Talk:Henri Poincaré/Archive 2

message: [The following the first paragraph content was shortened because its IPA characters were unreadable in some browsers:]
:Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: ; AmE:  ; Fr: )
Harald88 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreadable IPA characters

message: I now followed the trend of this article (who started it?) to make the parts of citations bold for a specific argument; but citing is itself already an emphasis, and such bold face is not what I expect to see in any encyclopedia. In particular, it looks inappropriate to me in view of WP:NPOV : Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.
Anyone with other ideas? Is there perhaps already a guideline about it? Harald88 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bold face in long quotations? 

message: The article now reads:
He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic. He believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.
I don't see a source mentioned but apparently it's supposed to be by Darboux; I find it rather strange. Who of you provided it? Please provide a precise reference. Harald88 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  he "disliked logic"? 

message: Following is the summary of that debate:
Some physicists (Lorentz and Pauli), science historians (Janssen and Sir Edmund Whittaker), and text books make some of the following claims:
* Poincaré corrected Lorentz' Transformations (LT) into their classic modern form by imposing the Principle of Relativity and the Speed of Light requirement, making them attain perfect invariance of Maxwell's equations. Lorentz, however, had missed Lorentz Velocity Transformations.
* Poincaré understood time dilation before Lorentz in the sense that the t in the LT represents physical clock time.
* With Poincaré's LT correction, he derived the correct equations of Relativity before Einstein.
* Poincaré developed a mature theory of special relativity before Einstein.
* Poincaré's 1902 paper mentioned the velocity addition rule (transformations) before Einstein's 1905 paper.
* Einstein plagiarized or relied heavily on Poincaré's discussions of relative space and time but failed to credit Poincaré.
* Poincaré anticipated Albert Einstein's work with a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity.
* Poincaré published the main features of special relativity before Einstein.
* Poincaré introduced the 4-space notation that Hermann Minkowski became known for.
* Poincaré's E = mc^2 is the same as Einstein's.
Others take a stance closer to the mainstream:
* Larmor first predicted time dilation and Poincare was surprised by Lorentz's acknowledgement of it. 
* Poincaré's algebraically equivalent (after Galilean transformation) version of Lorentz' Transformations emphasized symmetry that Lorentz missed, but even Poincaré credited the transformation to Lorentz and said he merely drew consequence from them.
* Poincaré's correction of Lorentz was not in the transformation itself but in an early application of it. Specifically, Poincaré corrected the electric charge density in a moving system by using the relativistic velocity addition law that Lorentz failed to appreciate.
* Einstein published the velocity sum equations first since a letter to Lorentz does not count as publication.
* Poincaré did not "anticipate" Einstein's work since their postulates were different and Poincaré's piece on the relativity of simultaneity is only a preliminary version of the principle of relativity, which is only part of the overall theory of special relativity. 
* Poincaré's m_r = E/c^2, showing equivalent mass of radiation, was not the same as Einstein's E = mc^2, showing that inertia depends on energy content.
* Most believe that Einstein's derivation is essential for the full formulation of the Theory of Special Relativity, so it is unencyclopedic to state that Poincaré was the first to correctly formulate and publish the theory.
* Poincaré did not anticipate Einstein (or Planck) because he did not believe that radition had mass and never showed the general interchangeability of radiation energy with other forms of enery.
* Per WP:NPOV, this article should present the mainstream opinion first and the minority opinion second.
Since Wikipedia is not the place to debate such points, a suggestion for NPOV is to avoid making claims or allegations.
References about this debate:
*Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Ch.14)
*arxiv.org
*physicsweb.org
*scienceworld.wolfram.com
*web.archive.org
*www-cosmosaf.iap.fr
*www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk and www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk
*text of Poincaré's 6 lectures
*www.mathpages.com
*www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de
* From www.soso.ch: www.soso.ch and www.soso.ch and www.soso.ch and "Sur la dynamique de l'electron"
*www.xtxinc.com
The Rod 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute summary

message: There is still a lack of references: for example I would very much like to read "Langevin 1914". 69, if it was you who cited it, please add the necessary info to references - Thanks in advance! Harald88 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Getting the direction of the advance of Mercury's perihelion advance is not such a big deal, is it? In Science and Method 1908 Poincare describes Lorentz's relativistic theory of gravity, for which "the principle of relativity will not be violated". (the "one of which I shall speak is that of Lorentz" but it is just possible that is is Poincare's own construction). The theory includes the radiation of energy by the orbiting body (gravity waves I guess you might call that, though he says "acceleration waves" - it is an electromagnetic-style theory of gravity, and I think the radiation is the same as the Larmor radiation of an accelerated electron).  He says Lorentz's theory predicts 7" advance (compared to 38" experiment). He also says Tisserand assumed Weber's law of electrodynamics applied to gravity and predicted 14". I think others managed to predict an advance, but not the correct one. Is Langevin perhaps decsribing Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory? E4mmacro 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently anyone else but 69 are madmen... I think quite the contrary, but usually I would abstain from articulting such personal opinions on talk pages. And sorry, currently I'm occupied with other subjects. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity theories

message: I still think the gravity section is a bit of a dead-end as far as Poincare is concerned. But can someone else read "The new mechanics and Astronomy" from "Science and Method", Parts I and II and IV (omitting the "clearly wrong theories" in section III), about 7 pages. Is Poincare there describing only one theory of gravity due to Lorentz? or is he perhaps building a new theory himself by modifying Lorentz? Thanks. E4mmacro 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey 69, I already asked you to send me a copy of Langevin 1914. my email: harrylin at gmx dot net. Thanks in advance!
I have it in the original crumbling 1914 book, too fragile to email it. ha ha. 69.22.98.162 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I know the problem, I have that with Ives' articles: I have them all but only on paper. Then please now finally give the reference on the article page: that helps me to get it, and also it's necessary to have any comments about it verifiable. Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What papers did Langevin quote showing that Poincare had many theories of gravity (which I do not doubt; theories of gravities at the time were a big issue.)? Did Langevin quote the exact equation of Poincare's that he admired? E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was parphrasing a particular book (see above request for someone else to read it) I was not talking of these other papers that Langevin may know of, but I don't know of. I gave the exact reference of what I was paraphrasing in the page, but my paraphrase has been changed by 69.22.98.162. That's ok, but I am asking if anyone else has read the few pages I was paraphrasing. I agree it is not 100% clear whose theory Poincare is talking about - I think it is about 90% clear that he is talking of Lorentz only. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not fluent in French. I was paraphrasing an English edition of the book, under the assumption that the translator was fluent in French. If someone else can read the original and answer my question above I am more than happy to hear from them. E4mmacro 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New mechanics and astronomy

message: The only references that has been suggested for Poincare's theory of gravity are
#H. Poincare, La mecanique nouvelle, Congres de Lille 1909, published in a book collection of same title, Gauthier-Villares, paris 1924. Enrico Giannetto, in a conference paper "The rise of Special Relativity: Henri Poincare's works before Einstein" (google will find it), says a new versuion of this conference paper was reprinted as Chapters X, XI and XII in "Science et Method" 1908 which doesn't make a lot of sense; the conference paper in 1909 may have been a new version of the 1908 book chapters.
#H. Poincare Die neue Mechanik, conference paper, Wissenschaften Vereins zu Berlin, 13 Oct 1910.
"The new mechanics" is of course, the term Poincare always uses to refer to Lorentz's theory, or what we now call Special Relativity (see the quotes already on the page, or any number of mentions throughout Poincare's work). 
Anon69, who has the original of the Langevin memoire has not specifically told us what papers Langevin is referring to in that memoire, when he speaks of Poincare's gravity theory, but has suggested I read "Science et Method" since it is "all there". I have read an english translation of Science et Method, which contains a preface by Poincare in which Poincare says "I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Halsted, who has been so good as to present my book to American readers in a translation, clear and faithful". In that book, we find
: Gravitation ... “upon this subject we can only make hypotheses, but we are naturally led to investigate which of these hypotheses would be compatible with the principle of relativity. There are a great number of them; the only one of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz, which I shall briefly expound”. This is followed by 1 1/4 pages explaining Lorentz's electromagnetic theory of gravity. Then 
:“Such is the hypothesis of Lorentz , which reduces to Franklin’s hypothesis for slight velocities; it will therefore explain, for these small velocities, Newton’s law. Moreover, as gravitation goes back to forces of electrodynamic origin, the general theory of Lorentz [here he means the Lorentz transformations] will apply, and consequently the principle of relativity will not be violated.”
Since Lorentz's theory is an electromagnetic one, an orbiting body will emit a very small amount of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves (Poincare calls it the "wave of acceleration" - the radiation from an accelerated electric charge). I wonder though if this radiation is what many have seized upon as Poincare's gravity waves? If so, they are Lorentz's gravity waves.
E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what evidence did Keswani quote? E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So I guess Langevin was not talking about Science and Method afterall. But that doesn't tell us what he was talking about. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is true that Langevin does not mention Lorentz then he is not talking about "Science and Method", unless Langevion does not beieve Poincare when he wrote, in "Science and Method",
"the only [theory] of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz". I would not credit Langevin of overlooking that statement, so I assume Langevin must have been talking of something else. E4mmacro 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I take it then my English translation is a faithful rendition. Now I know the sentence where you think Poincare is talking about his own theory. You assume Poincare meant his own solutions (which he doesn't bother to describe). Even so, I assume Poincare presents the best solution he knows of, in this case Lorentz. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Even Langevin can make a mistake. If Langevin gives no reference for the many solutions Poincare found, then his testimony is hearsay. We have no evidence from this what the solutions are. Langevin may have thought Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory was a description of Poincare's own theory. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume il a trouve plusieurs solutions is what Halsted translates as "there are a great many of them" which is immediately followed by "The only one of which I will speak is " Lorentz's. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice this "overlooking of Lorentz" happens a lot with Poincare fans. A good example is the St Louis 1904 lecture, which so often gets praised (rightly). But notice in Poincare's letter to Lorentz May 1905, Poincare says "I spoke of your 1904 paper in St Louis" or words to that effect. As usual Poincare is describing Lorentz; if French authors get confused or ignore Lorentz's work, that might be understandable. But shoudn't Poincare's own statements about what he did, count more that Langevin's second-hand statements? E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, but what is the covariant solution? Again, you say "No doubt" when "probably" or "possibly" might be more appropriate. If Langevin does not say to what he is referring, then we have to guess, or deduce. We do not know beyond doubt. And thanks for confirming that it got the direction (but not the magnitude?) correct. Does he give the magnitude? If the magnitude conincides with that given by Lorentz's theory described in "Science and Method", that would be interesting. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The standard process when one obtains revolutionary results, important results, or even modestly interesting results, is to publish the finding in a peer reviewed journal. Public lectures don't cut it. Are the lectures you cite available on the Internet? If so, please provide the links, and if you are feeling generous, the specific sections that allegedly support your claims. green 65.88.65.217 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've concluded that it's not a productive use of my time. Presumably you have read them, yet show no willingness whatsoever to seriously preview the alleged revolutionary findings. And you use the usual repertoire of evasive tactics to avoid discussing the issue substantively. As a result, from my pov your claims have zero credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So why didn't Lorentz publish his solution? Has history also conspired against Lorentz? This gets more and more implausible. green 65.88.65.217 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Recorded, but the results were not published and presumably not available on the Internet. And those that know the contents are what -- sworn to secrecy? LOL. green 65.88.65.217 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And when I order them, they are likely to be in French. If they're so important, I wonder why they are unavailable online. Anyway, as I said, given your extreme reluctance to discuss the substantive content, I can only conclude that you have misinterpreted what you have read. green 65.88.65.217 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What was Poincare's theory of gravity?

message: "the first to present Lorentz's (1904) newly discovered transformations in their modern symmetrical form."
I think that "newly discovered" is both unsupported and irrelevant for this article. What was the purpose of not simply stating : "the first to present Lorentz's transformations in their modern symmetrical form." ? Harald88 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Isn't it important to know when the Lorentz transformations were discovered? Just to make it clear that Poincare and Einstein did not discover them? E4mmacro 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but the comment I removed concerning Hilbert's priority in deriving field equations is clearly out of place in this article since without any published papers by Poincare wrt his gravitational results, the assumption that he in some way anticipated GR is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. Btw, I also happen to be pretty sober when it comes to making historical judgements. green 65.88.65.217 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Minkowski in 1907/6 or Langevin in 1914 could credit Poincare with discovering General Relativity. They didn't know what GR was, since it hadn't been published then. If they claim that Poincare had the correct theory of gravity that is useless as a source to prove that Poincare's theory is superior to GR. We need to have the theories to compare them and decide which is better, which Minkowski and Langevin did not have before 1915.  It could be that Poincare wrote the exact equation - but I doubt it. If he did someone should be able to supply a source we can all check, or even quote exactly from that source. E4mmacro 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but 69 is claiming that Poincare's theory was the conceptual forerunner to GR. It would be perhaps, if there were any evidence whatsoever that Poincare was thinking in terms of, say, Lorentzian manifolds. This is what 69 can determine from his source material. My guess is in the negative. I think he is making invalid inferences based on superficial linguistic similarities in concepts -- like gravity transmission at lightspeed. green 65.88.65.217 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly discovered transformations?

message: To summarise the questions that I don't think we have the answers too. The answers to these questions might help us understand your point of view and the way you want the article to read. Sorry if you have answered some already, but it would help to have the answers in one place.
# What is the title of Langevin's 1914 memoir on Poincare?
# How many pages is Langevin's memoir of 1914?
# How many papers of Poincare's does it cite?
# How many references, Poincare plus others, are there in Langevin 1914?
# Does Langevin 1914 give the numerical amount of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, according to Poincare's theories?
# What is the numerical value of the precession as calculated by Poincare's theories?
# In what paper or papers does Poincare speak of gravity waves?
# What is an exact quote of a complete sentence or two where Poincare speaks of gravity waves?
# What paper of Poincare's does Keswani cite or quote when he says Poincare spoke of gravity waves?
# What is an exact quote from Keswani (a sentence or two) where he says Poincare spoke of gravity waves?
Thanks for you trouble. E4mmacro 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same-old same-old -- handwaving BS from second hand sources. If not, then please state the postulates of Poincare's gravity theory and his field equations. Where are his field equations published? Anywhere? This is the necessary information to determine if he was on the right path and indeed a forerunner to GR. It's mindlessly shallow to keep repeating the refrain "gravity waves" as if that is definitively informative. Registering is not a big deal and I'll do it if only to put the tags on your propaganda. green 65.88.65.217 23:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for 69

message: I put POV tags on the two sections in dispute. Since E4 and myself dispute the accuracy and inferences of these sections, this will be a test of 69's integrity. They should not be removed unless and until we (and others who might be interested) agree as to the facts.
green 65.88.65.217 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A different link to the first letter (link 4). E4mmacro 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A different link to the second letter (link 5). E4mmacro 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've stated it numerous times, indeed ad nauseum'. You have no primary source for the claim that Poincare's theory of gravity anticipates GR in any substantive way. Afaict, Poincare never published peer-reviewed papers on the subject. You've been asked repeatedly to quote from Poincare -- e.g.. from his lectures that you claim are in your possession -- as to his postulates about gravity, field equations, etc. Can you not read and understand plain English? Minkowski in 1908 (or whatever) could not anticipate the final form of GR, so what he says in 1908 about Poincare's partially formed theory in comparison to the final form of GR, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am beginning to get the impression that your copies of P's lectures are in French, which you cannot translate. Otherwise, you have availed yourself of the opportunity to prove your case. I will re-instate the POV flags until we get something resembling a satisfactory answer to these issues. READ MY LIPS. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE -- POINCARE! green 65.88.65.217 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have to disprove Keswani. You have to prove POINCARE! You are making the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. I demand primary source material, not secondary sources, and not simply a word or phrase that has ambiguous content, such as "gravity waves". If you understood what historical scholarship is about, I wouldn't have to explain this ad-nauseum. If I could see information from the one and only primary source, I would interpret the situation in a different light. But your defacto refusal to provide any primary source material -- from POINCARE!!! -- reaffirms and increases my skepticism of your position. green 65.88.65.217 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tags

message: Mr. Green has red tagged without any SOURCES, --He is putting his personal view without ANY SOURCES - It is a violation of Wikipedia rules. 69.22.98.146 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPROPER RED TAG A VIOLATION OF RULES

message: I've semi-protected the page to stop all this nonsense. Please be aware that I will not hesitate to fully protect this article if you come here with different accounts, and I will not hesitate to block both of you for violating the three-revert rule if you continue to war over this article. I've set up a section below, called "65.88.65.217's concerns", where User:65.88.65.217 can note his/her concerns. User:69.22.98.146, please don't edit that section. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Thank you. I have stated my position and concerns on the Talkpage sections immediately above, and offered to have E4 adjudicate the issue; that is, have final say. I trust his judgement. I have nothing further to add. green 65.88.65.217 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 65.88.65.217's concerns

message: Green ADMITS he does not know what he is talking about, but he red tags anyhow, and without citing any SOURCES, a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.  His red tag should therefore be removed immediately and he should be banned from Wikipedia. 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPROPER USE OF RED TAGS

message: To E4:   Please insert  the following sentence  into  the  Poincare  article  immediately  following the  sentence  containing the  quote of  Keswani:  
Also V. Fock (1958,1963) stated categorically that even the principle of covariance  does not make it in any way a theory of general relativity.
V. Fock is the famous Russian expert on GR, the two sources are one of his books and a scientific paper.   I  shall email  them to E4.
E4, YOU MAY NOW REMOVE THE RED TAG.
note that  out  of  habit  people including  myself  refer to it as  general relativity, which it is not.  It was another of Einstein's greatest blunders to give it that misnomer.  Note that Hilbert in his original work called it his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity.  - There is yet another source. Hilbert used to say my Theory of Gravity, which Einstein calls general relativity. 66.194.104.5 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jod's counter-arguments look pretty good to me so far. I hope we get more input. Harald88 may have somnething to say, as may Cleonis. It is inappropriate to have a single sentence stating that controversial claim, even with two published authors who claim it. It would be much better to start a new page "The one and only theory of relativity", where you can summarise Keswani's arguments. E4mmacro 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice the references to Poincare's talks at Lillie and Goettingen are not in the references list. You probably gave them somewhere in the talk page. Would you mind gathering them together here? E4mmacro 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if GR is not a theory of relativity (whatever you mean by that), I still think that is irrelevant to the Poincare page: it does not make SR any more or less important, or GR any less or more important and GR is not Poincare's theory. The page shows Poincare did a lot on special relativity, but wasn't so successful on gravity - what more do we need? The only purpose of the last section, that I can see, is to denigrate Einstein. E4mmacro 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What is exactly is trying to be proved in the last two sentences? It sounds like an argument over a name, as though Poincare has copyright on the word "Relativity". Are you trying to say Special Relativity is a better theory than General Relativity? I cannot see how what we call general relativity makes the slightest difference to special relativity. According to you we have two independent theories, one mis-named. The supposed mis-named one has nothing to do with Poincare. Argue it on the GR page. It just looks silly here. E4mmacro 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's suppose GR is "merely" a theory of gravity. It clearly incorporates special relativity and qualifues for what Poincare was supposed to be looking for - a new theory of gravity, incorporating velocity time dilations, length contractions, variation of mass all from the special theory, no effects travelling faster than the speed of light PLUS a bunch of other effects. It would be perfectly normal to call it a relativistic theory of gravity. It is clearly more than special relativity. Please stop quibbling about a name. E4mmacro 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends on what "relativity" means. For many, covariance = relativity. Opinions may differ. I can live with that; you cannot. green 65.88.65.217 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, not too long ago you posted that GR is covariant and satisfies the PoR. Now you deny the latter. Maybe you should make up you mind -- or produce a DEFINITION of the PoR that is consistent with your views. You claim superb credentials (frankly I could care less), but you fail to define your terms and then complain that your views are under-valued. You must learn to write with precision if you wish to be understood. green 65.88.65.217 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To 66/69: Frankly I am sick and tired of your persistent condescension. Go back to finishing school or whatever it takes to learn decent manners. The issue of what GR is or isn't, is interesting, but should be fleshed out on the GR talkpage, and whatever consensus is reached, if any, should be incorporated in the GR article. Also, let me be very clear; the next time you delete any POV flag I insert, you will be immediately reported to the administrators. I shall establish an account so I can communicate with them if need be. green 65.88.65.217 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Against my better judgment I will respond. If you look back in this file, and not too far, you will see that it was you who wanted Wiki to ban me permanently. My response was not so extreme. However, if Wiki administrators decided to restrict your posting for TWO days because you twice violated the three-revert rule, you should respect the rules. As an aside, the fact that your memory is so poor and that you distort what is going on here, make me seriously question your alleged credentials.  green 65.88.65.217 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't forget me! He wanted me banned as well. E4mmacro 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey you're the one who wants to censor. 69.22.98.146 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V. Fock  is  Definitive,  GR is a Misnomer

message: To my knowledge, Poincaré's explorations of how to obtain a theory of gravity that is compliant with the Lorentz transformation has not yielded results that were fruitful to him or to others.
The theory that is referred to as General Relativity (Einstein 1915) eclipsed the special theory of relativity. General relativity did to special relativity what special relativity did to newtonian dynamics.
Newtonian dynamics has two aspects: there is a theory of gravitation in the form of newton's law of gravity, and there is a theory of inertia in the form of Newton's three laws of motion.
Special relativity is a theory of motion. Special relativity adopted Newton's three laws. Especially, Newtons third law, which states the law of conservation of momentum, was adopted in unaltered form.
General relativity is a package deal: it is in one go a theory of motion and a theory of gravitation. (More technically: the description of gravitation and the description of inertia are unified in general relativity into a description of a single entity. 
The general theory of relativity shows that it is inherently impossible to formulate a theory of gravitation within the confines of special relativity. A new theory of motion is needed, and GR provides that. For a history of the quest for a Lorentz invariant theory of gravitation and what problems are encountered read  this paper by John Norton, who is one of the world's leading experts on  the history of relativistic physics.
It is wrong to state that general relativity extends the same kind of relativity of special relativity to any kind of motion. General relativity does provide an extension, but exactly what is rather a matter of interpretation. The only relativity that GR needs in order to be self-consistent is that the Lorentz transformations hold good locally. --Cleonis | Talk 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very Good Cleonis, you are correct:  GR does not extend the principle of relativity to any kind of motion, namely, not to accelerating observers, which is precisely why it is NOT  a general theory of relativity, and is ONLY  a theory of gravity.  Read Stephan Hawking he says it too. -- All this is extemely important to the legacy of Poincare.  66.194.104.5 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is this a legacy of Poincare? Tell us, Oh wise one. Why a legacy specifically OF Poincare? green 65.88.65.217 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To Anon66/69: The paper my Norton to which Cleonis gives a link is very important. Well worth your reading it. E4mmacro 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poincarés consideration of gravity

message: Deleted from Poincare page E4mmacro 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Macrossan:  Aren't you embarrassed -  you  pretend  to be  an intellectual  but  can produce no counter-arguments  - you  are  like  the MEDIEVAL WITCH BURNERS OF THE INQUISITION, now aren't you !  66.194.104.5 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You lack basic maturity. Poincare's theory of gravity didn't make it. What GR is, belongs in the GR article. green 65.88.65.217 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Green the intellectual giant, read it again:  it is two sentences, both about POINCARE. 66.194.104.5 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Au Contraire ! -- There is no controversy, I  have three world experts in agreement. - So it Stays ! 66.194.104.5 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is about POINCARE ! 66.194.104.5 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is NOT about what is GTR.  -  Hawking is clear enough about that. - That subject is then resolved, So now we must face how it directly affects POINCARE. 66.194.104.5 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't you give a reason for your belief ?  Try.   66.194.104.5 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No POV, it is rock solid published SOURCES. 66.194.104.5 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 66.194.104.5, please indent your posts to show that your reply relates to other people's posts. The Rod 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Trivial ?  Generation X-ers are what's trivial. 69.22.98.146 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section should be deleted (poll)

message: Retain: 1; Delete/Move: 5; E4mmacro 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia's policy on sock puppet voting, it is important that 17.255.240.78, 66.194.104.5, and 69.22.98.146 declare whether they are different people or just one person with different IP addresses. Failure to make that declaration now may result in the IP addresses being permanently blocked. The Rod 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea who 17 is.  Stop making false accusations. 69.22.98.146 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to discuss whether I made an accusation on your talk page when you register an account. The Rod 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If they have a deep and sincere interest in trivia E4mmacro 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state of poll: 2/6

message: In order to have a place to put all the references to the sources the Einstein-basher (I think there's only one) uses, I've created a page called Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories.
So far, he's declined to contribute. --Alvestrand 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it." (The Wikipedia edit page). E4mmacro 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by that Macrossan, that you think you can just CENSOR anyone's writing ?  - NO CENSORSHIP !  -- KESWANI'S QUOTE  STAYS !  --69.22.98.146 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A place to put the priority wars

message: Dr.Keswani's quote is just one line, which says it all for Poincare's legacy and place in history. -- DO NOT CENSOR IT.-- 69.22.98.146 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Not Censor Dr. Keswani

message: I haven't been keeping up with this, but I have a copy of the Keswani article if anyone is interested in it as a PDF. The question in my mind, though, is less what Keswani said but the status of it in the historical community, especially from something which was written in the 1960s (most history of science has changed rather substantially since then). 
It is interesting, as an aside, that none other Karl Popper thought that Keswani's article was wrong, on the basis that Keswani had misinterpretted what the fundamental aspects of relativity were. (Karl R. Popper, "A Note on the Difference Between the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction and the Einstein Contraction", Br. J. Phil. Sci. 16:64 (Feb 1966): 332-333).
Now I of course am not advocating that we go with Sir Popper's view or anything like that. I haven't looked over the issue in enough detail to get a good sense of what the going consensus is in the current historiography. I bring up the Popper merely to illustrate a point: there is enough back and forth in these things that a simple citation of who-said-what is not adequate. Whatever the case will be it will inevitably have to be a weighing of majority and minority. "A few historians and physicists, notably X, Y, and Z, say (etc.), though most historians current say (etc.)". 
A key part of the various Einstein priority disputes, like all priority disputes, is that the identity of the object in dispute is at the center of the dispute. To ask "Who discovered relativity?" one must ask "What is relativity?" and from there one descends in a lot of petty back and forth, trying to figure out what exactly was the "fundamental" essence of something. Most historians don't bother with this sort of squabbling, so it is hard to come up with clear-cut statements about it. (Physicists, oddly, like this sort of squabbling very much, it seems. Many physicists are, however, very poor historians.)
In the spirit of fairness, I should also note that I don't really trust anything that our anonymous, anti-Einstein friend posts. He's obviously a petty POV-pusher with nothing better to do, and the fact that he happily cites completely fringe websites and researchers as legitimate speaks legions to his integrity, understanding of our NPOV policy, and his historical sense. This post is addressed to the others here who are just anxious to get this sorted out.
:: Thanks, I like to have a copy, please send it to me (go to my home page and click on send email). About your remarks, I think that most of us agree about this, and if you read the archive then you'll see that we already had a way to avoid the problem, in line with Wikipedia practice:  in this article about Poincare we no more than mention the dispute which indeed is partly a matter of taste; instead we concentrated on establishing what Poincare achieved, using first'-hand information from himself and from those who knew him. Thus the problem is solved as long as we can shield the article from POV pushers (anti- as well as pro- Poincare). Harald88 12:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been sorted out. Overwhelmingly, the anonomous pov has been rejected, including by the administrator, aka "The Rod", who referred to it as "obvious POV pushing". This rejection has been misrepresented as "censorship", usually in capital letters, even though the content of the consensus is to move the discussion and conclusions (if any) to the SR and GR articles. It is also clear that engaging him in discussion is a complete waste of time and energy. He is habitually abusive and imo shows evidence of psychopathology. green 64.136.26.226 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: First, Popper is not even a physicist, he was PhD in Philosophy.  Second, you ask what is relativity ?  -- The definition of the discovery of relativity is of course Einstein's Sept 1905 paper, which had the identical contents of Poincare's June 1905 paper, and with no new interpretations.  -- Therefore by the common definition of the discovery, it belongs without contest to Poincare.  69.22.98.146 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Keswani a physicist or a Philospher of Science? Keswani published in the Brit Journal for the Philosophy of Science so in that paper he was acting as a Philospher or Historian. Popper is well qualified to criticise the paper. You asked for a source saying Keswani is wrong (I believe you SHOUTED for one) and there you have one. Another confusing state of affairs - two published sources contradicting each other. A situation that calls for judgment. E4mmacro 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't, but I can easily get the paper through my institutional accounts. Send me an e-mail (fastfission@gmail.com) and I'll be happy to pass along all of the Keswani papers to you (or anyone else who asks). --Fastfission 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (Though I should say, now that I have searched for it: E4mmacro would know better about this than I and I defer entirely to him on this issue -- I just discovered that he had his own criticism of Keswani's 1983 paper published in the same journal! Very impressive; I knew that you knew your stuff but I didn't realize you had published on it.) --Fastfission 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keswani

message: Alright Michael and Green, agree now not to censor Keswani and Fock, and let's lift the block, because I want to make some little changes in the article which I have already emailed to Michael. 69.22.98.146 23:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lift the block

message: In an email, 66/69 has asked me where is the soruce to back my statement that the second meaning of m = E/c^2 (a body losses mass of amount E/c^2 when it loses energy of amount E) solves the three problems of mass-conservatiuon, momentum-conservation and energy conservation that Poincare discussed in 1904 and could not resolve. He has also asked where Einstein ever said a body losses mass of amount E/c^2 when it loses energy of amount E. The answers are
#I explained all this in a long paragraoh above, probably now in the archives. I have no specific source (but endless textbooks) for the trivial statement that, for example, the answer to Madam Curie's radium experiments is: radium was producing energy of amount mc^2, by losing a small amount of mass equal to m. Any textbook of physics can explain this using Einstein's E = mc^2. Poincare in 1904 thought Madame Curie's experiment showed a violation of the conservation of energy. He said Madame Curie's radium appeared to be an endless source of energy and the energy came from nowhere. Read Poinacre 1904, reference in the Poincare page, to find that is exactly what Poincare said (to 66/69: no I have no source that can confirm that is exactly what Poincare said - you will have to read Poincare 1904 to see for yourself): Poincare could not understand it, because he did not know about Einstein's meaning of E = mc^2. 66/69 has warned me that he will delete that statement if no SOURCE can be quoted, so anyone who agrees with me that you do not need a PhD in Physics from UCLA to understand the paragraph, and it does not need a source, be warned. Of course, the wording might be improved.
#Einstein's (1905), last paper of that year says exactly what 66/69 asks for. I can't believe they don't teach at UCLA that Einstein said this.
E4mmacro 09:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)  YES of course that is in Einstein's 1905 tautological paper, BUT I still question whether Einstein really was the first to suppose that, which I doubt in fact, and in any case Einstein's tautology did not prove anything. Licorne 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 2)  You make it sound like Poincare believed in perpetual motion ! -- This is not the first time I have caught you grossly misinterpreting Poincare's writings. Licorne 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 3)  How do you know Poincare couldn't understand it ?  You can't even read French and you put words in his mouth. Licorne 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will therefore delete that ridiculous section. Licorne 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in Poincare (1904) is too long to quote in full here. But it would be worth your while to read it first and tell us what you think Poincare is saying about three violations of conservation laws: 1) mass, because of Kaufmann's experiments 2) momentum, because of the recoil of an energy emitting device 3) energy, because no one knew in 1904 where the energy was coming from in Curie's radium experiments. I say that IF he knew what E = mc^2 meant, in the Einstein sense, he would have mentioned it somewhere in this long section, but he didn't. E4mmacro 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein's E = mc^2 solved Poincare's (1904) problems

message: Seeing as protection has failed to spur much meaningful discussion, I'm considering creating a temporary fork of the protected content where people can work on an alternative wording. I encourage all of the anonymous editors to register an account so that outsiders can easily follow the discussion, and so that everyone has their own user talk page. I would encourage everyone to remember the neutral point of view policy, and the verifiability policy, and that this whole thing could be solved if we can find a wording which works in multiple points of view on this issue. --bainer (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lie. green 64.136.26.226 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Would the quotes you want removed be the quotes from Poincare showing what he was talking about when he mentioned gravity waves. The quotes are so much more informative than Kewswani's one line "Poincare even spoke of gravity waves!" - with an exclamation point. I would have to agree with Green's view below that you Licorne are a 66/69 clone, at least in the sense that you have the same reverence for a second-hand opinion over the original sources. E4mmacro 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E4 where is your mind ? -  I had told you SPECIFICALLY that Poincare wrote of ONDES GRAVIFIQUES in his 1905 paper. -YOU FORGOT THAT ALREADY ?  Why did you write in the article it was Langevin ?  You are so forgetful !  --So  I will be correcting that too in the article. Licorne 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't imagine that there can be any doubt about that. Just look above. One can only say it so many times. 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  E4 only said he doesn't like it because he thinks it makes Einstein look bad, which is not a legitimate reason. He needs give a better reason, which he is has not. Licorne 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Greenie, go back and count again it is 6-6. Licorne 05:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving this dispute

message: Please don't start that again. We have been over it many times. See the archives or see another published paper which shows Lorentz was correct.  . Just to clarify, the preceding link (which was in the original post) is to one published paper which says Lorentz's (1904) transformation x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,z,t) was correct. Ives was mistaken, didn't understand the notation Lorentz used, I guess. The linked paper may be the only paper which says explicitly why equations that look unfamilar are in fact correct. Whittaker (1953) says Lorentz published the correct transformations, although Whittaker didn't explicity quote Lorentz's 1904, 1899 way of writing them. Poincare 1905 also says Lorentz was correct, but he also didn't explicitly explain the different notation Lorentz had used. It is easily checked; the simple algebra is given in the archives of this page or one can read the linked paper which is quite short. E4mmacro 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one. -- I have named one that says Lorentz' equations were wrong. 69.22.98.146 15:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ives in his footnote refered ONLY to the transformation of coordinates, and my discussion above is restricted to that. i.e Lorentz transformation meant to Ives (as to most people): x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,z,t). We know that Lorentz made a mistake in the transformed form of at least one of Maxwell's equations. E4mmacro 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poincare rearranged the LT

message: Because others may be interested I will respond at little further. I had thought that Ives was anti-Einstein but careful, but re-looking at that footnote I am now not so sure. Consider, Ives, H. E. "Revision of the Lorentz Transformations", Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. v95(2), 1951). Ives wrote in that paper, that Poincare (Comptes Rendus, v140, p1504-8, 1905) 
:made certain revisions to Lorentz' equations to make them conform to his principle of relativity. He proposed that these revised equations "a little different from those of Lorentz" be called the "The Lorentz Transformations"3 and it is these equations,  which have figured prominently in theoretical physics, which are so called to this day." 
::There is a footnote:
::: 3Where Lorentz used x_2 = \beta x_1, \beta = \left(1 - v^2/c^2\right)^{-1/2}, t_2 = t_1/\beta - \beta vx_2/c^2, Poincare put x_2 = \beta\left(x_1 - vt_1\right) and t_2 = \beta\left(t_1 - vx_2/c^2\right).
It is clear from the footnote, that Ives means by the Lorentz transformations exactly what I said above, the coordinate transformation. And Ives is saying that Lorentz made a mistake in the coordinate transformation, which Poincare corrected.
Ives made an honest mistake. He did not understand that Lorentz and Poincare used a different notation: Lorentz's x_1 is not Poincare's x_1. Lorentz's x_1, call it x_L is, in Poincare's notation, given by x_L \equiv x_1 - vt_1. Make that substitution and Lorentz's equations are exactly those written by Poincare.
Ives's second mistake could have been influenced by his first mistake. He takes a quote from Poincare (1905) "a little different from those of Lorentz" out of context and says Poincare was talking of the Lorentz transformations. From the quote on the Poincare page you will see that Poincare (1905), when he named the Lorentz transformations, said they were correct (Maxwell's equations were invariant under Lorentz's transformation). In fact Poincare was not speaking of the coordinate transformations when he said "a little different from Lorentz". Poincare had written  equations for the electric charge density and the convection current, (eq.2) and equations for three compoents of force per unit volume on a moving charge (eq.3). It is immediately after eqs 2 and 3, that he says "a little different from those found by Lorentz" and a "little different from those of Lorentz". Poincare here indentifies the mistake Lorentz had made - it was not a mistake in the coordinate transformation, but in the moving charge density, convection current, and electric force equations. I don't think Ives is any more pro-Poincare than pro-Lorentz, but this slip makes me think he has to be checked more closely. E4mmacro 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ives reliability?

message: That so called general relativity is just a theory of gravity, is a commonly stated fact, we have it from Hawking, Fock, and Keswani.  -- So there is NO REASON to exclude it especially when it has direct pertinence to Poincare's work. --It  is EVERYWHERE, in Hawking's books in  every bookstore in the country, and in refereed scientific journals by V.Fock and G.H.Keswani, it is in Fock's authoritive books on GR.  -- There is no reason for CENSORSHIP of a commonly stated pertinent fact !  -- Licorne 14:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keswani, Fock, and Hawking's Remark is a Common Fact

message: To E4: Please contact one of the administrators to terminate this repetitious crap. We've argued this issue ad nauseum and have come to a collective conclusion that the discussion of whether GR is a relativistic theory or not belongs elsewhere -- in the SR or GR articles. That's it! Case closed! green 65.88.65.217 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree Green. E4mmacro 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coward CAN'T answer. Licorne 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LET'S END THIS CRAP! VOTE IS AFFIRMATIVE, 6-2, TO DELETE SECTION IN DISPUTE.

message: I appeal to Senior Editors to rule to allow a common fact found in every bookstore, which has direct pertinence to Poincare, to remain in the article.   Licorne 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Generation Xer punk like you is senior editor , god save Generation Xers from themselves. Licorne 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please give one example.  -- I  quote  always  specific SOURCES. Licorne 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I seem to recall you going on and on about how Kip Thorne said that Hilbert had priority, despite the fact that the very next line of the quote says that priority clearly resided with Einstein. Something you insisted ought to just be ignored. Oh, and maybe the fact that you have suggested that mainstream and highly respected historians of physics (such as Olivier Darrigol) must be afraid of losing their job if they write things that disagree with you. Oh, and maybe your blandering about of Bjerknes' self-published work, which is not at all respected in historical or scientific circles. Just a few examples which come to mind. The biggest red flag is of course your fantatical insistence on injecting vehement anti-Einstein content wherever you can — it's in this aspect in particular that your true colors are well displayed. --Fastfission 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't read English, a typical Generation X failure.  Thorne said Hilbert MUST  get the credit for the Field Equation, and the Field Equation is THE THEORY ITSELF ! --If you could add you would know that. In the next sentence Thorne made excuses for Einstein, because if he didn't, Thorne's  wife Ms.Weinstein would kill him. A young punk like you doesn't understand that, how the world operates. Licorne 04:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take note of this remarkable comment regarding Thorne's purported motivations. It is not only unsourced, it is inconceivable that it can be sourced. Further, it seems to imply a 'Jewish Conspiracy' world view on the part of Licorne. If this is typical of Licorne's (and his IP aliases) regarding quotes in context and approach to interpreting them, it again enforces that nothing from this party can be trusted.--Pallen 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, Licorne, you yourself are now trying to get the Thorne quote removed from the Einstein page, because you don't like the fact that it is being used in its full content rather than being quoted out of context the way you originally tried to use it. Someone who wasn't intellectually dishonest would have indicated from the beginning what Thorne himself meant -- which is quite clear from his book, without making aspersions and guesses about his wife -- rather than implying that it was on Thorne's authority that you claim rested, as you did, without indicating that it was your specific interpretation, one which specifically contradicts the book itself that you were considering to be Thorne's authority. You are intellectually dishonest in the first degree, which is highly ironic given your insistence on "FACTS". It's also highly telling that you can't seem to argue a point without invoking ad hominem methods. This is true both in your interactions with Wikipedia editors (as this page well illustrates), and with scholarly literature (Thorne doesn't publish what you think because his wife "would kill him"; Darrigol is apparently afraid of losing his job, etc. etc.). --Fastfission 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I said Senior Editors, not this fastfission punk. Licorne 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm as "senior" an editor as there is around here; the fact that you have derided everyone who disagrees with you as a "punk" and not worth input is just more evidence to your agenda and your demeanor. Blanking sections from article talk pages which have content that you don't like (such as descriptions of your past behavior and intellectual dishonesty) says a lot also. --Fastfission 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU are senior editor ?  God save Generation Xers from themselves. Licorne 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A "simple question" or a "misleading and loaded question"? Chill out. --Fastfission 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The best part about you is that you dig your own hole so happily and thoughtlessly. If you were more congenial, your POV-pushing would be a lot harder to spot. --Fastfission 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wisdom here is recognizing a psychotic infinite loop syndrone. We'd be relieved of this pathology if the administrators were on the ball. Can you email those that have interacted here to some extent and put an end to this? green 64.136.26.226 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you all  wikipedia can afford to hire ? Licorne 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senior Editors Please Step In

message: If you have been insulted by 66/69/Licorne and have resisted the temptation to respond in kind, it might be worthwhile compling a list of insults of you and posting them on Licorne's talk page (as I have done for me on my talk page). (Even if the list is deleted there will still be a record of it). It takes a little effort, but could be worth it in any complaint procedures. If you have responded in kind, perhaps you should give your replies as well, to be scrupulously fair. E4mmacro 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really no need to copy posts from one talk page to another, since the original posts are already visible in talk page histories. Feel free to discuss these matters on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page with yet more posts not about the proposed content for Henri Poincaré. The Rod 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Green stop insulting people. 66.194.104.5 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Green there you go again insulting people again. 66.194.104.5 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Greenie you're the one who got E4 into this mess. All was well until E4 decided to follow you, against his prior better judgement. 66.194.104.5 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A record of insults

message: All I'm asking is that the quotes of V.Fock and G.H.Keswani not be censored -- that's all -- why is that too much to ask ?  -- They are important for Poincare.  -- Licorne 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution

message: To E4:   It is time now to agree NOT to CENSOR the pertinent words of V.Fock and G.H.Keswani, they are important to Poincare. Licorne 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NO CENSORSHIP  of V.Fock  and G.H.Keswani's Words

message: The Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories page seems to be a better place than here to continue priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I suggest, therefore, moving the discussions to that talk page. Does everyone agree to such a move? If anyone disagrees with such a move, I will open a straw poll with a one week deadline and options similar to the following:
:*Current and subsequent discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories will move from Talk:Henri Poincaré to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. Only a short summary of and a link to that discussion will remain here.
:*Discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories may continue on Talk:Henri Poincaré.
Note, the poll is not open, since a consensus would be preferable. Please do not vote yet, because if we do have to resort to such a poll, I will want some input on the best wording of the options. The Rod 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing to CENSOR the quote of Keswani and Fock ? ? -- And Poincare's gravity work is important for the article -- Langevin praised Poincare's gravity work. Licorne 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean that section doesn't belong ? ? -- it is a fact proved and published by Keswani and it is most flattering of Poincare -  it absolutely belongs in Poincare's article  ! -- Licorne 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Alvestrand you are really lost.  There is no priority dispute here.  The ONLY question here is one of CENSORSHIP of Keswani and Fock. Licorne 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories

message: There is no  priority dispute, that is not the question.  -- The only issue is that of censorship of the pertinent quotes of G.H.Keswani and V.Fock.    --  I do not want their pertinent quotes censored -- that is the only issue at hand.  -- Macrossan had wanted to censor their pertinent quotes -- that is the only dispute. -- If Macrossan and Green agree not to censor those pertinent quotes then all is OK and the Poincare page should be opened back up as  normal.  -- So I suggest you ask  Macrossan and Green if they no longer want to censor these pertinent quotes then we are OK.  -- ask them. -- Licorne 22:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is No Priority Dispute

message: We are hearing nothing from Macrossan or Green so I assume they are no longer insisting that Fock or Keswani be censored, so why not lift the block on Poincare's page ? -- I want to make some small changes there that I have already emailed to Macrossan, so let's lift the block, and remove Green's red tag since he doesn't insist on it anymore apparently.  Licorne 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you agree with abiding by the poll result and removing the "One and only theory" section, I'll agree with lifting the block. --Alvestrand 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Licorne, you say "We are hearing nothing from Macrossan... lift the block", but you know very well from these posts that E4mmacro has not left the conversation, but is addressing issues regarding your behavior in this dispute. Your appeals to "lift the block" can certainly wait until those issues are addressed. The Rod 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What Wikipedians think is the truth is pretty clearly seen by a poll that 7 Wikipedians on one side and 7 suspected sock puppet IP addresses on the other. You forgot to vote in your own name too, Licorne. --Alvestrand 13:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 69.22.98.146, you say "he  apparently  has  no  wish to  censor  the quotes... lift the block", but you know very well that E4mmacro has not left the conversation, but is addressing issues regarding your behavior in this dispute. Your appeals to "lift the block" can certainly wait until those issues are addressed. The Rod 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au Contraire, Michael Macrossan hasn't posted here at all recently, he is gone, and I'm sure he does not believe in CENSORSHIP,  so unblock it. 69.22.98.146 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Macrossan ?

message: Fock and Keswani are published in refereed journals, and their quotes have obvious pertinence to Poincare.  -- NO CENSORSHIP --  Licorne 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by my count, that's 15 times he's said the same thing on this page. Repetition doesn't make the quote relevant, or removing it censorship. --Alvestrand 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't brush it off, it is blatant censorship and a violation of Wikipedia rules by you. Licorne 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NO CENSORSHIP by Macrossan

message: I've opened a Request for Comments about the editing behavior of User:Licorne. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne, and those participating in this are encouraged to contribute as they see fit. --Fastfission 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: I'm not sure it matters, but while looking through the contributions of User:69.22.98.162, I found that his copy of Encyclopedia Britannica is from 1955: . I still don't know if he quoted it correctly; I don't have any edition here. --Alvestrand 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pallen you are really hurt that Einstein's Nobel Prize was never for relativity.  To the point you can't even read English anymore right in the Britannica -  You are blinded by your tears. Licorne 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica editions 

message: Pallen you need read Langevin who praises Poincare's work on gravity which contains many concepts found in today's modern gravity theory (so called GR). -- Poincare had a GR  before even Hilbert. -- Read Langevin. -- Licorne 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pallen. He has had this argument before with others and lost it conclusively. Its all in the talk records. E4mmacro 20:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pallen read  Langevin  yourself,  don't  believe  Macrossan he is like talking to a wall. When the site opens up I'll put Langevin's entire passage there, just to make a fool of Macrossan. Licorne 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be the passage we asked you to supply many times before and you refused? (see talk records), and you had plenety of opportunity to email it to me, but didn't. If you put it in the talk page, that would be interesting, and we could discuss it. E4mmacro 10:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I in fact had already added it to the article, but you then chopped it up to try to mask it out. -- I will restore it, and you will leave it be.  --   Licorne 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've ever added it, it's in the page history. Just point to it, and people can make their own judgment about what happened to it after you added it. --Alvestrand 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the article, the paragraph that begins talking about Langevin's quote, I had it all there translated into English, but Macrossan clear as can be, chopped up the remainder of the paragraph !   -- Langevin's words that I had there are all gone ! -- And look Alvestan, don't you ever question me again, GOT IT ? -- Licorne 19:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll comment on this on Licorne's talk page, since it's got nothing to do with Poincaré. --Alvestrand 20:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to a point made previously that the Poincare page focuses too much on work on relativity. I would suggest that the section on gravity can be removed entirely. Poincare's theory of gravity was outdated by 1915. No one bothered to put Lorentz's obslete theory of gravity on the Lorentz's page, even though it appears (from Poincare's 1908 description of it) to have all the same characteristics of Poincare's theory (for which we have been no finished description by Poincare). E4mmacro 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now everyone can clearly see why Macrossan erased Langevin's glowing description of Poincare's remarkable contribution to modern gravity theory ! -- Macrossan loves to CENSOR Poincare's work !  -- Langevin makes it clear, it is a beautiful description by Langevin and Macrossan erased it  -- I will restore it, and don't you touch it again ! -- SHAME ON YOU MACROSSAN ! --Licorne 19:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find where you quoted from Langevin? My recollection is that you you gave us your interpretation of what Langevin said; you called it "glowing", clearly your opinion. You said things like "Langevin and Minkowski (in 1913 and 1908) showed Poincare anticipated GR" - impossible since in 1913 and 1908 GR had not been published. Given your track record on quotes we asked for Langevin's words and the papers of Poincare's which Langevin cited. These were never supplied; you said things like "it is too long to quote", "he is clearly refering to Poincare's "Science and Method". When I showed "Science and Method" described Lorentz's theory you changed it to Langevin was clearly quoting a conference paper of Poincare's. So if I "cut up" the section as you say, I guess I was "cuting up" your unreferenced words. As you know "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... by others, do not submit it". E4mmacro 20:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I properly translated Langevin into English which YOU ERASED. -- NO CENSORSHIP ! --Licorne 21:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BULL ! -- Licorne 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, unsourced statements such as "Poincaré lectured widely on these concepts, in Paris, Lille, and Goettingen" should be sourced or deleted. I assume that is normal procedure? In the past I have chased those who insert unsourced statements, until  they give enough information so that I can add their source to the reference list. But the burden should be on those who add the unsourced statements. E4mmacro 21:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Langevin said it all, which is why you erased him ! -- NO CENSORSHIP ! --- Licorne 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poincare and Gravity

message: Some editors have suggested that the page be unprotected to allow productive edits to continue, such as incorporating links to and/or discussion about Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. (I would suggest there be some brief discussion about that page here, not just a link, perhaps a small section in place of "The one and unique Theory of Relativity" section.) If noone has any objections in the next day or so, I will unprotect the page tomorrow. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: It was not my phrase. It was Licorne under his previous re-incarnation as 69/66 who wrote "one and Unique theory of relativity". I inserted the sub-headings for the article to show what each section refered to. The phrase from the text "one and Unique" become "one and only" in the sub-heading (I corrected the idiom) and was changed back to "one and unique" by Licorne/66/69. E4mmacro 10:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In theory Pallen it sounds like you are right. But we know from experience what Licorne means by "no mention of Einstein". He means he wants to insinuate that Poincare did things associated with Einstein with no clarification or explanation. For example: He will write "E = mc^2" was discovered by Poincare. If anyone tries to put that it into perspective, explain the situation, and adds "but not in the sense meant by Einstein (1905)", he wuill say "no mention of Einstein". We have been through it all before. E4mmacro 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all Macrossan, take another look, Einstein is indeed mentioned in the article, for his derivation of E=mc2, qualified by Ives. -- So what are you talking about ?  - Licorne 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the sort of thing done in the following edit. It is rather long, but after line 81 you will see that the sentence "it was Einstein's ... insight that the body emitting radiation was losing mass which solved this problem" was replaced by "it was the insight .... which solved this problem". Changing Einstein's name to "the" made it appear it was Poincare's insight. E4mmacro 20:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you wrote it yourself. Licorne 01:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Keswani and Fock's quotes belong at the very end of the gravity discussion, for perspective. --  The one  and only phrase  can  be dropped. --  Your  lenthy quote  of  Hawking is  really  pointless.  --  All  Hawking  is really  saying  is that  GR  is  a  new Theory  of Gravity. -- Hawking agrees with Keswani, all Physicists know that GR is only a theory of gravity and a misnomer, it is no secret.-- It is important to say it here for Poincare -- NO CENSORSHIP  -- To avoid an edit war let us agree here first before lifting the block. Licorne 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all Macrossan, no edit war will result, as long as no one tries to make longwinded excuses for Einstein, or tries to Censor Keswani and Fock's short quotes.  -- And remember Macrossan that you yourself asked me to provide you with the exact reference for Keswani that you yourself then added to  the  reference  section. -- You weren't opposed to Keswani's quote then, now were you !  --Licorne 12:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: I insist that it be understood here and now by all parties, that Keswani and Fock not be censored, before the site is unblocked. Licorne 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to help implement the majority decision of the poll, which was to remove them as irrelevant (note - I disagree about characterizing that as "censorship). --Alvestrand 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thiink the time is overdue for this. Thanks. However, to emhaphasize that it is not censorship, but relevance, the Keswani quote can fit in the article "Transition from Special Relativity to General Relativity" or in the "General Relavivity" article in the section on "Relationship to other Physical Theories". Perhaps you want to leave that for a separate step. Anyway, there was strong consensus on irrelevance to the Poincare article, but also a majority thought the quote was perfectly reasonable somewhere else. --Pallen 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO there was NO consensus at all. Licorne 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It belongs anywhere where GR is mentioned, and it belongs especially on Poincare's page. Licorne 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NO CENSORSHIP

message: Licorne/69/66 keeps saying "Macrossan knows me" apparently to support his claim to have a "Ph D from UCLA", as part of an "argument from authority". All I know is that someone claiming to be "Dean Mamas" with a "PhD from UCLA" emailed me many times from a yahoo email address. He continued discussions started on the Poincare talk page by 69, and continued with insults and orders in the style of Licorne/66/69. I haven't checked any records at UCLA. E4mmacro 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macrossan knows me 

message: This has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks.  Time to edit it. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes and compromises which I had already indicated to Macrossan in personal emails.  The formula E=mc2 I added to the Intro with a qualifying phrase attached.  Note that in Wikipedia's article on E=mc2 the interpretation of Poincaré is recognized and described, it is a common usage of the formula, as in today's textbook calculations of redshift of photons, a legitimate common usage. Licorne 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is fairly good as is, considering everything, and I'm glad you're protecting it. Licorne 03:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: A while back I had sent a personal email to E4, that I wished to remove the sentence on Langevin's factor, the factor was wrong and really has no significance here.  I also sent to E4 that I consider the paragraph that begins with Poincare derived.... to be a scientifically unsound paragraph, the conclusion of the paragraph does not scientifically justify the body of the paragraph, and  I wish to delete that unsound paragraph. Licorne--Pallen 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph is wrong. delete it. There is no evidence that Poincare never understood it, that is Macrossan's POV. -- Also m=E/c2 does not solve the variation of mass with velocity formula - Macrossan's paragraph is false. Licorne 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree this could use wordsmithing - but not deletion, assuming on good faith till proven otherwise that it reflects the indicated sources. For example, to clarify the physics issue you rightly point out, one can expand to say "The apparent increase in mass with speed can be reconciled with conservation of mass by realizing that whatever apparatus increased the speed of a particle underwent a decrease in mass of E/c**2 correspending to the particle's increase. This very general statement of equivalence was first made by Einstein and clarified by Planck." --Pallen 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph was written to counter some b.s. that Licorne wrote in earlier versions of the first paragraph. To avoid edit wars when dealing with Licorne the articles always get longer and longer as qualifications and explab\nations are added to his assertions. The second paragraph contradicts Licorne's theory that Poincare discovered Einstein's e = mc^2 in 1900. Good luck Pallen, and roll on the RFA. E4mmacro 05:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried a revison and merging of the two paragraphs. Perhaps it is a technical point about whether e= mc^2 solves the Lorentzian variation of mass with velocity, but I know of no derivation of Einstein (or Plank's) result that does not rely somewhere on the Lorentzian variation of mass with velocity - which is why Poincare did not and could not derive einstein's e = mc^2 before 1905. I have asked Licorne and De kludde in previous chats for any such derivation but am not aware of having been given one. (Except De Kludde and I know that IF the internal energy of a body is radiation (not just thermal energy in other forms) then that radiation has inertia, just from Maxwell's theory, which is Poincare's equivalent mass of radiation. I think there was some idea at the time that the space between the unknown atoms of matter MIGHT be filled with radiation bouncing around and not escaping except in special circumstances. I am of course happy for Pallen to re-write it any way he likes. E4mmacro 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks E4. The merge looks fine to me. I was fascinated by your discovery of the J. Riseman note. He was a close friend of our family when I was a child, and I knew he did something related to Einstein, per family lore, but didn't know what it was (mostly he worked in chemical physics and later, polymers). --Pallen 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia operates by SOURCES, not mob rule. Licorne 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterizing secondary sources according the the majority view among experts in the field is part of wikipedia policy on sources. --Pallen 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have proof of what is majority view ?  Most  physicists  are well aware  POINCARE  discovered relativity first. -- All physicists know GR is a misnomer. Licorne 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a guy who claims to operate "SOURCES" you are remarkably short on them when it comes to what you want to assert as "most physicists" and "all physicists", etc. And anyway, Pallen's description of Wikipedia's policies in regards to sources is exactly correct; yours is wrong. --Fastfission 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's vote on whether the Earth is flat. Licorne 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This silly comment points to a real issue, fundamental to an encyclopedia. If wikipedia were written in 1900, it would necessarily have to primarily present the view that continental drift "is so physically implausible that it can't be right, and represents nothing but an unusual coincidence". That this expert consensus turned out to be wrong is completely irrelevant to an encycopedia. (FYI, there is one major part of physics and several areas of economics and social policy where I believe near unanimous consensus among experts is completely wrong. However, I have no trouble with the idea that this has exactly zero bearing on how I should contribute to an encyclopedia.) --Pallen 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The formula m=e/c2 does not ''resolve'' those three problems as stated