Please add new comments below at the bottom of the appropriate section. Please sign your comment with ~~~~ and if possible please indent your comment using colons for readability. TIA ---CH 09:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-28T09:56:00.000Z","author":"Hillman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hillman-2006-02-28T09:56:00.000Z-Untitled","replies":[],"displayName":"CH"}}-->
I removed the following from the intro:
The main reason is that I can't figure out any reason for relating this to either the special or general theories of relativity. The Alexander MacFarlane article doesn't mention relativity at all. --Alvestrand 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-31T08:18:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2007-01-31T08:18:00.000Z-Alexander_Macfarlane","replies":["c-Rgdboer-2011-11-18T20:51:00.000Z-Alvestrand-2007-01-31T08:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
Priority disputes are idiotic but FitzGerald could be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.188.139 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-31T14:21:00.000Z","author":"81.154.188.139","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.154.188.139-2007-01-31T14:21:00.000Z-George_Francis_FitzGerald","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2007-01-31T18:53:00.000Z-81.154.188.139-2007-01-31T14:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
The long Bjerknes section is mostly not about the Relativity dispute but is some kind of "argument from authority". And what has the Wannasee conference got to do with this page? E4mmacro 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-13T22:00:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-13T22:00:00.000Z-Bjerknes","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2007-07-14T07:45:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2007-07-13T22:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
I hope you don't mind if I call you RPD for short. The place to argue that the Stachel/Bjerknes dispute should occupy some much space, is here in the talk section. You keep repeating the long-winded BORING dispute between Stachel and Bjerknes, with a plain bias in favor of Bjerknes.
On another point, even if Einstein was a racist or child murderer of Satanist or WHATEVER, that has no relevance to the question of who originated Relativity. So why keep restoring these allegations? E4mmacro 00:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-16T00:59:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T00:59:00.000Z-User_\"Relativity_Priority_Disputation\"","replies":[]}}-->
The statement "Bjerknes is largely responsible for making the 21st century relativity priority dispute a mainstream discussion" looks POV to me. Does it matter anyway, who, of the many crtics mentioned, is largely responsible? I have flagged it as POV for the moment, but it should be deleted. E4mmacro 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-16T06:27:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T06:27:00.000Z-User_\"Relativity_Priority_Disputation\"","replies":["c-Relativity_Priority_Disputation-2007-07-16T14:58:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T06:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi RPD, glad to see you are contributing to the talk page at last. I wonder if you realise that the page is about who originated the theory of relativity, not about the Bjerknes/Stachel spate. It is also not about Einstein's views on Zionism and Judaism. E4mmacro 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-16T19:40:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T19:40:00.000Z-User_\"Relativity_Priority_Disputation\"","replies":["c-Relativity_Priority_Disputation-2007-07-16T20:06:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T19:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
Since it appears that we're entering another cycle of activity here, I've taken the liberty of archiving everything older than 9 months. --Alvestrand 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-16T20:40:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2007-07-16T20:40:00.000Z-Archiving_old_stuff","replies":[]}}-->
Ad hominen may be the wrong characterisation, but the facts are that Bjerknes in his books, and RPD here, are using Einstein's "dark side" as a means of proving that Einstein did not originate the theory of Relativity. It doesn't matter how dark Einstein's dark side is, that has nothing to do with who originated the theory of relativity. As Alvestran says, the place for views on Einstein's chatacter is the Einstein page. If RPD wants to prove Bjerknes right in his dispute with Stachel, he is free to start a page on that topic e.g. "Bjerknes dispute with Stachel". And is also free to start a page "Who first thought of accusing Einstein of not inventing Relativity", or better still "The history of opposition to the theory of relativity". The last page, would be interesting, and it could differeniate between idelogical attacks, attacks by the Nazi party, and the sincere attempts to come to a better theory, by people such as Ives and Oliver Lodge. Go to it, RPD. E4mmacro 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-16T23:01:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T23:01:00.000Z-What_is_ad_hominen?","replies":["c-Relativity_Priority_Disputation-2007-07-16T23:30:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2007-07-16T23:01:00.000Z"]}}-->
What is the point of this statement?
Who cares if they collaborated? Do they want us to know they have at least one person who agrees with them? Who cares what the basis of the later criticism of Corry, Renn and Stachel was? Did they publish jointly? Does one of them think the other is stealing the "credit"?
And the "proof" that they collaborated is said to be that they cited each other.
Many people cite each other without collaborating. I suggest this be deleted as irrelevant. E4mmacro 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-17T04:43:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2007-07-17T04:43:00.000Z-Bjerknes\/Winterberg_collaboartion","replies":["c-Relativity_Priority_Disputation-2007-07-17T13:33:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2007-07-17T04:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
This article has too many block quotes. It's supposed to summarize arguments, not quote them verbatim. I could see some potential in putting the quotes in footnotes to establish context though.-Wafulz 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-18T19:58:00.000Z","author":"Wafulz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wafulz-2007-07-18T19:58:00.000Z-Too_many_quotes","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2007-07-19T13:54:00.000Z-Wafulz-2007-07-18T19:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
After carefully reading the section on Bjerkness, I've removed it. The entire import of the thing seems to be that he's self-published and nobody takes his crackpot ideas seriously. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-09-13T21:17:00.000Z","author":"Tony Sidaway","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tony_Sidaway-2007-09-13T21:17:00.000Z-Bjerknes_2","replies":[]}}-->
I've reverted a removal of the Bjerkens sources from the reference list.
My reasoning is that these sources are in fact cited in the text; we can't remove the possibility for people to follow the references links without also removing the arguments they are referenced for. Note that the article uses a Harvard-like reference style, so in order to find the Bjerknes references, one has to search for [Bje in the text and footnotes, not merely look for ref tags. --Alvestrand 12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-09-15T12:53:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2007-09-15T12:53:00.000Z-Bjerknes_references","replies":[]}}-->
I've heard Zionists made Einstein so popular ,is that right? ,any answer is appreciated.And also was It because of Nazis or ....?--85.185.171.3 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-26T13:58:00.000Z","author":"85.185.171.3","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-85.185.171.3-2007-12-26T13:58:00.000Z-Please_help","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2008-12-07T07:56:00.000Z-85.185.171.3-2007-12-26T13:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
Did Albert Einstein steal special relativity theory from a person who tried to patent it(or copyright it) while he worked at the Swiss patent office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.197.38 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-13T21:57:00.000Z","author":"72.69.197.38","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-72.69.197.38-2008-02-13T21:57:00.000Z-The_patent_office_and_einstein","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2008-03-15T19:45:00.000Z-72.69.197.38-2008-02-13T21:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
I moved the priority section from Lorentz ether theory into this article. There seems to be a better place. --D.H (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-15T17:35:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2008-03-15T17:35:00.000Z-Lorentz_ether_theory","replies":[]}}-->
Speaking of plagiarism, some of the quotations in this article are so lengthy as to verge on the boundaries of "fair use". Usually a few sentences are okay, but when it gets up to a full page of quoted verbatim text, it begins to raise some concerns. I suspect part of the problem is that some editors are unacquainted with the literature, so other editors use the article itself to provide some reading material, to overcome uninformed objections. I can sympathize with that, but I still think we should make an effort to observe the "fair use" limitations. After all, the authors of those books may still hope to make money from them.Denveron (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-13T04:58:00.000Z","author":"Denveron","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Denveron-2008-04-13T04:58:00.000Z-Fair_Use?_Lenghty_Quotations","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2008-04-13T08:43:00.000Z-Denveron-2008-04-13T04:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
I see that an anonymous editor has been deleting several paragraphs in the article; the common thread seems to be that they contain {{fact}} tags. I've rolled back 3 out of 4 deletions, because the paragraphs in question were partially referenced, or they were connected to the surrounding text in such a way that the text became difficult to comprehend without them.
I'm all in favour of deleting truly unsourced material, but I think it should be done by cleaning up the text so that what it says can be supported from the sources given, not by simply deleting the whole paragraph if there's a {{fact}} tag in it.
Feel free to discuss... --Alvestrand (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-29T15:30:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2008-04-29T15:30:00.000Z-About_text_marked_with_\"fact\"_tags","replies":[]}}-->
I object to this statement:
Poincare published in 1889: It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless. [3]
Poincare in 1900: Our ether, does it really exist? I do not believe that more precise observations could ever reveal anything more than relative displacements.
Einstein in his famous 1905 paper: The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, ... [4]
It appears that Einstein's view of the ether was directly plagiarized from Poincare. They both said that the ether, if it even exists at all, is superfluous and unobservable.
Also, Einstein did not banish the ether as he returned to believing in the ether in 1920. [5] Roger (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-11T19:47:00.000Z","author":"Schlafly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Schlafly-2008-08-11T19:47:00.000Z-Einstein_v_Poincare_on_the_ether","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2008-08-11T22:13:00.000Z-Schlafly-2008-08-11T19:47:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Roger"}}-->
Poincaré's thoughts on ether and the principle of relativity are fully described in
It's true that Poincaré said in 1889 (reprinted in Science and Hypothesis Ch. 12), that "the ether will be thrown aside as useless." However, it was Einstein, and not Poincaré who fulfilled that prediction. See for example Ch. 10 in Science and Hypothesis, where Poincaré clearly demonstrated, why he believes in the ether. See also his paper in 1908 (Reprinted in Science and Method, Book 3) where he mentioned not only the ether, but also distingueshed between "true" and "apparent" time. Se also his paper in 1912 on Quantum mechanics (reprinted in Last Essays, Ch. 6), where Poincaré still describes light as "vibrations within the ether". So Poincaré was the first to introduce the principle of relativity in modern form, but it was Einstein who was the first to ban the ether out of special relativity, which makes all inertial frames really equivalent, while according to Poincaré, one preferred but undetectable ether frame exists. So special relativity (in its modern form) was introduced by Einstein, not Poincaré. --D.H (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-12T10:23:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2008-08-12T10:23:00.000Z-Einstein_v_Poincare_on_the_ether","replies":["c-Schlafly-2008-08-12T14:16:00.000Z-D.H-2008-08-12T10:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Kip Thorne's book is used here to give a false impression that Thorne has taken a strong historical stand that Hilbert has some priority on the field equations. Thorne is not exactly saying that, he is only repeating the folk history that physicists have passed down the generations regarding the whole Hilbert/Einstein thing. He isn't making strong claims about priority, he is just trying to make the general public aware of what kind of personal issues are involved in the discovery of something as wonderful as general relativity.
Thorne's claim that Hilbert derived the field equations first is based on a common understanding in physics--- that Hilbert had the field equations at about the same time as Einstein. The historians know better, and it seems that the essential idea that Hilbert had was to use R as the action, and derive the field equations from that. But he had a hard time getting the coefficients of the field equations right, because he might have made an algebraic error, and he didn't have enough physical insight about the theory to check the algebra. Einstein followed a slightly more torturous route, deriving the field equations from the physical requirement that the geometric tensor which equals the stress energy tensor must be divergence free. The two conditions give the same equation, but the physical point of view allowed einstein to be sure about the coefficients.
Einstein, after the fact, also gave the generally covariant action principle formulation of his equation, with the same action as Hilbert. As Hilbert admitted, Einstein calculated faster, so much so that Hilbert not only didn't quite drive the right equations (he might have gotten Ruv - 1/4 g_uv R for example, that would be an easy algebraic mistake, or just R_uv), but Einstein was able to verify that the equation was right by finding the correct Newtonian weak field limit and also by getting the perihelion advance of mercury, while Hilbert was still stuck playing around with the formal equations.
So it seems that the resolution which was adopted linguistically, to call them the Einstein equations, but to call the action the Eintein-Hilbert action, is also the correct one in terms of priority. Other than the action, and the spur of competition, Hilbert really didn't get to do very much before Einstein solved everything. Thorne in all likelihood, doesn't take any sides in the dispute, and I think it is best to leave the quotes out, because they are giving the wrong impression.Likebox (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-20T13:02:00.000Z","author":"Likebox","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Likebox-2009-05-20T13:02:00.000Z-Thorne_quoted_out_of_context","replies":["c-D.H-2009-05-20T14:01:00.000Z-Likebox-2009-05-20T13:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
Remarkably, Einstein was not the first to discover the correct form of the law of warpage [of space-time, i.e. the gravitational field equations], the form that obeys his relativity principle. Recognition for the first discovery must go to Hilbert. In autumn 1915, even as Einstein was struggling toward the right law, making mathematical mistake after mistake, Hilbert was mulling over the things he had learned from Einstein’s summer visit to Göttingen. While he was on an autumn vacation on the island of Rugen in the Baltic the key idea came to him, and within a few weeks he had the right law–derived not by the arduous trial-and-error path of Einstein, but by an elegant, succinct mathematical route. Hilbert presented his derivation and the resulting law at a meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Göttingen on 20 November 1915, just five days before Einstein’s presentation of the same law at the Prussian Academy meeting in Berlin.
I deleted the Moody section, because "Nexus Magazine" is hardly a reputable source. --D.H (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-20T14:01:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2009-05-20T14:01:00.000Z-Moody","replies":[]}}-->
Another editor placed an {{undue}} tag on this article. I'm not sure which way the undueness was supposed to go; this article has, unfortunately, been the battleground of POV-warriors.
To me, the encyclopedic interest of the article is in documenting the fact that there has been disputes about Einstein's priority to the theories. I think a significant number of these disputes have backgrounds going beyond the scholarly and into the ideological; thus, I think the article currently tilts too far in presenting only the most reasonable (or least unreasonable) challenges to Einstein's priority; I'd like to give more prominence to the attacks on Einstein by people related to antisemitic movements of various sorts.
But.... Wikipedia is a consensus project. So let's discuss. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-02T13:33:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2009-07-02T13:33:00.000Z-Undue_weight?","replies":["c-Schlafly-2009-07-02T14:36:00.000Z-Alvestrand-2009-07-02T13:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
Alvestrand, you removed an Einstein quote about the ether, saying "Relevant to history of the Ether, but not relevant to priority disputes." The relevance of quote is to whether or not Einstein eliminated the ether. The article says that Einstein completely eliminated the ether, and that this was a basic difference in Einstein's version of the theory. But Einstein himself said that he did not eliminate the ether. Not completely, anyway. He said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." I think that this quote is important for any discussion of the differences between the Poincare and Einstein theories. Roger (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-03T14:53:00.000Z","author":"Schlafly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Schlafly-2009-07-03T14:53:00.000Z-Undue_weight?","replies":["c-D.H-2009-07-03T16:03:00.000Z-Schlafly-2009-07-03T14:53:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Roger"}}-->
In this edit, the text "He was the first who pointed out that those principles are sufficient to derive the theory and he showed that all times in all frames are equivalent." was changed to "He was the first to argue that those principles are sufficient to derive the theory, although others showed that additional hypotheses are needed. See Postulates of special relativity.".
I have now read Postulates of special relativity, and can't find the third (or fourth, or fifth) postulate that is needed to derive the theory of special relativity. I can only see two on that page. Also, I don't understand what the theories advanced by others have to do in this paragraph, which is trying to describe in a nutshell what Einstein claimed in [Ein05c]. What am I missing? --Alvestrand (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-20T17:21:00.000Z","author":"Alvestrand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alvestrand-2009-09-20T17:21:00.000Z-Number_of_postulates_of_special_relativity?","replies":["c-Flegelpuss-2009-09-20T17:38:00.000Z-Alvestrand-2009-09-20T17:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
I removed this quote from the article, because it is misleading in context:
Einstein's 1920 conception of Ether was for a now-discredited teleparallel gravity theory he was working on at the time, and it has no relation to the lumineferous(sp?) ether of the 19th century. The new "ether" Einstein was proposing was a background field which filled all of space, but which was relativistically invariant, so it did not pick out a special rest frame. In this regard, the ether Einstein was advocating was like a modern Higgs field, or a quark condensate. These things are not like the ether of the 19th century, because there is no sense in which you can say that you are moving relative to the ether.
This quote, by being placed in a special relativity section, makes it look like Einstein was backpeddling on the lumineferous ether (he wasn't), instead of proposing a new theory.Likebox (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-15T21:59:00.000Z","author":"Likebox","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Likebox-2010-02-15T21:59:00.000Z-Teleparallel_ether_vs_lumineferous(sp?)_ether","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-02-15T23:28:00.000Z-Likebox-2010-02-15T21:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
Please consider adding a note on William Kingdon Clifford since there is due weight for considering him a contributor to the theory of relativity in the nineteenth century. His active life with the British algebrists that used tools like biquaternions to develop physical intuition enabled the adoption of the cosmological ideas. Due diligence in making this article will not discard English literature.Rgdboer (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-16T01:43:00.000Z","author":"Rgdboer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rgdboer-2010-02-16T01:43:00.000Z-Clifford_as_candidate","replies":["c-Rgdboer-2010-02-26T03:00:00.000Z-Rgdboer-2010-02-16T01:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
Clifford's claim to General Relativity was advanced by Ruth Farwell and Christopher Knee in 1990: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21: 91–121. As for the priority in Special Relativity, Clifford referred to the "modern theory of relative rest and relative motion" as a part of linear algebra in Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885).Rgdboer (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-27T02:01:00.000Z","author":"Rgdboer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rgdboer-2010-02-27T02:01:00.000Z-Clifford_as_candidate","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-02-27T02:20:00.000Z-Rgdboer-2010-02-27T02:01:00.000Z"]}}-->
Clifford is today mentioned as anticipator of general relativity. Commentators on Clifford's contribution are found at William Kingdon Clifford#Premonition of relativity. If you do not think Clifford deserves mention, please explain.Rgdboer (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-17T01:35:00.000Z","author":"Rgdboer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rgdboer-2010-11-17T01:35:00.000Z-Clifford_as_candidate","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-11-23T03:26:00.000Z-Rgdboer-2010-11-17T01:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
By chronology, Clifford deserves mention up front with his anticipation. On Marcel Grossmann, the narrative of Abraham Pais in his biography (1982) of Einstein makes Grossmann a co-originator of the application of tensor calculus to general relativity.Rgdboer (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-23T03:56:00.000Z","author":"Rgdboer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rgdboer-2010-11-23T03:56:00.000Z-Clifford_as_candidate","replies":[]}}-->
The article stated that Einstein's papers, in which he presented the special and general theories, did not refer to the work of others. This is not accurate, as can be verified directly from the papers themselves. For example, even in the 1905 paper he refers twice to Lorentz's theory, including the statement that "we have thus shown that, on the basis of our kinematic principles, the electrodynamic foundations of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies agrees with the principle of relativity". Of course, he also refers, early in the paper, to the unsuccessful attempts to detect motion of the earth relative to the light medium, which is a clear reference to the well-known work of experimentalists in the field. Also, in continuing to develop and elaborate on special relativity in the next couple of years his subsequent papers (e.g., 1906 and 1907) referred to work of Poincare and Planck, etc. And of course his papers developing general relativity referred to Mach and others. So, overall, it isn't exactly accurate to say his papers didn't refer to the work or ideas of others. It is true that he didn't tend to provide formal references (although the referece to Poincare in 1906 was formal), and this could well be discussed in the article, but it's best not to begin the article with a flatly false assertion. It will distract any knowledgeable reader.Urgent01 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-25T14:42:00.000Z","author":"Urgent01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Urgent01-2010-04-25T14:42:00.000Z-Einstein's_references","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-04-25T16:37:00.000Z-Urgent01-2010-04-25T14:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
Why don't we just simply say that Einstein explicitly but informally referred to Lorentz' previous work on relativity? That is a fact, right? DVdm (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-26T08:13:00.000Z","author":"DVdm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DVdm-2010-04-26T08:13:00.000Z-Einstein's_references","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-04-26T15:20:00.000Z-DVdm-2010-04-26T08:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
I notice that Roger chose to ignore my proposal and insert a clearly erroneous statement, so I made a correction. Feel free to amend further. DVdm (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-26T18:48:00.000Z","author":"DVdm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DVdm-2010-04-26T18:48:00.000Z-Einstein's_references","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-04-26T19:13:00.000Z-DVdm-2010-04-26T18:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
My problem with the current formulation is that it leans toward castigating Einstein for not citing enough at the very beginning of the article - when (apparently) that is part of the dispute to be discussed in more detail below. My formulation was an attempt to be neutral about it in the lead. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-27T20:40:00.000Z","author":"Jwy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jwy-2010-04-27T20:40:00.000Z-Einstein's_references","replies":["c-Urgent01-2010-04-28T00:33:00.000Z-Jwy-2010-04-27T20:40:00.000Z"],"displayName":"User:Jwy"}}-->
I find no explicit mention of Lorentz in the famous 1905 paper (have I missed something?). There is a single refernce to what has been done already to first order, which probably means Lorentz, but could mean Larmor. When the the issue is priority, the refernces in the first paper are what matter. I think it is clear than Einstein effectively had none, whereas Lorentz had many. There is something odd about the referreeing system (or lack of one?) in 1905, but I don't think you can claim people then didn't expect citations to previous work. E4mmacro (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-08-20T08:49:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2010-08-20T08:49:00.000Z-References_in_the_EMB_1905_paper_on_relativity","replies":["c-D.H-2010-08-20T12:29:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2010-08-20T08:49:00.000Z","c-DVdm-2010-08-20T13:00:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2010-08-20T08:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Sorry, I had forgotten that Lorentz was mentioned by name, but Einstein is certainly not giving Lorentz credit for the "lorentz transformations". I remember now my queries, when first reading EMB 1905, was "Which papers of Lorentz's are you referring to?" (and why are these equations now known as the Lorentz transformation?) I suspect Einstein was thinking of Lorentz's book of circa 1895, but there are Lorentz papers of 1899 and 1902 (and 1904 of course) which are relevant and one would expect by modern standards that that these would be brought to the author's attention by a modern referee. I guess things were different then. E4mmacro (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-08-21T07:04:00.000Z","author":"E4mmacro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-E4mmacro-2010-08-21T07:04:00.000Z-References_in_the_EMB_1905_paper_on_relativity","replies":["c-Schlafly-2010-08-21T14:25:00.000Z-E4mmacro-2010-08-21T07:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
The viewpoints of the following authors/historians are now included: Gerald Holton, Arthur I. Miller, Abraham Pais, Elie Zahar, John Stachel, Peter Galison, Roger Cerf, Shaul Katzir, Scott Walter. --D.H (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-11T17:52:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2011-09-11T17:52:00.000Z-Additions","replies":["c-Schlafly-2011-09-13T16:37:00.000Z-D.H-2011-09-11T17:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
I don't agree with the statement that "Lorentz never abandoned the concept of the stationary aether". Lorentz only talked about a stationary aether in the context of rejecting the aether drift theory. This remark is given to show that Lorentz had some sort of disagreement with Einstein, but as far as I know, Lorentz talked about Einstein's 1905 theory many times without expressing any disagreement with it. The quote is in the Pais section, so if Pais said it then it is fair to say that Pais said it, but I would drop the parenthetical comment "as Lorentz himself stated in several post-1905 papers". Lorentz's post-1905 papers said that he agreed with Einstein. Roger (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-14T19:47:00.000Z","author":"Schlafly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Schlafly-2011-09-14T19:47:00.000Z-Additions","replies":["c-D.H-2011-09-15T08:25:00.000Z-Schlafly-2011-09-14T19:47:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Roger"}}-->
First: I've reverted the edits of IP:71.98.136.27, because Whittaker doesn't mention the exact dates (he only wrote, p. 170: "Almost simultaneously with Einstein's discovery of General Relativity, David Hilbert (1862-1943) gave a derivation of the whole theory from a unified principle."). Additionally, the exact date of Hilbert's submission is disputed, as explained at length in the article. Second: The sections contain the views of the known historians - the inclusion of primary sources like Einstein's aether speech is original research (BTW, Einstein's aether has no state of motion as clearly expressed by him, so it's not the mechanistic-stationary aether of Lorentz and Poincaré etc..). --D.H (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-15T15:58:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2011-09-15T15:58:00.000Z-Reverts","replies":["c-DVdm-2011-09-15T16:32:00.000Z-D.H-2011-09-15T15:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
I repeat: The sections contain the views of the known historians - why is this so hard to understand?? This means: The Whittaker section contains only the Whittaker views, the Holton section only the Holton views, the Pais section only the Pais views etc. I we start to comment on the assertions within the individual sections, then the whole article goes down, because every assertion of every author must then be commented as well... --D.H (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-16T08:04:00.000Z","author":"D.H","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-D.H-2011-09-16T08:04:00.000Z-Reverts","replies":["c-DVdm-2011-09-17T19:06:00.000Z-D.H-2011-09-16T08:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
In 1920 Einstein insisted Aether was real and necessary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory This is a pertinent link not to be ignored. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.141.58 (talk • contribs)
Note: ANI-notice: "Pushing original research beyond 3RR". DVdm (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-17T19:49:00.000Z","author":"DVdm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DVdm-2011-09-17T19:49:00.000Z-Einstein_believed_in_Aether","replies":["c-71.98.141.58-2011-09-17T19:50:00.000Z-DVdm-2011-09-17T19:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Poincaré regarded ether as superfluous. Einstein insisted ether was real. End of story. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-19T07:49:00.000Z","author":"71.98.128.47","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.98.128.47-2011-09-19T07:49:00.000Z-Einstein_believed_in_Aether","replies":["c-Alvestrand-2011-09-20T18:43:00.000Z-71.98.128.47-2011-09-19T07:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Persegi GianyarNama lengkapPersatuan Sepak bola GianyarJulukanKuda JingkrakStadionStadion Kapten I Wayan Dipta Gianyar, Bali(Kapasitas: 25,000)PemilikPT Bali SportLigaLiga 3 Kostum kandang Kostum tandang Persatuan Sepak bola Indonesia Gianyar (biasa disingkat: Persegi Bali FC) adalah sebuah klub sepak bola Indonesia yang bermarkas di Gianyar, Provinsi Bali. Tim ini promosi ke Divisi Utama Liga Indonesia sejak musim kompetisi tahun 2005. Persegi Bali FC bermarkas di Stadion Dipta, Gianyar. Bekas …
French scientist (1900–1958) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Frédéric Joliot-Curie – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Frédéric Joliot-CurieBornJean Frédéric Joliot(1900-03-19)19 March 1900Paris, FranceDied14 Aug…
Wales international rugby league footballer This article is about the rugby league footballer. For the rugby union footballer, see Ben Evans (rugby union). For other people, see Ben Evans (disambiguation). Ben EvansPersonal informationFull nameBenjamin EvansBorn (1992-10-30) 30 October 1992 (age 31)Bridgend, WalesHeight6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)Weight17 st 5 lb (110 kg)Playing informationPositionProp Club Years Team Pld T G FG P 2011–16 Warrington Wolves 21 2 0 …
هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (أبريل 2023) حسن عباس شربتلي معلومات شخصية الميلاد 1913جدة تاريخ الوفاة 1999 مواطنة السعودية عدد الأولاد 9 أولاد 6 بنات الحياة العملية المهنة رجل أعمال تعديل مصدري - تعديل …
East German luger This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Norbert HahnHahn in 1974 Medal record Men's Luge Representing East Germany Olympic Games 1976 Innsbruck Men's doubles 1980 Lake Placid Men's doubles World Championships 1975 Hammarstrand Men's doubles 1977 Igls Men's doubles 1973 …
Film Titel Baymax – Riesiges Robowabohu Originaltitel Big Hero 6 Produktionsland Vereinigte Staaten Originalsprache Englisch Erscheinungsjahr 2014 Länge 98 Minuten Altersfreigabe FSK 6[1] JMK 6[2] Stab Regie Don Hall,Chris Williams Drehbuch Robert L. Baird,Dan Gerson,Jordan Roberts Produktion Roy Conli Musik Henry Jackman Schnitt Tim Mertens → Synchronisation → Baymax – Riesiges Robowabohu (Originaltitel: Big Hero 6) ist ein US-amerikanischer Computeranimationsfilm …
Royal Consort History NameRoyal Consort Owner F. Kemp and Company, Fleetwood (1844–70) Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (1870–80) Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and London and North Western Railway (1880–90 A. & B. Stewart, Birkenhead (1890–91) Operator 1844-1870: North Lancashire Steam Navigation Company 1870-1880: Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and London and North Western Railway (1880–90 A. & B. Stewart, Birkenhead (1890–93) Port of re…
RheeKecamatanNegara IndonesiaProvinsiNusa Tenggara BaratKabupatenSumbawaPemerintahan • Camat-Populasi • Total9,091 jiwa jiwaKode Kemendagri52.04.21 Kode BPS5204062 Luas- km²Desa/kelurahan4 desa Untuk desa di Belanda, lihat Rhee. Pantai Rhee Loka Rhee adalah sebuah kecamatan di kabupaten Sumbawa, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. Agama: Islam(55,3%) Hindu(44,2%) Kristen(0,3%) Katolik(0,2%)[butuh rujukan] lbsKecamatan Rhee, Kabupaten Sumbawa, Nusa Tenggara Barat…
Sporting event delegationCzechoslovakia at the1936 Winter OlympicsIOC codeTCHNOCCzechoslovak Olympic Committeein Garmisch-PartenkirchenCompetitors48 in 9 sportsMedals Gold 0 Silver 0 Bronze 0 Total 0 Winter Olympics appearances (overview)1924192819321936194819521956196019641968197219761980198419881992Other related appearances Czech Republic (1994–) Slovakia (1994–) Czechoslovakia competed at the 1936 Winter Olympics in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Alpine skiing Main article: Al…
Tieria ErdeTokoh Mobile Suit Gundam 00 Tieria ErdePenampilanperdanaEpisode 1, Celestial BeingPengisi suaraHiroshi Kamiya Shun Sugata (Versi Ultraman 00)BiodataKewarganegaraanTidak DiketahuiInformationKelompokCelestial BeingPangkatGundam MeisterMobile suitGN-005 Gundam Virtue GN-005/PH Gundam Virtue Physical GN-004 Gundam Nadleeh GN-004/teA02 Gundam Nadleeh AkwosGN-008 Seravee Gundam GN-008GNHW/B Seravee Gundam GNHW/BazookaGN-008GNHW/3G Seravee Gundam GNHW/3GGN-009 Seraphim Gundam GN-009GNHW…
Hügelland Schefela Bereich der Schfela auf einer Karte Israels Die Schefela bzw. Schephela (hebräisch הַשְּפֵלָה ha-Schəphelah, deutsch ‚die Niederung‘; oder genauer שְׁפֵלַת יְהוּדָה Schphelat Jəhudah, deutsch ‚Niederung Judäas‘) bezeichnet das Hügelland, das zwischen dem Bergland Judäas und der Scharonebene liegt, dem Norden der Küstenebene, wo die Philister lebten. Das hebräische Wort bezeichnet eine Senke oder Niederung (bezogen auf …
Ons JabeurJabeur pada Kejuaraan Wimbledon 2018Namaأُنْس جابرKebangsaan TunisiaTempat tinggalTunis, TunisiaLahir28 Agustus 1994 (umur 29)Ksar Hellal, TunisiaTinggi167 cm (5 ft 6 in)Memulai pro2010Tipe pemainTangan kanan (backhand dua tangan)PelatihIssam JellaliTotal hadiahUS$ 2.565.796TunggalRekor (M–K)298–179 (62.47%)Gelar0 WTA, 11 ITFPeringkat tertinggiNo. 4 (06 Juni 2022)Peringkat saat iniNo. 4 (06 Juni 2022)Hasil terbaik di Grand Slam (tunggal)Australia T…
LTI. La lengua del Tercer Reich de Victor Klemperer Idioma Alemán Título original LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii País Alemania Fecha de publicación 1947 [editar datos en Wikidata] LTI. La lengua del Tercer Reich: apuntes de un filólogo (LTI. Notizbuch eines Philologen, en alemán) es un libro de Victor Klemperer, filólogo y profesor de literatura en la Universidad de Dresde de origen judío, redactado entre 1945 y 1946 y publicado en 1947, que trata del uso del lenguaje en la…
1897 Costa Rican general election ← 1894 14–16 November 1897 (popular vote)12 December 1897 (electoral college) 1902 → Presidential election Nominee Rafael Yglesias Castro Party Civil Electoral vote 657 Percentage 100% President before election Rafael Yglesias Castro Civil Elected President Rafael Yglesias Castro Civil General elections were held in Costa Rica in 1897.[1] Voters elected members of the electoral college on 14–16 November,[2] w…
Heavy metal band discography Slipknot discographySlipknot performing live in 2019.Studio albums7Live albums3Compilation albums1Video albums5Music videos29EPs1Singles27Demo albums2 The American heavy metal band Slipknot has released eight studio albums, three live albums, one compilation album, one demo album, one EP, twenty-seven singles, five video albums and twenty-seven music videos. Formed in Des Moines, Iowa in 1995, Slipknot originally featured vocalist and percussionist Anders Colsefni, g…
Zobacz też: Jerzy Radziwiłł. Jerzy I Radziwiłł Portret Jerzego I Radziwiłła z XVII wieku, znajdujący się w Narodowym Muzeum Sztuki Republiki Białorusi Trąby Radziwiłł h. Trąby Rodzina Radziwiłłowie herbu Trąby Data urodzenia 1480 r. Data śmierci 1541 r. Ojciec Mikołaj Radziwiłłowiczherbu Trąby Matka Zofia Anna Monwindherbu Leliwa Żona Barbara Kiszkaherbu Dąbrowa Barbara Kolaherbu Junosza Dzieci z Barbarą Kolą: Mikołaj Rudy Radziwiłł Anna Elżbieta Radziwiłłówna Ba…
Confederate States Navy casemate ironclad paddle steamer For similarly named ships, the southern U.S. state of Missouri, and other uses, see Missouri (disambiguation). Watercolor of Missouri History Confederate States NameMissouri NamesakeMissouri Ordered1 November 1862 Laid downDecember 1862 Launched14 April 1863 Commissioned19 September 1863 Fate Surrendered, 3 June 1865 Sold, 29 November 1865 General characteristics TypeCasemate ironclad Length183 ft (55.8 m) (o/a) Beam53 ft 8&…
Catholic ecclesiastical territory Diocese of Saint John in New BrunswickDioecesis Sancti Ioannis CanadensisDiocèse de Saint-Jean au Nouveau-Brunswickcatholic Cathedral of the Immaculate ConceptionCoat of armsLocationCountryCanadaEcclesiastical provinceMonctonHeadquartersSaint John, New BrunswickCoordinates45°16′48″N 66°03′25″W / 45.28000550°N 66.05683120°W / 45.28000550; -66.05683120StatisticsArea60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi)Population- Total-…
2009 studio album by PNCBazooka KidStudio album by PNCReleased2009GenreHip hopLabelDirty RecordsProducerP-Money, Fire & Ice, 41, Official, Chris Laupama, Evan Short, Beat Kamp Muzic, JSquared, David AtaiSingles from Bazooka Kid MoonlightReleased: December 17, 2007 Find MeReleased: April 28, 2008 Take Me HomeReleased: September 1, 2008 TonightReleased: May 4, 2009 1/2 KastReleased: October 22, 2009 Bazooka Kid is the second studio album by New Zealand rapper PNC.It was released on Jun…
Daerah budaya Mesoamerika Mesoamerika adalah suatu istilah yang merujuk pada wilayah geografis yang membentang dari Tropik Cancer di tengah Meksiko ke bawah hingga Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Savador, dan Nikaragua, sampai barat laut Kosta Rika. Wilayah ini ditandai dengan homogenitas budaya pribumi yang dimiliki penduduk di daerah ini. Mesoamerika adalah suatu daerah budaya yang ditandai dengan kemiripan budaya yang tersebar antara berbagai kelompok di daerah tersebut melalui proses interak…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.143.7.189