Talk:Henri Poincaré/Archive 1

message: PLEASE WRITE DOWN HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS NAME!!!!
:Its poin car ray see the wav file at bartleby.com 
:Lumos3 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Dear Wiki's, is Henri's precessor "Armand Prudhomme"  the same guy as Sully Prudhomme ? I will make a redirection from Armand Prudhomme to Sully Prudhomme to fix the link. --vvim
I believe the French page states he is: Sully Prudhomme, I base it on the mention of the "élu à l'Académie française en 1881 au fauteuil 24" --Vvim 08:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Armand Prudhomme is Sully Prudhomme?

message: It says, in partly for me unreadable characters: "Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: [ˈpwæŋ kæ reɪ]; AmE: [ˌpwɑːŋ kɑː ˈreɪ] [1]; Fr: [pwæ̃ ka ʁe]) "
This is rather disturbing, what is a good way to eliminate this mess from the first paragraph? Maybe a linked footnote? I have not much experience with such details; perhaps someone else here has a good idea. Harald88 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  annoying first paragraph 

message: Poincare and Lorentz never wrote a joint paper - how can anyone say they collaborated? It sure seems to me that Poincare, in all published accounts fo Lorentz's theory, saw himself as an interpreter, not an origniator, as a mathematician and philospher, rather than a scientist. E4mmacro 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap the "rather than a scientist", and I agree. He even wrote a book on physics. Cheers, Harald88 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did they collaborate, in the usual sense? 

message: I see that an earlier claim that in 1905 he considered no time dilation a possible option, has been reinserted. Instead, he wrote that he tried "to preserve the unit of time, but that led [him] to inadmissible consequences".  
I had already corrected the error, but I see that the error came back (not the only one)... Harald88 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear you are so busy Harald. Poincare did consider no time dilation "as an alternative" - he considered it and rejected it. The sentence was supposed to counter someone's absurd suggestion that Poincare originated time dilation. On the contrary, it looks like he was surprised by it, and went to some trouble at first to show Lorentz was wrong in choosing \ell = 1 (which gave time dilation), later admitting Lorentz was right (though I would guess Poincare thought his reasoning for \ell=1, was better than Lorentz's). E4mmacro 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poincare considered "no time dilation" NOT as "an alternative" in 1905 

message: Quote from Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture:
Le principe de relativite n’admet aucune restriction dans la nouvelle mecanique; il a, si j’ose ainsi dire, une valeur absolue. (In the new mechanics, the principle of relativity does not allow any restriction; it has, if I may say so, an absolute validity)
It appears that in 1909 Poincaré was confident. It seems that Poincaré's approach is such in nature that he decides to present Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction as a third, completing assumption, that gives the mathematical physicist a set of axioms that allows him to generate all theorems of the new mechanics.<BR>As I said earlier, I think the evidence is consistent with Poincaré being keen to distance himself from certain aspects of Einstein's 1905 paper. 
To Cleonis:  certain aspects, Which ?  BE SPECIFIC.  Also, the  subject  is  the 1905 discovery.  Period.  Don't confuse issues..  Also, no third assumption, just two.
That is, I think the evidence is consistent with Poincaré embracing a change away from newtonian mechanics, and rejecting on technical grounds Einstein's treatment of that change. --Cleonis | Talk 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree for the abovementioned reason. Harald88 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald88 and E4 have pledged themselves to strive for NPOV, and to include only information with solid backing and no speculation. My intention is to assist, if need be, to revert to versions by Harald88 and E4. So at some point I would need to know from you, Harald, what version is the one to preserve and, if need be, revert to. --Cleonis | Talk 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poincaré's Göttingen lecture 

message: Has anyone got  an electronic copy of the complete paper of Poincare (1900) , Archives Neerlandies V, pp253-78. I cannot find my hard copy (obtained in 1983). 
I find that two pro-Poincare authors, Ives (about 1953), and Gianetto [] (conference presentation), say that Poincare spoke of the momentum density of the emitted radiation, and do not say he referred to the mass density. Ives had to go through a couple of steps to show that Poincare had implied that the equivalent mass of the radiation was m_R = E/c^2. 
To quote Gianetto, referring to Poincare (1900):
“Here he gave also a momentum density for the electromagnetic density [energy?] which implicitly involved a mass density which was equal to 1/c^2 times the energy density, recovering a first relation between mass and energy of a ‘relativistic’ kind, but it was only when he recognized the mass as variable with velocity … that he obtained a relation like E = mc^2.”
Gianetto bends over backwards to give credit to Poincare (note he writes “when [Poincare] recognized the mass as a variable of velocity” leaving a false impression, rather than “when Lorentz 1899, 1904 showed that mass varied with velocity” and gives no date for Poincare’s discovery of E=mc^2). Yet neither Gianetto nor Ives make the claim that Whittaker does: that Poincare had stated that the mass density was 1/c^2 times the energy density, which might imply that Poincare in 1900 was thinking about the relation between energy and mass in the modern sense.
====Whittaker 1953, History ... The modern theories 1900-1926====
Quote: In 1900 (Arch Neerl, V, p 252) Poincare, refering to the fact that in the free aether the electrodmamgnetic momentum is (1/c^2) times the the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that the electromagnetic energy might posses mass density equal to (1/c^2) times the energy density : that is to say, E = mc^2 where E is the energy and m is the mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillatorm which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction should recoil as a gun when it is fired. end quote, Whittaker, p 51.
Ives JOSA v42(9), 1952, p540, gives the following quote (his translation I assume) from Poincare (1900)
:Electromagnetic energy, from the point of view with which we are occupied, behaving like a fluid endowed with inertia, one must conclude that if in any apparatus whatever, after having produced electromagnetic energy, sends it by radiation in a certain direction, the apparatrus must recoil like a cannon which has launched a projectile.
Ives says later (p. 541)
:Poincare stated that we may regard electromagnetic energy as a "fluid fictif" of density E/c^2 .. Poincare discussed and rejected the idea that this fictitious mass was "indestructible", that is, that it was transferred entire in emission or absorption of energy. He decided it must appear as energy in otehr guises, and said "it is this which prevents us from likening completely this fictitious fluid to a real fluid". In our terminology Poincare rejected the idea that [mass of radiation] could become [mass of matter].
Ives needs to quote Poincare here in more detail.  He does  not. --- Ives writes that Poincare thought the radiation was not indestructible, and could be transformed.   Ives does not give us enough direct quotes of Poincare here. He is very possibly just putting words in Poincare's mouth.69.22.98.162 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for full original of Poincare 1900

message: Quote: In 1900 (Arch Neerl, V, p 252) Poincare, refering to the fact that in the free aether the electrodmamgnetic momentum is (1/c^2) times the the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that the electromagnetic energy might posses mass density equal to (1/c^2) times the energy density : that is to say, E = mc^2 where E is the energy and m is the mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillatorm which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction should recoil as a gun when it is fired. end quote, Whittaker, p 51.
Ives JOSA v42(9), 1952, p540, gives the following quote (his translation I assume) from Poincare (1900)
:Electromagnetic energy, from the point of view with which we are occupied, behaving like a fluid endowed with inertia, one must conclude that if in any apparatus whatever, after having produced electromagnetic energy, sends it by radiation in a certain direction, the apparatrus must recoil like a cannon which has launched a projectile.
Ives says later (p. 541)
:Poincare stated that we may regard electromagnetic energy as a "fluid fictif" of density E/c^2 .. Poincare discussed and rejected the idea that this fictitious mass was "indestructible", that is, that it was transferred entire in emission or absorption of energy. He decided it must appear as energy in otehr guises, and said "it is this which prevents us from likening completely this fictitious fluid to a real fluid". In our terminology Poincare rejected the idea that [mass of radiation] could become [mass of matter].
Ives needs to quote Poincare here in more detail.  He does  not. --- Ives writes that Poincare thought the radiation was not indestructible, and could be transformed.   Ives does not give us enough direct quotes of Poincare here. He is very possibly just putting words in Poincare's mouth.69.22.98.162 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whittaker 1953, History ... The modern theories 1900-1926

message: I have found my copy of the original. The quality is probably too bad to make a decent pdf image of it, but I can try in a day or two. The first section of the introduction, and the first sentence of the first section make me think my memory of it was not so bad. My rough translation of these sentences is
:One will undoubtedly find it strange that in a monument erected to the glory of Lorentz, that I consider again an objection to his theory that I have presented before. I could say that the pages that follow are likely to attenuate, rather than worsen, this objection.
and
:First let us quickly point out the calculation by which one establishes that, in Lorentz's theory, the principle that action and reaction are equal is no longer true, at least when one wants to apply it to the material [macroscopic] scale.
which makes me think he is taking the same view that he takes in "The value of Science" described above. He is criticising Lorentz's theory, suggesting it is wrong, because it violates the principle of reaction - i.e. he does NOT believe radiation can have mass. E4mmacro 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whittaker does not give a quote; he writes it in his own words. Ives gives a translation. Anyway some actual words are below 203.101.225.67 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And can you please stop telling us that radiation today is considered to have an effective mass? Thanks, but we know that already 203.101.225.67 14:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nous pouvons regarder l’energie electromagnetic comme une fluide fictive dont la density J/c^2 et qui se deplace dans l’espace conformement aux lois de Poynting. Seulement il faut admettre que ce fluide n’est pas indestructible et que dans l’element de volume d\tau il s’en detruit pendant l’unite de temps une quantity \left(4\pi/c^2\right)\rho d\tau\sum f\xi; c'est ce qui empeche que nous puissions assimiler tout a fait dans nos raisonnements notre fluide a un fluide reel
203.101.225.67 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a side note: Einstein also didn't say that energy can be transformed into mass. Such sloppy language was not used by him. Similarly, it's inaccurate to state that energy is transformed into anything else but energy: energy is always conserved. What you are looking for, is a claim that radiation can/can't be transformed into matter.Harald88 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found a copy of the original

message: Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture:
What Poincaré states in his lecture is summerized by the following renderings, that are my words, not verbatim quotes. Three axioms are specified, that together are sufficient for Poincaré to generate all the theorems of the 'nouvelle mecanique': these three axioms are presented as starting points, not as consequences. (Poincaré states them qualitatively, in a paper he would of course present the quantative formula)
1) The inertia of a body increases with its velocity relative to the ether, in such a way that the speed of light is an upper limit of velocity.<BR>
2) Any measurement setup or procedure will not ever observe its own velocity with respect to the ether. The class of reference frames for which the principle of relativity of inertial motion holds good forms a mathematical group that is the Lorentz group. <BR>
3) Objects with a velocity relative to the ether will undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.<BR>
Further on in his lecture, Poincaré discusses at considerable length his view that with increasing velocity of an electron, its interaction with the ether changes in such a way that the energy of the ether around the electron increases, as a consequence of which it becomes harder to increase the velocity of the electron.
Poincaré's message to his audience is that the difference between newtonian mechanics and the 'nouvelle mecanique' is the following: in newtonian mechanics all properties, all three of Newton's laws of motion, are independent of velocity with respect to absolute space. Not so in the 'nouvelle mecanique'. In the 'nouvelle mecanique', physical properties of an object are a function of the object's velocity with respect to the ether.
By contrast: Einstein, in his 1905 treatment of the theory of special relativity, opens with a matter of principle: 
The view here to be developed will not [...] assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The concept of an object having a particular velocity with respect to the space it exists in does not enter into Einstein's treatment of special relativity. 
It seems to me that the view that is presented by Poincaré is that of a complete rejection of the manner that Einstein treats the Lorentz transformations.
The scientific community had within years adopted the manner that was introduced by Einstein. 
Poincaré's 1909 view and Einstein's 1905 view are probably unique in the history of physics in that they represent mutually exclusive theories of physics, and at the same time the respective bodies of formulas and equations of the two theories are mathematically equivalent. --Cleonis | Talk 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cleonis, in modern physics they are the same theory, and Lorentz and Einstein indeed presented it as such. Modern physics is supposedly concerned with predicting measurement outcomes only, eventhough many scientists tend to forget that. And the use of mutually exclusive models for the same theory of physics is not unique either, it happens more often. Harald88 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't irony ironic? Poincare, more than once I think, criticised Lorentz for making too many hypotheses. I think that Lorentz thought that the only hypothesis he had made was to assume that all forces are effected by motion (transform) in the same way as electromagnetic forces; i.e. in the way that he (and Heaviside, and Larmor) claim they had already derived from Maxwell's equations. E4mmacro 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably another topic, but don't you think it is because Einstein gives no physical explanation of why the effects occur (like Poincare's showing or saying that the aether round the body has gained energy, hence acceleration because more and more difficult) that so much which is written about SR seems unclear about what is a real, what is apparent, what is a convention and so on (as if the authors don't know, and may claim that these questions are not important or unanswerable, of course). I am surprised that Poincare takes the Lorentzian view so strongly in that lecture. By Lorentzian view I mean: motion relative to the aether, the rest frame (say "space" nowadays, or "comoving frame of reference'), is the cause of the effects. In a moving frame, like the Earth, all these effects together prevent us detecting our motion. Poincare then noticed the group property: that exactly the same relations held between our moving frame and any other moving frame, so that we can take our frame as the rest frame, just as easily as the aether (and much more conveniently), so as Einstein said (approximately) "we have no need of the hypothesis of the aether" (unless of course you feel that some explanation is needed and that the aether might provide it). By the way, have you read Einstein's lecture at Leiden circa 1920 called Relativity and Aether. Much more inclined, after GR, to give physical properties to empty space. E4mmacro 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture (2) 

message: To  E4,  I think that if  you consider  the  whole  passage, that Poincare was saying that  it  seems to violate Newton's Laws.69.22.98.162 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein 1906 when deriving m = E/c^2 was saying that the inertia (mass) of a body depended on its energy content, form which, although he couldn't see it then, the atom bomb follows. This result of Einstein's is not contained in Poincare's 1900 result. You need the variation of mass with velocity (Lorentz 1899), or according to Ives, from Poincare's result + the principle of relativity one can derive Lorentz's variation of mass with velocity. This equivalence or interchangeability of mass and energy, which everyone thinks of when they see E = mc^2, is not derived or implied by Poincare. In Poincare's equation, which he didn't actually write, the symbol m would represent a different thing from the symbol m in Einstein's equation (see Ives for a clear explanation). Poincare (1900) said the radiation is like a ficitious fluid of density e/c^2. He never used the term "ficitious mass" or "apparent mass" or "equivalent mass", but "ficititious mass" is obviously closer to what he said (fictitious fluid) than either of the modern alternatives.  We don't want misunderstandings, and therefore we don't want to imply that Poincare derived the equation E = mc^2 associated with Einstein, even though he did derive, and reject, the equivalent mass of radiation. Although according to a certain line of reasoning, it was Maxwell or Lorentz who really derived that without forseeing it, Poincare "merely" showed what their equations implied. 203.101.230.174 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The word "discoverers" is already in it, complete with disussion. Harald88 10:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E= mc^2: part 3

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: I see the Einstein-the-plagarist view had to creep in again. This is a page about Poincare. It is OK I guess to mention that Poincare tried to develop a theory of gravity consistent with Lorentz's theory of relativity ("The new mechanics"), and in the "late career" is an OK place to put it. Shouldn't you say also that  nothing came of it, (not as far as I know).
To E4:  Read Langevin's glowing description of Poincare's relativistic theory of gravity, a remarkable first step in GR, completed by Hilbert. Poincare led the way, and Hilbert's equation was a further refinement. 69.22.98.162 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilbert and GR not relevant 

message: I disagree with a section name that suggests that there is a focussed discussion about "who discovered" SRT. The article discusses is how much Poincare contributed to the development of relativity, and the "discovery" is just an aspect of that, and depending on anyone's personal judgment. I also see no use for an additional section name like "Poincare's contributions to SRT", as that's what that whole chapter is about already. Apparently, 69.22.98.162 agrees with me on that. Harald88 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am not sure what it should be called. But after the statement that Einstein's paper was submitted ... (only relevant to a priority argument?) there are lots of different opinions by Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein, and a mention  of three papers (including Whittaker) who are talking about priority, which is said to be a growing opinion. Then there is an opinion about what the modern view on the essence of relativity is. Whatever all this is, it is not about Poincare's work on relativity as far as I can see, the description of that stopped in the first half. What is it about? "How much credit does Poincare deserve?" perhaps? E4mmacro 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, that's what I would expect from an opiniated journal article about relativity, but not from an encyclopdia article about Poincare. Of course, this is a matter of feeling/taste, but I expect an encyclopdia article about Poincare to not care much about such debates. Instead I have been working all along to assist with providing a fair, accurate and neutral account of his most notable contributions to the development of relativity. Of course, contributions of him that were published "too late" are of little relevance, except for showing how far he had developed the theory independently, and it appears by itself , from the presentation of facts, that his discovery of the group properties was an important milestone, if not the decisive one, in the development of the theory. I don't think that it's indicated to discuss the debate about when SRT saw the day, and thus who had "priority" over the launching of SRT: depending on one's POV, one may claim Lorentz 1904, Poincare 1905, or Einstein 1905. I now think Poincare 1905 is most correct. But such a discussion would fit better in special relativity than a triplication on the pages of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was me, as it was not Poincare but Einstein'who first published the velocity sum equations, and I even explained that in the comment. I'll correct it agian if I see that it's again wrong. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many mind reader's are writing this page? Does Poincare in 1900 claim that mass of a material body depends on its energy content?   ----Who wrote this ?  Poincare corrected derived E=mc2 for radiation, still a current usage today.  
I removed that pschoanalysis sentence of E4 regarding E=mc2.  Also, E4's sentence about Poincare denying Newton's Laws is out of context.  Poincare only pointed out that is seems at first to contradict Newton.  So   that misleading sentence needs to be removed.  There is also a lot of other junk that E4 interjected into the article which I'll just let pass. 69.22.98.162 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I guess Whittaker has not read the same Poincare 1900 that I have. I will read it more closely and if I am wrong I will get back to you; if Whittaker says Poincare got half of the meaning of E = mc^2 then he is not too far wrong. We already know Whittaker doesn't put on weight on Poinacre's opions of his own work, so why would he accept what Poincare says about what he emant by the equation. But if he implies Poincare derived e-mc^2 in the einstein sense, thaen I would guess Whittaker is mistaken. E4mmacro
Whittaker did not pooh-pooh Poincare's E=mc2, he calls it  Poincare's  E=mc2, So we should do the same. 69.22.98.162 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been ample papers that debunked that conclusion by Whittaker. If you insist, it's just a matter of time and we'll add that, why not. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I read them, several years ago. Wait and see. Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We have explained to you several times that (if we're not blind) Poincare did not publish that in 1905, and apparently nobody can prove that Poincare derived those before Einstein. If you think that we're blind, then cite the passage with page number, and we'll verify your claim Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: E4, thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected. Harald88 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional section name? 

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.
KESWANI 1966  wrote that Poincare even spoke of gravity waves.69.22.98.146 14:03, 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: 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? [[User:E4mmacro|E4mmacro]] 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)