"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
[...]

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"
wrote in message
oups.com...

E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. Have you actually *read* what Poincaré
wrote? I haven't and thus I don't make such accusations.

[But] I did. How can you disagree about something that you didn't
read?!

That was explained in my last e-mail. I researched his work, remember?

Apparently you disagreed with what you suspected to be hear-say, while
stating that you base that opinion on other hear-say...

I'm curious as to why you never mentioned the explanation I posted and why
you think its wrong?

?? I did, and I agreed with it in my first comment as follows:

"Apart of the different forms of the equation, the above claim is
exaggerated as
Poincare held back from drawing the conclusion from that relationship that
Einstein drew from it. The reference you cited (Fadner) is quite correct
IMHO."

I wrote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first in the list the author gives regarding the history of the
mass-energy relation is J.J. Thompson in 1885. It was not of the form E =
mc^2 but it related the increased inertia dm on a charged conducter in
motion. The next was by Oliver Heaviside in 1889 which gave another value
for dm. In 1900 Poincaré showed that electromagnetic energy has momentum.
He
showed, according to Fadner, that this momentum ncan be represented by a
"fictitious fluid" with mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy
density. At this point Poincaré had never assigned an energy to mass. He
assigned a mass to energy! The concept of mass in relativity wasn
incomplete
until 1914. If you'd like I can e-mail this article to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off you never mentioned if you believe that the author's comment
that, paraphrased, reads '1900 Poincaré showed that electromagnetic energy
has momentum. This momentum ncan be represented by a "fictitious fluid"
with mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy density.' It seems to
mean that Einstein's 1905 SR paper on energy and the "fictitious fluid"
with mass density rho = J/c^2 is the relationship in question.

Yup.

You said that you read Poincaré's article on this. Did he say that the
aforementioned momentum can be represented by a "fictitious fluid" with
mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy density? If youy believe
this to be wrong then why didn't you say so?

I did state that it's correct IMHO, see above.

If you believe this to be correct then in what way was Einstein
plagiarizing Poincaré since the topics were different and only had an
apparent similarity.

Neither of us is the OP who made that claim. However, the topics were not
entirely different and in his 1900 paper, Poincare even linked that topic to
relativity.

While Poincaré was refering to radiation behaving like a fluid with a
certain mass density, Einstein showed that if a body losses energy by the
amount dE then the mass of the body will decrease by the amount dm =
dE/c^2.

Exactly. On top of that, in his paper on mass-energy, Einstein solved the
inconsistency problem that Poincare struggled with in his 1900 paper. I now
found a similar summary in Wikipedia, (under "Einstein's mass-energy
equivalence"), a bit lost in the middle of an article called "Lorentz ether
theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

I asked you if you'd like to read the paper by Fadner to see what his
arguement was on this topic and you showed no interest.

OK now I see: you confused me with the OP. Up to him to answer that.

I'm curious as to why you want to contribute to this thread and yet not
want to read an article which is all about this particular topic? How else
would you be able to understand the author's conclusion? I/e.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is reasonable to associate the equation E = mc^2 with
Einstein as its chief developer, as
long as we realize that many others were involved in that development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've done a research on this topic and its not as if they all disagree.
Since we can't all read various languages that articles are written in
doesn't mean we can't form opinions as to the conclusions the authors made
and as reported by historians on the subject. I assume you disagree with
this philosophy due to your previous response to my post. Please explain
why you find the above unreasonable?

Not sure who you are asking this; in any case I certainly find it
unreasonable if you think that the OP cannot judge without studying the
original evidence while at the same time you think that you can judge
without studying the original evidence. ;-)

Regards,
Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
[...]

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"
wrote in message
oups.com...

E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. Have you actually *read* what Poincaré
wrote? I haven't and thus I don't make such accusations.

[But] I did. How can you disagree about something that you didn't
read?!

That was explained in my last e-mail. I researched his work, remember?

Apparently you disagreed with what you suspected to be hear-say, while
stating that you base that opinion on other hear-say...

I'm curious as to why you never mentioned the explanation I posted and
why you think its wrong?

?? I did, and I agreed with it in my first comment as follows:

"Apart of the different forms of the equation, the above claim is
exaggerated as
Poincare held back from drawing the conclusion from that relationship that
Einstein drew from it. The reference you cited (Fadner) is quite correct
IMHO."

I wrote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first in the list the author gives regarding the history of the
mass-energy relation is J.J. Thompson in 1885. It was not of the form E =
mc^2 but it related the increased inertia dm on a charged conducter in
motion. The next was by Oliver Heaviside in 1889 which gave another value
for dm. In 1900 Poincaré showed that electromagnetic energy has momentum.
He
showed, according to Fadner, that this momentum ncan be represented by a
"fictitious fluid" with mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy
density. At this point Poincaré had never assigned an energy to mass. He
assigned a mass to energy! The concept of mass in relativity wasn
incomplete
until 1914. If you'd like I can e-mail this article to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off you never mentioned if you believe that the author's comment
that, paraphrased, reads '1900 Poincaré showed that electromagnetic
energy has momentum. This momentum ncan be represented by a "fictitious
fluid" with mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy density.' It
seems to mean that Einstein's 1905 SR paper on energy and the "fictitious
fluid" with mass density rho = J/c^2 is the relationship in question.

Yup.

You said that you read Poincaré's article on this. Did he say that the
aforementioned momentum can be represented by a "fictitious fluid" with
mass density rho = J/c^2 where J is the energy density? If youy believe
this to be wrong then why didn't you say so?

I did state that it's correct IMHO, see above.

If you believe this to be correct then in what way was Einstein
plagiarizing Poincaré since the topics were different and only had an
apparent similarity.

Neither of us is the OP who made that claim. However, the topics were not
entirely different and in his 1900 paper, Poincare even linked that topic
to relativity.

While Poincaré was refering to radiation behaving like a fluid with a
certain mass density, Einstein showed that if a body losses energy by the
amount dE then the mass of the body will decrease by the amount dm =
dE/c^2.

Exactly. On top of that, in his paper on mass-energy, Einstein solved the
inconsistency problem that Poincare struggled with in his 1900 paper. I
now found a similar summary in Wikipedia, (under "Einstein's mass-energy
equivalence"), a bit lost in the middle of an article called "Lorentz
ether theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

I asked you if you'd like to read the paper by Fadner to see what his
arguement was on this topic and you showed no interest.

OK now I see: you confused me with the OP. Up to him to answer that.

I'm curious as to why you want to contribute to this thread and yet not
want to read an article which is all about this particular topic? How
else would you be able to understand the author's conclusion? I/e.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is reasonable to associate the equation E = mc^2 with
Einstein as its chief developer, as
long as we realize that many others were involved in that development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've done a research on this topic and its not as if they all disagree.
Since we can't all read various languages that articles are written in
doesn't mean we can't form opinions as to the conclusions the authors
made and as reported by historians on the subject. I assume you disagree
with this philosophy due to your previous response to my post. Please
explain why you find the above unreasonable?

Not sure who you are asking this; in any case I certainly find it
unreasonable if you think that the OP cannot judge without studying the
original evidence while at the same time you think that you can judge
without studying the original evidence. ;-)

Sorry. My mistake. I don't expect the OP to have read the original paper.
Just what Poincare had done is what is required. I guess I should have said
it differently. My bad.

Pete

"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"
wrote in message
oups.com...

E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. Have you actually *read* what Poincaré
wrote? I haven't and thus I don't make such accusations.

I did.

As I recall, that question was directed to the originator "Greatest
Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times."

Its strange though. I can't find that post now!!! I think God is
playing tricks on ole Pete again! lol!!

Pete

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"harry" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"
wrote in message
oups.com...

E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. Have you actually *read* what Poincaré
wrote? I haven't and thus I don't make such accusations.

[But] I did. How can you disagree about something that you didn't read?!

That was explained in my last e-mail. I researched his work, remember?
www.

Apparently you disagreed with what you suspected to be hear-say, while
stating that you base that opinion on other hear-say...

[...]

I recommend you get an historical text such as that by Jammer before
you continue with these accusations.

Such texts are useful as they point to the original papers. Reading the
original papers is really necessary to verify the accusations and claims
that are made about them.

It is a nice thing to be able to do. But, in the case of GR, you'd be
surprised at how few GRists have read Einstein's paper on GR.

I'm aware of that.

Do you have a copy of that paper by Poincare written in English that you
can either refer me to or perhaps send me? Thanks Harold.

Sorry it's in French: "La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction".
Note: My photocopy may very well be from an exemplar that was read by
Einstein. :-)

Can you e-mail me teh article even if its in French. My friend speaks french
fluently and he is also a physicist. I might be able to convince him to
translate if for me. It'd be good for his physics majors to read too.

Pete

On Sep 26, 4:08 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times" wrote:

E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. [...]

I also disagree that the following equation has been properly derived.

E = m' c^2

Where

** E = Observed energy
** m' = Observed mass

In flat space,

m' = m / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

In curved spacetime according to GR,

m' = m sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

That is until yours truly have shown so.

In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein's first development of E = mc^2
was circular, [...]

Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2) is not only circular but also
wrong. It is all in his 1905 paper. shrug

The first in the list the author gives regarding the history of the
mass-energy relation is J.J. Thompson in 1885.

Whatever one assigns mass to energy or energy to mass, today, there
seem to be not too many physicists equating the negative energy of
Dark Energy as negative mass density in vacuum. Talking about
inconsistency to the maximum. shrug

Curved space stolen from Riemann

I disagree. The intrinsic curvature of mathematical spaces is to be
attributed to Riemann. However it was a few others who applied this
mathematics to spacetime. Nobody ever took anything away from Riemann.

Big deal! Riemann's curvature of space covers 3 dimensions. The
Goettingen group including Hilbert, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, and
Klein but no Einstein extended to 4 dimensions including time. You
are not giving Riemann enough credit. shrug Don't forget that
Riemann was also the first to suggest gravity as a manifestation of
curvature in space.

Space-time concept stolen from Minkowski, his math professor and from
same he stole as well the Tensor Calculus

I disagree. The concept of spacetime has been and always will be attributed
to Minkowski. And it wasn't Minkowski who invented tensors. A reliable
source (a math professor aquantaince of mine) agrees with me when I tell you
that it was Riemann who invented tensors.

The metric is merely a matrix. Riemann knew this. I think
Christoffel also knew this, but by the time of Ricci, the nonsense of
the metric being a tensor has utterly screwed up. shrug

Constant of the speed of light stolen from Lorentz

Do you mean that value of the speed of light or the invariance of the speed
of light. In either case please provide proof or a reference to material
which proves this.

Voigt was the first to suggest constancy in the speed of light instead
of constancy in the wavelength to explain the null results of the MMX.

How does a constant value of the speed of light or the invariance in
the speed of light affect the mathematics involved?

This is Poincaré who wrote in 1904 that absolute movement is not
detectable.

So? Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames. This was postulated before Eistein but Einstein really took it and
went off and explained the implications of it.

Well, if you mean the principle of relativity, it was discussed more
than 300 years ago by Galileo not Einstein.

Hence it has Einstein's name
attached to it. The principle of relativity is sure not knew. Even Newton
knew of this theory but only with respect to the equations of mechanics.

This is a crock of bullsh*t.

This is Poincaré too who created the concept of relativity in 1904
then ( following that E = mc² discovery )
That story further of the clocks lagging in time is stolen from
Larmor

I recommend you get an historical text such as that by Jammer before you
continue with these accusations.

True. Poincare did not invent the concept of relativity. It was
Galileo who did it. However, it was Larmor who first came up with the
Lorentz transform not Einstein, not Lorentz. shrug

Since (absurdity of the twin's paradox = principle of relativity +
time dilation), Lorentz transform must be wrong. Yes, Einstein had
nothing to do with the Lorentz transform besides plagiarism. shrug

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:23:36 -0700, Koobee Wublee
wrote:

[...]

Looks like you have given up on yet *another* technical discussion
when it becomes obvious you don't have the chops to be a participant.

Oh well, looks like you found another thread to **** on.

On Sep 27, 11:30 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Looks like you have given up on yet *another* technical discussion
when it becomes obvious you don't have the chops to be a participant.

Orwelling education cannot be construed as technical discussions.
shrug

Oh well, looks like you found another thread to **** on.

When any buffoons such as yourself, that janitor from Cornell, or that
movie-goer who loves to swim naked in public start to throw sh*t
around, I reserve the right to walk away to avoid getting foul by
bullsh*t, and you need to get over with that. shrug

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:58:26 -0000, Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Sep 27, 11:30 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Looks like you have given up on yet *another* technical discussion
when it becomes obvious you don't have the chops to be a participant.

Orwelling education cannot be construed as technical discussions.
shrug

I'm still waiting for you to explain where /you/ were educated and why
your education is better than ours.

All you have been able to do is repeat your position over and over. At
least we can reformulate our ideas in more than one way.


Oh well, looks like you found another thread to **** on.

When any buffoons such as yourself, that janitor from Cornell, or that
movie-goer who loves to swim naked in public start to throw sh*t
around, I reserve the right to walk away to avoid getting foul by
bullsh*t, and you need to get over with that. shrug

You're just mad we just made you look like an idiot over and over.

On Sep 28, 11:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:08 pm, "Pmb" wrote:

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times" wrote:
E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. [...]

I also disagree that the following equation has been properly derived.

E = m' c^2

Where

** E = Observed energy
** m' = Observed mass

In flat space,

m' = m / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

In curved spacetime according to GR,

m' = m sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

That is until yours truly have shown so.

In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein's first development of E = mc^2
was circular, [...]

Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2) is not only circular but also
wrong. It is all in his 1905 paper. shrug

The first in the list the author gives regarding the history of the
mass-energy relation is J.J. Thompson in 1885.

Whatever one assigns mass to energy or energy to mass, today, there
seem to be not too many physicists equating the negative energy of
Dark Energy as negative mass density in vacuum. Talking about
inconsistency to the maximum. shrug

Curved space stolen from Riemann

I disagree. The intrinsic curvature of mathematical spaces is to be
attributed to Riemann. However it was a few others who applied this
mathematics to spacetime. Nobody ever took anything away from Riemann.

Big deal! Riemann's curvature of space covers 3 dimensions. The
Goettingen group including Hilbert, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, and
Klein but no Einstein extended to 4 dimensions including time. You
are not giving Riemann enough credit. shrug Don't forget that
Riemann was also the first to suggest gravity as a manifestation of
curvature in space.

Space-time concept stolen from Minkowski, his math professor and from
same he stole as well the Tensor Calculus

I disagree. The concept of spacetime has been and always will be attributed
to Minkowski. And it wasn't Minkowski who invented tensors. A reliable
source (a math professor aquantaince of mine) agrees with me when I tell you
that it was Riemann who invented tensors.

The metric is merely a matrix. Riemann knew this. I think
Christoffel also knew this, but by the time of Ricci, the nonsense of
the metric being a tensor has utterly screwed up. shrug

Constant of the speed of light stolen from Lorentz

Do you mean that value of the speed of light or the invariance of the speed
of light. In either case please provide proof or a reference to material
which proves this.

Voigt was the first to suggest constancy in the speed of light instead
of constancy in the wavelength to explain the null results of the MMX.

How does a constant value of the speed of light or the invariance in
the speed of light affect the mathematics involved?

This is Poincaré who wrote in 1904 that absolute movement is not
detectable.

So? Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames. This was postulated before Eistein but Einstein really took it and
went off and explained the implications of it.

Well, if you mean the principle of relativity, it was discussed more
than 300 years ago by Galileo not Einstein.

Hence it has Einstein's name
attached to it. The principle of relativity is sure not knew. Even Newton
knew of this theory but only with respect to the equations of mechanics.

This is a crock of bullsh*t.

This is Poincaré too who created the concept of relativity in 1904
then ( following that E = mc² discovery )
That story further of the clocks lagging in time is stolen from
Larmor

I recommend you get an historical text such as that by Jammer before you
continue with these accusations.

True. Poincare did not invent the concept of relativity. It was
Galileo who did it. However, it was Larmor who first came up with the
Lorentz transform not Einstein, not Lorentz. shrug

Since (absurdity of the twin's paradox = principle of relativity +
time dilation), Lorentz transform must be wrong. Yes, Einstein had
nothing to do with the Lorentz transform besides plagiarism. shrug

----------------

As far as E=mc2 and its other aspects are concerned are discused
after 102 years in book
Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized.
, 'Einstein's E = mc2 Generalized', www.ajayonline.us

Available on Amazon.com Price $ 10.99

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mc2-...0733223&sr=1-1

"kem" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 28, 11:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:08 pm, "Pmb" wrote:

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times" wrote:
E = mc² stolen from Henri Poincaré

I disagree regarding Poincaré. [...]

I also disagree that the following equation has been properly derived.

E = m' c^2

Where

** E = Observed energy
** m' = Observed mass

In flat space,

m' = m / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

In curved spacetime according to GR,

m' = m sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

That is until yours truly have shown so.

In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein's first development of E =
mc^2
was circular, [...]

Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2) is not only circular but also
wrong. It is all in his 1905 paper. shrug

The first in the list the author gives regarding the history of the
mass-energy relation is J.J. Thompson in 1885.

Whatever one assigns mass to energy or energy to mass, today, there
seem to be not too many physicists equating the negative energy of
Dark Energy as negative mass density in vacuum. Talking about
inconsistency to the maximum. shrug

Curved space stolen from Riemann

I disagree. The intrinsic curvature of mathematical spaces is to be
attributed to Riemann. However it was a few others who applied this
mathematics to spacetime. Nobody ever took anything away from Riemann.

Big deal! Riemann's curvature of space covers 3 dimensions. The
Goettingen group including Hilbert, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, and
Klein but no Einstein extended to 4 dimensions including time. You
are not giving Riemann enough credit. shrug Don't forget that
Riemann was also the first to suggest gravity as a manifestation of
curvature in space.

Space-time concept stolen from Minkowski, his math professor and from
same he stole as well the Tensor Calculus

I disagree. The concept of spacetime has been and always will be
attributed
to Minkowski. And it wasn't Minkowski who invented tensors. A reliable
source (a math professor aquantaince of mine) agrees with me when I tell
you
that it was Riemann who invented tensors.

The metric is merely a matrix. Riemann knew this. I think
Christoffel also knew this, but by the time of Ricci, the nonsense of
the metric being a tensor has utterly screwed up. shrug

Constant of the speed of light stolen from Lorentz

Do you mean that value of the speed of light or the invariance of the
speed
of light. In either case please provide proof or a reference to material
which proves this.

Voigt was the first to suggest constancy in the speed of light instead
of constancy in the wavelength to explain the null results of the MMX.

How does a constant value of the speed of light or the invariance in
the speed of light affect the mathematics involved?

This is Poincaré who wrote in 1904 that absolute movement is not
detectable.

So? Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial
frames. This was postulated before Eistein but Einstein really took it
and
went off and explained the implications of it.

Well, if you mean the principle of relativity, it was discussed more
than 300 years ago by Galileo not Einstein.

Hence it has Einstein's name
attached to it. The principle of relativity is sure not knew. Even
Newton
knew of this theory but only with respect to the equations of mechanics.

This is a crock of bullsh*t.

This is Poincaré too who created the concept of relativity in 1904
then ( following that E = mc² discovery )
That story further of the clocks lagging in time is stolen from
Larmor

I recommend you get an historical text such as that by Jammer before you
continue with these accusations.

True. Poincare did not invent the concept of relativity. It was
Galileo who did it. However, it was Larmor who first came up with the
Lorentz transform not Einstein, not Lorentz. shrug

Since (absurdity of the twin's paradox = principle of relativity +
time dilation), Lorentz transform must be wrong. Yes, Einstein had
nothing to do with the Lorentz transform besides plagiarism. shrug

----------------

As far as E=mc2 and its other aspects are concerned are discused
after 102 years in book
Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized.
, 'Einstein's E = mc2 Generalized', www.ajayonline.us

Available on Amazon.com Price $ 10.99

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mc2-...0733223&sr=1-1


kem - Are you aware that the person whose handle is "Koobee Wublee" is
someone best avoided? Just read his comments above and there's your proof.

Pete

On Sep 28, 5:15 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"kem" wrote:

As far as E=mc2 and its other aspects are concerned are
discussed after 102 years in book
Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized.
, 'Einstein's E = mc2 Generalized', www.ajayonline.us

Available on Amazon.com Price $ 10.99

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mc2-...arma/dp/193436...

kem - Are you aware that the person whose handle is "Koobee Wublee" is
someone best avoided? Just read his comments above and there's your proof.

Are you aware the poster is none other than the original author you
tried to bash in your opening post of this thread?

Oh, man, Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and dumber year
after year. shrug