Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
>>> teamwork, either voluntarily or
>>> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
>>> make your choice to label their will:
>>>
>>> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
>>> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
>>> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
>>> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
>>> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
>>> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
>>> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
>>> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
>>> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
>>> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
>>> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
>>> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
>>> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
>>> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
>>> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
>>> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
>>> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
>>> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
>>> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
>>> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
>>> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
>>>
>>>
>> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
>> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
>>
>> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
>> it isn’t true for others.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received
> recognition or due credit by Einstein.

Which is unusual by modern, reference-happy standards, but not all that
uncommon in 1900.

>
> Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on
> its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
> of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read
> it, it exists out there free of charge to download.

And yet note that YOU give “monumental” kudos to Maxwell for his long book,
even though intellectually the contents were attributable to others, not
the least of which: Faraday, Gauss, Ampere…

Why is it YOU give Maxwell all the credit for this work and ignore the
monumental contribution to that work from these others. Hmmm? Got your own
personal hero-worship list, like any good Everyman would?

>
> Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural
> Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
> marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics
> and mathematics. He created them all, in a
> single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he
> stood to do his achievements).

Largely unnamed giants, note. Anything about Hooke? Anything about Leibniz?
How about Flamsteed, whose observations Newton used liberally before his
career was ruined by Sir Isaac? And isn’t it fun that Newton gave a nod to
Galilei but ignored Descartes, claiming as his own corollaries ones that
had been proven already by René?

> Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to
> compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
> for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not
> for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.

And yet, YOU give Newton the credit. Hmmmmm……

>
> Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
> >>> teamwork, either voluntarily or
> >>> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
> >>> make your choice to label their will:
> >>>
> >>> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> >>> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> >>> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> >>> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> >>> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> >>> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> >>> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> >>> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> >>> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> >>> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> >>> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> >>> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> >>> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> >>> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> >>> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> >>> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> >>> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> >>> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> >>> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> >>> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> >>> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
> >> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
> >>
> >> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
> >> it isn’t true for others.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received
> > recognition or due credit by Einstein.
> Which is unusual by modern, reference-happy standards, but not all that
> uncommon in 1900.
> >
> > Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on
> > its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
> > of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read
> > it, it exists out there free of charge to download.
> And yet note that YOU give “monumental” kudos to Maxwell for his long book,
> even though intellectually the contents were attributable to others, not
> the least of which: Faraday, Gauss, Ampere…
>
> Why is it YOU give Maxwell all the credit for this work and ignore the
> monumental contribution to that work from these others. Hmmm? Got your own
> personal hero-worship list, like any good Everyman would?
> >
> > Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural
> > Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
> > marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics
> > and mathematics. He created them all, in a
> > single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he
> > stood to do his achievements).
> Largely unnamed giants, note. Anything about Hooke? Anything about Leibniz?
> How about Flamsteed, whose observations Newton used liberally before his
> career was ruined by Sir Isaac? And isn’t it fun that Newton gave a nod to
> Galilei but ignored Descartes, claiming as his own corollaries ones that
> had been proven already by René?
> > Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to
> > compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
> > for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not
> > for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.
> And yet, YOU give Newton the credit. Hmmmmm……
> >
> > Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Because:

1) Maxwell gave mathematical unity to every developed theory and accepted empirical knowledge,
united such previous grand work in an unified body with mathematical properties that allowed
himself to cover the gaps by his insight of symmetry, when he risked the assumption of the
existence of the Displacement Current in his 20 equations using quaternions.

But, not being that enough, he went to the lab with a colleague, and found the equivalent values
for permittivity and permeability, which validated his prediction of the speed of light (in different frequencies).

His Treatise is foundational for the science of electromagnetism, was used by Hertz and several others to
prove the existence of EM waves, and for generations of engineers which contributed to everything related
with electromagnetism, like the gadget that enlighten your life when you are stuck with your Tik-Tok productions,
or your Instagram account, where you poses as a young stallion, thanks to super-duper photoshopping (and may
be, you're also using deep fake videos).

2) Before Newton, there was darkness.

After Newton, light come to our world, whose current form is shaped by newtonian and maxwellian means, no einstenians.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
>>>>> teamwork, either voluntarily or
>>>>> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
>>>>> make your choice to label their will:
>>>>>
>>>>> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
>>>>> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
>>>>> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
>>>>> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
>>>>> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
>>>>> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
>>>>> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
>>>>> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
>>>>> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
>>>>> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
>>>>> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
>>>>> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
>>>>> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
>>>>> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
>>>>> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
>>>>> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
>>>>> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
>>>>> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
>>>>> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
>>>>> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
>>>>> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
>>>> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
>>>> it isn’t true for others.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received
>>> recognition or due credit by Einstein.
>> Which is unusual by modern, reference-happy standards, but not all that
>> uncommon in 1900.
>>>
>>> Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on
>>> its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
>>> of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read
>>> it, it exists out there free of charge to download.
>> And yet note that YOU give “monumental” kudos to Maxwell for his long book,
>> even though intellectually the contents were attributable to others, not
>> the least of which: Faraday, Gauss, Ampere…
>>
>> Why is it YOU give Maxwell all the credit for this work and ignore the
>> monumental contribution to that work from these others. Hmmm? Got your own
>> personal hero-worship list, like any good Everyman would?
>>>
>>> Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural
>>> Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
>>> marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics
>>> and mathematics. He created them all, in a
>>> single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he
>>> stood to do his achievements).
>> Largely unnamed giants, note. Anything about Hooke? Anything about Leibniz?
>> How about Flamsteed, whose observations Newton used liberally before his
>> career was ruined by Sir Isaac? And isn’t it fun that Newton gave a nod to
>> Galilei but ignored Descartes, claiming as his own corollaries ones that
>> had been proven already by René?
>>> Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to
>>> compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
>>> for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not
>>> for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.
>> And yet, YOU give Newton the credit. Hmmmmm……
>>>
>>> Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Because:
>
> 1) Maxwell gave mathematical unity to every developed theory and
> accepted empirical knowledge,
> united such previous grand work in an unified body with
> mathematical properties that allowed
> himself to cover the gaps by his insight of symmetry, when he risked
> the assumption of the
> existence of the Displacement Current in his 20 equations using quaternions.
>
> But, not being that enough, he went to the lab with a colleague, and
> found the equivalent values
> for permittivity and permeability, which validated his prediction of
> the speed of light (in different frequencies).
>
> His Treatise is foundational for the science of electromagnetism, was
> used by Hertz and several others to
> prove the existence of EM waves, and for generations of engineers
> which contributed to everything related
> with electromagnetism, like the gadget that enlighten your life when
> you are stuck with your Tik-Tok productions,
> or your Instagram account, where you poses as a young stallion, thanks
> to super-duper photoshopping (and may
> be, you're also using deep fake videos).
>
> 2) Before Newton, there was darkness.
>
> After Newton, light come to our world, whose current form is shaped
> by newtonian and maxwellian means, no einstenians.
>

I see. So you have your own personal hero-worship idols, which include
Newton and Maxwell and not Einstein, and so you’re on some campaign to try
to align trade bookstores and science magazines to promote your choice of
demigods. Kinda like Baal vs. Yahweh.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:36:11 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2021 2:33 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 04:01:43 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Warm and fuzzy is very nice but it takes two to tango. You insult people here
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, when Jan says someone is an idiot, it's not any insult, of course.
> >>> It's just stating a fact.
> >> Well, in your case, it *is* a fact.
> >
> > Yes, correct.
> >
> > (Maciej is still here? Poor guy.)
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> Maciej has nothing better to live for than to catcall from the stands.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Haha. I see.

"There is a material here for an entire [psychiatric] conference."

-Fawlty Towers

--
Jan

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:49:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's teamwork, either voluntarily or
> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You make your choice to label their will:
>
> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)

BTW, a list like this can be made for every physicist and every mathematician who ever lived.

--
Jan

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:34:58 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
> > > teamwork, either voluntarily or
> > > involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
> > > make your choice to label their will:
> > >
> > > Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> > > Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> > > Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> > > Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> > > Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> > > Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> > > Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> > > Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> > > Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> > > Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> > > Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> > > Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> > > Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> > > Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> > > Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> > > Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> > > Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> > > Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> > > Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> > > Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> > > Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
> > >
> > >
> > And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
> > Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
> >
> > You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
> > it isn’t true for others.
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received recognition or due credit by Einstein.
>
> Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
> of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read it, it exists out there free of charge to download.

Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.

OTOH today you typically mention in the "References" section the slightest sneeze by anyone even
remotely connected. Usually under the banner "Private communication".

Publishing standards change, life changes in general, get over it.

> Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
> marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics and mathematics. He created them all, in a
> single act,

No, actually, there was a lot of work done before him by other people, like the concept of "fluxions" (what
we'd call "the derivative" today) was in the air for a while. Of course Newton was the one who noted that
Kepler's laws followed from the inverse-square-law which is simply GREAT, not only that, he provided a proof
that a spherical mass in this context can be treated as a POINT mass. Even today, just TRY to prove it
on your own! Good luck.

> but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he stood to do his achievements).
> Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
> for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.

Reminds me that Halley was a good pipe organ player.

--
Jan

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 1:14:46 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
> >>>>> teamwork, either voluntarily or
> >>>>> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
> >>>>> make your choice to label their will:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
> >>>>> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
> >>>>> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
> >>>>> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
> >>>>> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
> >>>>> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
> >>>>> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
> >>>>> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
> >>>>> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
> >>>>> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
> >>>>> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
> >>>>> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
> >>>>> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
> >>>>> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
> >>>>> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
> >>>>> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
> >>>>> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
> >>>>> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
> >>>>> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
> >>>>> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
> >>>>> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
> >>>> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
> >>>> it isn’t true for others.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received
> >>> recognition or due credit by Einstein.
> >> Which is unusual by modern, reference-happy standards, but not all that
> >> uncommon in 1900.
> >>>
> >>> Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on
> >>> its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
> >>> of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read
> >>> it, it exists out there free of charge to download.
> >> And yet note that YOU give “monumental” kudos to Maxwell for his long book,
> >> even though intellectually the contents were attributable to others, not
> >> the least of which: Faraday, Gauss, Ampere…
> >>
> >> Why is it YOU give Maxwell all the credit for this work and ignore the
> >> monumental contribution to that work from these others. Hmmm? Got your own
> >> personal hero-worship list, like any good Everyman would?
> >>>
> >>> Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural
> >>> Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
> >>> marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics
> >>> and mathematics. He created them all, in a
> >>> single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he
> >>> stood to do his achievements).
> >> Largely unnamed giants, note. Anything about Hooke? Anything about Leibniz?
> >> How about Flamsteed, whose observations Newton used liberally before his
> >> career was ruined by Sir Isaac? And isn’t it fun that Newton gave a nod to
> >> Galilei but ignored Descartes, claiming as his own corollaries ones that
> >> had been proven already by René?
> >>> Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to
> >>> compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
> >>> for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not
> >>> for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.
> >> And yet, YOU give Newton the credit. Hmmmmm……
> >>>
> >>> Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Because:
> >
> > 1) Maxwell gave mathematical unity to every developed theory and
> > accepted empirical knowledge,
> > united such previous grand work in an unified body with
> > mathematical properties that allowed
> > himself to cover the gaps by his insight of symmetry, when he risked
> > the assumption of the
> > existence of the Displacement Current in his 20 equations using quaternions.
> >
> > But, not being that enough, he went to the lab with a colleague, and
> > found the equivalent values
> > for permittivity and permeability, which validated his prediction of
> > the speed of light (in different frequencies).
> >
> > His Treatise is foundational for the science of electromagnetism, was
> > used by Hertz and several others to
> > prove the existence of EM waves, and for generations of engineers
> > which contributed to everything related
> > with electromagnetism, like the gadget that enlighten your life when
> > you are stuck with your Tik-Tok productions,
> > or your Instagram account, where you poses as a young stallion, thanks
> > to super-duper photoshopping (and may
> > be, you're also using deep fake videos).
> >
> > 2) Before Newton, there was darkness.
> >
> > After Newton, light come to our world, whose current form is shaped
> > by newtonian and maxwellian means, no einstenians.
> >
> I see. So you have your own personal hero-worship idols, which include
> Newton and Maxwell and not Einstein, and so you’re on some campaign to try
> to align trade bookstores and science magazines to promote your choice of
> demigods. Kinda like Baal vs. Yahweh.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

With those types it's all Hollywood hero worship. The goal for them is to align with the
right hero. It's infantile and pathetic.

--
Jan

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:58:36 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> With those types it's all Hollywood hero worship. The goal for them is to align with the
> right hero. It's infantile and pathetic.

Remember that about 2 days ago you accuse me of insulting people here?

How does it work for you, Jan? Or you are entitled to use double standards, at your convenience?
"Those types°! It really hurt me, you know?

By the way, are you at Australia or New Zealand right now? UTC mark your longitude.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:47:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
> the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
> between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
> inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
> listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.

From:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095352/

I quote:
-------------------------------------------------
"The rise of the science periodical in the nineteenth century

From around 100 titles worldwide at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the number of science
periodicals grew to an estimated 10000 by the end, facilitating in the process an exponential growth
in popular and professional forms of science."
------------------------------------------------
10,000 journals with 100 papers/years (avg.) make 10 million papers in the first decade of XX century.
As they comprehend everything, from papers for laymen to papers for scientists, I reduce the number of those devoted
to physics as 1% of them, which gives about 100,000 papers on professional physics in the first decade.
Reducing even more, to cover the field of theoretical physics as 20% of them, it results in the publication of
20,000 papers on theoretical physics. For instance, about 1,000 papers on the nascent field of radioactivity were
published in such period.

And it doesn't matter. The young Einstein also had access to the Polytechnic library and the vast collection of
journals, books and technical papers exactly meters far away from where is was working 9x6 hours a week (the
Patent Office, a first class place). If you had know something about the development of the industrial world since
mid XIX century, you would have know that PATENTS was something of incredibly complex, intricate processes
by then and, due the international reach of consequences, it was mandatory for Patent Offices on developed countries
to have a COPY of any conceivable patent register, as well as a vast technical library to assist in the process of
priorities. More lawyers and clerks were working on this matter than the whole world of scientists, by then.

You can learn something (and you need it) by reading this book:

Inventing the Electronic Century The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface
(Harvard Studies in Business History)

> > Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
> > marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics and mathematics. He created them all, in a
> > single act,

> No, actually, there was a lot of work done before him by other people, like the concept of "fluxions" (what
> we'd call "the derivative" today) was in the air for a while. Of course Newton was the one who noted that
> Kepler's laws followed from the inverse-square-law which is simply GREAT,

prove it, with proper links, as I always do!

> not only that, he provided a proof that a spherical mass in this context can be treated as a POINT mass. Even today, just TRY to prove it
> on your own! Good luck.

The concepts Newton used, about concentric shells of spherical shape and infinitesimal thickness, with homogeneous
density of matter and divided into infinitesimal cells which cancel gravitational attraction on the axis oriented toward
the second distant mass, reducing it to zero is proven through the nascent calculus that he developed and properly
used on this development. The next step of reducing the rectilinear segment of the diameter to a point is obvious.

Such an extraordinary exercise on logical analysis and calculus remains unchallenged today, even when caused
problems in the quantum world, which led to the "renormalization" due to infinities.

Even at QM developments, Newton reigned, with the use of planetary models (relativistic or not),
Hamiltonians (Heisenberg model), Lagrangians, etc.

Newtonian theories are very difficult to challenge, even for the newest cosmological models in computers.
And Newton's heritage remain as supreme, above all other "speculations", like the damned GTR.

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:15:37 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>
> > Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
> > the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
> > between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
> > inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
> > listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.
> From:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095352/
>
> I quote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> "The rise of the science periodical in the nineteenth century
>
> From around 100 titles worldwide at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the number of science
> periodicals grew to an estimated 10000 by the end, facilitating in the process an exponential growth
> in popular and professional forms of science."
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 10,000 journals with 100 papers/years (avg.) make 10 million papers in the first decade of XX century.
> As they comprehend everything, from papers for laymen to papers for scientists, I reduce the number of those devoted
> to physics as 1% of them, which gives about 100,000 papers on professional physics in the first decade.
> Reducing even more, to cover the field of theoretical physics as 20% of them, it results in the publication of
> 20,000 papers on theoretical physics. For instance, about 1,000 papers on the nascent field of radioactivity were
> published in such period.
>
> And it doesn't matter. The young Einstein also had access to the Polytechnic library and the vast collection of
> journals, books and technical papers exactly meters far away from where is was working 9x6 hours a week (the
> Patent Office, a first class place). If you had know something about the development of the industrial world since
> mid XIX century, you would have know that PATENTS was something of incredibly complex, intricate processes
> by then and, due the international reach of consequences, it was mandatory for Patent Offices on developed countries
> to have a COPY of any conceivable patent register, as well as a vast technical library to assist in the process of
> priorities. More lawyers and clerks were working on this matter than the whole world of scientists, by then.

I forgot: the young Einstein didn't care to follow such huge amount of information. He aimed at the "big guns/top dogs"
of physics at the time AND their references. As lazy (and smart) he was, he barely needed to do more, except to check
about gossips in specific circles through his friends and acquaintances, while working as a clerk. Mariva Milec had the
hard work to be done, besides his housewife's duties. Poor woman, life was very unfair to her.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:15:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:47:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
> > the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
> > between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
> > inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
> > listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.
> From:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095352/
>
> I quote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> "The rise of the science periodical in the nineteenth century
>
> From around 100 titles worldwide at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the number of science
> periodicals grew to an estimated 10000 by the end, facilitating in the process an exponential growth
> in popular and professional forms of science."

My point remains: around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
common today.

> And it doesn't matter. The young Einstein also had access to the Polytechnic library and the vast collection of
> journals, books and technical papers exactly meters far away from where is was working 9x6 hours a week (the
> Patent Office, a first class place). If you had know something about the development of the industrial world since
> mid XIX century, you would have know that PATENTS was something of incredibly complex, intricate processes
> by then and, due the international reach of consequences, it was mandatory for Patent Offices on developed countries
> to have a COPY of any conceivable patent register, as well as a vast technical library to assist in the process of
> priorities. More lawyers and clerks were working on this matter than the whole world of scientists, by then.

Nevertheless, again, around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
common today.

> You can learn something (and you need it) by reading this book:
>
> Inventing the Electronic Century The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface
> (Harvard Studies in Business History)

Maybe but also irrelevant. What I said was simply that by straightforward examination of the actual
science journals, it is clear that around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
common today.

If you want to discuss unrelated subjects, start a new thread.

> > No, actually, there was a lot of work done before him by other people, like the concept of "fluxions" (what
> > we'd call "the derivative" today) was in the air for a while. Of course Newton was the one who noted that
> > Kepler's laws followed from the inverse-square-law which is simply GREAT,
> prove it, with proper links, as I always do!
> > not only that, he provided a proof that a spherical mass in this context can be treated as a POINT mass. Even today, just TRY to prove it
> > on your own! Good luck.

> The concepts Newton used, about concentric shells of spherical shape and infinitesimal thickness, with homogeneous
> density of matter and divided into infinitesimal cells which cancel gravitational attraction on the axis oriented toward
> the second distant mass, reducing it to zero is proven through the nascent calculus that he developed and properly
> used on this development. The next step of reducing the rectilinear segment of the diameter to a point is obvious.

This was a difficult thing to do in his day and age. Remember back then even a proper definition of limit did not exist.
And he had to prove this not on the real line but in full 3D. It's easy today (still well beyond the grasp of most high
schoolers) but it required top-notch genius back then.

> Newtonian theories are very difficult to challenge, even for the newest cosmological models in computers.
> And Newton's heritage remain as supreme, above all other "speculations", like the damned GTR.

Blag blah blah. Hollywood dreamland and inferiority complex reigning supreme. Idiotic.

--
Jan

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:17:10 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:15:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:47:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
> > > the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
> > > between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
> > > inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
> > > listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.
> > From:
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095352/
> >
> > I quote:
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > "The rise of the science periodical in the nineteenth century
> >
> > From around 100 titles worldwide at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the number of science
> > periodicals grew to an estimated 10000 by the end, facilitating in the process an exponential growth
> > in popular and professional forms of science."
> My point remains: around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
> common today.
> > And it doesn't matter. The young Einstein also had access to the Polytechnic library and the vast collection of
> > journals, books and technical papers exactly meters far away from where is was working 9x6 hours a week (the
> > Patent Office, a first class place). If you had know something about the development of the industrial world since
> > mid XIX century, you would have know that PATENTS was something of incredibly complex, intricate processes
> > by then and, due the international reach of consequences, it was mandatory for Patent Offices on developed countries
> > to have a COPY of any conceivable patent register, as well as a vast technical library to assist in the process of
> > priorities. More lawyers and clerks were working on this matter than the whole world of scientists, by then.
> Nevertheless, again, around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
> common today.
> > You can learn something (and you need it) by reading this book:
> >
> > Inventing the Electronic Century The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries, with a new preface
> > (Harvard Studies in Business History)
> Maybe but also irrelevant. What I said was simply that by straightforward examination of the actual
> science journals, it is clear that around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
> common today.
>
> If you want to discuss unrelated subjects, start a new thread.
> > > No, actually, there was a lot of work done before him by other people, like the concept of "fluxions" (what
> > > we'd call "the derivative" today) was in the air for a while. Of course Newton was the one who noted that
> > > Kepler's laws followed from the inverse-square-law which is simply GREAT,
> > prove it, with proper links, as I always do!
> > > not only that, he provided a proof that a spherical mass in this context can be treated as a POINT mass. Even today, just TRY to prove it
> > > on your own! Good luck.
>
> > The concepts Newton used, about concentric shells of spherical shape and infinitesimal thickness, with homogeneous
> > density of matter and divided into infinitesimal cells which cancel gravitational attraction on the axis oriented toward
> > the second distant mass, reducing it to zero is proven through the nascent calculus that he developed and properly
> > used on this development. The next step of reducing the rectilinear segment of the diameter to a point is obvious.
> This was a difficult thing to do in his day and age. Remember back then even a proper definition of limit did not exist.
> And he had to prove this not on the real line but in full 3D. It's easy today (still well beyond the grasp of most high
> schoolers) but it required top-notch genius back then.
> > Newtonian theories are very difficult to challenge, even for the newest cosmological models in computers.
> > And Newton's heritage remain as supreme, above all other "speculations", like the damned GTR.
> Blag blah blah. Hollywood dreamland and inferiority complex reigning supreme. Idiotic.
>
> --
> Jan

Had you read his Principia, you'd notice that he used 3D geometry for this proof. His calculus hadn't gained enough
acceptance to publicly use it. Full demonstrations, using Leibnitz notation, come in the next century and was done
by many scholars all over continental Europe, where great minds advanced newtonian concepts by using mathematical
formalism. Specially in France, that dominated the XVIII century, while England entered into some kind of dormant state
regarding physics and calculus.

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 1:14:46 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> And here is a SHORT list of peoples who worked for the Einstein's
>>>>>>> teamwork, either voluntarily or
>>>>>>> involuntarily, in the development of "his" theories of relativity. You
>>>>>>> make your choice to label their will:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Born, Max (1882 - 1970)
>>>>>>> Eötvös, Roland Baron von (1848 - 1919)
>>>>>>> Freundlich, Erwin (1885 - 1964)
>>>>>>> Grossmann, Marcel (1878 - 1936)
>>>>>>> Herglotz, Gustav (1881 - 1953)
>>>>>>> Hilbert, David (1862 - 1943)
>>>>>>> Klein, Felix (1849 - 1925)
>>>>>>> Kottler, Friedrich (1886 - 1965)
>>>>>>> Laue, Max von (1879 - 1960)
>>>>>>> Levi-Civita, Tulio (1873 - 1941)
>>>>>>> Lipschitz, Rudolf (1832 - 1903)
>>>>>>> Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853 - 1928)
>>>>>>> Mach, Ernst (1838 - 1916)
>>>>>>> Minkowski, Hermann (1864 - 1909)
>>>>>>> Nordström, Gunnar (1881 - 1923)
>>>>>>> Petzoldt, Joseph (1862 - 1929)
>>>>>>> Planck, Max (1858 - 1947)
>>>>>>> Poincaré, Henri (1854 - 1912)
>>>>>>> Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853 - 1925)
>>>>>>> Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1951)
>>>>>>> Voigt, Woldemar (1850 - 1919)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And would you like to see a similar list of collaborators for the likes of
>>>>>> Maxwell, Newton, Born, Heisenberg, etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to think this being true for Einstein is damning in some way, that
>>>>>> it isn’t true for others.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> "either voluntarily or involuntarily" I wrote. None of them received
>>>>> recognition or due credit by Einstein.
>>>> Which is unusual by modern, reference-happy standards, but not all that
>>>> uncommon in 1900.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maxwell monumental "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" is full, on
>>>>> its almost 1,000 pages, of due credit
>>>>> of those who contributed to the development of such science. Try to read
>>>>> it, it exists out there free of charge to download.
>>>> And yet note that YOU give “monumental” kudos to Maxwell for his long book,
>>>> even though intellectually the contents were attributable to others, not
>>>> the least of which: Faraday, Gauss, Ampere…
>>>>
>>>> Why is it YOU give Maxwell all the credit for this work and ignore the
>>>> monumental contribution to that work from these others. Hmmm? Got your own
>>>> personal hero-worship list, like any good Everyman would?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton breakthrough book "On the Mathematical Principles of Natural
>>>>> Philosophy", more than 1,000 pages also,
>>>>> marks the division between dark ages and the beginning of modern physics
>>>>> and mathematics. He created them all, in a
>>>>> single act, but he credited ancestors (the giants on whose shoulders he
>>>>> stood to do his achievements).
>>>> Largely unnamed giants, note. Anything about Hooke? Anything about Leibniz?
>>>> How about Flamsteed, whose observations Newton used liberally before his
>>>> career was ruined by Sir Isaac? And isn’t it fun that Newton gave a nod to
>>>> Galilei but ignored Descartes, claiming as his own corollaries ones that
>>>> had been proven already by René?
>>>>> Halley is credited for such publication, as he encouraged Newton to
>>>>> compile his life-long achievements, and also payed
>>>>> for such publication in times where the Royal Society was broken. If not
>>>>> for Halley's actions, the book wouldn't had existed.
>>>> And yet, YOU give Newton the credit. Hmmmmm……
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein did...... Oh! forget it.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Because:
>>>
>>> 1) Maxwell gave mathematical unity to every developed theory and
>>> accepted empirical knowledge,
>>> united such previous grand work in an unified body with
>>> mathematical properties that allowed
>>> himself to cover the gaps by his insight of symmetry, when he risked
>>> the assumption of the
>>> existence of the Displacement Current in his 20 equations using quaternions.
>>>
>>> But, not being that enough, he went to the lab with a colleague, and
>>> found the equivalent values
>>> for permittivity and permeability, which validated his prediction of
>>> the speed of light (in different frequencies).
>>>
>>> His Treatise is foundational for the science of electromagnetism, was
>>> used by Hertz and several others to
>>> prove the existence of EM waves, and for generations of engineers
>>> which contributed to everything related
>>> with electromagnetism, like the gadget that enlighten your life when
>>> you are stuck with your Tik-Tok productions,
>>> or your Instagram account, where you poses as a young stallion, thanks
>>> to super-duper photoshopping (and may
>>> be, you're also using deep fake videos).
>>>
>>> 2) Before Newton, there was darkness.
>>>
>>> After Newton, light come to our world, whose current form is shaped
>>> by newtonian and maxwellian means, no einstenians.
>>>
>> I see. So you have your own personal hero-worship idols, which include
>> Newton and Maxwell and not Einstein, and so you’re on some campaign to try
>> to align trade bookstores and science magazines to promote your choice of
>> demigods. Kinda like Baal vs. Yahweh.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> With those types it's all Hollywood hero worship. The goal for them is to align with the
> right hero. It's infantile and pathetic.

An ingredient for the selected heroes is whether or not they were trained
in that area or not. I’m sure that for a lot of people like Hertz, the
statement goes something like, “All I’ve ever needed in my work is what was
produced by Newton and Maxwell, and so they are the only ones valuable or
esteemable to me.” In the same way, a bricklayer may not see any value in
Maxwell — as goes the apocryphal story about Maxwell and being challenged
about the value of his work by a bureaucrat.

>
> --
> Jan
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Am 07.08.2021 um 10:03 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 07.08.2021 um 08:40 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 18:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:44:56 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 06.08.2021 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:43:06 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Science can use science you moron...
>>>>>>> Where does science say it cannot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you, as a scientist, become a plagiarist, a thief and a
>>>>>> deceiver. There is no moral ground to support
>>>>>> your "gaining functions°, in the same way "the mafia" grows from
>>>>>> its learning base (in this case, stealing,
>>>>>> deceiving, breaking the written law, murdering, blackmailing, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you see differences in the "business plan"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't credited Lorentz. Nor he credited anyone else except
>>>>>> Maxwell (in the original german 1905 version).
>>>>>>
>>>>> I found some similarities to 'Sur le dynamic de la Electron' of Henry
>>>>> Poincare.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is interesting, because Poincare didn't like Einstein, hence
>>>>> had no
>>>>> reason to share any knowledge with him prior of publication of his
>>>>> own book.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was published in August 1905, while Einstein's article had the
>>>>> date
>>>>> end of July 1905 (it was printed much later in 1905).
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I knew that about Poincaré, whose lectures and books on the
>>>> topic of this post I've read.
>>>> Also, some parts of the excellent book Science and Hypothesis, a
>>>> copy of which Maurice Solovine
>>>> brought to the meetings of the Olympia Academy (the Einstein's club
>>>> to discuss science and philosophy)
>>>> in 1904. I've read that the book was object of interesting
>>>> discussions for a long time. It contains some seeds
>>>> of all of the relativities, and beyond. The book was in french, as
>>>> it hadn't been translated to other languages yet.
>>>> Certainly, not to german. It seems that here is irrelevant the state
>>>> of affairs between France and Germany in the
>>>> early years of XX century. The tug of war was all over there, due to
>>>> the popular sentiments about the 1870's war,
>>>> which France lost. Also, the worldwide scandal of the Dreyfus affair
>>>> was peaking for the injustice of the French
>>>> establishment with Capt. Dreyfus was at its highest. An honest
>>>> officer, of Jewish religion, had been accused of
>>>> spying in favor of Germany by selling them military secrets about
>>>> the french rearming. Also, antisemitism was
>>>> peaking in France (as in Hungary and other countries, besides
>>>> Germany), something that was highly disturbing
>>>> for all Jewish people in continental Europe.
>>> Physics and science are international in nature and not related to
>>> ethnic groups or certain religions.
>>>
>>> So: what is valid in France is also valid in Germany (and vice versa).
>>>
>>> (Judaism ist much less a criterium for validity of something in
>>> theoretical physics.)
>>>
>>> Well, yes, there were hostilities and even wars between France and
>>> Germany. But that wouldn't render any theory valid, whether or not they
>>> came from any particular country.
>>>
>>>
>>> But we have a different topic here and that was the date of Einstein's
>>> paper.
>>>
>>> The reason is, that Einstein wrote a date into his text, when Poincares
>>> book was not published.
>>>
>>> And if content of Poincare's book can be found in Einstein's text, that
>>> date cannot be correct.
> ...
>
>
>> Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June
>> 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits
>> to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.
>
> https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron
>
> the dates were:
>
> "Adunanza del 23 luglio 1905.
> Stampato il 14-16 dicembre 1905 "
>
> translated into English by google
>
> "Meeting of 23 July 1905. (meant was 'handed in..')
> Printed December 14-16, 1905"
>
>
> the dates of Einstein's article:
> Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Jg. 17, 1905, S. 891
> "eingegangen 30. Juni 1905"
> "Ausgegeben am 26.September 1905"
>
> so Einstein handed in his paper three weeks before Poincare did.
>
> But still Einstein's paper contains equations, which seem to stem from
> Poincare's text.

There were two equations, which look quite similar.

But it is important to notice, that Poincare set speed of light
(...vitesse de la lumiere...) to unity, hence c=1.

Therefore c does not occur in a product, because 1 could be left away.

The first equation in Einstein's paper at § 8 on page 17 is then equal
to the third equation of page 133 of Poincare's text.

Even the variable names are equal, even if they were by no means
obvious, because Poincare used xsi, eta, zeta for the equivalent to x,y
and z as Einstein also did.

But it would make more sense to replace y by the Greek small epsilon,
rather than by eta.

The other similar equation was the equation for the ellisoid on the same
page (3bis by Poincare).

TH

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:07:50 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> >> Sur la dynamique de l'électron, as an article, was published on June
> >> 5, 1905. There, Poincaré credits to Lorentz and Langevin on his writing.
> >
> > https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9lectron
........
> > But still Einstein's paper contains equations, which seem to stem from Poincare's text.
>
> There were two equations, which look quite similar.
>
> But it is important to notice, that Poincare set speed of light
> (...vitesse de la lumiere...) to unity, hence c=1.

Poincaré pioneered simplicity on his math, also stating his belief of c as an universal constant.
Using c=1 simplified the reading, and this is something that Einstein also adopted, years after.
To check if the units involved were correct, required that you did the math in the cgs system (later MKS).
> Therefore c does not occur in a product, because 1 could be left away.
>
> The first equation in Einstein's paper at § 8 on page 17 is then equal
> to the third equation of page 133 of Poincare's text.
>
> Even the variable names are equal, even if they were by no means
> obvious, because Poincare used xsi, eta, zeta for the equivalent to x,y
> and z as Einstein also did.

Poincaré:

"Consider a sphere entrained with the electron in a motion of
uniform translation and either:

(x - ξt)² + (y - ηt)² + (z - ζt)² = r²

NOTE: ξ, η and ζ are the x,y,z components of a uniform velocity v(x,y,z).
------------------------

Einstein: § 8. Transformation of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory
of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors

Excerpt:

"(x - lct)² + (y - mct)² + (z - nct)² = R²

If l, m, n are the direction-cosines of the wave-normals of the light in the stationary system,
no energy passes through the surface elements of a spherical surface moving with the velocity of light:"
----------------------------

NOTE: lc, mc and nc are the x,y,z components of a uniform velocity c(x,y,z).. Einstein is going for Maxwell's pressure
of radiation in his SR.
Meanwhile, what you wrote about Poincaré is always related to an electron, not pressure of light.

Direction-cosines of the wave-normals of the light is a poor attempt to make things more complex than needed.
Light "c" is "c" at any direction, as he stated at the beginning of his paper, and the use of lc, mc and nc is fallacious and meaningless, because they should render c, c and c.

He did the same thing at his paper on the "alleged" proof of m=E/c². In an unidimensional world, he uses a plane to
introduce an arbitrary radiation of two opposite beams of light, by using emission over a 2D plane with his cos Φ.
Unnecessary by any reason, as making Φ = 0 puts the development over a single x axis, without harming the development
and result. Also, simplifies the paper a great deal, but makes the fallacy more obvious (petitio principii with loss of mass).

But that is what he did: he artificially introduced unneeded complexities to make the paper more complex on purpose, and by so,
disguising childish assumptions.

-----------------------
More, in the next paragraph:

"The spherical surface—viewed in the moving system—is an ellipsoidal surface,
the equation for which, at the time τ = 0, is

(βx - lβ ξv/c)² + (η - mβ ξv/c)² + (ζ - nβ ξv/c)² = R²

NOTE: He's reintroducing his β contraction, being β = 1/γ (the Voigt's γ, found by him 17 years before).
He's using Lorentz transforms to test Maxwell's pressure on a frame moving at constant v, by using reflections
of his sphere of light on a perfect reflector.

> But it would make more sense to replace y by the Greek small epsilon, rather than by eta.
> The other similar equation was the equation for the ellisoid on the same
> page (3bis by Poincare).

There are other things on the link between Einstein's work and Lorentz' and Poincaré's works, but
it doesn't worth the effort to continue.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:46:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip cretinisms<

Am 16.08.2021 um 17:11 schrieb Dono.:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:46:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> snip cretinisms<

To compare two theories from the same time about similar topics is not
at all related to naziism.

The book of Poincare about the electron and the article of Einstein
about the electrodynamics of moving bodies are both from 1905. And the
dates, when they were handed over to the publisher, were only a few
weeks apart.

The topic 'dynamics of the electron' (Poincare) and 'electrodynamics of
moving bodies' (Einstein) is also quite similar.

Now it is not too far fetched to think about relations between these papers.

And the (odd) relation is, that Einstein's paper used equations and
phrases, which can also be found in Poincare's paper, even if the work
of Poincare was publish after the paper of Einstein.

And because Poincare didn't like Einstein, he had no reason to provide
him with insider information.

But how then had Einstein got knowledge about what Poincare wrote,
before that got printed?

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 16.08.2021 um 17:11 schrieb Dono.:
>> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:46:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> snip cretinisms<
>
> To compare two theories from the same time about similar topics is not
> at all related to naziism.
> The book of Poincare about the electron and the article of Einstein
> about the electrodynamics of moving bodies are both from 1905. And the
> dates, when they were handed over to the publisher, were only a few
> weeks apart.
> The topic 'dynamics of the electron' (Poincare) and 'electrodynamics of
> moving bodies' (Einstein) is also quite similar.
> Now it is not too far fetched to think about relations between these
> papers.
> And the (odd) relation is, that Einstein's paper used equations and
> phrases, which can also be found in Poincare's paper, even if the work
> of Poincare was publish after the paper of Einstein.
> And because Poincare didn't like Einstein, he had no reason to provide
> him with insider information.
> But how then had Einstein got knowledge about what Poincare wrote,
> before that got printed?

I just can't wait, keep us informed when you find something. I'm sure
you'll do. Keep it up the good work.

hmm, I believe this puts in jeopardy the entire relativity push. Same
equations and same wording, that's enough proof of plagiarism today.
There is software tools used to detect for this stuff, but those days no
software tools. Keep us updated. This electrodynamics of the moving
bodies stinks to high heaven. Here we have the motivation, on what pushed
him writing something like this, without leading precedence, out of thin
air. Thanks.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:04:32 PM UTC-3, Wally Oldham wrote:

<snip>

> I just can't wait, keep us informed when you find something. I'm sure
> you'll do. Keep it up the good work.
>
> hmm, I believe this puts in jeopardy the entire relativity push. Same
> equations and same wording, that's enough proof of plagiarism today.
> There is software tools used to detect for this stuff, but those days no
> software tools. Keep us updated. This electrodynamics of the moving
> bodies stinks to high heaven. Here we have the motivation, on what pushed
> him writing something like this, without leading precedence, out of thin
> air. Thanks.

Waldo, your attempts to troll are extremely evident, like reposting this on
a Pentcho Valev post.

Stop behaving as a spoiled child (or brat). Sure you have pubic hair, so
act as an decent adult and stop believing that you are smart enough.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.08.2021 um 17:11 schrieb Dono.:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:46:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> snip cretinisms<
> To compare two theories from the same time about similar topics is not
> at all related to naziism.
>

In your case and in Richard Hertz' case, IT IS. He's a kapo, you are just a plain nazi.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> But how then had Einstein got knowledge about what Poincare wrote,
> before that got printed?
>
He didn't, imbecile. Poincare READ Einstein's paper. Thus, he used the same notation he SAW in Einstein's paper, nazi piece of shit.

Am 18.08.2021 um 03:53 schrieb Dono.:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> But how then had Einstein got knowledge about what Poincare wrote,
>> before that got printed?
>>
> He didn't, imbecile. Poincare READ Einstein's paper. Thus, he used the same notation he SAW in Einstein's paper, nazi piece of shit.
>

The dates do not support your claim.

As far as I remember, the text of Einstein had the date 30th of June
1905. The text was published later that year in Annalen der Physik.

I guess it was November, but I'm not certain.

Poincare's text had the date 15th of July 1905 and was printed earlier
than Einstein's text.

Therefor Poincare could not read Einstein's text, because that was not
published in July 1905.

TH

Am 12.08.2021 um 08:34 schrieb Richard Hertz:
....
>> He also used terms and equations from Poincare, hence must have known
>> Poincare's text.
>>
>> This is interesting, because Einstein had no record of speaking French.
>>
>> He lived in Italy for a while, hence should have been fluent in Italian.
>> But I have not heard anything about him speaking French.
>>
>> TH
> His friend did (i.e.: Solovine). He also had courses on french at the Polytechnic,
> mandatory due to the strong relationships between both countries. He didn't very good, but he knew something.

Many Swiss speak French. But Bern, where Einstein lived, belongs to the
German speaking part (as well as Zurich). And not all Swiss citizens
speak all Swiss languages.

> At the Olympia Academy, in 1904, he and his buddies (Solovine, Haabritch, Grossman plus Mileva Maric)
> studied and discussed with passion Poincaré's book Science and Hypothesis (in french, not english, I guess).
>
> And this book, plus transcriptions of Poincaré's lecture at St. Louis (US) in 1904 had enough guidances for SR, GR and beyond.
>
> Poincaré and Minkowski had some kind of friendship, and they exchanged ideas frequently. Each one highly respected the other,
> and they interacted since 1907 until Minkowski death on the ideas of space-time and else.
>

As far as I know, Minkowski and Einstein knew each other, too.

Possibly there was a connection.

Another possibility is, that Poincare actuaally quoted Hendrik Lorentz
and Einstein did that too and from the same source.

Unfortunately I have not read anything from Lorentz yet. (I should, I
would guess.)

TH

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:33:12 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> As far as I remember, the text of Einstein had the date 30th of June
> 1905.
> Poincare's text had the date 15th of July 1905 and was printed earlier
> than Einstein's text.

June 30 comes before July 15, nazi cretin

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:33:12 PM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> As far as I remember, the text of Einstein had the date 30th of June
> 1905. The text was published later that year in Annalen der Physik.
>
> I guess it was November, but I'm not certain.
>
> Poincare's text had the date 15th of July 1905 and was printed earlier
> than Einstein's text.
>
> Therefor Poincare could not read Einstein's text, because that was not
> published in July 1905.
>
> TH

The exact date of publications at the Annalen der Physik IS NOT AVAILABLE on the web. Only
the year, volume and pages (from-to). I tried to find the exact date of each volume but, magically, they
are gone forever. Only infinite references to the "1905 annus mirabilis" remain.

But it's interesting how come critics from physicists of that epoch vanished too. Here is a relationship between
Einstein's source for the E=mc² paper with Poincaré previous works, along with interesting observations about others:

American Journal of Undergraduate Research

Einstein’s 1905 Paper on E=mc²

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60372908/AJUR_January_2016p520190823-111671-1vudt9c.pdf?1566563995=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DEinsteins_1905_Paper_on_E_mc_2.pdf&Expires=1629399571&Signature=M3yv29bIxvMXNvXYD12l8Nh-6YmyHnnWSmKkP1lF~2-3t3PgvtL~NTjZou5ovhmo~aK4MJzE3ZxRb7yfDwUqJhNGY6S1EV5XQzNWYpw~p-4Om8xkWf9x85DaqnAfAvnTj8eEdWLGCG38NCP6gD3mkVopEgRuXg6oVVMuzPmegQIotgRZFe7ixzsMCP1P4tQT3tkxZB8nvjIgJWcObybs06SZCBKZUirJBQjOAXn7hPhTCg4g9sJShGrSrlMWwm2BT13WNU~YWKonDwh~-UNHfTI0~3i0t3~L2S1JqGFi84VcRJcplqj0jlrzl1Gic9nBvXyS6TYCA-XcOV9Rayq7cQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
It is well-known that Einstein’s first paper on E=mc² as published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905 is problematic in that it
suffers from the error of circular reasoning. This means that it uses as one of its premises a statement which is equivalent to the
conclusion of the paper, namely, that E=mc² This difficulty with the paper has been pointed out by many writers including
Max Planck, Herbert Ives, Max Jammer and also biographers of Einstein including Gerald Holton and Arthur I. Miller.
Unfortunately, the derivation is repeated today as being correct without any mention of the above criticisms of it. In view of this
it seems to us worthwhile to have a clear and as simple as possible explanation of the logical difficulties associated with Einstein’s
1905 derivation, and it is to this end that this paper is written. Herewith we present a very simple treatment of the problem which
makes absolutely clear the logical difficulties in Einstein’s first published work on E=mc².
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION

Does Einstein’s first paper1 on E=mc² suffer from the fallacy of circular reasoning? A circular argument, which in philosophical
circles is frequently referred to as petitio principii or circulus in probando, is one that assumes what it is trying to prove. It inserts the
conclusion into the premises, as in the simple example, “Jason is the best candidate for the position because Jason is better than
all the other candidates. Therefore, Jason is the best candidate for the position.” No one will argue that such argumentation is
circular. So also, according to many notable scientists, such as Max Planck and the well-known historian of physics, Max Jammer,
is Einstein’s 1905 paper on E=mc².* Unfortunately, this paper entitled “Does the Inertia of a body depend upon its energy
content?” is referenced in scientific articles and textbooks on special relativity as gospel truth coming from the great scientist
himself without any reference to the problems existing within it. Others try to defend the paper against the logical criticisms of
the above mentioned scientists, however, none successfully, for to do such would necessarily have to refute the fallacy of circular
reasoning from which we show quite clearly that Einstein’s paper suffers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOT NOTE (POINCARÉ IS MENTIONED AS SOURCE)

*The list of authoritative figures associated with objections to Einstein’s 1905 paper started with Max Planck, the father of the
quantum theory. His criticism of Einstein’s 1905 work is contained in an important 1907 paper by Planck, which some consider
to contain the first generally valid and correct derivation of E=mc² for matter.2 Apparently Einstein himself was not very happy
with his 1905 paper, and shortly afterwards he published another derivation of mass-energy equivalence.3 That paper, according to
Einstein, is basically a rewriting of a treatment of mass-energy equivalence for light given a few years earlier by Poincaré.4 In 1952
the American physicist, Herbert Ives, wrote a particularly lucid account of the matter on which most subsequent authors base
their analyses.5 In particular, he spells out quite clearly the circular reasoning used in Einstein’s 1905 paper. The noted
philosopher and historian of physics, Max Jammer, reiterates Ives arguments in his book, The Concept of Mass in Classical and Modern
Physics.2 Other scientists and historians of science, such as Gerald Holton,6 H. Arzeliés7 and Arthur I. Miller8 all reiterate these
objections of Planck and Ives."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All what appear in English translations (first was done in 1921 and corrected in 1923) is the date
that "allegedly" Einstein submitted his papers, not publishing date.

Not a trace in German databases, only volume 4 and pages.

- Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper, Einstein, Albert, 1905 - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 17, 891–921,
- Ist die Traegheit eines Koerpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhaengig?, Einstein, Albert, 1905 - Annalen der Physik (ser. 4), 18, 639–641,

Ser 4 is Volume 4. The numbers [17, 891–921] and [18, 639–641] seems to be different issues (17 and 18)
but the page numbering doesn't make sense, unless that every three months ONE THOUSAND pages were published.

At any case, history has already been re-written, original docs and scratchpads from that epoch were burned,
criticisms from top-notch figures of that epoch buried, in particular those from France.

I don't see why the same thing happened with the SR paper and true criticism at that time.

I only need to find out how Annalen was published (issues, frequency).

But the ghost of Poincaré as a source is all over the 1905 publications by Einstein.