Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:


Yeah. Another Kook.

The kook said.

You're ludicrous. Google "poincarré relativity". You'll find hundreds of
documents discussing the anteriority of Poincarré.

Among the first hits:
http://www.annales.org/archives/x/Relativity.doc

Well, you know what? Just forget it. You already proved too many times
that you prefer to live in your fantasy land.

You're sinking deeper and deeper in denial.
What's next? The earth is no more round?

The age pattern on the ocean floor is in rock and shows nothing but
expansion, and falsifies Plate Tectonics.

Laughable. The problem with Poincare and Lorentz is that they didn't
understand or appreciate SR even after
it was published.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Laughable. The problem with Poincare and Lorentz is that they didn't
understand or appreciate SR even after
it was published.

Bullshit from a revisionist. Extract from a reference I gave you.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:

If you were one my PhD student, I would get rid of you asap.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Laughable. The problem with Poincare and Lorentz is that they didn't
understand or appreciate SR even after
it was published.

Bullshit from a revisionist. Extract from a reference I gave you.

The greatest progress was achieved by the mathematician, physicist and
philosopher Henri Poincaré who was a friend of Lorentz. They exchanged
many scientific letters dating from 1895 and improved their analysis
step by step.
Poincaré's successive main ideas and improvements are the following.
A) In the book "La science et l'hypothèse" (1902) in pages 111, 245, 246
(Ref. 2). "There is no absolute space and we only conceive
relative motions".
"There is no absolute time, the equality of two durations can be defined
only by convention and we have no intuition of the simultaneity of
events occurring in different places".
"Is the hypothesis of ether true ? This is only a question for
metaphysicians. This hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena but it can be sacrified. Usually this hypothesis is conserved
for clarity, but this reason is the only one".
B) The world scientific congress of Saint-Louis (Missouri, September
1904, published in November 1904).
Henri Poincaré was asked to present a general lecture on : "The present
state and the future of mathematical Physics".
He boldly added to the five classical principles of Physics the
"Principle of Relativity": "The laws of physical phenomena must be the
same for a fixed observer and for an observer in rectilinear and uniform
motion so that we have no possibility of perceiving whether or not we
are dragged in such a motion". (Ref. 11, page 306).

.
Surprisingly this very first expression of the Relativity Principle at
its true level is not mentioned in the very interesting and generally
well documented ref 12. I don't find it either in ref 13 in spite of its
presence in ref 14 and also in the famous Encyklopädie der
Mathematischen Wissenchaften (Ref. 15). .
This principle was of course essentially based on the negative results
of all ether experiments of this time and most of the lecture was
devoted to the defense of the new principle.
The conclusion of the lecture :
"Thus the Relativity Principle was these last years valiantly defended,
but the energy of defense proves how serious was the attack...We will
perhaps be forced to built a complete new Mechanics in which the inertia
increasing with velocity, the velocity of light would become an
unsurpassable limit".(Ref. 11, page 324)
C) The note to the French Academy of Science (June 5, 1905, published
June 9, 1905, Ref. 3).

Poincaré states the Relativity Principle once again and analyses the
"change of variables" presented by Lorentz in his 1904 memorandum. He
simplifies its presentation and gives its present name : "The essential
point, established by Lorentz, is that Maxwell's equations are preserved
by a transformation to which I will give the name of Lorentz" (later, in
1914, Lorentz will correct that statement : "My demonstration was not
general, only that of Poincaré and later those of Einstein and Minkowsky
were complete. (Ref . 10, page 249)).

Stuart, you're simply gullible.

Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.

He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.

SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.

And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...

On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.

He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.

SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.

Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.

And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...

Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.

There are a number of reasons, why Einstein didn't get the Nobel prize
for relativity.

Your reasons don't pass the smell test.

The have been several occasions where people have made discoveries in
close
proximity... and the Nobel committee simply awards a joint prize. This
is not unusual.

If anything you should be asking why the Nobel committee didn't award
the Nobel to Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein
for Relativity, not why Einstein didn't get it.

That would be a much better question.


It could be that Einstein already won the Nobel Prize in 1905, and
perhaps the Nobel committee thought it unseemly
to give it to Einstein two years in a row, or to award it twice in
Physics to the same person (only Bardeen has received two in
physics, and those were shared) or as some have suggested the spectre
of anti-semitism for Einstein's not being awarded
the prize later in life ( a view I don't personally share ).

The Nobel committee over the years has proven itself to be rather
inscrutable and that's their right. One thing
about them though is that they tend to have a preference for
experimental physics or theoretical results that have
been amply demonstrated by experiments.

The Photo-electric effect was a quick kill. A simple, yet elegant, 4
or 5 page paper, and eminently demonsrtable. SR sovled a number
of issues. Yet it would be years before there was over welming
experimental confirmation. Just because the physics community rushed
to embrace it doesn't mean the Nobel committee had to.

It can take them a long, long time to wrap their mind around
something.

Chandrasekhar got the Nobel prize in Physics for his computation of
the degeneracy pressure in I think in 1984. He originally published
the result in something like 1934. 50 years.

Longevity is an important factor in getting a Nobel prize.

Stuart

Bullshit from a revisionist. Extract from a reference I gave you.


Freeman Dyson, a revisionist?

Why would I ever work for a crank?

An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.

There are no Nobel prizes to anyone for subduction. Why do you think
that is? Do you think they're still "wrapping their minds around"
that one? It solved any number of issues after all...

If they did (award one) who should it go to? Would a preferred
candidate please stand up.

Stuart wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:59 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
An attack in which Poincare was never successful, as he did not
abandon the ether.

He recognized that a static ether was not working. Einstein did the
same, nothing less, nothing more.
That is why he never got the nobel for special relativity.

SR does not prove the inexistence of ether, it does prove that we don't
need it.

Indeed. Hence, this why Einsteins' formulation has priority.

And what happens 1 century letter? The ether is coming back under the
sexy name of quantum vacuum, zero point energy...

Which has nothing to do with the "ether" of the 19th century.

There are a number of reasons, why Einstein didn't get the Nobel prize
for relativity.

Your reasons don't pass the smell test.

The have been several occasions where people have made discoveries in
close
proximity... and the Nobel committee simply awards a joint prize. This
is not unusual.

If anything you should be asking why the Nobel committee didn't award
the Nobel to Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein
for Relativity, not why Einstein didn't get it.

That would be a much better question.

It could be that Einstein already won the Nobel Prize in 1905, and
perhaps the Nobel committee thought it unseemly
to give it to Einstein two years in a row, or to award it twice in
Physics to the same person (only Bardeen has received two in
physics, and those were shared) or as some have suggested the spectre
of anti-semitism for Einstein's not being awarded
the prize later in life ( a view I don't personally share ).

The Nobel committee over the years has proven itself to be rather
inscrutable and that's their right. One thing
about them though is that they tend to have a preference for
experimental physics or theoretical results that have
been amply demonstrated by experiments.

The Photo-electric effect was a quick kill. A simple, yet elegant, 4
or 5 page paper, and eminently demonsrtable. SR sovled a number
of issues. Yet it would be years before there was over welming
experimental confirmation. Just because the physics community rushed
to embrace it doesn't mean the Nobel committee had to.

It can take them a long, long time to wrap their mind around
something.

Chandrasekhar got the Nobel prize in Physics for his computation of
the degeneracy pressure in I think in 1984. He originally published
the result in something like 1934. 50 years.

Longevity is an important factor in getting a Nobel prize.

Stuart

There are no Nobel prizes to anyone for subduction.