not the true. This is reason was accused of plagiarism.

In my opinion, Poincaré already obtained full SR (see also multiple
references supporting my point).

Most historians disagree with you. Einstein's generation of physicsts
in 1905 disagree with you. Poincare seems to have disagreed wtih you.

As recognized by Stachel, in despite of many efforts nobody has proven
on what way Einstein obtained the SR. Moreover, as proven by many
others authors (my list of references is rather extensive) main
achievements of SR are due to Poincaré.

It is true that many initial biographers claim Einstein priority but as
clearly explained by Logunov, relevant Poincaré articles were
systematically ignored from usual collections and republishing:

"Articles by Poincar´e, [2; 3] did not appear also in the German
collection devoted to the theory of relativity. How one could
explain all this?"

"In 1913, a collection of the works of Lorentz, Einstein and
Minkowski in the special relativity theory was published in Germany.
But the fundamental works by H. Poincar´e were not included
in the collection. How this could be explained?"

"In 1935 a collection "The relativity principle", edited by
professors
V.K. Frederix and D.D. Ivanenko was published, which
for the first time contained works in the relativity theory of Lorentz,
Poincar´e, Einstein and Minkowski. However, the first work by
H. Poincar´e, "On the dynamics of the electron" happened not to
be included. And only in 1973, in the collection "The relativity
principle" (with an introductory article by corresponding member
of the USSR Academy of Sciences Professor D. I. Blokhintsev; the
collection was compiled by Professor A.A. Tyapkin), the works of
H. Poincar´e in relativity theory were presented most completely,
which permitted many people to appreciate the decisive contribution
made by Poincar´e in the creation of special relativity theory."

Etc.

Poincaré newer accepted Einstein work as new, and it appears that
newer even name him. Many "1905 physicists" argued against Einstein
priority once known Lorentz and Poincaré works.

1) Lorentz clearly emphasized that was Poincaré who obtained first
main achievements of SR.

2) Poincaré who was the most nominated scientists to the Nobel Prize
newer cited Einstein (because simply repeated his own ideas).

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 acknowledged 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

How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and
after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER
read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word
"plagiarism"...

He is wrong.

I accept that some parts of C. Jon Bjerknes research are wrong but
others parts are good. One may split correct from incorrect work.

Moreover, in what is C. Jon Bjerknes wrong?

i) In choosing the word plagiarism for anyone who read work of other,
next copy, and after claim newer read?

ii) In proving that many of Einstein work was not originated by him?

iii) In some other?

In a recent 2005 Meeting of The American Physical Society
Sorting Category: Winterberg said:

"It has long been known that Hilbert had obtained these equations
before Einstein. Renn is quoted in the Washington Post of November 14,
1997, with the state-
ment: "I had personally come to the conclusion that Einstein
plagiarized
Hilbert."

Plagiarism is a hard word in academic circles but appears to be very
close to reality.

His life was not plain. I believe that Einstein
was very arrogant and loved fame.

History shows you wrong on that. That violates the testmony of most the
people who were close to him. It's nothing less than defamation of
character. But that's just par for the course around this NG. In
particular, Infeld rejected that slur against Einstein repeatedly in
his books.

Perhaps! I carefully said "believe". Take the current example of
Murray Gell-Mann you can find at one hand people saying you how
arrogant he is and to the other people claiming just the contrary. I
personally know Gell-Mann and he was very arrogant with me. I cannot
personally speak of Einstein.

Some people are great liars. And you are free to believe anything you
want about Einstein. But that doesn't make you right.

Well, admitting this as correct, I think that also can be turned
against people who support traditional Einstein portrait: "But that
doesn't make they right."

No?

In fact, i found an explicit quote from Poincaré
claiming that c was a constant. For Poincaré, constancy of c was a
theorem.

A theorem deduced from what premises? The ether hypothesis? If one
treats Maxwell's equations as a consistent source of predictions for
E&M observations made from an inertial frame then it predicts the
constancy of the speed of light too! The question to Einstein in 1905
was this: What is the simplest theory he could invent that replaced
Lorentz's theory with a theory containing only mass points and fields,
consistent with the PoR?

Hum, exactly in Maxwell equation was not initially clear if c was light
constant, was a constant. After arises the confrontation between EM and
mechanics. Poincaré solved it showing that one needed a new mechanics.
He took the PoR (non Galilean) based in relativistic time, and via
"minimum principle" obtained a new mechanics, characterized by c
being a maximum velocity. Poincaré derived constancy of c from many
ways (from earlier to latter):

- Certain studies on EM. Poincaré was the first who obtained full
invariance of Maxwell equations from first principles (Lorentz was
unable).
- The inversion property of the LT.
- The invariant character of his 4D J.

From Lorentz

"On the contrary, Poincar´e achieved
total invariance of the equations of electrodynamics
and formulated the relativity postulate - a term first
introduced by him . . . I may add that, while thus correcting
the defects of my work, he never reproached
me for them."

"I am unable to present here all the beautiful results
obtained by Poincar´e. Nevertheless let me stress some
of them. First, he did not restrict himself by demonstration
that the relativistic transformations left the
form of electromagnetic equations unchangeable. He
explained this success of transformations by the opportunity
to present these equations as a consequence
of the least action principle and by the fact that the
fundamental equation expressing this principle and
the operations used in derivation of the field equations
are identical in systems x, y, z, t and x', y', z', t'. . ."


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

In
Stephen wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

O'Barr wrote:
. . . you attached your post to the
wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD,
the wrong person? Is it your reader's fault?
Your reader does not allow you to post to the
correct person? . . .

Stephen wrote:
No, the problem is on your end. I replied to you,
and the headers show that.

O'Barr comments:
I guess we have to blame Google!

O'Barr wrote:
You want to know which is the more physical?
That seems to be a silly question. Who cares what
is the more physical? Is your left hand more
physical than your right hand? Things are either
physical or they are not.

O'Barr comments:
No, it is not a silly question.

O'Barr comments:
Be it however you want. So far, I do not see any
reason to insist that it should be one way or the
other.

O'Barr wrote:
What is the physical explanation for why
particles collide and bounce off of each other?
Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
fields around particles, and if these force fields
are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
particles towards each other, they appear to
bounce not for any physical reason (not due to any
physical contact), but because their fields end up
redirecting them away from each other. Is this
the answer you wanted?

Stephen wrote:
I want to know the physical reason for why things
bounce off of each other.

O'Barr comments:
Well, you can, if you wish, assume a few things,
like: mass has inertia, and thus momentum with its
motions, and matter has a compression function, such
that it resists a deformation, and when one particle
collides with another, there is a deformation that
takes place, where the kinetic energy of the motion
is absorbed into the deformation, and once this
action reduces the relative motion to zero, restoring
forces causes the bodies to separate, and the
separation ends up approximating the original
relative motions, but in the opposite direction.
Now these general comments are for the standard
physics that we see everyday. On the at level, the
physics is much different. But you have not yet said
why you are asking these questions. Until you
explain the reason you are asking such questions, it
is not reasonable for you to expect to get the
answers you were looking for.


O'Barr wrote:
I am not really sure of the point you are
trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
therefore two solid-matter particles can not
occupy the same space.

Stephen wrote:
Says who? Do you have experimental verification
of that?

O'Barr comments:
Have you ever played football? You know, this is
like playing hide and go seek. How about a little
more detail on what it is you really want to know!

Stephen wrote:
Every instance you have ever observed
of physical objects bouncing off of each other
was due to repulsive force fields. You seem
to not have a physical explanation for these
force fields, and instead just rely on the
blatant assumption that solid matter cannot
occupy the same space.

O'Barr comments:
I personally accept some of the things you are
saying! Is this all you wanted to say?

O'Barr wrote:
So when two solid-matter particles
come towards each other, each seeking to occupy
the same space, they must push each other away.
This makes as much common sense as can be made.
So I must not understand your question.

Stephen wrote:
You have not explained the physical reason why
two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
nor the physical reason why or how they push
each other. Can you describe in detail how
the particles affect each other when they collide?

O'Barr comments:
Depending on what you mean by explain, I cannot
even explain inertia! If you use the dictionary
meaning to words, and use standard high school
descriptions, we can do what you ask. Solid means
something, by definition, which prevents anything
else from occupying its position. And so yes, on one
level, everything above can be explained. But if you
are seeking for things down below these definition
levels, then we are all in trouble. My at theory
enters into some of these areas, and so I love to
talk about such things. But it is silly to go there
unless you are more clear that that is where you are
trying to take us. Please be more direct.

O'Barr wrote:
For two particles to attract each other, or
affect each other in any way, when not in physical
contact, is strange, and cannot be physically
explained.

Stephen wrote:
You cannot even explain how the affect each other
when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Please note that there are different levels of
explaining. In basic physics, one can very clearly
assume that things are different between situations
that are local, from situations that are non-local.
Effects can occur - be transmitted - between objects
that are local, but effects are not assumable between
objects that are non-local. These are standard
assumptions. You can call them logical, or sensible,
or anything you want. If you want to argue any of
this, fine. But you should be more direct in how you
are asking your questions.

Stephen wrote:
So, once again, what is the physical explanation
for why gas molecules, or any particles, bounce off
of each other?

O'Barr comments:
Very good question, if we knew on what level you
want an answer. On the at level, there are no space
reaching forces, and no compression action, or
restoring forces. And thus, there are no bounces!
Bounces are reserved for only those conditions where
there are the appearances of space repulsive forces.
Which is exactly as I first stated above, and which
you clearly repeated.
On the at level, all actions are limited to
unidirectional mass excursions, and this results in
spalls that have, very closely, the same mass as the
mass that started the excursion. There are at times,
a result with the same general shape as the original
particle. You can end up with a duplication of both
shape and mass on the at level.
But I am sure you were not asking for this deep of
a level of a response!


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Juan R." wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba ha escrito:

Juan R. wrote:
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.

Try this for starters. Your link states:
Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
Their
views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some other
authors.

Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
Special Relativity.'

Juan R
Precisely Pais is often presented as a model of earlier biography that
is not very accurate in many crucial points. Pais' work is critized in
both my paper and references i cited.

Then you can present specific evidence showing that Poincare did understand
relativity and refuting the evidence given in that reference that he did
not.

The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
analysis of the evidence.
.

Juan R
No comment except that your 'analisys' is very superfitial!

The only superficiality here is your refusal to give a balanced analysis.
Pias OTH is a genuine scholar who backs his views up with an extensive
bibliography and bases his claims on fact - not sweeping statements
unsupported by anything - statements like - 'Pais work is critized in both
my paper and references i cited.'. A considerable amount of evidence exists
that Poincare did not understand relativity - Pias devotes page 169-173
examining it. Your detailed refutation of that evidence is eagerly awaited.
For example how do you explain what was said about him at the Solvay
conference of 1909: 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in regard
to relativity theory) and showed little understanding of the situation
despite all his sharp wit'. Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity
where he stated - 'One needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more
difficult to accept. one which is much hinderence to what we are currently
used to. A body in translatory motion suffers a deformation in the
direction which it is displaced'. All this, and other evidence presented by
Pias, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - Poincare did not
understand relativity. Failure to address such evidence strongly suggests
who is being superficial and who is not.

Bill

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In .com
PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

O'Barr wrote:
With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just
made up. It was a guess. It might have been a
guess based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but
it was still a guess, not a math that was
developed from any deeper assumptions.

PD wrote:
That is poppycock. There were several physical
realizations that went into this law:
1. Newton's 2nd law and the observation that the
acceleration of falling objects was independent of
mass = the force is proportional to the mass being
pulled

O'Barr comments:
Exactly correct. In pure (free) space, all
objects, no matter what their mass, accelerate the
same. But there were not then, nor is there now, any
physical reasons given as to why this is true. It is
only an observation that it appears to be true. I
stand by my original statement.

PD wrote:
2. Newton's 3rd law = the force is proportional to
the product of the interacting masses

O'Barr comments:
When using the appropriate constant (G), one can
certainly assume that the resulting force might be
proportional to the mass of the object causing the
attraction, and the mass of the object responding to
the attraction. But again and again, there are no
physical reasons or causes given to establish any of
this. I have to stand with what I originally said!

And once again you miss the point. G has nothing to do with this
conclusion. Newton made a generalization that all forces occur as an
interaction between pairs of things, and the the force that A exerts on
B is identical in magnitude to the force that B exerts on A. This is
his 3rd law, which he presumed applies to *all* forces, but was not
developed with gravity specifically in mind. Thus, if A exerts a
gravitational force on B that is proportional to the mass of B (see
observation 1) then it must also be proportional to the mass of A. The
only way it can be proportional to both masses is if it is proportional
to the product of the masses. You see, there is *no* assumption about
the mathematical form of the force involving G -- it is a conclusion
from already determined laws. It is a pity that you have not
appreciated how this law came to be.



PD wrote:
3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull =
the force is proportional to an inverse power of the
distance between the bodies

O'Barr comments:
And this might really be expected. But again,
since the origin of the force is not physically
defined, it can only be a guess. I stand with what I
originally said.

O'Barr comments:
The question is not how easy or logical all the
guessing might have been. The point being made was
that there were no physical reasons provided by
Newton why all these things were physically true.
The math was not derived from any physical theory
that was producing these force, it was only the
application of math that matched what was observed.

Ah, so you are unhappy with a physical law that describes *how* nature
works unless it is coupled with an underlying mechanism that describes
why it is that way and no other way. And since you are happy with the
microscopic explanation of the ideal gas law (even though the ideal gas
law was not developed with the microscopic explanation at hand), then
I'm assuming that you think that all physical laws should involve the
banging of little particles against each other.

And yet, when someone asked you about the assumptions that are
specifically required about the microscopic explanation of the gas law,
and in particular about the nature of the collisions of the little
particles, you easily dismissed it as being irrelevant whether they
collided by virtue of actual contact or by virtue of an interstitial
field between them.

Somehow, though, I get the impression that you would not find the field
form of the explanation behind Newtonian gravitation satisfactory. That
is, interaction via fields of the collisions of little particles in a
gas is ok, but the interaction via fields of two bodies gravitationally
attracting is not ok. Why is that, Gerald?



PD wrote:
And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions*
that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where
those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not
valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in
Google. What is the physical basis for the validity
of those assumptions?

O'Barr comments:
If you do not know the differences between just a
math theory from a theory that is based upon a
physical base, as exhibited in Newton's law of
gravity and in the kinetic theory of gases, then
there is no use to go on. It would not do any good
to study all the theories in the world.

And perhaps you see my point that fundamentally there is little
difference between the two. You did not ask, for example, what is the
nature of the interaction between the little particles in a gas? How
strong is the interaction and what property of the particles does it
depend on? Why do the particles in a gas only interact when they are
very close to each other? (And that is a crucial assumption in the
kinetic theory of gases.) The answers to these questions involve the
same kind of thinking that Newton put into the law of gravity, and as
it turns out, the answers have similar forms. And yet you do not ask,
but *why* does the interaction of the little particles in the gas have
that form? What is the physical mechanism that makes the math of that
gas-particle interaction have that form? You see, you are fundamentally
no closer to a *physical* explanation of the ideal gas law than you are
to a *physical* explanation of gravity. Your line in the sand, the
place where you say "Good enough for me!", is arbitrary and capricious.

The fundamental problem is that *all* physical theories are like this.
They peel back another layer of "how" but there is *always* a follow-up
question of "why that 'how' and not another 'how'?". This is true for
any physical theory you can cite. It is not special to special
relativity, nor is it different for LET or the kinetic theory of gases.


O'Barr wrote:
For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
any physical assumptions.

PD wrote:
This is also complete hokum. The physical
assumption is that
1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a
correct law of physics.
2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another
inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that
law.

If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the
speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1),
where that information is contained.

O'Barr comments:
So if I read you correctly, how many assumptions
are there in SR? Why don't you list all of them, and
then we can compare them with LET.

I did. The two above. Einstein stated them a little differently, but
the set I gave is equivalent.

While you're at the business of describing the assumptions of LET, I'd
like to know *why* the ether drag affects lengths and clocks by the
amount given in the Lorentz transforms. What physical properties of the
ether demand that this drag have this form?

PD wrote:
Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important
aspect. It makes statements about the manifest
covariance of the kinematics, but also about the
manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is,
the nature of the physical laws that govern the
interactions. All of them. About this, LET is
silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this
matter that makes it more successful than LET.

O'Barr comments:
And here is where your prejudices show so clearly.
The ***voice*** of SR is whatever you want it to say.
You want it to say many things! You do not seem to
understand that the ***voice*** of LET can be the
exact same as SR. And it is only your own
unwillingness to let the ***voice*** be the same that
is a problem.
LET, the extended LET, is just as able to say what
SR is able to say, if you would only think about it!
LET results in the exact same reality, and the
reality that results from LET is thus able to do the
same things that SR can do. You cannot escape this!

Sure I can. Others have tried to formulate a quantum field theory that
invokes Lorentz contraction but does not demand the manifest 4D
covariance of the dynamics that SR demands. Those results have, to
date, failed. If you have succeeded in demonstrating that Lorentz
transforms without manifest 4D covariance yields a consistent quantum
field theory that successfully predicts anything, then by all means
publish it. If you are under the illusion that everything that SR does
pops automatically in LET as well, then you are under the mistaken
impression that the Lorentz transform is the underlying physical
principle of SR. That could not be further from the truth.

PD

"Helmut Wabnig" EmailAddress@ wrote in message
...

There is no real Twin Paradox, there is only a"so-called Twin paradox"
Mathematically it is fully solvable and without remaining
contradictions.

Show me the math from both twins' point of views where they have to start at
and end at the same point with no relative speed between them. Lorentz
Transforms are very simple that no matter how you fudge it, you cannot
escape this paradox.

Experiment did show a time dilation of the one traveling, but is it due to
the traveling one traveling faster relative to the absolute reference frame?
Only the existence of the Aether, it shows where the traveling speed with
respect to theis absolute reference matters.

This means Lorentz Transforms despite its elegance in symmetry even myself
was fully indulged in a few months ago cannot be correct.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Show me the math from both twins' point of views where they have to start at
and end at the same point with no relative speed between them. Lorentz
Transforms are very simple that no matter how you fudge it, you cannot
escape this paradox.

The simplest approach is to do all the maths in the rest frame of the
stay-at-home twin. In that frame, stay-at-home-twin's proper time =
coordinate time. Moving-twin's proper time coordinate time in that
frame. 'Nuff said!

Frame A moving wrt frame B. Frame A clock a claims that frame B clocks
read slower than it. Frame B clock b claims that frame A clocks read
slower than it. Paradox or not? What do a and b compare with? Not each
other. They compare against "instantaneously co-located clocks"; ie
against a succession of different clocks in A or B. Thus symmetry. Grok
that, and no paradox. 'Nuff said!

--
Timo