Gravitation is not geometrical
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Do you want to chat with troll Dono about relativity?, try this
Next: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 09:36 Sam Wormley wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:26:00 +0000: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:19:55 +0000: >> >>> General Relativity is a theory invented by Albert Einstein >> >> General Relativity is the result of the work of a number of authors. >> Main authors were Einstein, Grossman, and Hilbert. >> >> Attributing GR to Einstein alone is, of course, historically inacurate. >> >> > Ref: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1997/A/199700660.html > > > From: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft > > Einstein Freed From Charge Of Plagiarism According to the accepted view, > the mathematician David Hilbert completed General Relativity five days > before Albert Einstein in November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied > crucial equations of this theory from Hilbert. > > Members of an international research group at the Max Planck Institute > for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their study, published in > this week's issue of Science, that it was instead Hilbert who > appropriated crucial results from Einstein and then published his paper > under a misleading dateline. > > Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General Relativity on > 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most eminent mathematicians > of the 20th century, published a paper in March 1916 which also contains > the correct field equations of General Relativity. Einstein came to know > Hilbert's contribution in late November, even before he found his final > equations. He immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his > results. The dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, > suggests that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's > contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations from > Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now definitely > be excluded. > > The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs of > Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is after the > submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their detailed > analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain only an immature > version of General Relativity, without the explicit field equations. > These equations must have been inserted only later - after 6 December > and before the published version appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the > authors argue, still deeply ingrained in wrong assumptions about the > physical meaning of his formalism, assumptions which Einstein had > meanwhile painfully overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed > from the charge of plagiarism. > > Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be considered as > an independent alternative discovery of the field equations of General > Relativity. Clearly, before he published the final version of his > article, he must have seen Einstein's conclusive paper. If Hilbert had > only altered the dateline of this paper to the date when he inserted the > correct equations into the proofs no later priority discussion could > have arisen. > > Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially > important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key issue in > the history of science. Historians of science are often less interested > in who made an important new discovery but rather in how new insights > become possible. In the case of Einstein's and Hilbert's struggle for > establishing the field equations of a new, relativistic theory of > gravitation the situation is, however, different since the approaches > taken by the two scientists were dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein > combined mathematical strategies with a search for physical meaning, > Hilbert very much relied on the power of his superior mathematical > formalism. Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed > much about the how. > > Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by step, > tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to formulate a > relativistic theory of gravitation with the then available physical > knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only begun to work on General > Relativity in the second half of 1915. He boldly aimed from the > beginning at an axiomatic foundation of physics and at a kind of world > formula, unifying gravitation with electromagnetism. This approach > caused the wrong impression that the field equations of General > Relativity could be found by pure mathematical reasoning. > > The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of an > international research project dedicated to the history of General > Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck Institute for the > History of Science in Berlin and has produced in the last years several > new insights into the development of this theory. This refers to an polemic article by Corry, Renn, and Stachel published in Science which posteriorly discredited by many historians of science as unfounded. Moreover Corry, Renn, and Stachel did not explained why they did not noticed the cut-off. They lacked any argument and in the good relativist style they substituted arguments by ad hominem attacks agsint their critics. The Max Planck Institute of Berlin banned /ad hominem/ publications by Corry, Renn, and Stachel from the Institute website and published a note saying that the society "distances itself from statements published on this website by Prof. Jürgen Renn and two co-authors, Prof. Leo Corry and Prof. John Stachel, concerning Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg". http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 09:44 Sam Wormley wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:37:11 +0000: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:19:55 +0000: >> >>> General Relativity is a theory invented by Albert Einstein >> >> General Relativity is the result of the work of a number of authors. >> Main authors were Einstein, Grossman, and Hilbert. >> >> Attributing GR to Einstein alone is, of course, historically inacurate. >> >> > Einstein and Hilbert: The Creation of General Relativity > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504179 Already known. From http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/history.html (\blockquote Moreover, Ivan T. Todorov has remarked in his 2005 work Einstein and Hilbert: the creation of general relativity that Einstein proposed without derivation –emphasis on the original– the correct field equations in his paper of 25 November 1915. Todorov also adds about Einstein, He chooses not to mention Hilbert's name in the published paper. ) Moreover, Todorov also stated that the work published in 1997 in Science by Corry, Renn, and Stachel you cited in a previous message is unfounded Read page 12 where says "the unfounded accusations in (CSR 97)" :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 11:15 Sam Wormley wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:44:19 +0000: > I did say that "there has never been a prediction of relativity > that's been contradicted by an observation". If I am wrong, you > would provide us with just one observation that contradicts a > prediction. But you can't. it's that simple. If you are right, you would provide us with just one reference that explain the observations in the OP. But you can't. It's that simple. :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/
From: Dono on 29 Nov 2008 11:37 On Nov 29, 8:32 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > I am very interested in the physics. That is why I post in > physics.research and physics.foundations. If you were interested, you's be trying to publish, old fart. But you can't.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Nov 2008 11:55
Dono wrote on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:37:53 -0800: > On Nov 29, 8:32 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> I am very interested in the physics. That is why I post in >> physics.research and physics.foundations. > > If you were interested, you's be trying to publish, old fart. But you > can't. If you were interested, you's be trying to give us a PROOF of your claim H = L when V = 0, old fart. But you can't :-) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ |