Talk:Henri Poincaré/Archive 2

Unreadable IPA characters

[The following the first paragraph content was shortened because its IPA characters were unreadable in some browsers:]

Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: [ˈpwæŋ kæ reɪ]; AmE: [ˌpwɑːŋ kɑː ˈreɪ] [1]; Fr: [pwæ̃ ka ʁe])

Harald88 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

bold face in long quotations?

I now followed the trend of this article (who started it?) to make the parts of citations bold for a specific argument; but citing is itself already an emphasis, and such bold face is not what I expect to see in any encyclopedia. In particular, it looks inappropriate to me in view of WP:NPOV : Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.

Anyone with other ideas? Is there perhaps already a guideline about it? Harald88 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

he "disliked logic"?

The article now reads:

He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic. He believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.

I don't see a source mentioned but apparently it's supposed to be by Darboux; I find it rather strange. Who of you provided it? Please provide a precise reference. Harald88 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know an exact reference, but this certainly wouldn't surprise me.. i understand that it was rather fashionable at the time to avoid being too rigorous in proofs, and to allow one's intuition to run free.. how times have changed! Mlm42 15:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincaré displute

A dispute contests the significance of Poincaré's contributions to the special theory of relativity. Earlier details of that dispute are in the archives of this page.

Overall comment from a mathematician: perhaps the saddest aspect of the following discussion is that it might mislead newbies into overlooking the fact that quite irrespective of his contributions to the prehistory of relativity, Poincaré's contributions to the theory of functions, dynamical systems, algebraic topology, noneuclidean geometry alone make him one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, a judgement which no-one disputes, at least no one with much knowledge of modern mathematics. His contributions to the mathematical background to relativity theory, at issue below, are modest by comparision. I would hope that everyone can agree on this much.---CH 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the page should have less about Poincare and relativity. It can all go on other pages, perhaps in the "history of relativity". E4mmacro 05:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute summary

Following is the summary of that debate:

Some physicists (Lorentz and Pauli), science historians (Janssen and Sir Edmund Whittaker), and text books make some of the following claims:

• Poincaré corrected Lorentz' Transformations (LT) into their classic modern form by imposing the Principle of Relativity and the Speed of Light requirement, making them attain perfect invariance of Maxwell's equations. Lorentz, however, had missed Lorentz Velocity Transformations.
• Poincaré understood time dilation before Lorentz in the sense that the t in the LT represents physical clock time.
• With Poincaré's LT correction, he derived the correct equations of Relativity before Einstein.
• Poincaré developed a mature theory of special relativity before Einstein.
• Poincaré's 1902 paper mentioned the velocity addition rule (transformations) before Einstein's 1905 paper.
• Einstein plagiarized or relied heavily on Poincaré's discussions of relative space and time but failed to credit Poincaré.
• Poincaré anticipated Albert Einstein's work with a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity.
• Poincaré published the main features of special relativity before Einstein.
• Poincaré introduced the 4-space notation that Hermann Minkowski became known for.
• Poincaré's $E=mc^{2}$ is the same as Einstein's.

Others take a stance closer to the mainstream:

• Larmor first predicted time dilation and Poincare was surprised by Lorentz's acknowledgement of it.
• Poincaré's algebraically equivalent (after Galilean transformation) version of Lorentz' Transformations emphasized symmetry that Lorentz missed, but even Poincaré credited the transformation to Lorentz and said he merely drew consequence from them.
• Poincaré's correction of Lorentz was not in the transformation itself but in an early application of it. Specifically, Poincaré corrected the electric charge density in a moving system by using the relativistic velocity addition law that Lorentz failed to appreciate.
• Einstein published the velocity sum equations first since a letter to Lorentz does not count as publication.
• Poincaré did not "anticipate" Einstein's work since their postulates were different and Poincaré's piece on the relativity of simultaneity is only a preliminary version of the principle of relativity, which is only part of the overall theory of special relativity.
• Poincaré's $m_{r}=E/c^{2}$, showing equivalent mass of radiation, was not the same as Einstein's $E=mc^{2}$, showing that inertia depends on energy content.
• Most believe that Einstein's derivation is essential for the full formulation of the Theory of Special Relativity, so it is unencyclopedic to state that Poincaré was the first to correctly formulate and publish the theory.
• Poincaré did not anticipate Einstein (or Planck) because he did not believe that radition had mass and never showed the general interchangeability of radiation energy with other forms of enery.
• Per WP:NPOV, this article should present the mainstream opinion first and the minority opinion second.

Since Wikipedia is not the place to debate such points, a suggestion for NPOV is to avoid making claims or allegations.

References about this debate:

• Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Ch.14)
• arxiv.org
• physicsweb.org
• scienceworld.wolfram.com
• web.archive.org
• www-cosmosaf.iap.fr
• www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk and www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk
• text of Poincaré's 6 lectures
• www.mathpages.com
• www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de
• From www.soso.ch: www.soso.ch and www.soso.ch and www.soso.ch and "Sur la dynamique de l'electron"
• www.xtxinc.com

The Rod 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

References

There is still a lack of references: for example I would very much like to read "Langevin 1914". 69, if it was you who cited it, please add the necessary info to references - Thanks in advance! Harald88 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: It is a beautiful description by Langevin, I'll cite it precisely for you in a moment. I have it in original French 1914. -- I'm sure E4 has it too. --It is a description of the first general relativity, the forerunner to Hilbert's Field Equation. 69.22.98.162 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to HARALD: Can you please put the article back into proper chronological order please. Relativity belongs where it was, inbetween Early Career and Late Career, that's where it was. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald here is the reference. Article called Le Physicien by Paul Langevin in book Henri Poincare Librairie Felix Alcan (1914). The page of interest is at the very end of chapter Vll of the article. 69.22.98.162 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: If it would please you I can change the word flawed to inexact. As for Ives' paper it is published in correct scientific journal and was never refuted, it stays. 69.22.98.162 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who flagged the article and specifically why ? If you cannot say, then don't do it. 69.22.98.162 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I flagged the article (the reasons are above). At least we are advancing on one issue: the proof of e = mc^2, and we may get it right eventually. According to Ives, Plank said Einstein's proof was approximate, not inexact and there is a nuamce. Can we get Plank's paper? E4mmacro 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll change it to approximate if that pleases you. I'll do it right now. I have a description of Planck's paper in French from the Ecole Polytechnique, it says that Planck criticized Einstein's derivation. 69.22.98.162 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Could you please go back to the original Table of Contents to have chronological logic in the article please, as in any encyclopedia. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I added for massive bodies to distinguish it from Poincare's for radiation. Anything else bother you in the article ? Let's fix whatever, right now. 69.22.98.162 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, please put the CONTENTS in chronological order, like in any encyclopedia. Relativity and Three Body Problem go inbetween Early Career and Late Career, by chronological logic. 69.22.98.162 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Gravity theories

Getting the direction of the advance of Mercury's perihelion advance is not such a big deal, is it? In Science and Method 1908 Poincare describes Lorentz's relativistic theory of gravity, for which "the principle of relativity will not be violated". (the "one of which I shall speak is that of Lorentz" but it is just possible that is is Poincare's own construction). The theory includes the radiation of energy by the orbiting body (gravity waves I guess you might call that, though he says "acceleration waves" - it is an electromagnetic-style theory of gravity, and I think the radiation is the same as the Larmor radiation of an accelerated electron). He says Lorentz's theory predicts 7" advance (compared to 38" experiment). He also says Tisserand assumed Weber's law of electrodynamics applied to gravity and predicted 14". I think others managed to predict an advance, but not the correct one. Is Langevin perhaps decsribing Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory? E4mmacro 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin's very beautiful full page on this does not mention Lorentz at all. 69.22.98.162 21:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting the direction of the perihelion is PRAISED in no uncertain terms by Langevin. Read his glowing page (1914). 69.22.98.162 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything else ? Let's settle anything else right here right now. I don't want any more Disputed signs. And why have you not re-established chronological order ? 69.22.98.162 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4 is that you flagging the article again ? -- Why ? -- What else would you like me to change ? 69.22.98.162 21:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4 is that you who flagged the article ? Why ? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 21:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you E4, the chronology looks fine. If there is anything else you would like me to change just ask me right here, thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I see you would like Einstein's name next to Hilbert, that is fine if you put proper scientific credit with it -- Hilbert published the field equations first and as Kip Thorne said Credit Must go to Hilbert. So I will remove Einstein and you may please try re-inserting his name in a more correct fashion. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Credit MUST go to Hilbert. - Kip Thorne. 69.22.98.162 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is important, to put Poincare's Special Relativity into perspective, to add the words of Keswani, that General Relativity is really only a theory of gravity. Only then can Poincare be understood in perspective. -- HARALD long ago approved this -- there is no reason to change that now. It is vandalism to change it now at this late date. 69.22.98.162 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we please check publication dates, rather than rely on second-hand opinions. There are far more opinions that Einstein deserves credit for GR. If GR must be mentioend, which I doubt, then I guess both names have to be mentioned. Just to repeat one of my reasons for disputing the article is NPOV. It appears to be on a mission to put down Einstein and deprive him of any credit for anything. E4mmacro 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sensitive. 69.22.98.162 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look closely I am not talking about GR, I am talking about the Field Equation. Hilbert was on 20 Nov 1915. The Field Equation follows in the path of Poincare's earlier efforts. 69.22.98.162 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Poincare page in French Language reads this way, why not English. 69.22.98.162 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for being there watching, it helps. thanks. 69.22.98.162 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I am happy with the article as it is, if only vandals can be kept off of it in the future.69.22.98.162 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question already states that GR is a theory of gravity, adding "is really only a theory of gravity" reads poorly and adds no new information. There is no question that GR is a theory of gravity, so there is no need for a source quotation characterizing it as such. This addition harms the clarity of the writing without clarifying or specifying. Please edit to improve style. Ben Kidwell 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: No Sir, I disagree. The field equation is a gravitational equation, yes, But then, most people don't understand that so is also the so called Theory of General Relativity only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I am happy with the article. E4 appears to have no more objections. So I trust there will be no more Disputed signs. Thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the style, not the content. This sentence does not read well in English. If you think the NAME "Theory of General Relativity" is misleading in this context, why not remove it entirely? Just end the sentence after it mentions Einstein's field equation, no need to say GR specifically and follow with this quote. I am just trying to help the readability of the text and remove something that seems awkward to me as a native english speaker. I think all the content is very good. Ben Kidwell 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: I am a native English speaker born in the USA. I think the sentence is fine. Apparently you are new and don't know from previous discussion, that the reason General Relativity is mentioned here, is to put Special Relativity in the greater context of Relativity overall, so average people can put Poincare into proper perspective in the greater context. --That is one reason why we keep theory of general relativity mentioned there, it is important to not cover it up. -- It is I think a dynamite ending to a great article. 69.22.98.162 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think the section should be expanded somewhat. You are absolutely correct that I am new to the article and don't know the history. I think other people who use this article as a reference will also be new to it and may have the same difficulty understanding as I do. How about adding a few more sentences or another paragraph to provide this context? Also, is there a specialized article on Poincare and relativity? The subject seems to deserve one, and the main article is already quite long. Ben Kidwell 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: Yes, if someone wanted to add to the last paragraph that is fine as long as they don't vandalize it by striking anything. A good thing to add would be Langevin's 1914 glowing description of Poincare's forerunner theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone else removes my pov flag doesn't mean I have no more objectiions. I have no time to engage in a delete war, but that is different. My objections are all on this discussion page. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know which Paper/paeprs of Poincare's that were cited by Langevin, containing his field equation? E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with Ben (as I suggested before) a seperate page on Poincare and rel;ativity would be a good idea. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And Ben is absoultely correct that the redundant mention of "really only a theory of gravity" is very silly and jarring. It suggests that the writer is concerned about something else, other than Poinacre. E4mmacro 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And of course the whole last section about Einstein/Hilbert is completly irrelevant to Poinacre; this is the first suggestion I have seen that Hilbert got it from Poincare, or Einstein got it from Poincare. Why is the section there? The controversy about Einstein/Hilbert is covered on the history of general relativity page.

To E4: Can't you find something else to do rather than denature this Poincare page ? --I explained to Ben why the quote from Keswani is relevent to Poincare. -- Didn't you read it ? Look at my answer to Ben for your answer -- Do not remove Keswani's quote -- you would be vandalizing this page to remove Keswani's quote -- Do not touch it.-- 69.22.98.162 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: Can you please REMOVE Macrossan from this page before he does any more damage ? -He is a madman. 69.22.98.162 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently anyone else but 69 are madmen... I think quite the contrary, but usually I would abstain from articulting such personal opinions on talk pages. And sorry, currently I'm occupied with other subjects. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

New mechanics and astronomy

I still think the gravity section is a bit of a dead-end as far as Poincare is concerned. But can someone else read "The new mechanics and Astronomy" from "Science and Method", Parts I and II and IV (omitting the "clearly wrong theories" in section III), about 7 pages. Is Poincare there describing only one theory of gravity due to Lorentz? or is he perhaps building a new theory himself by modifying Lorentz? Thanks. E4mmacro 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan in the article you misquoted Poincare. -- Poincare pointed out that there are MANY such solutions of gravity, ONE of which was given by Lorentz. Langevin pointed out in the memoire (1914) that Poincare possessed himself numerous solutions for gravity. 69.22.98.162 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey 69, I already asked you to send me a copy of Langevin 1914. my email: harrylin at gmx dot net. Thanks in advance!

I have it in the original crumbling 1914 book, too fragile to email it. ha ha. 69.22.98.162 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know the problem, I have that with Ives' articles: I have them all but only on paper. Then please now finally give the reference on the article page: that helps me to get it, and also it's necessary to have any comments about it verifiable. Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What papers did Langevin quote showing that Poincare had many theories of gravity (which I do not doubt; theories of gravities at the time were a big issue.)? Did Langevin quote the exact equation of Poincare's that he admired? E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin and Poincare were best friends, they went together to St. Louis for the 1904 International Expo. 69.22.98.162 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was parphrasing a particular book (see above request for someone else to read it) I was not talking of these other papers that Langevin may know of, but I don't know of. I gave the exact reference of what I was paraphrasing in the page, but my paraphrase has been changed by 69.22.98.162. That's ok, but I am asking if anyone else has read the few pages I was paraphrasing. I agree it is not 100% clear whose theory Poincare is talking about - I think it is about 90% clear that he is talking of Lorentz only. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously are not fluent in French. I stated precisely what he stated. 69.22.98.162 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not fluent in French. I was paraphrasing an English edition of the book, under the assumption that the translator was fluent in French. If someone else can read the original and answer my question above I am more than happy to hear from them. E4mmacro 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Sir Edmund Whittaker called it Poincare's E=mc2. -- Do not try to cover it up and hide it as M=e/c2. -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of science of the 20th century. I don't want to have to repeat this again, understood, Macrossan ? 69.22.98.162 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: Please recuse Macrossan from this page. 69.22.98.162 13:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for clearing up the mystery of what you have been trying to prove: that Special relativity (as discovered by Poincare?) is the "one and Unique" theory of relativity. I still think you should start a different page on that topic and leave Poincare out of it. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Keswani (1966) said it -- I quote sources, unlike yourself 69.22.98.162 21:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One reason why I placed the POV tag

I gave the relevant quote from Poincare 1900 previously in this talk page:

Nous pouvons regarder l’energie electromagnetic comme une fluide fictive dont la density J/c^2 et qui se deplace dans l’espace conformement aux lois de Poynting.

J is the magnitude of the Poynting vector (energy/unit volume). This is the only place in the paper where Poincare writes the equivalent of m_R = E/c^2. (I am using Ives's notation, the subscript R refers to radiation, equivalent mass of radiation). Poincare never writes E = mc^2 and he does not mean by it what Einstein meant, which is m_I = E/c^2. (The subscript I means inertia of ponderable matter, see Ives). Poincare does NOT say that the emitter has lost mass when the radiation was emiited (read his repeated discussions of this in Science and Hypothesis 1902 and Value of Science 1904 if you don't have the original of Poincare 1900). He could not possibly derive the Einstein meaning without Lorentz's variation of mass with velocity ($\gamma m$); and in 1900 he did not know it. Sir Edmund Whittaker at least says that Poincare gave "practically no proof of E = mc^2" (in fact Poincare gave NO proof at all in the EINSTEIN sense m_I = E/c^2). Sir Edmund Whittaker repeats a few derivations of m_I = E/c^2, none by Poincare, all of which rely on $\gamma m$ which comes from Lorentz 1904. Sir Edmund Whittaker is mistaken and must not have read Poincare 1904 (The Value of Science, CH VIII). Look there for Poincare's three problems (mass conservation, momentum conservation, energy conservation). No one who understood m_I = E/c^2 in the Einstein sense could write that Chapter without mentioning E = mc^2 which solves all those problems. I hope Harald will find those papers where Sir Edmund Whittaker's book has been heavily criticised. The claim in the page that Poincare in 1900 published E = mc^2, is POV, Whittaker's POV, which is easily shown to be wrong. I will replace my tag, and hope that Wikipedia ettiquette will stop anyone else removing it. E4mmacro 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Quote your sources -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of the 20th century. Who are YOU to say he is wrong. 69.22.98.162 21:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Don't you tag or delete anything, until you quote your sources. 69.22.98.162 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

69, I didn't look, but almost certainly the NPOV tags were placed because you continued the forbidden practice of having Wikipedia state what instead the special opinion was of one person... Right? Such claims are to be either DELETED or ATTRIBUTED, as you know very well by now. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald I use only published sources. What passage are you referring to ? 69.22.98.162 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok Harald, I will make the attribution for him in the page. E4mmacro 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But as we see (check history and comment below), the correct attribution can only survive on the page for approximately one minute. E4mmacro 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For whom, what page ? what is this ? 69.22.98.162 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Detailed referencing like that does not belong in any Introduction section. 69.22.98.162 00:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ives was talking about as applies to massive bodies, Whittaker was talking radiation. There is nothing new in Ives' paper. It changes nothing.69.22.98.162 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will make it clear Whittaker was talking only about radiation, if you like. I was under the mistaken impression that "only radiation" was what you didn't want to say. E4mmacro 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it myself into the text a long time ago for radiation, where have you been ? 69.22.98.162 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read Whittaker, it is very clear that although he knows Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only, he jumps a page or so later to the assertion that Poincare meant the same as Einstein, i.e. ponderable matter. Anyone can make this mistake, which you have not made, so it helps to state in the Introduction that Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only. Something we all agree on. E4mmacro 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at Whittaker's book, he repeatedly calls it simply Poincare's E=mc2, WITHOUT ADDING ANY QUALIFIERS. -- We should do as Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker did not go around stating it like that. -- Also, detailed qualifiers do not belong in any Introduction, they belong in the text where I put it myself long ago. 69.22.98.162 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look in Bjerknes' books he says Poincare had E=mc2 before Einstein, it's everywhere, get used to it. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You will find no one to contradict Whittaker. -- Oh they can bitch about him, but they don't contradict him. 69.22.98.162 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought we just agreed that Poincare mean radiation only. Have you switched back to “Poincare meant ponderable matter”? There is no reason why we have to follow Whittaker's confusing way of expressing himself. If he meant radiation only, why should we not make that clear (especially when it is true that Poincare meant radiation only, as we all agreed a minute ago). E4mmacro 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is crystal clear in the text, I wrote it there myself. STICK TO WHITTAKER. 69.22.98.162 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing average people with your upside down formulas. Make it recognizable. --Stop clouding the water. 69.22.98.162 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, I thought you were supposed to be a teacher somewhere ? -- how is it you have been 24 hours a day on the internet for three straight weeks now ? 69.22.98.162 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker : POINCARE'S E=MC2. 69.22.98.162 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We all agree that Poincare was talking only of radiation, not ponderable matter. So can we have quick recap of exactly why you replaced the unambiguous and correct statement

Poincare first published the formula for the equivalent mass of radiation $m=E/c^{2}$, or $E=mc^{2}$ in 1900.

With the ambiguous statement

Poincare first published $E=mc^{2}$ in 1900.

Just to clarify, what your objection to the first sentence is, and to have it all in one place. Thanks E4mmacro 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections at all to clarifications, but not when it is deliberately confusing in a concise Introduction. -- OUT OF PLACE THERE. 69.22.98.162 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker calls it REPEATEDLY Poincare's E=mc2. -- Stick to the expert.-- And YOU are NOT the expert here.69.22.98.162 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More than happy to stick to the expert. So why did you delete, from the introduction, the attribution to Whittaker of this statement? E4mmacro 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Because references don't belong in an Introduction. 69.22.98.162 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean citations I guess. And there is a Wikipedia policy page or something else that establishes the "citations-do-not-belong-in-introduction" rule is where?? E4mmacro 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1905/1906 issue again!

The publication date was 5 June 1905. Went to printer 8 June, distributed 9 June. 69.22.98.162 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And just the record can you clarify what was your objection to the sentence in the introduction

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations in 1905 and published them in 1906, to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

which you replaced by

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

Why delete the reference to when he published it?

I thought, see the endless circular discussion above between you me and Harald, that you finally aggreeed that a paper in a journal dated 1905 (short version of paper "Sur l'dynamique ..." links given everywhere) does not explicitly contain the velocity addition formula, and that a private letter to Lorentz does not count as a publication. Thanks once again for the clarification. E4mmacro 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 5 June note is identical in contents. 69.22.98.162 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that in the article you talk of short paper, then long paper, it's all in the note of 5 June, the only paper that matters. Read Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You scroll back to where I asked Harald to tatoo it to his arm -- the same goes for you. Scroll back and read and don't forget it ever again. I can't repeat myself endlessly to people with 5 min memory span. -- And re-read Whittaker, and tatoo it to your arm so you don't forget again. 69.22.98.162 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

5 June, tatoo that date to you forehead then every time you look in the mirror you won't have to ask me. 69.22.98.162 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The way to find out what is in the 1905 paper is to read it - not rely on what Whittaker says. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of French, can see that the velocity addition equation is not in the 1905 paper; nor is it in the translation of the 1905 paper into English by Keswami and Kilmister. And it is very difficult for someone not fluent in French (or anyone I would have thought) to see how a paper a few pages long (1905 short paper, link and Journal reference given) contains everything published in 1906 in a paper of 50 pages or more (second paper, long version, link and Journal reference given). But there is no reason to repeat yourself. We now know why you deleted the clarification dates of 1905 and 1906 - because Whittaker says a paper 5 pages long published in 1905 is the same as a paper 50 pages long published in 1906. Thanks. E4mmacro 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In Physics, if you were a physicist, you would know that it is common for a short note to be submitted, followed by a longer paper expounding on equivalent material, as in Hilbert's 20 Nov 1915 note on his discovery of the field equations, followed by its longer publication in full article form in 1916, but it is recognized as 20 Nov the discovery. Get used to it. 69.22.98.162 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: No more 1905 1906 issue again crap. -- You scroll back to where I told Harald to tatoo it to his arm, and you do the same. If you don't want to scroll back to it then just ask Harald to read it off his arm and email it to you. 69.22.98.162 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: There is no debate in recorded scientific publications about 1906 vs 1905, nowhere, so do NOT add it to the article -- it is something just in YOUR little mind. 69.22.98.162 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Francais

This article on Poincare should have been very easy to write up, but you two guys are both MISERABLE. -- I wrote this all up for Wikipédia Francais in just a few minutes time, with no fuss, no muss. 69.22.98.162 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As you know I am not fluent in French. But where exactly does it say in the following introduction to the Poincare page in Wkipedia Francais, the extravagent and disputed claims that Poincare discovered E = mc^2 in 1900, and everything about relativity; claims you keep re-inserting in the English introduction, and insist that no one can clarify? The French claim is fairly extravegant, but at least it mentions Lorentz in the introduction in connection with special relativty, which might give a clue that Poincare did not do everything.

Henri Poincaré, né le 29 avril 1854 à Nancy et décédé à Paris le 17 juillet 1912, fut un mathématicien et physicien français. Artisan de génie, il est l'homme de l'ombre de la relativité générale. En relation avec un physicien expérimental, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, il mit en équation la théorie de la relativité restreinte, sur les observations de son collègue.

Arrière petit fils d'Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, il est le cousin de l'homme politique et président de la France Raymond Poincaré et de Lucien Poincaré, directeur de l'Enseignement secondaire au Ministère de l'Instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts. Brillant élève, il passe successivement par Polytechnique puis l'École des Mines; en 1879 il obtient un doctorat de mathématiques sous la direction de Charles Hermite, puis est détaché à la Faculté des Sciences de Caen. Deux ans plus tard, il obtient ses premiers résultats marquants en mathématiques (sur la représentation des courbes et sur les équations différentielles linéaires à coefficients algébriques), et rapidement, il s'intéresse à l'application de ses connaissances mathématiques en physique et plus particulièrement en Mécanique. Il occupera notamment la chaire de Physique Mathématique et de Calcul des probabilités de la Faculté des Sciences de Paris en 1886, succèdant à Gabriel Lippmann, puis la chaire d'Astronomie mathématique, succédant à Félix Tisserand, c'est Joseph Boussinesq qui le remplace à la chaire de physique mathématique. Il est en 1901 le premier lauréat de la Médaille Sylvester de la Royal Society. Il a été président de la Société mathématique de France en 1886 et en 1900 et président de la Société française de physique en 1902.

I am aware that you have slipped your disputed claims (disputed because they are misleading) into the body of the French page, and I was the one who dated them (but maybe the dates are gone by now). Maybe if you insert your misleading claims in the French introduction, someone might notice them. Thanks in advance for the French lesson. Does any one know if the Russian wiki page claims a Russian discovered everything in relativity? E4mmacro 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Whittaker wrote it, Poincare's E=mc2, and he is NOT disputed on this point anywhere in published scientific litterature, it is ONLY disputed in YOUR little mind, so do NOT insert it into wikipedia. QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. -- WHO are YOU to dispute Whittaker. -- Stop vandalizing Wikipedia.69.22.98.162 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: you better need to learn German and Italian etc as well, because in Europe it is well known the Poincare discovered relativity before Einstein. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: NEVER AGAIN insert YOUR debate of 1906 vs 1905 into wikipedia French or English, because NO such debate exists in the published scientific litterature. --QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to Macrossan, all this detail you added about Einstein belongs either on the einstein page or the e=mc2 page. 69.22.98.162 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Whittaker called it POINCARE's E=mc2 -- Tatoo it to your forehead Macrossan. 69.22.98.162 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

E = mc^2 again

I know this has been discussed here before, and I am newly arrived, but isn't the following paragraph misleading if Poincare's formula applied only to radiation but not to non-zero rest mass particles? If so, the paragraph should be modified to accurately reflect Poincare's achievement.

"Poincaré first derived E = mc2 in his paper of 1900 where Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction. He showed that according to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory the stream of radiation could be considered as a "fictitious fluid" with a mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2, or E = mc2. Max Planck (1907) derived E = mc2 for massive bodies and Planck criticized Einstein's 1905 derivation as only approximate. H. E. Ives (1952) wrote that Einstein's derivation was a tautology ( 0 = 0 ), due to Einstein's incorrect use of approximations." green 64.136.26.226 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone commented earlier that the text should follow Whittaker, who allegedly wrote "Poincare's E= mc^2". Given the purpose of Wikipedia, additional clarification is called-for. Otherwise the reader, unless very sophisticated, will surely get the impression that Poincare's derivation is equivalent to, and preceded Einstein's. green 64.136.26.226 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph clearly said for radiation, and Planck's for massive bodies, How much clearer could that be ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Poincare's usage of the formula for radiation, and Planck's usage for massive bodies, are CORRECT usages. --That is why Whittaker credits Poincare first. -- What is wrong with that ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I already explained it. Unless the reader is fairly sophisticated, he/she will not understand the fine distinction. The article should make the distinction clear so there is no possibility of confusion. Why would you object to that? green 64.136.26.226 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Green. No one should object to clarification. E4mmacro 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose more ? -- the distinction was quite clear if you can read english. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no mystery to what we propose. We propose that you stop deleting the clarification sentences. Since you have deleted them many times, I guess you know what we mean. E4mmacro 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: user Green cannot answer my questions, so please revert it back immediately. thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To 69; when you wrote this, you hadn't given me time to respond. Look at the time tags. That's not nice!

Daniel are you there ?? 69.22.98.162 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel please revert the page back. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan WHERE is there any debate in science journals over 1905 vs 1906 ? -- You are a liar if you cannot produce any such debate in the litterature, which there is none. --Don't post something with ZERO sources. 69.22.98.162 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the itroduction? Do you think there is no debate over priority for Poincare vs Einstein? And we have agreed never to discuss again the fact that you think a paper of 5 pages long in 1905 contains all the information contained in a paper of 50 pages llong published in 1906. E4mmacro 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are violating the rules of Wikipedia. YOUR opinion does not matter, what matters are SOURCES and you have NONE. 69.22.98.162 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that the paper in 1905 was 5 or so page long and the paper in 1906 was more than 50 pages long. It is not my opinion that the second paper contains many more things than the 1905 paper. We have the two papers. We can read. Anyone can check these simple statements. We do not need to read someone else's published opinion to state these simple facts.

And please start a separate page "Poincare discovered everything that Einstein is famous for" and express youself there as much as you like. Include your theory that because Hilbert was a Friend of Poincare, that Poincare is also responsible for General relativity. E4mmacro 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was a FRAUD and YOU know it. 69.22.98.162 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Einstein derive the mass-energy formula in his 1905 paper? I can't find it. In any event, even if Poincare's work on relativity is not sufficiently recognized, it is still necessary to clearly distinguish his formula's applicability from Einstein's. I see there is a new paragraph that replaces the one I copied above, and it just as deficient on this issue. green 64.136.26.226

Mavrossan all the long winded junk you wrote into article on Einstein belongs on the Einstein page, NOT here. 69.22.98.162 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Green. I re-inserted the clarification: readers will now not be confused into thinking Poincare discovered Einstein's meaning of E = mc^2. At least they won't be confused while the clarification remains; but past history suggests it will remain no more than two minutes. I suggest you add a {{pov}} tag, when the clarification is removed. Though, I have tried this, and that doesn't work either. A pov tag has a half-life of about one minute. E4mmacro 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is much improved, but I still have an issue with the following paragraph:

"Poincaré derived the equivalent mass of radiation, a consequence of Maxwell-Lorentz theory, as a criticism of that theory. He repeated this criticism in "Science and Hypothesis" (1902) and "The value of Science" (1904). In the latter he discussed the problem of three violations of classical conservation laws: (1) non-conservation of mass implied by Lorentz's variable mass γm (2) non-conservation of momentum implied by the recoil of an energy emiitng device and (3) the non-conseravtion of energy in the radium experiments of Madame Curie. Poincaré pointed out that new interpretations in Physics were necessary. It was the insight that the body emiting radiation was losing mass of amount m = E / c2, which resolved these problems."

The inference is that since Poincaré had the insight in 1904, he, not Einstein, is the true discoverer of the formula that Einstein is usually given credit for. This is OK with me, if it is true. Is it? green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree Green. I originally wrote "Einstein's insight". I thought the sentence "Poincare pointed out that new interpretations ..etc" was so obviously devoid of any content that no one could take it seriously, and not worth deleting. (That is, everybody in 1904 knew that "new interpretations in Physics were necessary" - Lorentz's work made that obvious). However, I see that with the sentence placed where it is, it does suggest the false idea that Poincare might have suggested that the emitting object was losing mass. All the preceding sentences were supposed to make it clear he had no idea of that, that is why he had such a problem with the three violations of conservation laws that he discussed. I have said this above, more than once, I think. E4mmacro 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To all: I think the article should be expanded to delineate what aspects of relativity Poincaré discovered, that have been defacto historically credited to Einstein. One that comes to mind is the Principle of Relativity. It might also be worthwhile to distinguish the differences between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of relativity. green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is general relativity relevant on this page

Does any agree with me that the last section on general relativity is irrelevent to a page on Poincare? It seems to be nothing more than a statement that Einstein was wrong to call his theory of gravity, the General Theory of Relativity. So what? What possible relevance does that have to Poincare? Did Poincare ever say there was "one and Unique Theory of relativity". Not as fas as I know. Did Poincare discover General Relativity? No. Was Poincare dead in 1915/16? Yes. Shouldn't it be on the Einstein page or the General Relativity page?

Poincare had a GR before anyone, and GR is NOT relativity. -- Poincare is rightfully the creator of relativity therefore, yes, very important here. -- Keswani stressed this point. 69.22.98.162 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice you still have not told us where Poincare published general relativity. Nor have you told us a reference to any work of Poincare's that Langevin gave in his "glowing memoire". You have the original. Can you answer some questions about the Langenvin "glowing memoire"?

1. Does that memoire give any references at all?
2. Does that memoire quote Poincare's gravity equation?
3. does that memoire have any equations?

Thanks. This would be important information. E4mmacro 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling Langevin a liar ? -- Langevin is specific, I quoted him. He described what indeed we call today GR. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling Langevin a liar. I am asking which papers of Poincare's he was talking about. Three very simple questions, that you can answer, since you have a copy, and I do not. E4mmacro 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, old friend, you do have it, Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself had cited. Get it translated, it is very similar to Langevin, and will suffice. --Published by Poincare himself, GR. 69.22.98.162 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin is a published source of top qualifications, one of the top scientists of the period. 69.22.98.162 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also you yourself gave Poincare's own pages where he describes solutions of what we call today GR. -- If you could read French you would know that. -- Try to get translated for yourself Poincare's Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself cited. -- Langevin corroborates it. -- it is GR-- 69.22.98.162 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is GR?

1. And gives an advance of the perihelion of Mecury of 7" rather than the correct 35". I thought GR gave something like 34".
2. Does it predict bending of light by gravity? That is not mentioned in the chapter of the book I cited.
3. Is Langevin refering to the theory that Poincare describes in the book I cited and then credits to Lorentz?

These are simple questions, that you can answer by reading Langevin, YOu have a copy, we don't. E4mmacro 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK if you think the theory of gravity described in "Science et Methods" is GR, I will leave it that. E4mmacro 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keswani stressed this point, yes, it is important here. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GEE believe it or not, it is a miracle, I think the article looks pretty fair right now. Shall we shake on it ? 69.22.98.162 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is OK now. I think it is emmbarassing for Whittaker to have his opinion quoted so prominently - it will make him look biased. I think the GR section is irrelevant, but it doesn't worry me. E4mmacro 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good I accept. 69.22.98.162 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we are now old friends, I'll answer some questions you were interested in. Poincare wrote of curved space, so perhaps also light bending is somewhere there too. He was very interested in Mercury. -- I quoted Langevin on that. -- Langevin no doubt had Science et Methode in mind when he wrote that memoire, and other writings of Poincare too I'm sure. --Also, very importantly, Poincare wrote in Science et Methode that Lorentz had ONE such solution while Poincare says that he himself had MANY such solutions, please understand that, and Langevin corroborates, he also says in the memoire that Poincare had multiple such solutions. 69.22.98.162 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)69.22.98.162 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it from this, that Langevin (1914) did not specifically state what he was thinking of. Gave no citation of any specific paper of Poincare's? E4mmacro 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Science et Methode. 69.22.98.162 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The memoire Le Physicien is 86 pages long, he cites many of Poincare's writings. Much of Langevin's words which I quoted into the article he no doubt took straight from Science et Methode. Get a good translation, you'll find what you want there.69.22.98.162 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4, Don't worry I'm not asking for any changes in the article, we have both agreed on that. I just was curious to ask you a question. You know who I credit with E=mc2. Who do you credit with E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.162 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I credit Einstein with the insight that the mass of a body decreased when it emitted radiation, or heat, though as Ives notes, there were plenety of indications of this floating around (Hasenohtrl, for example and Whittaker meantions a few as well). I don't know of any specific paper where someone else talked of the momentum of radiation before Poincare in 1900, but it would not surprise me if someone did, since Maxwell's radiation pressure was well known, and that is all Poincare was talking about in 1900. So I accept Ives credit to Poincare for half of the meaning of m = E/c^2. E4mmacro 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you contradict yourself ? you credit Einstein for a concept, that plenty of others had as well ? how can you credit then Einstein for that concept if others held it also ? 69.22.98.162 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is not clear. Let me ask again, whom do you credit for the formula E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I'll certainly not change the article now, but I personally see E=mc2 as Poincare's because in science when one correctly derives an equation even for a special case, and said formula be later generalized, the first publication for the special case does get the first credit for discovery. Whittaker is right. But as promised I won't touch the article. -- Please do answer more precisely, because you didn't really answer the question, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 03:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given my answer. You think I am wrong. Let's leave it that. Thanks E4mmacro 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I see what may be the trouble. You ask who I credit the equation to. I answer a different quiestion: who do I credit with predicting the physical effect associated with the equation. i.e. the physical meaning of the equations. Which is all that interests me. Since there are two physical meanings I follow Ives in assigning credit to each meaning seperately. E4mmacro 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The one and unique theory of relativity

The following paragraph must have been written by our nameless, resident Einstein-hater, "69". It claims that Hilbert published the field equations before Einstein. I am aware of a claim alleging Einstein's plagiarism of Hilbert's work, but whatever the case, I believe the order of publishing stated in this paragraph is factually incorrect. Let's get it right and resist the temptation to indulge Einstein bashing.

"After the death of Poincaré, David Hilbert first, followed later by Albert Einstein, each published the same covariant equation of gravity, the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory. The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer; it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity."

Wrt the above paragraph, I also don't like the hair splitting as to whether Einstein's GTR is a theory of relativity or just a theory about gravity. The GTR is a covariant theory that is based on, and satisfies the General Principle of Relativity. Hence, the usual name it goes under is reasonably descriptive. I agree that we must explain the significance of Poincaré's work, but this can be done by explaining what priority his work has wrt relativity theory as of 1905.

green 65.88.65.217 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Green, for your answer see David Hilbert and read Einstein-Hilbert action. -- Hilbert published the famous field equations first -- Einstein could not do it. I see you are not a Physicist: there is NO SUCH THING as a Principle of General Relativity, it does not exist. The word covariance is used very differently in the context of GR. Also, you need read Keswani he states that GR is IN NO SENSE a general theory of relativity. - And now you know why, Mr. Green, - Hair splitting it is not. -- And this is why Keswani adds immediately that GR is really only a theory of gravity. Anything else, Mr. Green? 69.22.98.162 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything else? Yes. Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would cease being snotty. I know you're French and I have nothing against France. But there is no need to be supercilious. Secondly, as to physics, is it not the case that Einstein's field equations are covariant; i.e., they have the same mathematical form in all frames of reference? Is this not the Principle of Relativity in the context of the GTR? (I should not have written "general principle of relativity" when I meant the principle of relativity as it appears in the GTR.) I will check the Hilbert link, but I am suspect of your interpretations because you clearly have an anti-Einstein ax to grind. I just want the facts. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green, do yourself a favor, read Keswani so you'll know what you're talking about. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Hilbert links don't reference where he published the field equations, so I am still not sure if he published them before Einstein. However, the text states that Einstein first had the idea that mass-energy warps spacetime, and consulted with Hilbert to derive the equations. So I would have to assume that it was Einstein's physical intuition that stimulated Hilbert to derive the equations first, if that's what in fact occurred. green 64.136.26.226 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green do yourself a favor, read Folsing for the dates. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some further research on your statement above that "Einstein could not do it [derive the field equations]." According to my source -- http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html -- he derived them a few days after Hilbert, sometime in late November 1915, when his paper was accepted for publication. You are losing credibility. green 64.136.26.226 06:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. The Russian physicist Volk said that Einstein's calling it general relativity, proved that Einstein never understood the theory. 69.22.98.162 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I am sure Einstein had some idea what it was about, having worked on it for about 10 years. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have said many times that in my opinion that last paragraph is irrelevant to this article on Poincare, and should be deleted. Why get involved ina Hilbert/Einstein priority issue at all. All 69 wants to prove is that Poincare has copyriight on the term "relativity". Others, think special relativity is "owned" in various degrees by (alphabetical order only) Einstein/Larmor/Lorentz/Planck/Poincare. There is no need to mention Hilbert/Einstein and I don't want to get into that argument. First we should delete the HIlbert/Einstein controversy, which is actually irrelevant to what 69 (via Keswani) is trying to assert. E4mmacro 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To: E4: NO CENSORSHIP , IT IS VERY PERTINENT and Green agrees it remain. E4 you agreed to the article, don't betray your word.. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the place of Poincare in the history of physics, and specifically relativity, is an interesting and important subject that should not be ignored. I am therefore against deleting the paragraph. I just want the history presented objectively. green 65.88.65.217 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about if the last bit reads:

The one and unique Theory of Relativity

The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer. Although many assume it is the complete theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity.

I think this focuses on what 69 is trying to assert. Concentrate on that - Hilbert/Einstein is a distraction. E4mmacro 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP, KEEP YOUR WORD. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that that the claim about 'one and unique' theory of relativity, and that GR is only a theory of gravitation is in direct contradiction to the wikipedia article on general relativity itself (see heading "Fundamental Principles". Also, while never finishing a doctorate in physics, I completed graduate level work in GR and have read a several of the classic full mathematical treatments of it. Yet it comes as a complete surprise to me that it isn't a theory of relativity as well as gravity. Trivially, it says the manifold mapping group is a symmetry group for any admissable physical law - not in any way restricted to gravitation. This is exactly analogous to the Lorentz group being a symmetry group for Special Relativity. Further, quite a number of experiments have been done to probe whether all physical phemonemena respond to gravitation and accelaration as predicted by this principle (independent of specific field equations). I would argue that this whole section be removed.--Pallen 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 209.6.255.15 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

READ KESWANI. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is partly right, as you can see from the inconsistency of that same article: in the introduction, general relativity is claimed to be a "theory of gravitation". I objected to that on the talk page, but probably they didn't understand the problem. It is a fact that it started out as a theory of general relativity, but this fails for changing acceleration. You may try to improve the intro of that article. -> See also twin paradox.

Thus, about this one (I still haven't read the last version): if not removed, for sure the phrasing needs to be improved, just as the intro to the GRT article needs to be improved. Harald88 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it fail? (Changing acceleration? Do you mean a frame whose acceleration is not constant? Does GR fail in this case, and if so how?) green 65.88.65.217 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed: in the Twin paradox article, Builder is cited about the "how", and Cleonis also explained it on its Talk page. I suppose that around that time (due to Builder?) GRT was starting to be called a theory of Gravitation, abut it may in fact have happened earlier, I really don't know. The GRT article doesn't give a clue, instead it simly wipes the whole issue under the rug. Maybe we should tag it with a warning banner. Maybe 209 is willing to take care of that? Harald88 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'failure' is not correct. Afaik, and cmiiaw, no argument that the theory fails have been presented, since failure, by definition, means an incorrect prediction. What has been argued, and with which I agree to the extent I understand it, is that Einstein's use of the Equivalence Principle to solve the Twin Paradox is not plausible. Do you see the difference? green 65.88.65.217 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: "GRT" referred to his general relativity principle, as applied by him on the Twin paradox: it's his claim that acceleration is relative. And that failed, as documented. See also general relativity, where GRT is not portrayed as Einstein announced it, but as Keswani and Builder portrayed it. The difference is essential. Also in Newtonian mechanics we can make use of a weak equivalence principle, see centrifugal force; but no claim is made that pseudoforces are real. Harald88 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory." (emphasis added) What is the theory that GR completed? It can't be SRT, since that would make GR a relativity theory, which the next senetences claims it is not. Is this trying to suggest that GR is the completeion of Poincare's unknown theory of gravity, the one for which we have no journal reference. I think that is what it was originally meant to say - now it just looks like a contradiction of the next sentence. E4mmacro 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: It is in very plain English, it says clearly that Hilbert completed GR, which is not even relativity, just gravity. No contradiction whatsoever. 69.22.98.146 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I want the article to give a clear statement of which theory was completed, that's all, so people don't have to read the discussion page to try to find out. So it seems you mean to say "the famous field equation ... completed the theory of gravity". Is that correct? And if so, I was just pointing out that you could clear up any misunderstanding by saying so explicitly, ie add the words "of gravity". And if you mean "completed the theory of gravity started by Poincare" then say so explicitly, because this will at least show why the sentence is there on the Poincare page. It also makes it easier for people to know if they agree with you. E4mmacro 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare fits prominately right into the development of the theory of gravity which Einstein incorrectly called general relativity. Read Langevin for this. Hilbert's completion of the theory of gravity follows through directly from Poincare's efforts and therefore is perfectly relevent to Poincare, Hilbert was the very next step which should definitely be pointed out. Especially considering that Hilbert's theory of gravity (misnomered GR) is very very important to Poincare's place in history because as the article points out, GR is only a theory of gravity, therefore Poincare's Special Relativity is the unique theory of relativity. VERY VERY important for Poincare's place in history -- So the paragraph stays. Macrosan had agreed to this and should not go back on his word. 69.22.98.146 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: You still have not read Science et Methode so you still don't know what you're talking about do you. 69.22.98.146 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. To E4: please answer, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.146 16:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer is above, in the previous section. E4mmacro 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. To Green, Stop your LOL. -- Hilbert sent the field equations in a letter to Einstein, only then did Einstein publish them himself. Read Folsing. 69.22.98.146 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For once, here 69 appears to have his facts right, I also read that. But all that is not about Poincare... wrong article! Harald88 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the title of Keswani's book or anything about him on the web. How about the title and some links? The link I provided says that Einstein and Hilbert had been working on deriving the field equations starting in the summer of 1915. I never heard that Hilbert sent the equations to Einstein. Is this firm or just someone's hypothesis or suspicion? Does Folsing offer proof? Since Einstein brought the problem to Hilbert, it would seem appropriate that Hilbert would have done that if he found the solutions before Einstein. And that sequence wouldn't be surprising since Hilbert was consulted precisely because of his immense mathematical talents. So it is foolish to denigrate Einstein if this is how it transpired. Whatever the case, you completely ignore the key fact that it was Einstein who brought the problem to Hilbert based on his physical intuition that matter-energy warps spacetime. In any event, I do believe that without bashing Einstein -- your obvious agenda that is counterproductive for an objective history -- it would be very useful to provide in the article an objective assessment of Poincare's contribution to relativity. Also, the article on General Relativity should reflect objective history about the field equations, etc. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani made it clear, GR is not relativity just gravity. -- Poincare's is the unique. 69.22.98.146 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"just gravity". LOL! LOL! LOL! ... Now if you don't mind, please define what a "relativity" theory must contain to be bonafide relativity. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, you are indeed Green, you are new here and have not followed the pages and pages of discussion.

I only appear green from the pov of your snottiness. I don't know how far to look back or where. If you know so much, you can surely state in a few sentences, maybe by cutting and pasting from your previous Talk comments, what a theory would have to contain to be considered "relativistic", and what the GTR lacks in this regard. It can't be so hard for a brilliant Frenchman as yourself. You remind me a little of Harald who claims the GTR "fails" for "changing accelerations", but when I ask him to explain himself, he is silent. Please desist from your supercilious posturing and give me a concise answer. As for Einstein getting the field equations from Hilbert, what is the biographer's specific source? green 65.88.65.217 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, Go read Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 1965-6, and Folsing. I'm not paid to educate you. 69.22.98.146 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a cop-out, and in your usual snotty style. green 65.88.65.217 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read it you will find answers to all what you are now asking, I am certainly not going to repeat everything just for you. Also, Go to any bookstore and ask for Folsing's biography on Einstein, many of your answers are there too. 69.22.98.146 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To MICHAEL MACROSSAN: The last paragraph of the article (on so called GR), with the paragraph on GR just preceding it, follow in perfectly logical chronological sequence, each sentence. -- Don't you even think about going back on your word. -- Do not delete a thing it would be CENSORSHIP. 69.22.98.146 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggested, I did not change or censor anything. I thought I had expressed your claim exactly. But it now seems there may be two claims 1) Poincare-Hilbert derived the correct theory of gravity 2) Einstein, as usual, got it all wrong. I have just been criticizing the writing style, trying to clarify what exactly you mean to say. E4mmacro 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

to E4, see below i answer. 69.22.98.146 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Since you think Langevin was a liar, put this in your pipe: Poincare presented his solutions of gravity in conference in Goettingen in April of 1909 and in Lille in July, Recueil Gabay.

I never said Langevin was a liar; I asked what papers Langevin referred to. But I now have an answer to a supplementary question: where did Poincare publish his theory of gravity? Thanks. (Now could 69 confirm that this 1909 paper is one of the papers Langevin refers to, just in case there are some others). Has anyone got a copy of Poincare's 1909 paper? Thanks. E4mmacro

What's your claim -- that Poincare had the field equations in 1909 and it's been forgotten, or he discovered some other theory of gravity that has been forgotten? This makes no sense. How could someone of Poincare's prominence solve such a deep problem (gravity) and no one knows about it but you and presumably a few other Poincare devotees? green 65.88.65.217 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green, if you read more, you would know about it too. 69.22.98.146 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More posturing! I read plenty, but there is plenty I don't know, and most important I am open to changing my positions. All I am requesting is a decent substantive window into your position. You can't keep making claims that are outside the mainstream without providing some facts, unless you care not a whit about credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, Keswani is perfectly mainstream. I quote top sources. 69.22.98.146 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not well-known in the physics community. If he were, we wouldn't still be referring to Einstein's General Theory of RELATIVITY. Let's stop the BS and cut to the chase. Say something substantive about Poincare's theory of gravity, why it is relativistic and Einstein's gravity theory is not relativistic. Everyone here is very, very interested if there is a factual basis underlying your claims. If you don't want to do it, I have to conclude you're blowing smoke up our collective butts. green 65.88.65.217 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: You know nothing of the topic, and I am not here to babysit you. Get up off your rear end and go to the library. I told you where to look.69.22.98.146 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't given enough substantive information to convince me it's worth my time. You come off as an Einstein hater and a French ultra-nationalist. Iow, I see a lot of emotion but no substance -- the hallmark of crank analysis. green 65.88.65.217 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: Snotty ? -You just look back at the pages and pages and pages of discussion where Michael Macrossan threw up every single possible obstacle to truth that he could possibly think of, even writing his own opinions into the article without any source referencing, something I forced him to drop several times. He made me prove ten times over each word, but I overcame his obstacles and I like the article. - Snotty ? - You bet I am angry. 69.22.98.146 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I just now noticed your message, suggesting completed the theory of gravity. The sentence is about general relativity already, so wouldn't people know that the theory refers to GR ? I think it is clear already. 69.22.98.146 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I think it is clear as it is: Poincare was forerunner to GR. Hilbert completed GR. Which is only gravity. --- I think the sequence is clear. 69.22.98.146 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I just read the last paragraph again. I think it is clear that completed the theory refers to GR, because that whole section is about GR. -- Only in the last sentence does it revert back to STR. I think it's OK. 69.22.98.146 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that I was unsure, I think it follows that the sentence is unclear. I saw two possible meanings. I will add the words "of gravity" since that is what you mean. Just trying to be helpful. E4mmacro 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Green. Somewhere back in the history of the Poincare page, when Langevin's memoire on Poincare's theory of gravity was first introduced, it said Poincare's theory gave the correct direction of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. There was a clear inference that it did not get the magnitude correct. I notice that this has now gone, and a casual reader might conclude Poincare 1909 had the right value. Like you, I doubt very much a correct theory of gravity by Poincare could today be unknown, but until we get the papers who knows? Getting the direction of the advance of the preihelion correct is not big deal, Poincare mentions two theories one of Lorentz and one of Weber which at least get the direction correct but the magnitude very much smaller. When Einstein (1911? perhaps earlier?) got a value very close to the correct value, from his early versions of GR (equivalence principle only) this was not considered such a big deal since the physical effect was already known - it was a "post-diction" not a prediction. The predictions in Einstein 1911, perhaps even 1908, were "gravitational red-shift" (gravitational time dilation) and bending of light. The bending of light turned out to be half the final value, but they wer brave predictions. E4mmacro 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am open to any possibility, but since 69 refuses to say anything substantive about Poincare's alleged theory of gravity, or why GR is not a relativistic theory, or what a relativistic theory must contain to be considered such, my skepticism grows and my interest wanes. Given the defacto non-existent status of Poincare's gravity theory in the history of physics, he has the burden to show that his claims are not wishful thinking. It is clear that he has not met that burden. green 65.88.65.217 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Poincare's 1909 conferences in Goettingen and Lille are permanently archived, I have seen extensive quotes from them. No doubt Langevin had them in mind as well as others. 69.22.98.146 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: OK you're right it does look better with of gravity. Very good. thanks. And it ties well to the following sentence about Keswani. 69.22.98.146 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What was Poincare's theory of gravity?

The only references that has been suggested for Poincare's theory of gravity are

1. H. Poincare, La mecanique nouvelle, Congres de Lille 1909, published in a book collection of same title, Gauthier-Villares, paris 1924. Enrico Giannetto, in a conference paper "The rise of Special Relativity: Henri Poincare's works before Einstein" (google will find it), says a new versuion of this conference paper was reprinted as Chapters X, XI and XII in "Science et Method" 1908 which doesn't make a lot of sense; the conference paper in 1909 may have been a new version of the 1908 book chapters.
2. H. Poincare Die neue Mechanik, conference paper, Wissenschaften Vereins zu Berlin, 13 Oct 1910.

"The new mechanics" is of course, the term Poincare always uses to refer to Lorentz's theory, or what we now call Special Relativity (see the quotes already on the page, or any number of mentions throughout Poincare's work).

Anon69, who has the original of the Langevin memoire has not specifically told us what papers Langevin is referring to in that memoire, when he speaks of Poincare's gravity theory, but has suggested I read "Science et Method" since it is "all there". I have read an english translation of Science et Method, which contains a preface by Poincare in which Poincare says "I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Halsted, who has been so good as to present my book to American readers in a translation, clear and faithful". In that book, we find

Gravitation ... “upon this subject we can only make hypotheses, but we are naturally led to investigate which of these hypotheses would be compatible with the principle of relativity. There are a great number of them; the only one of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz, which I shall briefly expound”. This is followed by 1 1/4 pages explaining Lorentz's electromagnetic theory of gravity. Then

“Such is the hypothesis of Lorentz , which reduces to Franklin’s hypothesis for slight velocities; it will therefore explain, for these small velocities, Newton’s law. Moreover, as gravitation goes back to forces of electrodynamic origin, the general theory of Lorentz [here he means the Lorentz transformations] will apply, and consequently the principle of relativity will not be violated.”

Since Lorentz's theory is an electromagnetic one, an orbiting body will emit a very small amount of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves (Poincare calls it the "wave of acceleration" - the radiation from an accelerated electric charge). I wonder though if this radiation is what many have seized upon as Poincare's gravity waves? If so, they are Lorentz's gravity waves. E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

KESWANI 1966 wrote that Poincare even spoke of gravity waves.69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And what evidence did Keswani quote? E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Keswani, he is still active. I just cite him as a proper source. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see Poincare does not discuss any theory of his own in this chapter - as is so often the case, Poinacre is expounding Lorentz.

LANGEVIN 1914 wrote it was Poincare, no mention of Lorentz by Langevin. 69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So I guess Langevin was not talking about Science and Method afterall. But that doesn't tell us what he was talking about. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Science et Methode, and no doubt also the Goettingen conferences of April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that Langevin does not mention Lorentz then he is not talking about "Science and Method", unless Langevion does not beieve Poincare when he wrote, in "Science and Method",

"the only [theory] of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz". I would not credit Langevin of overlooking that statement, so I assume Langevin must have been talking of something else. E4mmacro 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So what is the Poincare theory of gravity?

Can anyone with the French text of "Science et Method" confirm that the above is a translation of that book? Can anyone give any French text from that book where Poincare says he is describing his own theory of gravity?

Many thanks, in advance. E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There in Science et Methode where Poincare says there are a great number of them Poincare certainly means his own solutions. -- Langevin's memoire confirms, saying Poincare had many solutions. 69.22.98.146 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it then my English translation is a faithful rendition. Now I know the sentence where you think Poincare is talking about his own theory. You assume Poincare meant his own solutions (which he doesn't bother to describe). Even so, I assume Poincare presents the best solution he knows of, in this case Lorentz. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You assume way too much there 69.22.98.146 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Langevin's memoire (1914) states clearly that it was Poincare: il a trouvé plusieurs solutions..., it follows then exactly the quote of Langevin which I put in the article. -- Langvin did not mention Lorentz there at all. -- It was Poincare, Langevin is clear. 69.22.98.146 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even Langevin can make a mistake. If Langevin gives no reference for the many solutions Poincare found, then his testimony is hearsay. We have no evidence from this what the solutions are. Langevin may have thought Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory was a description of Poincare's own theory. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

see Goettingen conferences April 1909, also Lille that summer. -- Langevin was not stupid, and he knew Poincare's work very closely. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume il a trouve plusieurs solutions is what Halsted translates as "there are a great many of them" which is immediately followed by "The only one of which I will speak is " Lorentz's. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Langevin corroborates, that Poincare had his own plusieurs solutions. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice this "overlooking of Lorentz" happens a lot with Poincare fans. A good example is the St Louis 1904 lecture, which so often gets praised (rightly). But notice in Poincare's letter to Lorentz May 1905, Poincare says "I spoke of your 1904 paper in St Louis" or words to that effect. As usual Poincare is describing Lorentz; if French authors get confused or ignore Lorentz's work, that might be understandable. But shoudn't Poincare's own statements about what he did, count more that Langevin's second-hand statements? E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who needs Lorentz ? 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare in recorded lecture in Goettingen of April 1909 presented covariant solutions which gave proper direction of the precession of Mercury. -- No doubt this is one such place which Langevin was referring to. 69.22.98.146 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, but what is the covariant solution? Again, you say "No doubt" when "probably" or "possibly" might be more appropriate. If Langevin does not say to what he is referring, then we have to guess, or deduce. We do not know beyond doubt. And thanks for confirming that it got the direction (but not the magnitude?) correct. Does he give the magnitude? If the magnitude conincides with that given by Lorentz's theory described in "Science and Method", that would be interesting. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Get the transcripts of Goettingen, I know that Poincare presented it there. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation concerning Poincare's theory of gravity is as I expected. No confirmed documentation; rather, just self-serving inferences by Poincare devotees (groupies?). If Poincare really had discovered something fundamentally new about gravity that has been inexplicably forgotten, anyone who knew about it would be shouting from the rooftops and giving previews. The fact that 69 refused to be explicit on some basic points was telling. I've seen this sort of thing before. I would surmise that his various references are interesting. However, I am convinced they will not establish his excessive claims. green 65.88.65.217 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

see Goettingen April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. Langevin and Poincare are not liars. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The standard process when one obtains revolutionary results, important results, or even modestly interesting results, is to publish the finding in a peer reviewed journal. Public lectures don't cut it. Are the lectures you cite available on the Internet? If so, please provide the links, and if you are feeling generous, the specific sections that allegedly support your claims. green 65.88.65.217 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, you go get them. 69.22.98.146 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've concluded that it's not a productive use of my time. Presumably you have read them, yet show no willingness whatsoever to seriously preview the alleged revolutionary findings. And you use the usual repertoire of evasive tactics to avoid discussing the issue substantively. As a result, from my pov your claims have zero credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Look again at the quote from Science et Methode you posted. It says Lorentz had only ONE such solution, out of many. 69.22.98.146 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So why didn't Lorentz publish his solution? Has history also conspired against Lorentz? This gets more and more implausible. green 65.88.65.217 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They were recorded in conferences. 69.22.98.146 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Recorded, but the results were not published and presumably not available on the Internet. And those that know the contents are what -- sworn to secrecy? LOL. green 65.88.65.217 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Permanent records. You can order them. 69.22.98.146 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And when I order them, they are likely to be in French. If they're so important, I wonder why they are unavailable online. Anyway, as I said, given your extreme reluctance to discuss the substantive content, I can only conclude that you have misinterpreted what you have read. green 65.88.65.217 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The one and unique Theory of Relativity (again)

Let me make two points about the following, concluding paragraph:

"The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer; it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity."

Firstly, we need a full reference to Keswani in the reference section. Secondly, without a brief explanation as to why Einstein's "gravity" theory is not a relativity theory, readers will be scatching their heads. This is why I have asked Mr. 69 for his definition of 'relativity'. If we decide not to clarify this issue, then the paragraph above should be deleted from the article. green 65.88.65.217

To Green, call ANY physics professor or even undergrad student in Physics -- any one of them will tell you that GR is a misnomer, and only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.146 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

69.22.98.146 needs to read WP:CIVIL. The Rod 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To "69": Firstly, I strongly suggest that you restrain your inappropriate hostile attitude. I should also remind you that the function of Wikipedia is to make things clear; not to induce head scratching. Most readers will surely not understand the basis of the last paragraph, and will not have a physics professor to call. Also, unless you dispute that the field equations of GR are covariant, then for those of us who know the definition of the 'Principle of Relativity', GR will continue to be considered a 'relativistic' theory (as well as a theory of gravity). Hence, unless the last paragraph is modified in an informative way as I suggest, it should removed. I am not alone in that opinion. Here is something recently posted that deserves re-reading:

"I would like to point out that that the claim about 'one and unique' theory of relativity, and that GR is only a theory of gravitation is in direct contradiction to the wikipedia article on general relativity itself (see heading "Fundamental Principles". Also, while never finishing a doctorate in physics, I completed graduate level work in GR and have read a several of the classic full mathematical treatments of it. Yet it comes as a complete surprise to me that it isn't a theory of relativity as well as gravity. Trivially, it says the manifold mapping group is a symmetry group for any admissable physical law - not in any way restricted to gravitation. This is exactly analogous to the Lorentz group being a symmetry group for Special Relativity. Further, quite a number of experiments have been done to probe whether all physical phemonemena respond to gravitation and accelaration as predicted by this principle (independent of specific field equations). I would argue that this whole section be removed. --Pallen 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)209.6.255.15 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"

Whoever wrote that, I don't believe you. - No one could get that far along in GR without ever even hearing that GR is only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.146 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, I will clarify. There is a progression on the nature of privileged frames of reference over the history of physics. A theory with more relativity than another is commonly meant as a decline in 'how many' privileged frames there are and how privileged they are. The progression has been: [(1) Newtonian physics: privileged frames are inertial frames that transform by the Galilean transform. (2) 1880s: not having discovered the proper symmetry group for Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's equations were taken to imply an absolute frame of reference. This was a step away from Galilean relativity. (3) Special Relativity: there exist a privileged family of global inertial frames related by the Lorentz transform, and it is possible to distinguish any acceleration of a frame of reference. (4) General Relativity: there is no such thing as a global inertial frame. Inertial frames have privileged character only locally. Further, inertial frames separated by any finite distance in a non-empty universe DO NOT transform to each by Lorentz, but instead by a more general transform. Finally, the state of motion of a non-inertial frame can only be determined to within an arbitrary additive constant accelaration (by local means). ] Note also that the 'relativity' statements in (4) imply gravity and determine the vaccuum field equations 'nearly uniquely'. Thus GR is both a theory of gravity and a move away from the global privileged frames of SR.--Pallen 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 209.6.255.15 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I studied GR in the late 1960s (since the mid 70s I have been in the computer industry). At that time the claim that GR embodied no relativity principle was considered crank. Surveying more recent literature, I see this is now more of an even split, viewed as philosophical with no impact on physics. On another point, the claim made the GR violates general covariance is absurd. In fact, the 'gravitation only' philosophy doesn't argue this at all - it argues that general covariance doesn't have real physical content because any theory can be made covariant by technical means. However these means involve adding 'absolute' objects to the theory. Those who continue to view an invariance principle as meaningful argue that it implies no such object be admitted to the theory. This point of view was nicely codified in "Principles of Relativity Physics", James L. Anderson (1967); which happens to be one of the texts I studied GR from. A literature search indicates this point of view remains active with papers all the way to 2005 citing Anderson's POV. --Pallen 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)209.6.255.15 14:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

green 65.88.65.217 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The one and unique paragraph is perfectly clear even to lay persons. 69.22.98.146 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Make a phone call, any physics prof will tell you what I am telling you, it is common knowledge that GR is a misnomer. A General Theory would require a Principle of General Relativity. Please state for me such principle. You can't. It does not exist in reality. Oh yes you can pretend, like Einstein had hoped, but GR does not satisfy one. Keswani is a world expert in GR, he is in published record that GR is in no sense a general theory of relativity. Have you read his article yet ? Do that first, before bothering anyone again. Keswani (1966). 69.22.98.146 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by SOURCES. Have you a SOURCE that says Keswani is wrong ? No you have not. 69.22.98.146 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Read wikipedia's article on general covariance -- it says Einstein WANTED to demonstrate covariance in the normal sense, but GR cannot do it. Read Keswani. 69.22.98.146 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would surely read Keswani's article if it were on the Internet; but alas, it is not! If he's such an authoritative source, why is it I could find not a single reference to him in a Google search (maybe it was on page 100!)? Anyway, this is beside the point. There is a general impression that GR is a covariant theory, and when I last consulted physicists who are knowledgeable about this subject, they agreed. Hence, I think the last paragraph should be enlarged with pertinent information, inclusive of a link to the Wikipedia article on General Relativity and/or Covariance. The paragraph as is, simply causes head-scratching to those who believe what you disbelieve, or have mathematical grounds for affirming that the field equations in GR are covariant. As for the 'General Principle of Relativity', it means that the laws of physics -- in this case the field equations -- have the same form in all frames of reference. Insofar as they are written in tensor form and transform as four vectors, the consensus is that the field equations satisfy the principle of covariance. If they do not, then explain this (succinctly if possible) in the last paragraph, instead of mindlessly referring to an electronic non-person (Keswani); that is, someone whose work is electronically inaccessible. Instead of waving a flag, please make some subtantive statements (if you can). I will shortly read what Wikipedia has to say concerning general covariance and GR. green 65.88.65.217 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just did a scan of Wiki articles on General Relativity and General Covariance, and I find nothing to support your claim that Einstein's GR is not a covariant theory. Please point me to the exact passages you have in mind. Also, these articles confirm what I have alleged about GR -- that it is a covariant theory, with the definition that I gave above. If this is incorrect, and it might be, then the Wiki articles I just cited should be modified. green 65.88.65.217 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IT MIGHT BE ?? SORRY BUT IT'S NOT. 69.22.98.146 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you shouting? I went to the Wiki articles you suggested and found they do not support your claim. In fact, both articles basically stated what I have been stating. From my pov, I can't make a categorical judgement that the Wiki articles are incorrect. But they might be.

Correct, you cannot make a judgement, so you should just drop out, you're way out of your field. 69.22.98.146 04:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I am just being careful. I can't make a definitive (negative) judgment as to the merits of your case. I mean, of course, that I am giving you something you don't seem worthy of -- the benefit of the doubt. Instead of substance, you persist in ad hominem remarks. I am beginning to believe that you have a poor grasp of the subject. Otherwise, you would have argued with some hint of persuasiveness much earlier. Istm now that you're a paper tiger and resent being exposed. green 65.88.65.217 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Keswani is I believe retired, perhaps not active on the net, I haven't checked.

Neither Keswani's article nor the two lectures by Poincare are available electronically. This is why you have a hard time making your case. We can't evaluate what was claimed. And as for Lorentz covariant gravity solution and Poincare's many such solutions, they were not presented in peer-reviewed journals, so there is nothing to rely on except hearsay. The fact that they weren't published suggests that after some initial enthusiasm, something awry was uncovered. I mean; what other possible reason could there be for not publishing such allegedly important results?

GO TO THE LIBRARY. - ORDER IT IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT. 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had made a decent plausibility argument, I would have already gone to some library. But you have not. And from your comments below, I am wondering if you know this materal as well as you claim.

A General Principle of Relativity would state that the laws of physics are the same for ALL observers, inertial OR accelerated. Unfortunately, as any physicist can tell you, it does not exist. In accelerated frames one must introduce fictitious forces.

If I am in a rotating frame, I will experience a fictitious force called the centripetal force (or centrifugal). This is very old news. Why EXACTLY is this a violation of the General Principle of Relativity or General Covariance? Afaik, there is no principled requirement that all observers experience the same forces or make the same measurements. In general, they do not.

CORRECT !!!! -- SO TRUE GR DOES NOT EXIST -- YOU FINALLY GOT IT !!!!! 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an enlightening statement. Maybe you don't understand what I was getting at. E.g., in SR there is no principled requirement that all observers measure the same forces and make the same measurements. In fact, this rarely occurs; hardly ever. But the laws of physics still have the same form in all inertial frames. Iow, the Principle of Covariance or Relativity in SR does not demand that all observers make the same measurements -- only that the relationship among the measurements they do make, have the same form. This is what the Principle of Covariance is. E.g., two observers will measure different E and B fields when observing the same phenomena, but Maxwell's equations hold for both observers. OK? Now apply or extend this example to GR, where not all observers measure or experience a fictitious force. So what? This, in itself, does not show a violation of general covariance. If it is a violation, something must be added to the argument. I am quite willing to concede a violation of general covariance in GR, but you have not offered a sufficient argument, or anything close. When/if you do, one of us will edit all the Wiki pages with the allegedly wrong description of GR.

You concede a violation of general covariance in GR ? GOOD ! THAT KILLS GR, there is no such thing, it is a misnomer, we agree. 69.22.98.146 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. You completely misread my meaning, perhaps because English is not your native language. I simply meant that I am open to the possibility of a violation of general covariance. I am willing to agree to your pov IF AND ONLY IF you are able to present a sufficient argument. So far you have not done so. See comments below.

Nature does not respect this would-be principle.

Where or what is the principle that is violated?

MY GOD CAN'T YOU READ ENGLISH ? - I NEED TO REPEAT IT AGAIN ? 69.22.98.146 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See above paragraph. If the Principle of Covariance does not require that all observers make the same measurements, of force or anything else, how does the existence of a fictitous force in some accelerating frame imply a violation of said Principle? Calm down and see if you can give a reasoned response. I'd like to agree with you, but so far your argument is insufficient.

accelerating frames are not equivalent to inertial frames, so GR does not exist in nature. 69.22.98.146 04:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If the field equations apply in inertial frames, then general covariance is alive and well. You really need to demonstrate that they do not. I haven't seen that argued. Istm that they would be trivially satisfied for a frame with a=0. E.g., if all accelerating frames are equivalent, then one can consider an accelerating frame whose acceleration is non-zero but very small. This would be close to an inertial frame and the field equations would apply. I would think they would also apply in the limit as the frame's acceleration tended to zero (a true inertial frame).

Even Einstein eventually realized this simple fact of nature. What is misleadingly called covariance in GR today, is an artifice. 69.22.98.146 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

green 65.88.65.217 02:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

green 65.88.65.217 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

green 65.88.65.217 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write Keswani and tell him you think he is wrong. 69.22.98.146 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would if I had read his paper and came to the same conclusions as stated above. All I can do here is point out the insufficiency in what YOU have presented -- that it does not prove your case. My position is that an inertial frame is just a special case of an accelerating frame, so the field equations should apply, and therefore general covariance should be satisfied. So far, all you have done is shout and make appeals to authority (the obvious tone of your latest remark). Why don't you focus on making your case? Why don't you explain exactly why the existence of fictitious forces in accelerating frames causes a violation of general covariance? Does their existence somehow cause the field equations to change form in inertial frames? This is where the rubber hits the road and I am open to a decent argument, but so far none has been presented. green 65.88.65.217 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. "69": If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would summarize your degrees, subjects of concentration and professional affiliations. I request this information out of curiosity because you assume absolute superiority in this discussion, but in fact have never presented a substantive argument or adequately answered any of my objections to the few hints of substance contained in your remarks. You actually seem like someone who has no technical training and has no appreciation or concept wrt what a real argument is. Pauli's remark seems to apply; you're not right and not even wrong. Thank you. green 65.88.65.217 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to Keswani when you write him.. 69.22.98.146 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It's now obvious to me, and I would think to anyone reading this discussion, that you are not qualified to intelligently (and civilly) discuss this issue. I will change the article text as I deem appropriate. This concludes my discussion with you. green 65.88.65.217 14:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir: Wikipedia operates by SOURCES. see Keswani 1966. You have no source that says Keswani is wrong. 69.22.98.146 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your source is essentially hearsay. We have no assurance it exists, and if it does, we have no idea as to its precise content since it is unavailable on the Internet for calibration. All we have are your extreme and rudely presented claims that cannot be minimally characterized as poorly argued since you are clearly incapable of making a bonafide argument worthy of serious consideration. Also, there are a plethora of sources that state that GR is a covariant theory. I, and others, have given you more than sufficient opportunity to make a decent case, but you have not. I consider the discussion closed. green 65.88.65.217 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 1965-6, is available at ANY major university library. 69.22.98.146 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming body of references assert that GR is a covariant theory. Period. Bonafide sources are preferable to an alleged dissident opinion (Keswani) which a true believer (Mr. "69") is utterly incapable of describing with any coherence or rigor. Additionally, your responses above show that you don't even understand the meaning of covariance. Stop pestering us with your obsession. green 65.88.65.217 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to Keswani. Write him a letter. 69.22.98.146 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not interested. I have a better suggestion. Explain why the existence of fictitious forces in accelerating frames contradicts General Covariance. If you can do that, we can make some progress. I don't think you can. It is easier to blow smoke than make a serous argument. green 65.88.65.217 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For the tenth time, and I want you to tatoo this to your arm so you don't have to ask me again, accelerating frames are in no way equivalent to inertial frames, fictious forces would have to be introduced to keep the laws of physics the same. 69.22.98.146 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. green 65.88.65.217 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The proof is waiting for you in Keswani's article. GO GET IT. 69.22.98.146 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOT INTERESTED!!!! READ MY LIPS. NOT INTERESTED!!!! There is nothing new in the fact that an observer in an accelerating frame will experience something indistinguishable from a force causally attributed to the acceleration, aka a "fictitious" force. If you are so knowledgeable, you can surely explain why the existence of this "force" contradicts covariance. If you can't give a plausibility argument, let's terminate the discussion, as it is going round in circles. green 65.88.65.217 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to go to the library to read Keswani, that's your problem, not mine, good bye. 69.22.98.146 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a cop-out, exactly what I would expect from a game player. I see what you've been up to on the Einstein Talkpage, distorting the position of Kip Thorne on Hilbert's GR work vs Einstein's, etc. When you burn your credibility in the context of an arrogant style of communication, your sources become tainted. green 65.88.65.217 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gravity Solutions Consistent with Relativity

I edited this section consistent with the known facts and without introducing a pov. I don't like the header and would entertain suggestions. green 65.88.65.217 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section header to "Work on Gravity" to make it consistent with the other header ("Work on Relativity"), and because the old header assumed something we don't know for sure; namely, that Poincare's solutions were consistent with relativity. Without any published solutions, the issue of consistency is indeterminate. green 65.88.65.217 04:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Green. Good luck with trying to argue with 69.

Wrt arguing with "69", it's a waste of time. He adamantly refuses to provide any substantive motivation for his position that GR is not a covariant theory, and his arrogant mode of communication seriously harms his case. He claims to have a Ph'D in physics from UCLA (see Einstein Talkpage). If true, I hope he isn't teaching physics at some university, since his (negative) attitude problem will serve his students poorly. green 65.88.65.217 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for removing the Einstein/Hilbert dispute which is clearly irrelevant to Poincare. In the book I quoted, Science and Method, Poincare means something very limited by a gravity theory that "satisfies the principle of relativity", it seems to me. I think he means, if you had a theory of gravity for bodies orbiting the sun then you should get the same results if the sun were moving at any speed w.r.t the aether (i.e. we can not detect the motion of the sun from any effect in the orbits or any gravity effects). In this case, the sun would suffer lenbth contractions, the orbits of the planets would suffer length contractions, the physical effects would propagated at the speed of light. He means only, as fas as I can see, that Newton's gravity clearly has to be modified if what he called "Lorentz's new mechanics", what you would call "Special Relativuty", is true. That is why, in his book Science and Methhod, the ONLY theory he described (besides some older clearly wrong ones) was Lorentz's electromagnatic theory - it automatically satisfied Lorentz's electrodynamics and therefore the Principle of Relativity that Poincare was talking about. I don't think Poincare ever meant what Einstein meant by General Relativuty. E4mmacro 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: With respect to the sentence in the article quoted below, is it correct as I stated in article, that the equations were never published? I read the sentence below to suggest a qualitative description. green 65.88.65.217 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) "In "Science and Method" (1908, Book III, Chapter III "The New Mechanics and Astronomy"), Poincaré describes solutions for a theory of gravity which satisfy the principle of relativity, and in which gravity propagates at the speed of light."

He gives a 1 1/4 page description of Lorentz's theory of an electromagnetic origin for the gravity force. He says the only planent for which it would differ from Newton is Mercury (it was the fastest moving planent). He gave results (but not the calculations) of the rate of energy radiated away by Lorentz's theory and concluded it was insignificant (he quoted some number of billions of years before the total energy radiated away was significant). He gave numerical result, but not the calculation of 7" for the advance of the Mercury perihelion (comapred with 35" measured). My guess is that Poincare is quoting a paper by Lorentz, but I am not sure which one. The book is a "popular one" and Poincare in these series of popular science book rarely cited the original papers. E4mmacro 09:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the third paragraph in this section is irrelevant to Poincare and can be removed. green 65.88.65.217 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I edited this section again, adding a few points as provided by E4 comments above, removing some typos, and retrieving some lost information. Please check it for accuracy. Yesterday I removed all the date links from the article (retaining the raw dates as text only). Imo, links should exist for words and phrases directly related to understanding the article. Finally, I edited the References section, fixing some typos, removing a non-existent link to Lorentz's 1904 paper, as well as putting a Poincare 1897 reference in correct chronological order. I have a guestion about the reference, "Lorentz, H. A. (1911) Amersterdam Versl. XX, 87". Is "Amersterdam" an incorrect spelling or correct Dutch? Thanks for any input. green 65.88.65.217 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, I have a newly acquired respect for you since you called Einstein a plagiarist. -- I'd like to see E4 do the same. 69.22.98.146 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, I would prefer that you not go re-writing the article the way you have, because you have no background in Physics, so please first suggest changes here in the discussion section, the way Harald has done here below, then allow people with more background to discuss your suggestion before re-writing the article, thanks. 69.22.98.146 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a background in physics (and mathematics, and computer science), and you will notice that my edits did not introduce any errors in substance or tone. As I previously stated, I am careful in making judgements. green 65.88.65.217 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK but please out of courtesy post your suggestions here first and let at least someone respond first before jumping into the text. thanks. 69.22.98.146 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My first suggestion is to entirely remove the section entitled "The one and unique Theory of Relativity" unless we can offer a plausibility argument explaining why GR is not a relativistic theory. Regardless of what you claim, many people believe it is covariant, including physicists I have had contact with from time to time. The point of this activity is to make issues as clear as possible; not muddy the waters with defacto non-mainstream claims. green 65.88.65.217 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK let me explain to you ONCE MORE why Keswani categorically states that GR is NOT a GR. There is no such thing as a Principle of GR in nature, it does not exist. There is no such thing as a TGR in nature, it is forbidden by the laws of physics. Einstein was HOPING to create one but he realized himself that such a thing does not exist. The word covariance in the context of GR is used in quite a different sense, it is an abstract mathematical definition that exists only in the construct of space-time, not real space, it is an ARTIFICE, do you understand now ? Please go to UCLA near you in Riverside and read Keswani because I am not going to repeat all this again just for you. 69.22.98.146 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell it to me! Tell it to the reader! Anyway, you have not made anything close to a plausibility argument. All you have done is repeat your position with different words. Tell the reader why the Principle of Relativity in SR -- that the mathematical forms of the laws of physics are inertial frame invariant -- is in principle different from, or somehow contradicts, the (alleged) invariance of the GR field equations.

Yes I could write all this into the article, but the article tells them where to find the detailed reasoning. -- That is called a SOURCE, and suffices. 69.22.98.146 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A single, defacto dissident source interpreted by a highly biased reader (you) is not what I would consider high on the scale of reliability. If you were on really firm ground, you could produce (and would want to!) a plausibility argument in one paragraph. green 65.88.65.217 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrt your claim of some agreement between you and E4; I read many of the exchanges and I see no fundamental agreement. He suggests, quite correctly imo, that there are no papers with Poincare's theory of gravity -- with his alleged "numerous" solutions -- and I note that you were unable to give any citations wrt said alleged solutions. So what do we really have here -- just someone (you) peddling hot air. Hey, Poincare was a genius, but he did not anticipate anything as radical as GR. You can take that to the bank! green 65.88.65.217 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe E4 is satisfied with the quotes from Langevin and Minkowski, the article is very clear. 69.22.98.146 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're dreaming (again!). green 65.88.65.217 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To MR 69: AGREEMENT OFF!!! Anon 69 is clearly a deceitful individual who cannot be trusted. He has the unmitigated gall to request that I discuss changes here before implementing them, but went ahead and made major changes in the gravity section without any prior consultations. What it now contains is BS/propaganda suggesting that Poincare's work on gravity in some substantial sense anticipated GR. Poincare was on the wrong track entirely. He was thinking of an electromagnetic theory of gravity, a la Lorentz, and never published any equations. 69 is a loose cannon with no ethics. I don't know what we can do about it. Go to Einstein Talkpage and see my proof that he speaks from both sides of his mouth. green 65.88.65.217 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To green, What you don't realize is that E4 and I have spent a month, hammering out all the details in the article. There is a reason for everything there, which you don't understand because you came in here late, and are not aware of the reasoning behind the wording. When you simply start hacking away you don't realize why the wording is the way it is. So abide by Wikipedia ethics and first post your questions here always. 69.22.98.146 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Newly discovered transformations?

"the first to present Lorentz's (1904) newly discovered transformations in their modern symmetrical form."

I think that "newly discovered" is both unsupported and irrelevant for this article. What was the purpose of not simply stating : "the first to present Lorentz's transformations in their modern symmetrical form." ? Harald88 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Harald I agree, they were hardly newly discovered in 1904, they had been around longer than that. It should be removed. 69.22.98.146 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Isn't it important to know when the Lorentz transformations were discovered? Just to make it clear that Poincare and Einstein did not discover them? E4mmacro 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who may be overly sensitive, I want it clear that I am in no way implying in the article that GR belongs to Hilbert instead of Einstein -- I am simply writing down in chronological correctness for the article. 69.22.98.146 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the comment I removed concerning Hilbert's priority in deriving field equations is clearly out of place in this article since without any published papers by Poincare wrt his gravitational results, the assumption that he in some way anticipated GR is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. Btw, I also happen to be pretty sober when it comes to making historical judgements. green 65.88.65.217 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is why I wrote in the two quotes, one of Langevin and one of Minkowski, both quotes confirm Poincare's anticipating GR. As if that were not enough, quotes from Poincare's lectures on gravity are abondant, this alone proves that Poincare's concepts of gravity were indeed published, because how else could his lectures be extensively quoted in books today. Specifically Poincare's 1909 Goettingen lectures were published in 1910 in Leipzig, I have extensive quotes from that publication. There is no question whatsoever of Poincare's anticipating GR. Also, note that just lecture presentations in themslves at prominant places like Goettingen do greatly influence the scene, just the lectures themselves influenced the thinking you must admit. Please go back to the article and read the quotes of Langevin and Minkowski which both confirm Poincare's influence on GR concepts, and you will have to agree. Thanks for asking your question here on the discussion page. PS I think you are in Riverside, my PhD in Physics is from UCLA, they have Keswani's papers. Do go read it, it's not far. 69.22.98.146 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are dreaming and don't know it. After SR, there were dreams of a covariant theory of gravity. But what Lorentz and Poincare came up with is INDETERMINATE, since we don't have any peer reviewed papers! Lectures are just hot air for the public and don't amount to a hill of beans -- or maybe to just that! Secondly, if Poincare was thinking of an electromagnetic theory of gravity, as seems the case, in no substantial way did he anticipate GR. It's fine to include what he did, or tried to do, but don't mislead the reader into thinking that he really anticipated GR because some of his intuitions and theorizing were linguistically similar to GR -- like gravity propagating at lightspeed. He and Lorentz were on the wrong track, at least in the sense of anticipating something as conceptually radical as the GR we know and love(?). green 65.88.65.217 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling Langevin and Minkowski liars ? 69.22.98.146 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why liars? My impression is they were mistaken. It's called "human error". Is there any evidence, I mean real evidence, that Poincare was thinking in terms other than an electromagnetic theory of gravity? If you have such evidence, I will revaluate my position. Can you quote anything in Poincare's lectures that suggest this? ANYTHING? green 65.88.65.217 03:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Langevin and Minkowski were both wrong ? -- It is more likely you are wrong. 69.22.98.146 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop the bull? You say you have copies of Poincare's lectures. Great! Now produce the evidence that his gravity theory was other than electromagnetic! Do it, or have the decency to admit you're winging it. My guess is that L and M thought EM was the way to go. green 65.88.65.217 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You guess too much. -- Provide SOURCES please. 69.22.98.146 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Goettingen 1909 lectures of which I have extensive exerpts, he does not call it electromagnetic, but gravitational waves. 69.22.98.146 04:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you claim to be a physicist from a prominent university? Calling them 'gravitational waves' does not ipso facto equate them to GR gravity waves. But this is elementary! The gravity waves in GR are not electromagnetic. Look deeper into this and tell us from your original source material what is beneath the superficial linguistic equivalency. Are Poincare's gravity waves electromagnetic or not? If you're not sure, the section you have re-written is on shaky ground. green 65.88.65.217 04:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

He called it ONDES GRAVIFIQUES. - You tell me what that means. 69.22.98.146 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the game of shifting burden of proof. You have the source material, so you should be able to definitively determine whether he has an electromagnetic theory in mind, or not. It's really elementary that the two words cannot be ipso facto equated to what exists in GR. This is elementary and doesn't need to be argued. green 65.88.65.217 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

gravitational. 69.22.98.146 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A typo above or an act of desperation? Offer some salient Poincare quotes, and include them in the article, as proof that Poincare's theory of gravity is not electromagnetic. I honestly don't believe you can do it. green 65.88.65.217 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither Minkowski in 1907/6 or Langevin in 1914 could credit Poincare with discovering General Relativity. They didn't know what GR was, since it hadn't been published then. If they claim that Poincare had the correct theory of gravity that is useless as a source to prove that Poincare's theory is superior to GR. We need to have the theories to compare them and decide which is better, which Minkowski and Langevin did not have before 1915. It could be that Poincare wrote the exact equation - but I doubt it. If he did someone should be able to supply a source we can all check, or even quote exactly from that source. E4mmacro 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but 69 is claiming that Poincare's theory was the conceptual forerunner to GR. It would be perhaps, if there were any evidence whatsoever that Poincare was thinking in terms of, say, Lorentzian manifolds. This is what 69 can determine from his source material. My guess is in the negative. I think he is making invalid inferences based on superficial linguistic similarities in concepts -- like gravity transmission at lightspeed. green 65.88.65.217 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not say solutions, I say concepts, and they are indeed the correct concepts employed in GR today. 69.22.98.146 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Field Equations

Who censored the last step in the chronological sequence ? -- The Field Equation incorporates Poincare's concepts. 69.22.98.146 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"incorporates Poincare's concepts" is contested. You haven't come anyway near showing that. It cannot be confirmed by anyone's opinion published before 1915. If the field equation has nothing to do with Poincare, as appears likely, then the statement about who discovered General Relativity is irrelevant, as I have always said. The only result of that statement is to start a fight about priority for GR, a fight which should take place elsewhere. E4mmacro 05:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not starting any such debate. I am simply crediting Poincare for his concepts, which are incorporated into GR still to this day, ie., the speed of gravity is c, propagation of gravity waves, requirement of satisfying Principle of Relativity, etc are all embedded in the Field Equations. 69.22.98.146 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So why not credit Lorentz? Poincare describes Lorentz's theory in 1908 which includes these concepts? E4mmacro 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhaaa! So GR does satisfy the Principle of Relativity! Game over. green 65.88.65.217 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in the way you think. 69.22.98.146 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do us all a favor, including yourself, and incorporate the GR revised Principle of Relativity into the article so we can evaluate whether it is something that Poincare had in mind or not? Stop with the arcane hints. Your intuition in these matters has shown some kinks of late. green 65.88.65.217 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is censoring the clear fact, given the quotes of Langevin and Minkowski, that Poincare's concepts are imbedded into Hilbert's Field Equation ? -- Please identify yourself.69.22.98.146 05:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record. Not me. green 65.88.65.217 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They are Lorentz's concepts. We have Poincare's word for the fact that Lorentz had these concepts before 1908, (and incidentally that Weber had a theory of gravity which propagted gravity at speed c). You have only said Poincare had these concepts in 1909 and 1910. By the usual priority rules then, they are Lorentz's concepts. However I think they are so obvious and commonplace that they are nobody's or everybody's concepts. I think I could find a theory of gravity by Sir Oliver Lodge at about the same time that had these concepts as well. So what? I could now make the statement that new theories of physics are needed. When the next new theory appears that actually works, will I get the credit? E4mmacro 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the article does not actually quote Langevin and MInkowski, does it? It looks like a paraphrase to me. We have asked many times that you actually quote something from Langevin. A list of citations would help. E4mmacro 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are we relying of Keswani to know that Poincare wrote of gravity waves? Can't we have the quotes where Poincare does so? What paper is Keswany refering to? How about some information? How do we know, if we don't have the original papers which he is paraphrasing, that Keswan's interpretattion is not eccentric? E4mmacro 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is why I have repeatedly requested that 69 explain the manner in which GR violates covariance as per Keswani. If he did so, we could judge whether this interpretation is eccentric, erroneous, or worthy of high exposure on Wiki. But 69 is an intellectual coward who hides behind his references. green 65.88.65.217 19:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: at the (Paris) Ecole Polytechnique (the MIT of France) there is for consultation a massive reference book compiled by Jules Leveugle Poincaré et la Relativité: Question sur la Science where all these quotes you are asking for are compiled and recorded. 69.22.98.146 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: First, the principle of equivalence is not original to Einstein at all. -- Newton saw inertial and gravitational masses as equivalent, indeed there is only one symbol m in Newton's equations. Einstein tried to make it appear as something new, which it was not. 69.22.98.146 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an idiotic evaluation and very old news to boot. When did you become a mind-reader? You always seem to know Einstein's motives. Einstein was not operating in a vacuum and Newton did not claim that acceleration was indistinguishable from gravity, only that for some unknown reason, the two m's were numerically identical. green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Second, it was Poincare's approach to employ his Principle of Relativity to derive gravitation, using of course floating around assumptions such as the speed of light. But Poincare's Principle is central to the approach, Poincare's approach is without any question a forerunner to GR, as seen in the quotes of Minkowski and Langevin. 69.22.98.146 12:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all hearsay! Produce a Poincare quote or cease this nonsense! green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: It is painfully obvious that discussing these issues with 69 is a complete waste of time and energy. He never provides any direct evidence of his claims even though we have repeatedly requested such evidence. He references various works as authoritative -- most importantly Poincare's lectures -- without ever providing direct quotes. If Poincare anticipated GR in any substantial way, we could surely verify this from carefully selected quotes from his lectures, but 69 has consistently failed to produce them. After repeated failures to make his case notwithstanding ample opportunities and a plethora of requests, one must conclude he cannot do so. Instead he now offers a new defacto inaccessible reference in a Paris library. As for Poincare's theory that gravity goes at the speed of light, this is a no-brainer if one believes that gravity is electromagnetic. Other than superficially, it is hardly a precursor of GR. The fact that 69 does not see this, makes his analytical skills highly suspect. green 65.88.65.217 18:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Green, I have to agree. I suggest you put a pov warning on the page. 69 will remove it, which is against Wiki policy. You can then, if you like, report him. I support the first re-write you did on the silly claims about GR. E4mmacro 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do it but don't know the procedure. green 65.88.65.217 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You can leave a message on the talk page of DanielCD, an administrator, who knows something about 69. I had to go to the archives of this talk page, find DanielCD's signature and click on it to get there. First you post a

{{pov}}

warning on the Poincare article page. DanielCD states that in his opinion only registered users should be allowed to edit Wiki pages, but I think he will give advice to unregistered users. You do not have to supply much information to register, and I think you can keep most of it secret. E4mmacro 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

SHAME ON YOU E4, this is just harrassment through a third party proxy who you know is just a pest. 69.22.98.146 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: don't go telling that guy stuff like that he has been a big enough pest already. --I have spent hours typing detailed answers to all his questions, it is now up to him to go do some reading. -- He states openly that he will not read my sources, and that is HIS problem, not mine. 69.22.98.146 21:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another lie. You have no shame, sir. I can summarize the extent of your "explanation" in one short sentence, namely: Inertial and accelerating frames are not equivalent because of the need to introduce fictitious forces in the latter, with the consequence that the Principle of Relativity (aka General Covariance) does not hold in GR. Are you really expecting educated professionals to believe that you "spent hours typing detailed answers" when it took me maybe 30 seconds to reproduce the full content of what is nothing more than your claim? green 65.88.65.217 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, you are totally confused and hopeless. Good luck to you. 69.22.98.146 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I have produced quotes of Langevin and Minkowski, paraphrasing by neccessity, what do you want? Do you expect me to type them all in word for word in original languages ? I expect you to get the SOURCES which I properly cite, that is how Wikipedia operates. Green is too lazy to drive over to UCLA to read the sources I cite. That is HIS problem, not mine. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for 69

To summarise the questions that I don't think we have the answers too. The answers to these questions might help us understand your point of view and the way you want the article to read. Sorry if you have answered some already, but it would help to have the answers in one place.

1. What is the title of Langevin's 1914 memoir on Poincare?
2. How many pages is Langevin's memoir of 1914?
3. How many papers of Poincare's does it cite?
4. How many references, Poincare plus others, are there in Langevin 1914?
5. Does Langevin 1914 give the numerical amount of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, according to Poincare's theories?
6. What is the numerical value of the precession as calculated by Poincare's theories?
7. In what paper or papers does Poincare speak of gravity waves?
8. What is an exact quote of a complete sentence or two where Poincare speaks of gravity waves?
9. What paper of Poincare's does Keswani cite or quote when he says Poincare spoke of gravity waves?
10. What is an exact quote from Keswani (a sentence or two) where he says Poincare spoke of gravity waves?

Thanks for you trouble. E4mmacro 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: No problem, 1) Le Physicien 2) 86 pages 3) I haven't counted them and it's 86 pages long so you can't expect me to do so. 4) ditto 5) Langevin is descriptive and I cited him very well in the article 6) In Poincare's Goettingen lecture of 1909 Poincare says he calculates 6 seconds but in the proper direction. 7) 1905 paper ondes gravifiques 8) Poincare wrote of ondes gravifiques emanating from one mass then propagating at speed c to fall upon another body. 9) 1905 I believe I don't have Keswani here at the moment but I believe 1905 10) Keswani said he even spoke of gravity waves ! - with that exclamation point put there by Keswani. - Don't you have Keswani ? 69.22.98.146 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Poincare's work is without any question a forerunner to GR, and Minkowski's 1907 quote is still every bit as true still today, which is why Minkowski is still quoted. 69.22.98.146 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Same-old same-old -- handwaving BS from second hand sources. If not, then please state the postulates of Poincare's gravity theory and his field equations. Where are his field equations published? Anywhere? This is the necessary information to determine if he was on the right path and indeed a forerunner to GR. It's mindlessly shallow to keep repeating the refrain "gravity waves" as if that is definitively informative. Registering is not a big deal and I'll do it if only to put the tags on your propaganda. green 65.88.65.217 23:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, I will not attempt to reason with you, you remind me of Archie Bunker, no one can reason with you, it is futile. 69.22.98.146 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV tags

I put POV tags on the two sections in dispute. Since E4 and myself dispute the accuracy and inferences of these sections, this will be a test of 69's integrity. They should not be removed unless and until we (and others who might be interested) agree as to the facts.

green 65.88.65.217 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that links 4 and 5 don't work. I went back and I don't think they ever worked. Maybe someone can fix the errors, if they are errors. green 65.88.65.217 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A different link to the first letter (link 4). E4mmacro 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A different link to the second letter (link 5). E4mmacro 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: You are supposed to state here specifically what your grief is, but there is nothing. So I shall remove the tags. 69.22.98.146 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've stated it numerous times, indeed ad nauseum'. You have no primary source for the claim that Poincare's theory of gravity anticipates GR in any substantive way. Afaict, Poincare never published peer-reviewed papers on the subject. You've been asked repeatedly to quote from Poincare -- e.g.. from his lectures that you claim are in your possession -- as to his postulates about gravity, field equations, etc. Can you not read and understand plain English? Minkowski in 1908 (or whatever) could not anticipate the final form of GR, so what he says in 1908 about Poincare's partially formed theory in comparison to the final form of GR, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am beginning to get the impression that your copies of P's lectures are in French, which you cannot translate. Otherwise, you have availed yourself of the opportunity to prove your case. I will re-instate the POV flags until we get something resembling a satisfactory answer to these issues. READ MY LIPS. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE -- POINCARE! green 65.88.65.217 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PS to Green, if Keswani is your problem, you need to provide a source which says Keswani is wrong. Good Luck in doing so if that is your grief here. 69.22.98.146 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to disprove Keswani. You have to prove POINCARE! You are making the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. I demand primary source material, not secondary sources, and not simply a word or phrase that has ambiguous content, such as "gravity waves". If you understood what historical scholarship is about, I wouldn't have to explain this ad-nauseum. If I could see information from the one and only primary source, I would interpret the situation in a different light. But your defacto refusal to provide any primary source material -- from POINCARE!!! -- reaffirms and increases my skepticism of your position. green 65.88.65.217 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Someone, I assume it was you, put some final touches in the gravity section, which I don't mind at all. You had the last word, good. I am happy with the article. Good Bye. 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the "Work on Gravity" section now has some direct quotes from Poincare re: his gravity theory, so I didn't put a POV tag on it. green 65.88.65.217 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TO TAG KESWANI, YOU NEED A SOURCE THAT SAYS HE IS WRONG. -- KESWANI IS PUBLISHED IN THE BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. 69.22.98.146 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Overwhelmingly, sources such as Rindler, etc. refer to GR as a covariant theory, which is understood to mean it obey the Principle of Relativity. This is a disputed section in the article so leave the POV tag. green 65.88.65.217 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not understand PHYSICS. yes it is covariant but it is NOT a general theory of relativity. Keswani is clear and published. You will find nothing to contradict him. -- It is NOT UNDERSTOOD - THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS, NOT RINDLER !!! 69.22.98.146 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DID RINDLER CONTRADICT KESWANI ? - NO  !!! 69.22.98.146 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE WRITING YOUR PERSONAL VIEW - NO GOOD -- YOU NEED SOURCE TO SAY KESWANI IS WRONG -- THERE IS NONE !!!!!! 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU SAY IT IS COVARIANT WHICH IS TRUE, YOU SAY IT OBEYS PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, TRUE AGAIN, BUT IT DOES NOT OBEY GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, THIS IS WHY KESWANI IS CORRECT. -YOU ARE IGNORANT OF PHYSICS. 69.22.98.146 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL PHYSICISTS KNOW THAT GENERAL RELATIVITY IS A MISNOMER -- MR.GREEN IS IGNORANT OF BASIC PHYSICS AND HE INSISTS ON RED TAGGING. 69.22.98.146 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A theory is "relativistic" if it obeys the "Principle of Relativity". Now tell me what the PoR is. Do you know? If Einstein's Field Equations are covariant, by definition, they obey the PoR. If you want to spin things slightly differently, fine. But put it in the article so the reader will have some idea what's going on. This is for the public, not for specialists with arcane definitions of the PoR and covariance. Have you ever taught physics??? Let's have E4 adjudicate the issue. green 65.88.65.217 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE THAT RED TAG NOW, UNTIL YOU FIRST TALK TO E4. -- RIGHT NOW !!!! 69.22.98.146 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Let's have E4 adjudicate the issue. I will accede to his judgment. Will you do the same? green 65.88.65.217 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU TALK TO HIM FIRST -- THAT KESWANI QUOTE HAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, BEFORE YOU CAME AROUND, AND E4 NEVER DISAPPROVED BECAUSE IT IS REFERENCED. REMOVE THAT TAG RIGHT NOW. 69.22.98.146 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let him remove the POV tag if he sees fit. Afaict, he has expressed much reservation about Keswani's pov, inclusive of referring to it as possibly "eccentric". So again you distort what's going on here. green 65.88.65.217 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPROPER RED TAG A VIOLATION OF RULES

Mr. Green has red tagged without any SOURCES, --He is putting his personal view without ANY SOURCES - It is a violation of Wikipedia rules. 69.22.98.146 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My position is clear. If a view appears non-standard, it should be explained in the article. The consensus among physicists I know is that GR is a relativistic theory because the Field Equations are covariant; that is, they obey the Principle of Relativity. The Keswani reference is defacto unavailable and we cannot trust ANON 69 to be an unbiased, defacto, secondary source. I agree to have E4 adjudicate this dispute. green 65.88.65.217 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

KESWANI IS AVAILABLE AT ANY MAJOR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY IN THE WORLD. 69.22.98.146 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU DON'T RED TAG SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW -- ASK E4 AND DON'T RED TAG UNTIL THEN -- HE WILL PUT YOU STRAIGHT. 69.22.98.146 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't respond to ranting. Secondly, not all have easy access to a university library. Anyway, as E4 stated this morning, Keswani might represent an "eccentric" opinion. Iow, to put it bluntly, he might be a verging toward crank. It happens now and then to the best. Why did E4 say that if Keswani's pov, is, as you claim, standard? Anyway, you don't understand the point of any article on Wiki. It is to inform, not befuddle. If you had added a paragraph clarifying the rationale for Keswani's pov, I wouldn't be objecting. Did you ever teach physics??? green 65.88.65.217 05:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we clearly have a dispute, it is appropriate that the POV tag remain. Right or wrong it should REMAIN until this issue is adjudicated. Now stop being petulant and let's wait for E4 to make a judgement. green 65.88.65.217 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WHEN IN DOUBT REMOVE IT !!! YOU ADMIT YOU ARE IN DOUBT - I KNOW I AM RIGHT. REMOVE IT. 69.22.98.146 05:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL PHYSICISTS KNOW THAT GR IS A MISNOMER -- IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE -- KESWANI SAID NOTHING NEW THERE . REMOVE IT NOW. 05:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag is for a dispute. Is there a dispute? LOL. green 65.88.65.217 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IT IS NOT TO BE MISUSED. YOU ARE MISUSING. E4 KNOWS ME AND MY CREDENTIALS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE ADDRESSING HERE. 69.22.98.146 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Wrt to the gravity section, E4 agreed with my position, essentially entirely! And wrt Keswani, he called him possibly "eccentric". So I suggest you argue the issues and shove your credentials where the sun don't shine! LOL. Btw, the last time I listened to "experts" they told me Saddam had WMD's. green 65.88.65.217 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I TOLD E4 THAT GREEN WOULD BE A PROBLEM, A REAL NUT. 69.22.98.146 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you doubt the existence of a dispute, you need help. If you don't doubt its existence, then you have no right to remove the tag. green 65.88.65.217 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the page to stop all this nonsense. Please be aware that I will not hesitate to fully protect this article if you come here with different accounts, and I will not hesitate to block both of you for violating the three-revert rule if you continue to war over this article. I've set up a section below, called "65.88.65.217's concerns", where User:65.88.65.217 can note his/her concerns. User:69.22.98.146, please don't edit that section. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To 69: I need the full reference for Langevin 1914 (Author, Title, Jounral, vol, page numbers, date), or the equivalent, so I can write it in the "references for relativity section". Similarly, the same information is required for Minkowski and Keswani. If I have any say in the matter, I will delete any sentence which has a citation (name and date) but for which the full reference is not given in the list of references. This is a simple matter of book-keeping. If you want o keep the opinions of Langevin and Minlowski and Keswani in the article, that at least has to be done. Please write them here, below. Thanks E4mmacro 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

G.H. Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. Origin and Concept of Relativity Parts I, II, III. vol 15-17 (1965-6).

Paul Langevin Le Physicien, PAGES 115 TO 202, in book Henri Poincare Librairie Felix Alcan 1914

Minkowski will be harder to do I'll look.

65.88.65.217's concerns

Thank you. I have stated my position and concerns on the Talkpage sections immediately above, and offered to have E4 adjudicate the issue; that is, have final say. I trust his judgement. I have nothing further to add. green 65.88.65.217 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPROPER USE OF RED TAGS

Green ADMITS he does not know what he is talking about, but he red tags anyhow, and without citing any SOURCES, a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. His red tag should therefore be removed immediately and he should be banned from Wikipedia. 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL ! Green is just upset his Einstein is a fraud !

This is a gross distortion of the facts. E.g., I expressed deep reservations about the gravity section and received support from E4 and possibly others. It is now modified and acceptable, thanks in part to my criticisms. Wrt the section in dispute, I did not "admit" what is alleged above. My statements and concerns speak for themselves. Wrt POV tagging, I was expressly advised to do that by E4 (see Talkpage above), so I assumed it was within the rules of Wiki. I didn't know the revert rule, but inadvertantly broke it because 69 kept removing my tag after I offered to have E4 adjudicate the issue. Unlike 69, I do not request that he be banned; only that he dispense with his arrogant style of communication. As for the last comment about Einstein, well this is just plain silly, or if you will, evidence of 69's immaturity. I go where the facts lead. If Einstein turns out to be a fraud, so be it. It doesn't effect my state of well-being. green 65.88.65.217 06:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

E4 did NOT tell you to red tag Keswani. You are reckless irresponsible and ignorant of physics. 69.22.98.146 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrt two other disputes, the origin of E = mc^2 and the objectivity of the gravity section, he advised me to put a POV tag when I had similar concerns as now. So I extrapolated. Btw, in both cases he warned me that you would immediately remove the tags, thereby violating Wiki rules, and explicitly suggested that I would have grounds to report you. Check the Talkpage and see for yourself. You may know some physics. If so, my advice is learn to teach it. A little bit of humility would also serve you well. green 65.88.65.217 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

to Green, Nobody can teach you. Archie Bunker you are. You are a religious nut with Einstein your god. Sorry to tell you, your god is a fraud. 69.22.98.146 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: As you are well aware, Keswani is a published top source and his comments are common knowledge in the Physics community, and Green has NO source that says Keswani is wrong, so please immediately remove his red tag which clearly violates Wikipedia rules that sources must be supplied. 69.22.98.146 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4, HILBERT AND EINSTEIN WERE NOT CO-AUTHORS, PLEASE REPHRASE THAT SENTENCE, ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, HILBERT PUBLISHED FIRST WHICH MUST BE CONVEYED, AS Kip Thorne said. please rephrase it.

to E4, it is clear from the context of the article that GR is a theory of gravity -- so that red tag looks pretty stupid.

Some useful sources

(1) Keswani's paper, over which Anon69 has been obsessing, is available through jstor here: [2] and [3]. It is worth noting that it is forty years old. When it is not possible to find a more recent source, especially for such extravant claims, the reason may be that the work was ignored as trivial or simply bad. In fact Keswani's appears to fit this; it is almost laughably biased, and his conclusions drawn on vague conjectures that Einstein must have read such-and-such, despite his claiming not to have and no evidence to the contrary.

(2) Showing that the subject is controversial and merits a tag does not require a source claiming that Keswani is wrong--if, for example, no one cites Keswani. All that is required is a source saying the opposite of what Keswani says. And this, in turn, does not require a source saying "The GTR is a theory of relativity", because that sentence will look too trivial to mention in most contexts. Sufficient evidence that Keswani's claims are controversial would consists in the fact that a large number, even most sources use the phrase "theory of relativity" in describing GTR without mentioning that there is anything wrong with it. These are abundant: the most ready to hand are Feynman's lectures in physics, which do not make any mention of a misnomer problem, so far as I can find. (I daresay Feynman knows more physics than Keswani.)

(3) It is simply not the case that all professors and students of physics know the name to be a misnomer. A google search indicates that most concurrences of "general theory of relativity" with "misnomer" are (a)Links to crackpot "Einstein was a fraud"-style websites (including Wikipedia articles edited by Anon69); (b) People noting that it's a misleading name on the grounds that it suggests relativism to most people, when really the theory is an attempt to get at more absolute measures of the world. This is perhaps a fair point, but is absolutely not the one under discussion here; and (c) There is, finally, a paper available here[www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf] by John Norton--unquestionably a distinguished historian of physics--who notes that the term in controversial in the sense discussed here. Another[4] by Roger Ellman notes the same. Not that all physicists think its a technical misnomer, but that a vocal minority do.

Jod

To Jod : Stephan Hawking is not a vocal minority. 66.194.104.5 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Crackpot : Stephen Hawking, whose name is Stephen, not Stephan, is one person. He is thus by definition a minority in any group of more than two people. There are in fact three or more physicists. Lesson: shut up.

Yours sincerely, J

To Jod, you are obviously a generation X product. - I have produced three world experts all in agreement, So the section Stays ! 66.194.104.5 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Jod: what's motivating this nonsense is 66/69's anti-Einstein obsession. If he can downgrade GR to "only" a gravity theory, then in his mind SR is somehow upgraded, thus raising Poincare's status. green 65.88.65.217 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know, but thanks anyway. I just couldn't resist tossing in my two cents after reading this talk page. I mean, this is completely insane. I've seen users obsessed with trivialities before, but never like this. Frankly I'm surprised you or the other people who have written so much here have the willpower to continue responding to his vulgar, juvenile rubbish. --Sincerely, J

Green the intellectual giant, I didn't do it, Stephan Hawking did it for me. 66.194.104.5 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is StephAn Hawking? Never heard of him. green 65.88.65.217 05:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to destroy Einstein, because http://www.xtxinc.com already did that. 66.194.104.5 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

V. Fock is Definitive, GR is a Misnomer

To E4: Please insert the following sentence into the Poincare article immediately following the sentence containing the quote of Keswani:

Also V. Fock (1958,1963) stated categorically that even the principle of covariance does not make it in any way a theory of general relativity.

V. Fock is the famous Russian expert on GR, the two sources are one of his books and a scientific paper. I shall email them to E4.

E4, YOU MAY NOW REMOVE THE RED TAG.

note that out of habit people including myself refer to it as general relativity, which it is not. It was another of Einstein's greatest blunders to give it that misnomer. Note that Hilbert in his original work called it his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity. - There is yet another source. Hilbert used to say my Theory of Gravity, which Einstein calls general relativity. 66.194.104.5 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jod's counter-arguments look pretty good to me so far. I hope we get more input. Harald88 may have somnething to say, as may Cleonis. It is inappropriate to have a single sentence stating that controversial claim, even with two published authors who claim it. It would be much better to start a new page "The one and only theory of relativity", where you can summarise Keswani's arguments. E4mmacro 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice the references to Poincare's talks at Lillie and Goettingen are not in the references list. You probably gave them somewhere in the talk page. Would you mind gathering them together here? E4mmacro 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: You know me, I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA. -- I have always heard that GR is a misnomer, it is common knowledge in the Physics community, and not at all controversial as you claim.

Vladimir Fock and H.G. Keswani are both tops in their field, and neither has ever been counter-published on this point.

This point is indeed VERY relevent to POINCARE, and should definitely NOT be brushed off to some separate page. 66.194.104.5 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if GR is not a theory of relativity (whatever you mean by that), I still think that is irrelevant to the Poincare page: it does not make SR any more or less important, or GR any less or more important and GR is not Poincare's theory. The page shows Poincare did a lot on special relativity, but wasn't so successful on gravity - what more do we need? The only purpose of the last section, that I can see, is to denigrate Einstein. E4mmacro 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is exactly is trying to be proved in the last two sentences? It sounds like an argument over a name, as though Poincare has copyright on the word "Relativity". Are you trying to say Special Relativity is a better theory than General Relativity? I cannot see how what we call general relativity makes the slightest difference to special relativity. According to you we have two independent theories, one mis-named. The supposed mis-named one has nothing to do with Poincare. Argue it on the GR page. It just looks silly here. E4mmacro 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's suppose GR is "merely" a theory of gravity. It clearly incorporates special relativity and qualifues for what Poincare was supposed to be looking for - a new theory of gravity, incorporating velocity time dilations, length contractions, variation of mass all from the special theory, no effects travelling faster than the speed of light PLUS a bunch of other effects. It would be perfectly normal to call it a relativistic theory of gravity. It is clearly more than special relativity. Please stop quibbling about a name. E4mmacro 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Yes, GR is only a theory of gravity. When I was an undergrad in Physics it was just simply casually mentioned to us right in the classroom that GR is only a theory of gravity. - It puts things into perspective. - Stephan Hawking even states it in at least two of his popular books, that GR is only a theory of gravity, I emailed you the pages. - Fock and Keswani state it formally. - Stephan Hawking, V. Fock, and H.G. Keswani all published this for a reason, it puts everything into proper perspective. - It is extremely important that it be on the Poincare page here, to put Poincare into his rightful proper historical perspective. - Please remove that ridiculous red tag, nothing justifies it. 66.194.104.5 15:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether GR is a "relativity" theory or not, is an issue that belongs in the article on General Relativity. It is acknowledged that GR is covariant and satisfies the Principle of Relativity, namely, that the mathematical form of the laws of physics are the same in all frames, accelerating or not. If a theory satifies the Principle of Relativity, it is, by definition, relativistic. This can be disputed with arcane arguments and references, but it is irrelevant to the Poincare article. green 65.88.65.217 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: You are precisely WRONG. -- GR does NOT satisfy the principle of relativity for accelerating observers, no theory does or ever will, and that is why GR is NOT a general theory of relativity. -- All this is extemely important for the legacy and place of Poincare in historical perspective. 66.194.104.5 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what "relativity" means. For many, covariance = relativity. Opinions may differ. I can live with that; you cannot. green 65.88.65.217 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, not too long ago you posted that GR is covariant and satisfies the PoR. Now you deny the latter. Maybe you should make up you mind -- or produce a DEFINITION of the PoR that is consistent with your views. You claim superb credentials (frankly I could care less), but you fail to define your terms and then complain that your views are under-valued. You must learn to write with precision if you wish to be understood. green 65.88.65.217 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I believe the last poster is really 69 who is banned from posting today (for verification, check list blocked IP addresses using search option). When he returns, I want him to cease deleting POV tags that led to my being blocked yesterday due to an administrator thinking I was violating the three-revert rule. I was merely reinstating a POV tag that 69 repeatedly removed. green 65.88.65.217 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The red tag is surely not ridiculous. GR is a relativistic theory, by standard definition as argued above, and I dispute that it is "only" a theory of gravity. green 65.88.65.217 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: Stephan Hawking disagrees with you. - Go do some reading please. - Yes GR is relativistic in that it incorporates SR, but it is NOT a general theory of relativity. - Read Hawking, he writes on your level. -- V. Fock stresses that even the principle of covariance does not make it in any sense a general theory of relativity. - Please go do some reading and educate yourself a little. 66.194.104.5 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 66.194.104.5 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To 66/69: Frankly I am sick and tired of your persistent condescension. Go back to finishing school or whatever it takes to learn decent manners. The issue of what GR is or isn't, is interesting, but should be fleshed out on the GR talkpage, and whatever consensus is reached, if any, should be incorporated in the GR article. Also, let me be very clear; the next time you delete any POV flag I insert, you will be immediately reported to the administrators. I shall establish an account so I can communicate with them if need be. green 65.88.65.217 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Au Contraire ! - There is no controversy to flesh out ! - I have produced three world experts all in agreement, - So it stays ! 66.194.104.5 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 66 = Anon 69 (who is BANNED from posting today!). green 65.88.65.217 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

BANNING ?? - you have no counter-argument so you want to BAN people ! 66.194.104.5 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgment I will respond. If you look back in this file, and not too far, you will see that it was you who wanted Wiki to ban me permanently. My response was not so extreme. However, if Wiki administrators decided to restrict your posting for TWO days because you twice violated the three-revert rule, you should respect the rules. As an aside, the fact that your memory is so poor and that you distort what is going on here, make me seriously question your alleged credentials. green 65.88.65.217 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't make that comparison. - You should be banned because of minimum IQ requirements. 66.194.104.5 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget me! He wanted me banned as well. E4mmacro 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey you're the one who wants to censor. 69.22.98.146 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincarés consideration of gravity

To my knowledge, Poincaré's explorations of how to obtain a theory of gravity that is compliant with the Lorentz transformation has not yielded results that were fruitful to him or to others.

The theory that is referred to as General Relativity (Einstein 1915) eclipsed the special theory of relativity. General relativity did to special relativity what special relativity did to newtonian dynamics.

Newtonian dynamics has two aspects: there is a theory of gravitation in the form of newton's law of gravity, and there is a theory of inertia in the form of Newton's three laws of motion.

Special relativity is a theory of motion. Special relativity adopted Newton's three laws. Especially, Newtons third law, which states the law of conservation of momentum, was adopted in unaltered form.

General relativity is a package deal: it is in one go a theory of motion and a theory of gravitation. (More technically: the description of gravitation and the description of inertia are unified in general relativity into a description of a single entity.

The general theory of relativity shows that it is inherently impossible to formulate a theory of gravitation within the confines of special relativity. A new theory of motion is needed, and GR provides that. For a history of the quest for a Lorentz invariant theory of gravitation and what problems are encountered read this paper by John Norton, who is one of the world's leading experts on the history of relativistic physics.

It is wrong to state that general relativity extends the same kind of relativity of special relativity to any kind of motion. General relativity does provide an extension, but exactly what is rather a matter of interpretation. The only relativity that GR needs in order to be self-consistent is that the Lorentz transformations hold good locally. --Cleonis | Talk 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very Good Cleonis, you are correct: GR does not extend the principle of relativity to any kind of motion, namely, not to accelerating observers, which is precisely why it is NOT a general theory of relativity, and is ONLY a theory of gravity. Read Stephan Hawking he says it too. -- All this is extemely important to the legacy of Poincare. 66.194.104.5 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a legacy of Poincare? Tell us, Oh wise one. Why a legacy specifically OF Poincare? green 65.88.65.217 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To Anon66/69: The paper my Norton to which Cleonis gives a link is very important. Well worth your reading it. E4mmacro 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. GR is NOT only a theory of gravity. I think this matter has no bearing on the legacy of Poincaré. Poincaré wasn't in the game.
The gibberish that some people are chucking into the Poincaré article is ultimately hurtful to the legacy of Poincaré. --Cleonis | Talk 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Cleonis: Stephan Hawking disagrees with you. GR is in fact only a theory of gravity, read Hawking. - Fock and Kesawani show this formally, while Hawking writes it for people on your level. - And this is of great importance to Poincare because Special Relativity is in fact The Theory of Relativity. - Keswani made this point in 1966 in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, and it absolutely belongs on Poincare's page. 66.194.104.5 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

It appears to me that everybody so far disagrees with 66/69: me (E4), Green, Cleonis and Jod. Should the last section "One and Unique theory of relativity" and its two sentences, be deleted? The issue, and its supposed relevance to Poincare is discussed above. Is it worth recording below our "votes" on that, by placing signature, or IP address? E4mmacro 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It won't be two sentences, I will certainly add V. Fock for good measure. 66.194.104.5 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it." (Wikipedia warbing to editors). E4mmacro 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Section should remain

Count my vote, yes it should remain. 69.22.98.146 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SHAME on you Michael Macrossan ! -- I have produced three published world experts against whom you can produce no counter-arguments, so you propose mob rule and a lynching ! Shame on you ! 66.194.104.5 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) The section is CORRECT, and it is about POINCARE, both sentences. 66.194.104.5 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please specify:

The significance of Poincaré's work is fully understood by realizing that the general theory of relativity is in no sense a theory of general relativity..it is really only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity.

Where does Keswani link that information with Poincare?

What I read here relates (and only implicitly) to the significance of SRT -- and only next, by extension, to those who developed it. Harald88 11:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani wrote it to make a point regarding Poincare.69.22.98.146 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani's quote must stay. Keswani wrote that in a long article about Poincare, BECAUSE it shows Poincare's proper place in history. 69.22.98.146 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote remain. 66.194.104.5 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

free speech let it remain. 17.255.240.78 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

YES RETAIN IT. 67.78.143.226 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

no censorship please, let it remain. 66.194.98.170 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Should truth now be determined by consensus? No! This section should stand as is and the "Einsein orthodoxy" should remember to veiw the world objectively and not force their arbitrary flat world veiw on the rest of the World. LET IT REMAIN.64.12.116.198 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. Licorne now has an AOL account too. --Alvestrand 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Section should be deleted (poll)

Deleted from Poincare page E4mmacro 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Aren't you embarrassed - you pretend to be an intellectual but can produce no counter-arguments - you are like the MEDIEVAL WITCH BURNERS OF THE INQUISITION, now aren't you ! 66.194.104.5 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You lack basic maturity. Poincare's theory of gravity didn't make it. What GR is, belongs in the GR article. green 65.88.65.217 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Green the intellectual giant, read it again: it is two sentences, both about POINCARE. 66.194.104.5 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted of course. However, I think this discussion should continue on the GR talkpage and the controversy wrt what GR is, should be incorporated in that article. green 65.88.65.217 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Au Contraire ! -- There is no controversy, I have three world experts in agreement. - So it Stays ! 66.194.104.5 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a soapbox, but more importantly: it's about the subject "what is GRT" - thus it doesn't belong here. Harald88 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is about POINCARE ! 66.194.104.5 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT about what is GTR. - Hawking is clear enough about that. - That subject is then resolved, So now we must face how it directly affects POINCARE. 66.194.104.5 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I, of course, think it should be deleted. I am the same person who helped trigger the recent discussion on this (209.6.255.15), but connecting from a different ISP now. If this creates a problem with my vote, fine, just want to express my opinion. --Pallen 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)38.113.0.254 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't you give a reason for your belief ? Try. 66.194.104.5 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's obvious POV pushing. The Rod 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No POV, it is rock solid published SOURCES. 66.194.104.5 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

66.194.104.5, please indent your posts to show that your reply relates to other people's posts. The Rod 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It is utterly trivial, out of place in this article, and not clearly even an intelligible point (as witness the attempt to get Anon66/69 to explain what he is claiming). What support it has, to the extent that a definite claim is at issue, is at best tenuous support. Caveat:I know less physics than anyone involved in this discussion. Yours, Jod

Trivial ? Generation X-ers are what's trivial. 69.22.98.146 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If there is a debate to be had, make new pages to put the debate on. Don't clutter up the main pages with this revisionism. --Alvestrand 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Current state of poll: 2/6

Retain: 1; Delete/Move: 5; E4mmacro 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now-current state: Retain: 1; Delete/Move: 6. (Checked E4mmacro 06:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Macrossan, you cannot count ? ? 69.22.98.146 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mavrossan, none of your six has even read Keswani's article.69.22.98.146 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Current state: Retain: 2; Delete/Move 6. This assume that 17.255.240.78 is not 66/69 under yet another IP address. E4mmacro 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's policy on sock puppet voting, it is important that 17.255.240.78, 66.194.104.5, and 69.22.98.146 declare whether they are different people or just one person with different IP addresses. Failure to make that declaration now may result in the IP addresses being permanently blocked. The Rod 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who 17 is. Stop making false accusations. 69.22.98.146 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss whether I made an accusation on your talk page when you register an account. The Rod 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

200 million Americans would sign if they were aware of your censorship. 69.22.98.146 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If they have a deep and sincere interest in trivia E4mmacro 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The two 66.s, the 69., and the 67. are all based in a small part of central peninsular Florida. The 17. address is from San Jose California. This isn't definitive, but is suggestive. --Jod

Michael Macrossan wants censorship

A section with just two sentences, BOTH sentences about Poincare, and Michael Macrossan says they should be censored because they are not about Poincare ? ? ! ! -- Boy that's a No-Brainer ! !

The prior section discusses some of Poincare's work on gravity and concludes as follows, "These concepts were all later to be found in general relativity." The issue of the correct interpretation of GR belongs in the GR article. This is the no-brainer. green 65.88.65.217 00:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the quoted sentence is a good candidate for deletion as well, since it wrongly suggests GR has some connecting with, or was founded upon, Poincare's and Lorentz's Lorentz-covariant gravity theories. This really misses the point about GR, in my view. E4mmacro 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Norton article doesn't mention Poincare wrt developing a covariant theory of gravity, which suggests he wasn't on the right track. green 65.88.65.217 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Three world experts in agreement, and Macrossan wants them censored. 66.194.104.5 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is to move the three world experts who talk about GR, not Poincare, to the GR page. E4mmacro 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

KESWANI STAYS. 69.22.98.146 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We can continue this "fun" on the Principle-of-Equivalence talkpage. The PoE says we cannot locally distinguish acceleration from gravity. But of course we can -- since objects fall in the radial direction under gravity, to the center of mass, not straight down along parallel paths. Oh, I forgot; the PoE refers to uniform gravitational fields; that is, not real ones. It doesn't apply to the real world. How then can one create a theory, GR, based on principle that is either false, or doesn't apply to the real world? Does the emperor have any clothes? Does the old saw -- "all physics is based on approximations" -- come to our rescue? green 65.88.65.217 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is actually pretty funny. The neutrality of an article about who was first to discover one or the other relativistic theories is disputed? Maybe y'all are unawares, but the theory is ut-terly irrelevant, in reality, and a discussion about who was the first to discover is overarchingly, mind-bendingly irrelevant. [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.7.197 (talk • contribs) .

I agree, Mavrossan is funny, why is he so pig headed ? 69.22.98.146 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Macrossan has no real comment here, interesting. 69.22.98.146 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani's Quote Stays - NO CENSORSHIP

Keswani's quote stays. Keswani wrote that into a long article about Poincare, BECAUSE it shows Poincare's proper place in history. - It absolutely belongs on Poincare's page here. - Macrossan says he doesn't like it because he thinks it makes Einstein look bad. -- NO CENSORSHIP ! 69.22.98.146 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's preferable to move the discussion of what GR is or isn't to the article on GR, and point out there that IF GR is "only" a theory of gravity, there is only one theory of relativity, namely SR. In this case, the articles on SR and Poincare should indicate that Poincare was one of the main contributor, preceding Einstein in many respects. This is the logical way of structuring the articles -- GR and SR. Otherwise, as I have repeatedly stated, the readers will be confused by the claim about GR in our Poincare article. It needs more arguing to be intelligible. You have to consider the needs of the reader and give that need higher priority than your anti-Einstein obsession. Your adamant refusal to accept these basic teaching points suggests someone who has never taught physics. green 65.88.65.217 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No Greenie, You're wrong again as usual. We have three world experts confirming that GR is just a theory of gravity, so that is not the subject. -- Keswani is CORRECT and he STAYS. 69.22.98.146 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You really don't get it. The issue is not about whether Keswani is correct. Clearly you have never taught physics; and if you do, I pity your students who will be ill-served by your arrogance. green 65.88.65.217 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, Greenie. 69.22.98.146 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Keswani wrote it to make a point regarding Poincare" - Really? That is not written in the article, and is still very much soapbox - please read again Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Harald88 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald go read Keswani's article so you'll know what you're talking about. 69.22.98.146 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald ? What happened to you ? No answer ? 69.22.98.146 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. But a reader shouldn't have to read Keswani; instead a quote of his argument about the importance of Poincare's discovery could be sufficiently interesting and relevant -- to be decided when we finally get one! Harald88 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would try reading Keswani's article you would see his argument, he spends pages and pages showing how Poincare discovered relativity before Einstein who was a liar and plagiarist, and he tops it off with how GR is not even general relativity, to clearly show the reader that Poincare's is the one relativity, and that message should remain in the article here so millions will know Keswani's message. It is that message that Macrossan wants to censor.69.22.98.146 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet found where Keswani calls Einstein a liar and a plagarist. Keswani is pro-Poincare, I will agree with that; so much so that he cannot see or does not know of Lorentz's early work and Larmor's early work, and hence (in my opinion) overrates Poincare's contributions, in a way Poincare himself does not over-rate them. The Poincare page here, even without the last disputed section, reflects pretty much Keswani's opinion that "Poincare discovered relativity". We are no longer arguing about that. We are arguing about the last section. I haven't yet seen a sentence from Keswani where he says "Poincare's special relativity is the only theory of relativity". But even if he does, that in itself doesn't make Keswani's opinion true. I assume you know that an opinion does not become true merely because it is published. E4mmacro 09:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There it is, the proof that even Macrossan has not read Keswani's article. Keswani does call Einstein a liar in the article -- Keswani asks HOW IS IT that Einstein said he never read Poincare, when Einstein by incredible miracle used the same name Relativity as Poincare ! -- So go read the article Macrossan ! 69.22.98.146 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan let me remind you that Wikipedia operates by SOURCES, and not by you. 69.22.98.146 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, here is something I posted on the Einstein Talkpage in connection with the dispute as to who discovered the GR field equations:

"Worst case scenario; Einstein flat-out stole Hilbert's equations. But is it still not the case that it was Einstein who had the crucial physical insight to model gravity as a distortion of spacetime? Clearly, it was a bitch working out the details -- in this case the field equations -- but without the physical insight there would have been no details to work out! Isn't this the ultimate reality of the situation? green 65.88.65.217 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)" green 65.88.65.217 00:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And why shouldn't Wikipedia let millions know the fact that Poincare's is the one relativity ? Keswani makes it clear, it should be here as well. 69.22.98.146 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Macrossan ? 69.22.98.146 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To Jod: the links to Keswani's paper don't work from my location. If you have it, please email a copy to me at : green228@yahoo.com . Thanks.

You may need to access it from a university-based IP (or otherwise be registered). (In fact, I'm fairly sure you do. I didn't realize that when I posted.) Try going to jstor.org, browse, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 1964/5 vol 4 and 1965/6 vol 1. But they're pdfs and I'm working from a dialup connection right now, so e-mailing them isn't really feasible for me, though maybe you can find someone else who will. Sorry. --J

To E4: This issue has been sufficiently discussed and the clear consensus is that it should be presented in some detail in the SR and GR articles. I suggest you remove the section in dispute. The problem is that 69 has questionable ethics and will almost certainly re-introduce the section. If he does so, we may have to explore the possibility of having him banned or else write protect the article. green 65.88.65.217 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course the section should go (somewhere else). However, the page is protected from edits and I cannot change it. E4mmacro 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Change it ? -- You mean CENSOR it. -- Thank God it is protected from you Macrossan. 69.22.98.146 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the Wiki protocol for a situation like this, where all the editors except one want to remove a section? Does the article stay in limbo indefinitely or does an administrator intercede and do the consensus editing? green 65.88.65.217 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Senior Editors will step in to STOP CENSORSHIP by a small clique of politically correct junkies. 69.22.98.146 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Greenie: You haven't even seen the Keswani article but you already want him censored ? - Same goes for Macrossan, and Harald too. 69.22.98.146 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Learn to read English so we can raise the level of the discussion. green 65.88.65.217 02:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Macrossan ? ? ? 69.22.98.146 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He's where he usually is, but has stopped responding to cranks. green 65.88.65.217 02:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan has a history of disappearing when he is out of arguments. 69.22.98.146 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably he has a job and can't waste time posting to someone with an "idee fixe" -- who doesn't want to expand the section to make it intelligible to the average reader (my initial suggestion), or move it the SR and GR articles where it logically belongs, who distorts the issue into one of alleged "censorship" and posts under multiple anonomous IP addresses to distort the vote. When the article is finally changed as per the consensus, I will be watching for unethical edits and will inform the administrators in a timely manner so that your IP addresses can hopefully be permanently banned. green 65.88.65.217 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article, I'm glad it's frozen. Keswani's quote is clear enough and speaks for itself, no one will take seriously that red tag, in fact it calls attention, I love it. 69.22.98.146 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Since you're a Wiki member, I suggest you email Rod and ask him what the protocol is under this situation and let us know. Thanks. green 65.88.65.217 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: If you have now obtained a pdf copy of Keswani's paper, please send it to me. Thanks. green 65.88.65.217 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Btw, the issue has been thoroughly thrashed and a consensus has been reached. Now let's move it to the next level. Further "discussion" has no value-added. green 65.88.65.217 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Rod, one of the administrators, previously stated above that the section is dispute is clearly POV pushing. Please ask him to delete the section, unfreeze the article, and permanently ban any IP address that subsequently reinserts it, or adds it to other sections. I see no other way of dealing with this problem. green 65.88.65.217 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Greenie, stop crying out for Mavrossan, he can't save your butt. 69.22.98.146 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Greenie: Why don't you read Keswani before screaming again for censorship. 69.22.98.146 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd be grateful that anyone continues to respond to you. If you want me to continue to do so, please stop with the diminuitive name-calling. Please send me the Keswani pdf file. green228@yahoo.com . green 65.88.65.217 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenie get up off your fat ass and drive over to UCLA and read it, before you scream again to censor it, go read it first. 69.22.98.146 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You were politely warned and are now on my official IGNORE list. I will not respond to you henceforth. Fwiw, I am not in Riverside or CA for that matter. green 65.88.65.217 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Macrossan ? - He is hiding behind a phony scientific POLL of three people, because he cannot deny that Dr. Keswani's quote is of utmost importance to Poincare. -- NO CENSORSHIP ! -- 69.22.98.146 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Let's terminate this "discussion". Please contact "The Rod" and have him remove the section that the consensus wants removed. green 65.88.65.217

I reinserted the following in the file. It was deleted by a recent edit, I assume in error. green 65.88.65.217 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but I can't resist, having read one of your sources. To 66/69 who claims it is established that SR is the one true theory of relativity. How about some actual reasoning. From one of your preferred sources, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077, page 55, I take the following succinct definition of special relativity:

(I) Therefore, the essence of special relativity theory consists in the following (it is a postulate): all physical processes proceed in four-dimensional space-time (ct, ~x), the geometry of which is pseudo-Euclidean and is determined by the interval (3.23). (where 3.23 is, of course: (dó)2 = c2(dT)2 - (dX)2 - (dY )2 - (dZ)2.)

A very nice summary. I agree. As with any compact natural language summary there is some handwaving (e.g. the exact meaning of 'all physical process proceed'). Now, general relativity can be described in similar terms as follows (my own words, but hardly disputable):

(II) a) All physical processes take place in a 4 dimensional metric space, the geometry of which is constrained only by the requirement of being tangent everywhere to a space described in (I). b) The actual metric is determined by the field equations from the mass/energy distribution.

It is evident that if (I) is a relativity principle, so is (II)a. It can, in principle stand on its own is some hypothetical universe with a-priori geometry, independent of mass distribution. The gravitation theory is IIb, which, among many other things, encapsulates the mutual attractsion of material bodies, by appropriately determining the metric. Note that (I) and IIa, though similar, are different principles of relativity. One admits global inertial frames, the other excludes their existence (in general). Of course, which is more general is purely a matter of semantics, with no objective meaning. What we can say, is that (I) is false (or only approximately true), while IIa is true to the limits measurement in all experiments done so far. Note that the various tests of GR can be classified as following purely from IIa vs. also needing IIb. How might we summarize this... a ha .... that GR is the 'one true theory of relativity' plus gravity. --Pallen 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)38.113.0.254

Sorry, But you don't know what you're talking about, and you are just trying to make devious excuses. The essence of SR allows SR to obey the Principle of Relativity. Your analogous argument for GR is FALSE however because it does NOT allow GR to obey the General Principle of Relativity. - It violates the general principle. No theory can obey it, it doesn't exist in nature. Any GR is a misnomer. - Einstein eventually even realized this himself. 69.22.98.146 03:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you user38 for a reasoned discussion - an argument. Much more useful that "Yes it is", "No it isn't" "Yes it is" .... E4mmacro 01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Macrossan, you didn't understand a word he said. 69.22.98.146 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A place to put the priority wars

In order to have a place to put all the references to the sources the Einstein-basher (I think there's only one) uses, I've created a page called Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories. So far, he's declined to contribute. --Alvestrand 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alvestrand: There is no priority war here at all, that is not the question at hand. -- The question at hand is simply this : Macrossan wants to CENSOR Dr.Keswani's quote, a quote which is of utmost importance to Poincare ! -- NO CENSORSHIP ! -- 69.22.98.146 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it." (The Wikipedia edit page). E4mmacro 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that Macrossan, that you think you can just CENSOR anyone's writing ? - NO CENSORSHIP ! -- KESWANI'S QUOTE STAYS ! --69.22.98.146 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Censor Dr. Keswani

Dr.Keswani's quote is just one line, which says it all for Poincare's legacy and place in history. -- DO NOT CENSOR IT.-- 69.22.98.146 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani

I haven't been keeping up with this, but I have a copy of the Keswani article if anyone is interested in it as a PDF. The question in my mind, though, is less what Keswani said but the status of it in the historical community, especially from something which was written in the 1960s (most history of science has changed rather substantially since then).

It is interesting, as an aside, that none other Karl Popper thought that Keswani's article was wrong, on the basis that Keswani had misinterpretted what the fundamental aspects of relativity were. (Karl R. Popper, "A Note on the Difference Between the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction and the Einstein Contraction", Br. J. Phil. Sci. 16:64 (Feb 1966): 332-333).

Now I of course am not advocating that we go with Sir Popper's view or anything like that. I haven't looked over the issue in enough detail to get a good sense of what the going consensus is in the current historiography. I bring up the Popper merely to illustrate a point: there is enough back and forth in these things that a simple citation of who-said-what is not adequate. Whatever the case will be it will inevitably have to be a weighing of majority and minority. "A few historians and physicists, notably X, Y, and Z, say (etc.), though most historians current say (etc.)".

A key part of the various Einstein priority disputes, like all priority disputes, is that the identity of the object in dispute is at the center of the dispute. To ask "Who discovered relativity?" one must ask "What is relativity?" and from there one descends in a lot of petty back and forth, trying to figure out what exactly was the "fundamental" essence of something. Most historians don't bother with this sort of squabbling, so it is hard to come up with clear-cut statements about it. (Physicists, oddly, like this sort of squabbling very much, it seems. Many physicists are, however, very poor historians.)

In the spirit of fairness, I should also note that I don't really trust anything that our anonymous, anti-Einstein friend posts. He's obviously a petty POV-pusher with nothing better to do, and the fact that he happily cites completely fringe websites and researchers as legitimate speaks legions to his integrity, understanding of our NPOV policy, and his historical sense. This post is addressed to the others here who are just anxious to get this sorted out.

Thanks, I like to have a copy, please send it to me (go to my home page and click on send email). About your remarks, I think that most of us agree about this, and if you read the archive then you'll see that we already had a way to avoid the problem, in line with Wikipedia practice: in this article about Poincare we no more than mention the dispute which indeed is partly a matter of taste; instead we concentrated on establishing what Poincare achieved, using first'-hand information from himself and from those who knew him. Thus the problem is solved as long as we can shield the article from POV pushers (anti- as well as pro- Poincare). Harald88 12:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been sorted out. Overwhelmingly, the anonomous pov has been rejected, including by the administrator, aka "The Rod", who referred to it as "obvious POV pushing". This rejection has been misrepresented as "censorship", usually in capital letters, even though the content of the consensus is to move the discussion and conclusions (if any) to the SR and GR articles. It is also clear that engaging him in discussion is a complete waste of time and energy. He is habitually abusive and imo shows evidence of psychopathology. green 64.136.26.226 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In any event, I'm happy to forward any articles as PDFs to people who e-mail me (fastfission@gmail.com), if I have access to them. --Fastfission 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, Popper is not even a physicist, he was PhD in Philosophy. Second, you ask what is relativity ? -- The definition of the discovery of relativity is of course Einstein's Sept 1905 paper, which had the identical contents of Poincare's June 1905 paper, and with no new interpretations. -- Therefore by the common definition of the discovery, it belongs without contest to Poincare. 69.22.98.146 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Keswani a physicist or a Philospher of Science? Keswani published in the Brit Journal for the Philosophy of Science so in that paper he was acting as a Philospher or Historian. Popper is well qualified to criticise the paper. You asked for a source saying Keswani is wrong (I believe you SHOUTED for one) and there you have one. Another confusing state of affairs - two published sources contradicting each other. A situation that calls for judgment. E4mmacro 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Keswani's paper is nearly 100 pages long, did Popper negate it ALL, or really ANY of it at all ? -- YOU NEED BE SPECIFIC. Licorne 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Vladimir Fock and Hawking agree with Keswani's refereed article. Your Popper is just a philosopher. Licorne 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that Keswani wrote two papers relativity history. The first, in two parts, circa 1965, "The Origin and Concept of Relativity". Then, in 1983, with C.W. Kilmister, "Intimations of Relativity Before Einstein". Both are available on the British Journal For Philosophy of Science web site, but I can't access either without paying. What I note is the apparent change in tone implied by the titles. Did Keswani modify his position over time? Has anyone compared both of these papers? --Pallen 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)38.113.0.254 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't, but I can easily get the paper through my institutional accounts. Send me an e-mail (fastfission@gmail.com) and I'll be happy to pass along all of the Keswani papers to you (or anyone else who asks). --Fastfission 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Though I should say, now that I have searched for it: E4mmacro would know better about this than I and I defer entirely to him on this issue -- I just discovered that he had his own criticism of Keswani's 1983 paper published in the same journal! Very impressive; I knew that you knew your stuff but I didn't realize you had published on it.) --Fastfission 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lift the block

Alright Michael and Green, agree now not to censor Keswani and Fock, and let's lift the block, because I want to make some little changes in the article which I have already emailed to Michael. 69.22.98.146 23:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a liar, or else can't read English. The consensus is to REMOVE the section in dispute. PERIOD! green 64.136.26.226 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Green you had said you would agree with E4's decision. -- We hold you to that. Let's wait now for E4 to check in. -- Crawl back into your hole till then. 69.22.98.146 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: My understanding is that you deferred to the consensus when you requested a poll. The consensus is clear -- that the disputed section should be removed and the issue in dispute moved to the SR and/or GR articles and Talkpages. This is how it should be concluded. Period. Over and Out. 10-4. Sayonarra. green 65.88.65.217 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think E4 may have jumped off a bridge over this, his email address has been discontinued. 69.22.98.146 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenie what will you do now without E4 to lean on ? 69.22.98.146 03:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenie, tell me why do you hate so much Keswani's quote ? -- It is true. -- V.Fock and Hawking say it too. -- What's the big deal ? -- Please explain. 69.22.98.146 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's E = mc^2 solved Poincare's (1904) problems

In an email, 66/69 has asked me where is the soruce to back my statement that the second meaning of m = E/c^2 (a body losses mass of amount E/c^2 when it loses energy of amount E) solves the three problems of mass-conservatiuon, momentum-conservation and energy conservation that Poincare discussed in 1904 and could not resolve. He has also asked where Einstein ever said a body losses mass of amount E/c^2 when it loses energy of amount E. The answers are

1. I explained all this in a long paragraoh above, probably now in the archives. I have no specific source (but endless textbooks) for the trivial statement that, for example, the answer to Madam Curie's radium experiments is: radium was producing energy of amount mc^2, by losing a small amount of mass equal to m. Any textbook of physics can explain this using Einstein's E = mc^2. Poincare in 1904 thought Madame Curie's experiment showed a violation of the conservation of energy. He said Madame Curie's radium appeared to be an endless source of energy and the energy came from nowhere. Read Poinacre 1904, reference in the Poincare page, to find that is exactly what Poincare said (to 66/69: no I have no source that can confirm that is exactly what Poincare said - you will have to read Poincare 1904 to see for yourself): Poincare could not understand it, because he did not know about Einstein's meaning of E = mc^2. 66/69 has warned me that he will delete that statement if no SOURCE can be quoted, so anyone who agrees with me that you do not need a PhD in Physics from UCLA to understand the paragraph, and it does not need a source, be warned. Of course, the wording might be improved.
2. Einstein's (1905), last paper of that year says exactly what 66/69 asks for. I can't believe they don't teach at UCLA that Einstein said this.

E4mmacro 09:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan you are incompetent to write on Physics matters. Licorne 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1) YES of course that is in Einstein's 1905 tautological paper, BUT I still question whether Einstein really was the first to suppose that, which I doubt in fact, and in any case Einstein's tautology did not prove anything. Licorne 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2) You make it sound like Poincare believed in perpetual motion ! -- This is not the first time I have caught you grossly misinterpreting Poincare's writings. Licorne 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

3) How do you know Poincare couldn't understand it ? You can't even read French and you put words in his mouth. Licorne 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will therefore delete that ridiculous section. Licorne 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The section in Poincare (1904) is too long to quote in full here. But it would be worth your while to read it first and tell us what you think Poincare is saying about three violations of conservation laws: 1) mass, because of Kaufmann's experiments 2) momentum, because of the recoil of an energy emitting device 3) energy, because no one knew in 1904 where the energy was coming from in Curie's radium experiments. I say that IF he knew what E = mc^2 meant, in the Einstein sense, he would have mentioned it somewhere in this long section, but he didn't. E4mmacro 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that simply m=E/c2 solves all three of those problems is false, so I will delete that section. You have grossly mistranslated Poincare's French as we have seen already before, and I long ago deleted that one too, I'm sure you recall. All this you are asking me here is subject of a separate article anyhow, so I will delete it. Go put it in the E=mc2 article. Licorne 20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolving this dispute

Seeing as protection has failed to spur much meaningful discussion, I'm considering creating a temporary fork of the protected content where people can work on an alternative wording. I encourage all of the anonymous editors to register an account so that outsiders can easily follow the discussion, and so that everyone has their own user talk page. I would encourage everyone to remember the neutral point of view policy, and the verifiability policy, and that this whole thing could be solved if we can find a wording which works in multiple points of view on this issue. --bainer (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. -- Why does Michael Macrossan want SO MUCH to censor a simple one line quote from Dr. Keswani ? -- Why does it matter so much to him ? -- It is irrational. 69.22.98.146 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To bainer: On the contrary, there has been meaningful discussion (as well as abusive discussion primarily from one source), a vote was taken, and the decision is 6-2 in favor of removing the disputed section. This is where it stands, the grand summary as it were, and your acceptance of this reality would be appreciated. Btw, what is a temporary "fork"? green 65.88.65.217 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote is actually 6-6 now. Licorne 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a lie. green 64.136.26.226 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

E4 added many extensive quotes to the article, all of which I'd like to see deleted, but when I have just one line from Dr.Keswani to add, E4 has a fit, and won't say why. Licorne 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would the quotes you want removed be the quotes from Poincare showing what he was talking about when he mentioned gravity waves. The quotes are so much more informative than Kewswani's one line "Poincare even spoke of gravity waves!" - with an exclamation point. I would have to agree with Green's view below that you Licorne are a 66/69 clone, at least in the sense that you have the same reverence for a second-hand opinion over the original sources. E4mmacro 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

E4 where is your mind ? - I had told you SPECIFICALLY that Poincare wrote of ONDES GRAVIFIQUES in his 1905 paper. -YOU FORGOT THAT ALREADY ? Why did you write in the article it was Langevin ? You are so forgetful ! --So I will be correcting that too in the article. Licorne 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To Bainer: I believe E4 should be required to clearly state WHY he wants SO MUCH to censor a simple one line quote that is of utmost relevance to Poincare. Licorne 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there can be any doubt about that. Just look above. One can only say it so many times. 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

E4 only said he doesn't like it because he thinks it makes Einstein look bad, which is not a legitimate reason. He needs give a better reason, which he is has not. Licorne 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To bainer: This new arrival, "Licorne", is clearly another 69 clone as can be seen from his words, his capitalizations, and his idiotic pov. No one following this issue can really believe that censorship is being demanded. It's been stated ad nauseum that we want the discussion as to whether general relativity really is a relativitistic theory moved to the relativity pages, SR and/or GR. It doesn't belong in the Poincare article. I also suggest you leave E4 out of this. He closed his email box presumably because 69 was deluging him with abusive and demanding emails. green 64.136.26.226 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To Bainer, Keswani's statement is just a commonly made factual statement about relativity. Stephen Hawking says the same thing in all his books. There is no reason at all to not put it on Poincare's page when it is of utmost importance to Poincare. Licorne 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

bainer: The group voted 6-2 to eliminate the section. Please abide by the consensus. There will never be unanimity on this issue. green 64.136.26.226 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenie, go back and count again it is 6-6. Licorne 05:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

bainer: if you go back, you will see that 66 and 69 are the same individual, now called "Licorne". The vote stands at 6-2 as I earlier stated. More important, though, Licorne and all his alias IP addresses should be permanently banned from Wiki. This is the type of psychotic individual that if left unchecked, can destroy a site like Wiki. Nothing less than permanent ban is called for. green 65.88.65.217 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Please send me your new email address. If you recall we are in the midst of a discussion not directly related to Wiki. I will keep your address confidential. Thank you. green 65.88.65.217 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare Corrected, and not just rearranged, the LT

Ives' 1953 paper shows in footnote how Lorentz' equations were WRONG, and corrected, and not just rearranged, by Poincare. Licorne 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare rearranged the LT

Please don't start that again. We have been over it many times. See the archives or see another published paper which shows Lorentz was correct. [6]. Just to clarify, the preceding link (which was in the original post) is to one published paper which says Lorentz's (1904) transformation x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,z,t) was correct. Ives was mistaken, didn't understand the notation Lorentz used, I guess. The linked paper may be the only paper which says explicitly why equations that look unfamilar are in fact correct. Whittaker (1953) says Lorentz published the correct transformations, although Whittaker didn't explicity quote Lorentz's 1904, 1899 way of writing them. Poincare 1905 also says Lorentz was correct, but he also didn't explicitly explain the different notation Lorentz had used. It is easily checked; the simple algebra is given in the archives of this page or one can read the linked paper which is quite short. E4mmacro 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Name one. -- I have named one that says Lorentz' equations were wrong. 69.22.98.146 15:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ives in his footnote refered ONLY to the transformation of coordinates, and my discussion above is restricted to that. i.e Lorentz transformation meant to Ives (as to most people): x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,z,t). We know that Lorentz made a mistake in the transformed form of at least one of Maxwell's equations. E4mmacro 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ives reliability?

Because others may be interested I will respond at little further. I had thought that Ives was anti-Einstein but careful, but re-looking at that footnote I am now not so sure. Consider, Ives, H. E. "Revision of the Lorentz Transformations", Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. v95(2), 1951). Ives wrote in that paper, that Poincare (Comptes Rendus, v140, p1504-8, 1905)

made certain revisions to Lorentz' equations to make them conform to his principle of relativity. He proposed that these revised equations "a little different from those of Lorentz" be called the "The Lorentz Transformations"³ and it is these equations, which have figured prominently in theoretical physics, which are so called to this day."

There is a footnote:

³Where Lorentz used $x_{2}=\beta x_{1}$, $\beta =\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}$, $t_{2}=t_{1}/\beta -\beta vx_{2}/c^{2}$, Poincare put $x_{2}=\beta \left(x_{1}-vt_{1}\right)$ and $t_{2}=\beta \left(t_{1}-vx_{2}/c^{2}\right)$.

It is clear from the footnote, that Ives means by the Lorentz transformations exactly what I said above, the coordinate transformation. And Ives is saying that Lorentz made a mistake in the coordinate transformation, which Poincare corrected.

Ives made an honest mistake. He did not understand that Lorentz and Poincare used a different notation: Lorentz's $x_{1}$ is not Poincare's $x_{1}$. Lorentz's $x_{1}$, call it $x_{L}$ is, in Poincare's notation, given by $x_{L}\equiv x_{1}-vt_{1}$. Make that substitution and Lorentz's equations are exactly those written by Poincare.

Ives's second mistake could have been influenced by his first mistake. He takes a quote from Poincare (1905) "a little different from those of Lorentz" out of context and says Poincare was talking of the Lorentz transformations. From the quote on the Poincare page you will see that Poincare (1905), when he named the Lorentz transformations, said they were correct (Maxwell's equations were invariant under Lorentz's transformation). In fact Poincare was not speaking of the coordinate transformations when he said "a little different from Lorentz". Poincare had written equations for the electric charge density and the convection current, (eq.2) and equations for three compoents of force per unit volume on a moving charge (eq.3). It is immediately after eqs 2 and 3, that he says "a little different from those found by Lorentz" and a "little different from those of Lorentz". Poincare here indentifies the mistake Lorentz had made - it was not a mistake in the coordinate transformation, but in the moving charge density, convection current, and electric force equations. I don't think Ives is any more pro-Poincare than pro-Lorentz, but this slip makes me think he has to be checked more closely. E4mmacro 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani, Fock, and Hawking's Remark is a Common Fact

That so called general relativity is just a theory of gravity, is a commonly stated fact, we have it from Hawking, Fock, and Keswani. -- So there is NO REASON to exclude it especially when it has direct pertinence to Poincare's work. --It is EVERYWHERE, in Hawking's books in every bookstore in the country, and in refereed scientific journals by V.Fock and G.H.Keswani, it is in Fock's authoritive books on GR. -- There is no reason for CENSORSHIP of a commonly stated pertinent fact ! -- Licorne 14:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: WHY does a simple fact that can be found in every bookstore in America frighten you so ? -- Please explain. --Licorne 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

LET'S END THIS CRAP! VOTE IS AFFIRMATIVE, 6-2, TO DELETE SECTION IN DISPUTE.

To E4: Please contact one of the administrators to terminate this repetitious crap. We've argued this issue ad nauseum and have come to a collective conclusion that the discussion of whether GR is a relativistic theory or not belongs elsewhere -- in the SR or GR articles. That's it! Case closed! green 65.88.65.217 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote is now 6-6. Licorne 20:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Please go back in this file and confirm the vote. We must get this issue behind us and not allow ourselves to be held hostage by a psychotic. green 65.88.65.217 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: NO CENSORSHIP of a commonly stated pertinent fact ! - How could you possibly justify that ? ! -- Licorne 20:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: The only sane strategy is to never -- I mean never -- respond to the obsessed one. It's an infinite loop. Please do as I request wrt Wiki (and send me your email address). green 65.88.65.217 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree Green. E4mmacro 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Coward CAN'T answer. Licorne 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: WHY does a simple fact that can be found in every bookstore in America frighten you so ? -- Please explain. --Licorne 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Senior Editors Please Step In

I appeal to Senior Editors to rule to allow a common fact found in every bookstore, which has direct pertinence to Poincare, to remain in the article. Licorne 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• You're about the last person any "senior editor" is going to trust on consensus, given the fact that you're an obvious POV-pusher and you are quite happy to quote out of context and portray any minority opinion as mainstream if it suits your purposes. --Fastfission 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A Generation Xer punk like you is senior editor , god save Generation Xers from themselves. Licorne 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give one example. -- I quote always specific SOURCES. Licorne 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I seem to recall you going on and on about how Kip Thorne said that Hilbert had priority, despite the fact that the very next line of the quote says that priority clearly resided with Einstein. Something you insisted ought to just be ignored. Oh, and maybe the fact that you have suggested that mainstream and highly respected historians of physics (such as Olivier Darrigol) must be afraid of losing their job if they write things that disagree with you. Oh, and maybe your blandering about of Bjerknes' self-published work, which is not at all respected in historical or scientific circles. Just a few examples which come to mind. The biggest red flag is of course your fantatical insistence on injecting vehement anti-Einstein content wherever you can — it's in this aspect in particular that your true colors are well displayed. --Fastfission 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't read English, a typical Generation X failure. Thorne said Hilbert MUST get the credit for the Field Equation, and the Field Equation is THE THEORY ITSELF ! --If you could add you would know that. In the next sentence Thorne made excuses for Einstein, because if he didn't, Thorne's wife Ms.Weinstein would kill him. A young punk like you doesn't understand that, how the world operates. Licorne 04:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take note of this remarkable comment regarding Thorne's purported motivations. It is not only unsourced, it is inconceivable that it can be sourced. Further, it seems to imply a 'Jewish Conspiracy' world view on the part of Licorne. If this is typical of Licorne's (and his IP aliases) regarding quotes in context and approach to interpreting them, it again enforces that nothing from this party can be trusted.--Pallen 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 209.6.255.15 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Licorne, you yourself are now trying to get the Thorne quote removed from the Einstein page, because you don't like the fact that it is being used in its full content rather than being quoted out of context the way you originally tried to use it. Someone who wasn't intellectually dishonest would have indicated from the beginning what Thorne himself meant -- which is quite clear from his book, without making aspersions and guesses about his wife -- rather than implying that it was on Thorne's authority that you claim rested, as you did, without indicating that it was your specific interpretation, one which specifically contradicts the book itself that you were considering to be Thorne's authority. You are intellectually dishonest in the first degree, which is highly ironic given your insistence on "FACTS". It's also highly telling that you can't seem to argue a point without invoking ad hominem methods. This is true both in your interactions with Wikipedia editors (as this page well illustrates), and with scholarly literature (Thorne doesn't publish what you think because his wife "would kill him"; Darrigol is apparently afraid of losing his job, etc. etc.). --Fastfission 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I said Senior Editors, not this fastfission punk. Licorne 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm as "senior" an editor as there is around here; the fact that you have derided everyone who disagrees with you as a "punk" and not worth input is just more evidence to your agenda and your demeanor. Blanking sections from article talk pages which have content that you don't like (such as descriptions of your past behavior and intellectual dishonesty) says a lot also. --Fastfission 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU are senior editor ? God save Generation Xers from themselves. Licorne 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Macrossan needs answer a very simple question. Licorne 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A "simple question" or a "misleading and loaded question"? Chill out. --Fastfission 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chill Out Man, -- that's all the mastery of the English Language you Generation X punks can muster. Licorne 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The best part about you is that you dig your own hole so happily and thoughtlessly. If you were more congenial, your POV-pushing would be a lot harder to spot. --Fastfission 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom here is recognizing a psychotic infinite loop syndrone. We'd be relieved of this pathology if the administrators were on the ball. Can you email those that have interacted here to some extent and put an end to this? green 64.136.26.226 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you all wikipedia can afford to hire ? Licorne 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a PERFECT RIGHT to be angry. Whenever Macrossan is stuck he goes a hiding. -- There is NO reason to CENSOR the quotes of Keswani and Fock. 69.22.98.146 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A record of insults

If you have been insulted by 66/69/Licorne and have resisted the temptation to respond in kind, it might be worthwhile compling a list of insults of you and posting them on Licorne's talk page (as I have done for me on my talk page). (Even if the list is deleted there will still be a record of it). It takes a little effort, but could be worth it in any complaint procedures. If you have responded in kind, perhaps you should give your replies as well, to be scrupulously fair. E4mmacro 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is really no need to copy posts from one talk page to another, since the original posts are already visible in talk page histories. Feel free to discuss these matters on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page with yet more posts not about the proposed content for Henri Poincaré. The Rod 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

to E4: No Excuses. Stop avoiding. Answer a simple question. 66.194.104.5 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: You still don't get it. He's psychotic. You cannot engage him in rational dialogue, even about a catalog of insults. Email the administrators to remove him. That's the only solution. green 64.136.26.226 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Green stop insulting people. 66.194.104.5 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Correction. I misread your message above. I thought you were writing to our resident psychotic. green 64.136.26.226 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Green there you go again insulting people again. 66.194.104.5 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: The problem is that the administrators are not doing their jobs. Anyone with half-a-brain reading this file can see who the psychotic is. green 64.136.26.226 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenie you're the one who got E4 into this mess. All was well until E4 decided to follow you, against his prior better judgement. 66.194.104.5 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Solution

All I'm asking is that the quotes of V.Fock and G.H.Keswani not be censored -- that's all -- why is that too much to ask ? -- They are important for Poincare. -- Licorne 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Noble Prize speech

Wiki has the full text of A. E.'s Nobel prize speech. He says a number of things relevant to the discussions we have been having. I am assuming Harald88 will be interested. The first relates to what Einstein considers to be the essence of "special relativity". A. E. list four things, which I quote here but I have added the numbering system:

"The special relativity theory resulted in appreciable advances.

1. It reconciled mechanics and electrodynamics.
2. It reduced the number of logically independent hypotheses regarding the latter.
3. It enforced the need for a clarification of the fundamental concepts in epistemological terms.
4. It united the momentum and energy principle, and demonstrated the like nature of mass and energy." (Einstein 1921, Nobel Prize speech)

I suppose it is not surprising that three of these advances (2, 3, 4) are pretty clearly Einstein's, while only the first is shared by Lorentz and Poincare (and Larmor). I suspect Poincare would agree that 2 and 3 are advances (I personally am not much impressed by 3), even if Poincare might dispute who made them. The moral is, of course, we can always define a theory to "really mean" those parts that give a particular person most of the credit (as I think we all know). I think the mainstream would accept Einstein's 4 points as the "essential to SR", but there is a glaring omission of "invariance/covariance", as though it were no big deal or not an appreciable advance. He does mention it elsewhere in the speech, though.

There is also a sentence indicating perhaps A. E. was a little put-out that he didn't have full credit for SR. "The laws of transformation for space coordinates and time for the transition from one inertial frame to another, the Lorentz transformations as they are termed, ..." (Einstein 1921, Nobel Prize Speech, emphasis added)

When A. E. goes on to general relativity he repeats the criticism of SR that he made in his paper "Foundations of the General Theory ...." but adds another even more explicit criticism.

"Yet it [SR] was not entirely satisfactory ... In common with classical mechanics the special relativity theory favours certain states of motion - namely those of the inertial frames - to all other states of motion. This was actually more difficult to tolerate than the preference for a single state of motion as in the case of the theory of light with a stationary aether, for this imagined a real reason for the preference, i.e. the light aether." (Einstein 1921, emphasis added).

IOW, he is saying that a Lorentzian aether is actually a better theory than special relativity, a view way out of line with the modern views of SR, (e.g. the great advance was to abolish the aether). I think Einstein is supporting what I think Harald88 is trying to show on the Twin paradox page - that a SR-only explanation of the paradox is unsatisfactory; the consensus view disagrees with Einstein on this point. E4mmacro 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In his Leiden speech of 1920, Einstein radically changed the properties of the Lorentzian ether -- he said he could not manifest internal movement. I agree that an SR-only explanation of the TP is unsatisfactory. To the extent I understand it, I don't believe the GR "solution". However, this doesn't mean a "failure" of GR as Harald has claimed; it just means a different solution has to be devised. green 64.136.26.226 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GR does not exist, and never will. It contradicts Nature. What Einstein falsely called GR is a misnomer, and only a theory of gravity, as pointed out by V.Fock. -- This is important to understand Poincare's proper place in history. Licorne 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Einstein was in fact refused a Nobel Prize for Relativity by the Nobel Committee, because the Nobel Committee knew Einstein was in fact not the discoverer. -- This you can read in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the letter E for Einstein. Licorne 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All Britannica says on the subject is: In Shanghai a cable reached him announcing that he had been awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics “for your photoelectric law and your work in the field of theoretical physics.” Relativity, still the centre of controversy, was not mentioned. Paul August ☎ 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, He was refused the prize for Relativity, because of the controversy. They knew he didn't do it. Earlier editions of Britannica are even more explicit. I read once Lorentz was influencial on the Committee and Lorentz refused that Einstein ever receive the prize for Relativity. Licorne 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very interesting reference if anyone can produce it. It seems to disagree with other quotes by Lorentz praising Einstein's achievements (which we hav on the Poincare page). Relativity could have been "controversial" since few of its predictions had been confirmed experimentally by 1921, particularly time dilation, which would seem very controversial, I would guess. E4mmacro 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello E4 good to have you back. Editions of the Britannica confirm that the Nobel Prize was refused Einstein because of the controversy surrounding the origin of the theory. -- I have heard it was Lorentz behind the refusal. It was someone, who convinced the Committee, as stated in the Britannica. --They could have easily added the word Relativity to the prize, especially after the eclipse, but it was too soon after the death of the famous Poincare to get away with it. Licorne 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The following link gives a very detailed history of the Nobel Committee politics leading to Einstein's prize. It disagrees with the various simplified popular accounts, and, in particular, there is no mention of any role by Lorentz. It has the 'feel' of authority, but I certainly cannot vouch for it, as I am no historian: http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/34/article5.pdf

--Pallen 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)209.6.255.15 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to speculation (and that is all it is) by Licorne, the link I give, based on extensive access to the Nobel archives not previously available, notes that Lorents NOMINATED Einsein in 1920 rather than opposed him in any way: "Although still modest in number, nominations for Einstein dominated the sparse 1920 list. From the committee’s perspective, the nomination from Niels Bohr might have been seen as one revolutionary thinker advocating the work of another intellectual radical, but others who proposed Einstein could scarcely have been more respectable. The elderly Berliner Emil Warburg, whose nominations frequently won committee respect, was one. Others included three Dutch laureates H. A.Lorentz, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, and Pieter Zeeman." According to this article, the main issue in the early 20th century was a strong experimental bias on the Nobel committee which, among other things, prevented Poincare from ever getting a prize (despite nominations) as well as almost denying Max Planck ever getting a prize. Note, in particular, that priority disputes didn't figure at all in the Nobel Committee's deliberations - the issue was reluctance to endorse the significance of EITHER the new quantum theory or relativity theory - special or general of whatever provenance. --Pallen 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)209.6.255.15 11:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lorentz perhaps did nominate Einstein for the little photoelectric effect, BUT not for relativity. -- Licorne 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you find any source for this? The source I cite is the most complete I could find on the web about Einstein and the Nobel prize. However, it does not say anything at all about what Lorentz's nomination was for. Without a source, this is nothing but a guess. Physics is verifiable indepenent of sources; not so for history. I have sent an e-mail to the author of the article I linked asking about the actual content of Lorentz's nomination. Perhaps the full truth will soon be known.--Pallen 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)38.113.0.254

The Nobel Committee refused Einstein a Nobel Prize for relativity. -- that is the bottom line. -- Lorentz is said to have been the one who made sure of it. Licorne 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeating an assertion with no evidence has no effect on its validity (Lorentz's claimed role). As for "refusing Einstein a prize for relativity", my source explains at length that this is not really what happened. What happened is they rejected relativity and quantum theory altogether as legitimate for a prize. From this, no one nominated for work primarily on these would be accepted. The only connection to Einstein is that he kept being nominated (along with others) for relativity. All such nominations were rejected on the same basis.--Pallen 21:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica says Einstein was refused the Nobel Prize for relativity because of the controversy surrounding the origin of the theory. Licorne 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the actual quote given earlier. If you claim an earlier edition said something different, how about giving the actual year of edition and full, in context quote. Also note that archival material from the Nobel Committee has not been available very long. So an old edition would be inherently unreliable on this point. Anyway, I have done more research on this author and he is considered the premiere researcher on this subject area (the hisotry of Nobel science prizes), using all the latest archival sources. So, while an authenticated old Britannic quote would be interesting, it would not be very authoritative.--Pallen 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the Britannica, which is a far better source than yours. Licorne 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, from what I see, you misquoted Britannica. Paul August quoted Britannica and it doesn't agree with what you say. That's why I am asking for the edition and full quote. Then we can see. Until then we still have only unsourced assertion from you. As to which source is more reliable, we'll see what consensus is. I would believe the type of source I quoted over Britannica any day. --Pallen 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke ? - I quoted it. -- I won't quote it again and again just for you. Don't ask me again. Licorne 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You've never quoted it. You have recalled it. Paul August quoted it and it disagrees with your recollection. If you have the actual Britannica, you can provide its edition year - making it possible to be validated. You can also quote a few complete sentences. Since you have never done either of these things, the possibility (given Paul August's actual quote) is that you have no quote at all - only a recollection.--Pallen 22:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Get up off your ass and go to the library, there you'll see it for yourself. Licorne 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to. I own a copy. My copy agrees with Paul August's quote and disagrees with yours. That is why, to give you some possible benefit of the doubt, I ask for the particular edition. THEN I could go to a library to check that edition. I repeat, the fact that you can't give specific edition information, nor can you give a more extended quote strongly implies you are not actually quoting. --Pallen 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Get up off your fat ass and read it for yourself it is at the library and I am not your secretary. If you are really interested you'll get up off your ass and go. You're lying about your edition anyhow, you're just a liar. Licorne 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mine is the 1982 edition. It has word for word the same quote as Paul August provided. Since the odds of his having that same edition is small, that's two editions with that wording. Also, mine (1982) is rather old. I repeat, if you can't state what edition says what you say, you yet again undermine your credibility. Just to establish more context, in my edition, the sentence following the one Paul quoted is: "Though the 1920s were tumultous times of wide acclaim and some notoriety, Einstein did not waver from his new search - to find the mathematical relationship between electromegnetism and gravitation." If you were quoting you could do this easily. If you can't, you leave no choice but everyone to doubt every quote you cite -- not for the first time. Finally, note that the wording actually in Britannica is consistent with detailed source I cited - there was a controversy in the nobel committy, but it wasn't about priority; it was about validity and significance of relativity.--Pallen 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The significance and validity of relativity was firmly established by then (after the eclipse there was worldwide acclaim), so it was absolutely controversy over Priority. -- I don't remember what year Britannica I saw it in. Go look through back editions if you're losing sleep over it, you will find it. Licorne 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have found it in the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you Mr.Pallen will post here a precise explicit apology for having questioned my integrity, I will reciprocate by telling you exactly where it is in the Britannica. -- 69.22.98.146 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have things backwards. Quoting is the process of rendering a verbatim excerpt (preferably with appropriate context) from an identified source. Identification must be sufficient for others to locate it (not search all editions..). It remains absolutely clear that you were previously not quoting in any generally understood sense. If you now want to provide such an actual quote from an adequately identified source, that would be great. It does not, however, erase history.--Pallen 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the verifiability policy is not negotiable, as 69.22.98.146 seems to believe with his post above. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Pallen just to show how you were a fool to question Jesus Christ, look once again at your Britannica, I know you are an exceedingly exacting and thorough top knotch researcher, but if you simply read earlier in the same discussion in your Britannica, they tell you what the controversy in question is. How did a powerful researcher like you overlook it ? -- Don't question me ever again, Pallen. -- 69.22.98.146 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue concerns a quote - actual words used. It now appears you still cannot validate the quote you alleged. Instead you pretend an 'interpretion' according to your point of view allows you to make up words not present in the original. In fact, I did see, on one page, the discussion of controversy over origin; and on a different page, mention of controversy in relation to the Nobel prize (which does not mention origin or priority). There is no cross reference to between these sections. It is nothing but a personal judgement, with minimal basis, to interpret them together as you do. This is exactly why interpretation must be distinguished from quoting. My interpretation is that they are unrelated. That allows me to think Britannica is accurate - because voluminous records of the Nobel deliberations indicate the controversy had nothing at all to do with priority, and that Lorentz had no involvement - for which I cite a detailed authoritative source. So again, you have confirmed that you fabricated a quote. --Pallen 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen the Britannica is not stupid, they are not going to mention a controversy without first defining it. --You can't see that, right on your face ??-- Licorne 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how after all the massive media acclaim which Einstein had received in 1919 for relativity, the Nobel Committee still would not give him a prize for the discovery of relativity ! -- BRAVO ! -- Licorne 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the "earlier" passage from Brittannica referred to by 69.22.98.146/Licorne is the following:

Einstein's special theory of relativity, first printed in “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), had its beginnings in an essay Einstein wrote at age 16. The precise influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's special theory is still controversial. The theory held that if, for all frames of reference, the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same, then both time and motion are found to be relative to the observer.

It is not reasonable to conclude that Brittannica is saying that this controversy over "influence" is the same controversy mentioned in the Nobel quote. To do so would require reading deeply between the lines.

Paul August ☎ 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

FACT: The discovery of Relativity is historically defined as the contents of Einstein's particular Sept 1905 paper, the equivalent contents of which are found in Poincare's June 1905 paper, which Einstein failed to footnote. --(These discovery contents there being the Principle of Relativity, the presentation of the correct transformations, both spatial and velocity, and with a proof of invariance of Maxwell's equations). Licorne 13:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP of V.Fock and G.H.Keswani's Words

To E4: It is time now to agree NOT to CENSOR the pertinent words of V.Fock and G.H.Keswani, they are important to Poincare. Licorne 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Move priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories

The Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories page seems to be a better place than here to continue priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I suggest, therefore, moving the discussions to that talk page. Does everyone agree to such a move? If anyone disagrees with such a move, I will open a straw poll with a one week deadline and options similar to the following:

• Current and subsequent discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories will move from Talk:Henri Poincaré to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. Only a short summary of and a link to that discussion will remain here.
• Discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories may continue on Talk:Henri Poincaré.

Note, the poll is not open, since a consensus would be preferable. Please do not vote yet, because if we do have to resort to such a poll, I will want some input on the best wording of the options. The Rod 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree much of the discussion on this page should move. However, there are several discussions relevant to the Poincare article. One is the whole section "One and Unique Theory of Relativity", which most people think doesn't belong. Another is the discussion of nature and significance of Poincares gravity work following 1905. This is at least partly independent of any priority disputes.--Pallen 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you proposing to CENSOR the quote of Keswani and Fock ? ? -- And Poincare's gravity work is important for the article -- Langevin praised Poincare's gravity work. Licorne 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that section doesn't belong ? ? -- it is a fact proved and published by Keswani and it is most flattering of Poincare - it absolutely belongs in Poincare's article  ! -- Licorne 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to get a coherent discussion with all this yelling going on inbetween - but I think splitting the "who was first, Einstein or Poincare" discussions from the "what did Poincare do" discussions would help the clarity of both talk pages quite a lot. --Alvestrand 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand you are really lost. There is no priority dispute here. The ONLY question here is one of CENSORSHIP of Keswani and Fock. Licorne 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is No Priority Dispute

There is no priority dispute, that is not the question. -- The only issue is that of censorship of the pertinent quotes of G.H.Keswani and V.Fock. -- I do not want their pertinent quotes censored -- that is the only issue at hand. -- Macrossan had wanted to censor their pertinent quotes -- that is the only dispute. -- If Macrossan and Green agree not to censor those pertinent quotes then all is OK and the Poincare page should be opened back up as normal. -- So I suggest you ask Macrossan and Green if they no longer want to censor these pertinent quotes then we are OK. -- ask them. -- Licorne 22:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Macrossan ?

We are hearing nothing from Macrossan or Green so I assume they are no longer insisting that Fock or Keswani be censored, so why not lift the block on Poincare's page ? -- I want to make some small changes there that I have already emailed to Macrossan, so let's lift the block, and remove Green's red tag since he doesn't insist on it anymore apparently. Licorne 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you agree with abiding by the poll result and removing the "One and only theory" section, I'll agree with lifting the block. --Alvestrand 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, you say "We are hearing nothing from Macrossan... lift the block", but you know very well from these posts that E4mmacro has not left the conversation, but is addressing issues regarding your behavior in this dispute. Your appeals to "lift the block" can certainly wait until those issues are addressed. The Rod 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no concensus, according to Wikipedia rules on consensus you do not have it. Also, as someone posted there, truth should not be determined by a poll. There is no reason whatsoever to CENSOR Fock and Keswani, they are published quotes from scientific journals and very pertinent to Poincare. Yes I would like to correct a few tiny technical mistakes that E4 had written into the article, he knows already exactly which, I emailed him out of courtesy. But I am overall happy with the article and if it stays frozen that is OK too.

In any case Macrossan apparently wishes to no longer censor the quotes, so I think you could lift the block, there apparently is no longer a wish for censorship by Macrossan, we haven't heard from him at all, so go ahead and unblock it. 69.22.98.146 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedians think is the truth is pretty clearly seen by a poll that 7 Wikipedians on one side and 7 suspected sock puppet IP addresses on the other. You forgot to vote in your own name too, Licorne. --Alvestrand 13:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan is gone, he apparently has no wish to censor the quotes, so lift the block. 69.22.98.146 13:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

69.22.98.146, you say "he apparently has no wish to censor the quotes... lift the block", but you know very well that E4mmacro has not left the conversation, but is addressing issues regarding your behavior in this dispute. Your appeals to "lift the block" can certainly wait until those issues are addressed. The Rod 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Au Contraire, Michael Macrossan hasn't posted here at all recently, he is gone, and I'm sure he does not believe in CENSORSHIP, so unblock it. 69.22.98.146 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan Stop your Pouting

I could propose a compromise since Macrossan is so bent out of shape by the fact that special relativity is in fact THE theory of relativity. Here is what we could do: I didn't add that title The One and Unique Theory of Relativity --Someone else did, although I like it, and it is true. But if Macrossan will forever cry in his beer we could do this : We could lift that title, and simply retain Keswani's quote with also Fock's quote, and say simply that this shows the Significance of Poincare's work. How about that as a compromise ? Licorne 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing that we leave out the term one and unique theory of relativity and simply write that The significance of Poincare's work is realized by... the quotes of Keswani and Fock. Licorne 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the title; actually I wrote the correct vernacular, "The one and only theory of relativity" and you changed it back to "Unique". My purpose for the title was to draw attention to the claim you had slipped into the last two sentences of the page. I oppose removing the title if the sentences stay. The last thing I want is for anyone to overlook the irrelevant claim you made, because once anyone sees your claim they want it removed. And I agree, with them. Please continue your claim on the "disputes about the origin page" where it can de discussed fully. Here it is just an embarassment. E4mmacro 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I correct you, it is not a dispute about the origin. -- It is simply a description of so called GR, taken right out of refereed journals, Fock and Keswani. -- They are totally relevent to Poincare's place in history. -- You wrote once that you didn't like the quotes because you thought they made Einstein look bad -- that is a poor excuse and no reason not to include them. -- The quotes are true and common knowledge within the scientific community. -- Licorne 04:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to start a discussion. I should have said, start a "One and Only Relativity page". As everyone has told you, we do not think Keswani and Fock's opinions on GR are relavent to Poincare. We do [correction: do NOT E4mmacro 07:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)] think they show the significance or importance of Poincare's work. They do not show Poincare's place in history. The issue is irrelevancy. E4mmacro 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK we agree, you say we do think they show the significance or importance of Poincare's work GREAT WE AGREE. That is plenty reason not to delete them ! -- Licorne 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan here said the truth, then abruptly corrected himself, Ha Ha . Licorne 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, if they stay, for balance, I will include references stating the SR is an approximate limit of GR in the absence of matter, just like Newton's law is the assymptotic limit for weak gravity and speeds slow compared to light; and that GR stands on its own without need for either SR or Newton's laws; as such, GR contains a generalization of SR and of Newton's laws. This must be allowed for balance. Then we will have strange discussion about the nature of GR sitting in Poincare's bio, for which it is irrelevant because Poincare did no work on GR (yes, he did some work on developing a gravity theory consistent with SR, but it did not constitute GR). The article on Poincare will look much better without this misplaced discussion.

On a different note, I think the bio as a whole drastically understates Poincare's overall contributions by so obsessively focusing on his relativity work. It seems laughable when I compare it to other Poincare bios that describe so much more about his numerous contributions to mathematics and mathematical physics. However, I am not in a position to remedy this. --Pallen 06:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably correct. Unfortunately all the extra material had to be put in to qualify assertions made by Licorne in hisprevious incarnations. E4mmacro 07:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen you are ignorant or a liar - which is it ? You say GR generalized SR. -- That is FALSE. -- This is precisely why Fock and Keswani's quotes are important, to teach to ignorant people what so called GR really is, just a theory of gravity. -- Poincare's SR is the Theory of Relativity. All physicists know this. -- Pallen, Macrossan, etc, none of you are Physicists, that is your collective problem, you all speak from ignorance, none of you are expert Physicists, this is your problem. - Macrossan is out of his field and he doesn't know what he is talking about. -- Licorne 13:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. It is irrelevant. However, if your quote stays, I have gathered quotes by Hawking and Brian Greene that clearly support my point of view, that I will add to the article. The reader can then judge. Of course this will look ridiculous, so much the better option is to remove this irrelevancy. Now have your infantile fun and call me a liar again. Then I will give you my easily verifiable quotes. Of course, just to have more fun, I may also get quotes by Pauli, Einstein, Peter Bergmann, Clifford Will, Chris Hillman, and Steven Carlip (who is a personal friend of mine - we went to high school together and studied General Relativity together in our youth). --Pallen 20:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see some quotes, big mouth. -- You have NONE that contradict Fock and Keswani. Licorne 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, to place the Keswani quote in neutral context, we would have to start by changing the section head to reflect a range of opinion. Also, the 'one and only theory of relativity' wording goes altogether because that is conclusion on Licorne's part, not part of the Keswani quote. So it could look like: --- Relation of Special and General Theory of Relativity

Stephen Hawking describes the change in the conception of space and time as follows: "Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. This was true even of the special theory of relativity. Bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued unaffected. It was natural to think that space and time went on forever. This situation, however, is quite different in the general theory of relativity. Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body move or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time - and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act". Brian Greene explains the change in the nature of privileged frames of reference: "all observers, regardless of their state of motion, may proclaim that they are stationary and the rest of the world is moving by them, so long as they include a suitable gravitational field in the description of their surroundings. In this sense, through the inclusion of gravity, general relativity ensures that all possible observational vantage points are on equal footing." On the other hand, Keswani (1966) argues that general relativity "is in no sense a theory of general relativity..it is really only a theory of gravity"

sources: A Brief History of Time,expanded edition, 1996, page 34.(Stephen Hawking)

       The Elegant Universe,1999, page 61 (Brian Greene)

---

So the choice is between a ridiculous digression of this type in the middle of Poincare's bio, or simply moving all of this to general relativity article where it belongs. --Pallen 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen you are clearly not a Physicist. -- What Hawking says is true, but what Keswani says is true also, and Hawking agrees with Keswani by the way. -- So there is no On the other hand as you phrased it. -- Try again. -- Also I appreciate your proposing it here before messing up the article with it, as here I can explain it to you first so as not to mess up the article needlessly. --Do you have another suggestion for me to comment on ? -- I have a PhD in Physics, Macrossan knows me. Licorne 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't need you to explain anything to me. Hawking goes on at length describing general relativity as a revolution in our conception of space and time, continuing what was started by special relativity. It is perverse to describe this as only a theory of gravitation. Greene also goes on at length about general relativity extending the revolution begun by special relativity. These are non technical books, but I have also given a more technical description how GR contains a generalization of SR, in other posts. I think what you don't understand is that saying GR does not achieve all of what Einstein initially hoped for (Mach's principle and removal of any concept of preferred inertial frames), somehow means it didn't generalize SR's relativity at all. The former is true, the latter is absurd. Gone are global inertial frames, something Einstein was very bothered by. Gone is the idea that privileged frames have constant velocity between them - if they are separated by a finite distance in a non-empty universe, the transform between two inertial frames is a general mapping with accelarating components. Privileged frames are local and defined by nearby matter not motion in relation to the universe. You can choose to insist that these are not relativity concepts or generalizations of special relativity. However, it is very clear to me that Hawking and Greene among others look at the situation more like I do.--Pallen 04:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir your Physics is totally WRONG. --You read laymen's materials and misconstrue everything. -- It was Poincare who got rid of preferred inertial frames, for instance. - So you don't know what you are talking about. --You write in a giberish of contradictions. -- You remind me of Green, another illiterate. -- Your Hawking says GR is just a theory of gravity, he knows it. -- Your longwinded bullcrap does not belong taking up space on Poincare's page. -- This is a page about Poincare, and is not a place to make excuses for Einstein. --Licorne 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP by Macrossan

Fock and Keswani are published in refereed journals, and their quotes have obvious pertinence to Poincare. -- NO CENSORSHIP -- Licorne 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

by my count, that's 15 times he's said the same thing on this page. Repetition doesn't make the quote relevant, or removing it censorship. --Alvestrand 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't brush it off, it is blatant censorship and a violation of Wikipedia rules by you. Licorne 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've opened a Request for Comments about the editing behavior of User:Licorne. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne, and those participating in this are encouraged to contribute as they see fit. --Fastfission 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Fastfizzy, did I hurt your feelings ? -- 69.22.98.146 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica editions

I'm not sure it matters, but while looking through the contributions of User:69.22.98.162, I found that his copy of Encyclopedia Britannica is from 1955: [7]. I still don't know if he quoted it correctly; I don't have any edition here. --Alvestrand 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that he would not just say this in his argument with me. Also interesting that he still couldn't produce the quote he claimed - implying the wording in his was the same as mine and Paul August's. Very relevent is that according to the source I cited on Einstein and Nobel committee, the documents on early Nobel prizes weren't released until 1974. Historians presumably didn't finish analyzing them until the 1980s. Then, they would have to diffuse into reference works like Britannica. In any case such an edition must, in light of this, be considered to have exactly zero evidentiary value on the question of what happened around Einstein's Nobel (other than the publicly announced information). --Pallen 13:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen you are really hurt that Einstein's Nobel Prize was never for relativity. To the point you can't even read English anymore right in the Britannica - You are blinded by your tears. Licorne 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare and Gravity

Pallen you need read Langevin who praises Poincare's work on gravity which contains many concepts found in today's modern gravity theory (so called GR). -- Poincare had a GR before even Hilbert. -- Read Langevin. -- Licorne 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen. He has had this argument before with others and lost it conclusively. Its all in the talk records. E4mmacro 20:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pallen read Langevin yourself, don't believe Macrossan he is like talking to a wall. When the site opens up I'll put Langevin's entire passage there, just to make a fool of Macrossan. Licorne 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Would that be the passage we asked you to supply many times before and you refused? (see talk records), and you had plenety of opportunity to email it to me, but didn't. If you put it in the talk page, that would be interesting, and we could discuss it. E4mmacro 10:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I in fact had already added it to the article, but you then chopped it up to try to mask it out. -- I will restore it, and you will leave it be. -- Licorne 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you've ever added it, it's in the page history. Just point to it, and people can make their own judgment about what happened to it after you added it. --Alvestrand 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the article, the paragraph that begins talking about Langevin's quote, I had it all there translated into English, but Macrossan clear as can be, chopped up the remainder of the paragraph ! -- Langevin's words that I had there are all gone ! -- And look Alvestan, don't you ever question me again, GOT IT ? -- Licorne 19:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment on this on Licorne's talk page, since it's got nothing to do with Poincaré. --Alvestrand 20:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In answer to a point made previously that the Poincare page focuses too much on work on relativity. I would suggest that the section on gravity can be removed entirely. Poincare's theory of gravity was outdated by 1915. No one bothered to put Lorentz's obslete theory of gravity on the Lorentz's page, even though it appears (from Poincare's 1908 description of it) to have all the same characteristics of Poincare's theory (for which we have been no finished description by Poincare). E4mmacro 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now everyone can clearly see why Macrossan erased Langevin's glowing description of Poincare's remarkable contribution to modern gravity theory ! -- Macrossan loves to CENSOR Poincare's work ! -- Langevin makes it clear, it is a beautiful description by Langevin and Macrossan erased it -- I will restore it, and don't you touch it again ! -- SHAME ON YOU MACROSSAN ! --Licorne 19:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you find where you quoted from Langevin? My recollection is that you you gave us your interpretation of what Langevin said; you called it "glowing", clearly your opinion. You said things like "Langevin and Minkowski (in 1913 and 1908) showed Poincare anticipated GR" - impossible since in 1913 and 1908 GR had not been published. Given your track record on quotes we asked for Langevin's words and the papers of Poincare's which Langevin cited. These were never supplied; you said things like "it is too long to quote", "he is clearly refering to Poincare's "Science and Method". When I showed "Science and Method" described Lorentz's theory you changed it to Langevin was clearly quoting a conference paper of Poincare's. So if I "cut up" the section as you say, I guess I was "cuting up" your unreferenced words. As you know "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it". E4mmacro 20:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I properly translated Langevin into English which YOU ERASED. -- NO CENSORSHIP ! --Licorne 21:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about the gravity section stays, but the sentence begining "After Poincare's death ..." and everything after it be deleted. It appears self-evidently irrelevant. E4mmacro 21:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

BULL ! -- Licorne 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And of course, unsourced statements such as "Poincaré lectured widely on these concepts, in Paris, Lille, and Goettingen" should be sourced or deleted. I assume that is normal procedure? In the past I have chased those who insert unsourced statements, until they give enough information so that I can add their source to the reference list. But the burden should be on those who add the unsourced statements. E4mmacro 21:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Langevin said it all, which is why you erased him ! -- NO CENSORSHIP ! --- Licorne 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Some editors have suggested that the page be unprotected to allow productive edits to continue, such as incorporating links to and/or discussion about Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. (I would suggest there be some brief discussion about that page here, not just a link, perhaps a small section in place of "The one and unique Theory of Relativity" section.) If noone has any objections in the next day or so, I will unprotect the page tomorrow. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare's page is NO PLACE for debates on priority ! - How about a debate on priority on the Einstein page instead ! -- I want an agreement that Keswani's and Fock's quotes not be deleted, because that would be censorship ! -- And these quotes emphasize the importance of Poincare's work, it is important they remain. -- The one and only phrase could be dropped however, that wouldn't bother me, that was in fact Macrossan's phrase, not mine. -- Licorne 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction: It was not my phrase. It was Licorne under his previous re-incarnation as 69/66 who wrote "one and Unique theory of relativity". I inserted the sub-headings for the article to show what each section refered to. The phrase from the text "one and Unique" become "one and only" in the sub-heading (I corrected the idiom) and was changed back to "one and unique" by Licorne/66/69. E4mmacro 10:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want anyone trying to turn Poincare's page into another Einstein page, Einstein already has his page elsewhere. -- I will delete any expounding on Einstein, it doesn't belong here.--Licorne 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On this I mostly agree with Licorne. Present what Poincare did on the Poincare page. Where there are differences of opinion on what he did, present that. Same for Einstein. These bio pages should then have just a link to the priority dispute page. Of course I remain in adamant disagreement with Licorne on where the Keswani quote belongs (in the GR article only). I also fear that unprotection will lead to an immediate edit war. For one, given consensus, I would be inclined to delete the One and Unique. Licorne would put it back. Then I might put in my quotes from Hawking and Greene. Licorne would remove them. etc. --Pallen 03:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In theory Pallen it sounds like you are right. But we know from experience what Licorne means by "no mention of Einstein". He means he wants to insinuate that Poincare did things associated with Einstein with no clarification or explanation. For example: He will write "E = mc^2" was discovered by Poincare. If anyone tries to put that it into perspective, explain the situation, and adds "but not in the sense meant by Einstein (1905)", he wuill say "no mention of Einstein". We have been through it all before. E4mmacro 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Macrossan, take another look, Einstein is indeed mentioned in the article, for his derivation of E=mc2, qualified by Ives. -- So what are you talking about ? - Licorne 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the sort of thing done in the following edit. It is rather long, but after line 81 you will see that the sentence "it was Einstein's ... insight that the body emitting radiation was losing mass which solved this problem" was replaced by "it was the insight .... which solved this problem". Changing Einstein's name to "the" made it appear it was Poincare's insight. E4mmacro 20:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

you wrote it yourself. Licorne 01:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani and Fock's quotes belong at the very end of the gravity discussion, for perspective. -- The one and only phrase can be dropped. -- Your lenthy quote of Hawking is really pointless. -- All Hawking is really saying is that GR is a new Theory of Gravity. -- Hawking agrees with Keswani, all Physicists know that GR is only a theory of gravity and a misnomer, it is no secret.-- It is important to say it here for Poincare -- NO CENSORSHIP -- To avoid an edit war let us agree here first before lifting the block. Licorne 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, that Priority in NOT the issue here at all, why do people even bring that up, priority ? ? -- I prefer that Einstein not even be mentioned at all on Poincare's page, why should he be ! -- This is Poincare's page. --Licorne 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to lifting the unprotection because it is entirely predictable that another delete and re-insertion war will result, to be "won" by the most single-minded uncompromising editor. Licorne says above he must have the irrelevancies about general relativity in the page, which were voted against, except by himself under 5 different IP anonymous addresses. The frozen state ay least stops the page getting worse. E4mmacro 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Macrossan, no edit war will result, as long as no one tries to make longwinded excuses for Einstein, or tries to Censor Keswani and Fock's short quotes. -- And remember Macrossan that you yourself asked me to provide you with the exact reference for Keswani that you yourself then added to the reference section. -- You weren't opposed to Keswani's quote then, now were you ! --Licorne 12:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP

I insist that it be understood here and now by all parties, that Keswani and Fock not be censored, before the site is unblocked. Licorne 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help implement the majority decision of the poll, which was to remove them as irrelevant (note - I disagree about characterizing that as "censorship). --Alvestrand 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I thiink the time is overdue for this. Thanks. However, to emhaphasize that it is not censorship, but relevance, the Keswani quote can fit in the article "Transition from Special Relativity to General Relativity" or in the "General Relavivity" article in the section on "Relationship to other Physical Theories". Perhaps you want to leave that for a separate step. Anyway, there was strong consensus on irrelevance to the Poincare article, but also a majority thought the quote was perfectly reasonable somewhere else. --Pallen 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NO there was NO consensus at all. Licorne 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It belongs anywhere where GR is mentioned, and it belongs especially on Poincare's page. Licorne 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to subtract Keswani, rather, I will add Fock, for good measure. It is excellent for Poincare. Licorne 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan knows me

Licorne/69/66 keeps saying "Macrossan knows me" apparently to support his claim to have a "Ph D from UCLA", as part of an "argument from authority". All I know is that someone claiming to be "Dean Mamas" with a "PhD from UCLA" emailed me many times from a yahoo email address. He continued discussions started on the Poincare talk page by 69, and continued with insults and orders in the style of Licorne/66/69. I haven't checked any records at UCLA. E4mmacro 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of Poincare's Writings in English translation

I am not qualified to have an opinion about the huge controversies swirling around this entry. All I wish is to add to the bibliography the following Poincare writings in English translation:

Ewald, William B., ed., 1996. From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, 2 vols. Oxford Uni. Press.

• 1894. "On the nature of mathematical reasoning," 972-81.
• 1898. "On the foundations of geometry," 982-1011.
• 1900. "Intuition and Logic in mathematics," 1012-20.
• 1905-06. "Mathematics and Logic, I-III," 1021-70.
• 1910. "On transfinite numbers," 1071-74.

When (if?) the protection lock is ever lifted, would someone please see that the above is transferred to the bibliography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-23 09:44:05 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks. Time to edit it. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes and compromises which I had already indicated to Macrossan in personal emails. The formula E=mc2 I added to the Intro with a qualifying phrase attached. Note that in Wikipedia's article on E=mc2 the interpretation of Poincaré is recognized and described, it is a common usage of the formula, as in today's textbook calculations of redshift of photons, a legitimate common usage. Licorne 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted your same old, tired POV edits, which look to me to have removed nuanced content and replaced it with misleading content. But anyway you've lost all right to any real "good faith" assumptions in any case -- if you have specific edits you want done to this page, propose them on the talk page, and see if someone else will make the edits for you. --Fastfission 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fairly good as is, considering everything, and I'm glad you're protecting it. Licorne 03:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Keswani states that GR is a Misnomer

Keswani's quote that GR is not a GR, but a misnomer, and only a theory of gravity, is today a generally accepted fact in the physics community, there is no reason to red tag it. -- And it is very good for Poincaré. Licorne 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of such a general acceptance. I also don't see a justification for Keswani's word "only" - a theory that unifies gravity with SR was, to my mind, an enormous accomplishment, as Hilbert said. --Alvestrand 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Enormous accomplishment yes, but NOT a general theory of relativity. It is only special relativity plus gravity. Stephen Hawking describes it exactly like that: GR = SR + Gravity. It is NOT a general theory of relativity. There is no general principle of relativity in nature. It was Einstein's pipedream that doesn't exist. Hilbert properly called it the theory of gravity. Licorne 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A more valid point of view is that SR is the flat space limiting case of GR. Exactly analagously, Newton's law of gravitation is a low mass limit of GR. GR stands independently of both, containing them only as limiting cases. GR unambiguously changes SR's concept of privileged frames (from global frames moving at constant speed relative to the'universe', to local free frames in free fall). Which frames are privileged is a key part of SR, and it is wrong. How can a relativity theory correct only as limiting case be considered the unique theory of relativity, while the accurate theory replacing it is not? I believe you are taking quotes out of context. I specifically know you are distorting Hawking. --Pallen 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

unambiguously ? Really ? ha ha ha.

NOTHING makes GR a GR, there is no such thing. -- If Einstein had any physical intuition at all he would have realized it.

Licorne 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So far your opinions. Only what can be backed up with quotations from literature has value for the article. And it must be relevant to an article on Poincare... Harald88 11:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The formula m=e/c2 does not resolve those three problems as stated

A while back I had sent a personal email to E4, that I wished to remove the sentence on Langevin's factor, the factor was wrong and really has no significance here. I also sent to E4 that I consider the paragraph that begins with Poincare derived.... to be a scientifically unsound paragraph, the conclusion of the paragraph does not scientifically justify the body of the paragraph, and I wish to delete that unsound paragraph. Licorne--Pallen 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC) 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue is whether there the paragraph accurately reflects some things Poincare said in the referenced sources. If it is even partly accurate, it seems important in appreciating the evolution of e=mc**2 from early derivations, through Einstein, and then Planck (whose derivation everyone seems to agree is the first fully satisfying one). So unless it has no basis at all, let's try to improve the wording rather than delete it.--Pallen 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should say I agree that there doesn't need to be two paragraphs on this. The content can be merged. --Pallen 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is wrong. delete it. There is no evidence that Poincare never understood it, that is Macrossan's POV. -- Also m=E/c2 does not solve the variation of mass with velocity formula - Macrossan's paragraph is false. Licorne 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this could use wordsmithing - but not deletion, assuming on good faith till proven otherwise that it reflects the indicated sources. For example, to clarify the physics issue you rightly point out, one can expand to say "The apparent increase in mass with speed can be reconciled with conservation of mass by realizing that whatever apparatus increased the speed of a particle underwent a decrease in mass of E/c**2 correspending to the particle's increase. This very general statement of equivalence was first made by Einstein and clarified by Planck." --Pallen 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph was written to counter some b.s. that Licorne wrote in earlier versions of the first paragraph. To avoid edit wars when dealing with Licorne the articles always get longer and longer as qualifications and explab\nations are added to his assertions. The second paragraph contradicts Licorne's theory that Poincare discovered Einstein's e = mc^2 in 1900. Good luck Pallen, and roll on the RFA. E4mmacro 05:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried a revison and merging of the two paragraphs. Perhaps it is a technical point about whether e= mc^2 solves the Lorentzian variation of mass with velocity, but I know of no derivation of Einstein (or Plank's) result that does not rely somewhere on the Lorentzian variation of mass with velocity - which is why Poincare did not and could not derive einstein's e = mc^2 before 1905. I have asked Licorne and De kludde in previous chats for any such derivation but am not aware of having been given one. (Except De Kludde and I know that IF the internal energy of a body is radiation (not just thermal energy in other forms) then that radiation has inertia, just from Maxwell's theory, which is Poincare's equivalent mass of radiation. I think there was some idea at the time that the space between the unknown atoms of matter MIGHT be filled with radiation bouncing around and not escaping except in special circumstances. I am of course happy for Pallen to re-write it any way he likes. E4mmacro 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks E4. The merge looks fine to me. I was fascinated by your discovery of the J. Riseman note. He was a close friend of our family when I was a child, and I knew he did something related to Einstein, per family lore, but didn't know what it was (mostly he worked in chemical physics and later, polymers). --Pallen 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In the prior paragraph, it is crucial that some hint be added that both Ives and Whittaker are minority points of view. This is independent of whether they are right. It is not Wikepedia's job to determine whether 'mainsteam' opinion is incorrect (on other topics, where I am 'positive' the majority is wrong, I would still have no trouble distingushing majority opinion from my minority opinion). --Pallen 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by SOURCES, not mob rule. Licorne 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing secondary sources according the the majority view among experts in the field is part of wikipedia policy on sources. --Pallen 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof of what is majority view ? Most physicists are well aware POINCARE discovered relativity first. -- All physicists know GR is a misnomer. Licorne 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For a guy who claims to operate "SOURCES" you are remarkably short on them when it comes to what you want to assert as "most physicists" and "all physicists", etc. And anyway, Pallen's description of Wikipedia's policies in regards to sources is exactly correct; yours is wrong. --Fastfission 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's vote on whether the Earth is flat. Licorne 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This silly comment points to a real issue, fundamental to an encyclopedia. If wikipedia were written in 1900, it would necessarily have to primarily present the view that continental drift "is so physically implausible that it can't be right, and represents nothing but an unusual coincidence". That this expert consensus turned out to be wrong is completely irrelevant to an encycopedia. (FYI, there is one major part of physics and several areas of economics and social policy where I believe near unanimous consensus among experts is completely wrong. However, I have no trouble with the idea that this has exactly zero bearing on how I should contribute to an encyclopedia.) --Pallen 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)