Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive 3

message: There is a copy of Ives's paper in a Book called "The Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" (a complete collection of Ive's relativity papers. Licorne said somewhere this book is in every University Library, if that is any help. There is something odd about Ives's criticism. Ives claims that Einstein assumption that the energy = rest energy + kinetic energy (the assumption Planck questioend and de Kludde discusses above) "builds in the relation E = mc^2". If this were so one would think that Einstein would then derive E = mc^2 exactly. However Einstein does not derive it exactly, he has to approximate the term \left(1 - v^2/c^2\right)^{-1/2} -1 as \approx \frac{1}{2}v^2/c^2, so I am not entirely satisfied with Ives's criticism (why doesn't the results "fall out" exactly if it were "built in". On another point, I don't think anyone has claimed that Planck's rederivation was not correct and in fact better than Einstein's. But Planck never claimed to have priority in suggesting the mass-energy equivalence. E4mmacro 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been later papers (i think one in the AJP) that showed (IMO, so let's say they claimed) that Ives was mistaken on that point. I have in mind to write myself (one day!) a paper that shows that he was not entirly mistaken, that indeed there was something wrong with that paper of Einstein; but that nevertheless we may say that Einstein derived E=mc2 there. The truth is often subtle! Harald88 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ives's paper

message: Bjerknes
* on P. 19 of "Incorrigible Plagiarist", mistranslates Thirring
:Die Klärung des Zeitproblemes war schon mehrere Jahre vor dem Erscheinen von Einsteins grundlegender Arbeit (1905) durch H. Poincaré weitgehend vorbereitet worden.
:The solution of the problem of time had already been mostly prepared by Poincaré, several years before Einsteins ground-breaking paper appeared.
as
:H. Poincaré had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearence of Einstein's first work (1905).
* He does the same thing on p. 85 of his second book.
* The discussion in chapter 2.4 of his second book is not convincing. He misquotes Einstein's November 11 field equations as
:R^k_i=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T^k_i
whereas Einstein simply called his coupling constant κ and never considered the Newtonian limit or otherwise explained the relation between his coupling constant and Newton's.
* His way of presenting things is unreasonable: Not mentioning Poincaré, Lorentz or Hilbert while (possibly) knowing about their work is plagiarism. Not mentioning Gerber in the Mercury paper is imo inappropriate (as is not mentioning Poincaré in that paper), but not plagiarism. Other things pointed out by Bjerknes of course are not plagiarism at all, for instance would have been unreasonable for Einstein to quote all the authors mentioned on pages 231-233 of his first book. --De kludde 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: De kludde: Congratulations! you are one of those rare editors who is sufficiently unbiased to not defend a camp but instead read (and comment on) everything critically. Because of your obvious expertise and NPOV, I look forward to see more of your contributions to Wikipedia. Harald88 17:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The case against Bjerknes