37 ms·
If you want to talk about contributions to the general theory of relativity, why not talk about the people that Einstein is alleged to have plagiarized, Henri P
by boringuser2 3y ago
If you want to talk about contributions to the general theory of relativity, why not talk about the people that Einstein is alleged to have plagiarized, Henri Poincaré, David Hilbert and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pvg 3y agoBecause the author wanted to talk about Grossman? It's odd to criticize a piece for covering its chosen topic.
- boringuser2 3y agoRight, it's not so much a critique of the author's work that I've presented as much as a meta-commentary on the article in the context that we're posting on a forum that aggregates content for public consumption. The author is fine, he can publish whatever he pleases. I can't stop him, as you've pointed out. From a meta-commentary perspective, it is actually quite interesting that Einstein's alleged plagiarism covers many diverse sources.
- ducttapecrown 3y agoThank you for the boring off-topic comments, boringuser2. Maybe boringuser1 was too interesting, so you were created. I promise to read the article if you do.
- codethief 3y agoWhat exactly do you think Einstein plagiarized?
- boringuser2 3y agoI don't think anything, im referring to allegations.
- layer8 3y agoYou’re referring without providing references.
- BenoitP 3y agoRelativity was ripe for discovery. And a lot of other scientists came very close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute But that's just how science work, and no ill will would have been employed by any participant; just as their fanclub want to pit them against one another.
- rhdunn 3y agoJust like how Leibniz and Newton independantly formulated calculus, building on the work of others.
- enasterosophes 3y agoThanks, nice link. I recall hearing or reading somewhere that Einstein leaned heavily on Caratheodory for the more difficult math, and I had a strong hunch that something like general relativity would have emerged within the next decade from when Einstein published his theory, if Einstein hadn't gotten there first. However, I didn't realize it was so close, so contentious, and so well documented.
- optimalsolver 3y agoRelevant username.
- BenoitP 3y agoPlagiarized is too strong of a word. Poincaré too based his work on Lorentz's. And both with Einstein he sort of derived E = m c * 2, independently and earlier. But Einstein's publication was more complete. Science is not totally ordered, the same invention can occur at two different places from the same shoulders of the same giant. Science is just partially ordered.
- boringuser2 3y agoThe problem is when the "ordering" of science is horizontal. I.e. Einstein reading their works and copying their conclusions. This is highly likely to have happened, regardless of the "completeness" of one work or another. The thing I like about this is that it levels celebrity (something man-made) with rationality. Why not reduce Einstein's celebrity? It reflects reality more accurately to do so.
- evanb 3y agoThe paper where Einstein introduces special relativity is really explicit about just providing a new way to think, not new mathematics. It starts out with explaining that there are two explanations for the same electrodynamical physics depending on the velocity of the system, and that's really weird. Einstein's special-relativity fame comes from saying: no, actually, that is expected and they're really one explanation if you think like this rather than like that, even if the math works out the same as Lorentz's.
- pnin 3y agoNeither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity. The only relevant priority dispute is whether Einstein or Hilbert wrote down the correct field equations first. This was after a long correspondence between the two, in which Einstein explained his ideas -- there is no dispute that Einstein "invented" General Relativity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_di...
- BenoitP 3y ago> Neither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity Well, that's just plain wrong. From the horse's mouth: > As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments More from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute
- mr_mitm 3y agoThis quote is about special relativity.
- BenoitP 3y agoWhich is the source for General Relativity, which suffered too from an attribution dispute with Hilbert's works. My point being: science doesn't happen in a vacuum, and is not totally ordered
- mr_mitm 3y ago>science doesn't happen in a vacuum Yes, everybody agrees, but you specifically responded to the statement that Poincaré and Lorentz had nothing to do with GR. You said that statement was wrong, but it looks more like you confused SR and GR, which are two entirely different beasts.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y agoYou are thinking of specific relativity. He didn't plagiarize the theory of specific relativity either because nobody had suggested it. Poincaré's idea of relativity relied on the existence of a Luminiferous aether which was disproved in the early 20th century.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago*Special relativity
- pdonis 3y agoWho made these allegations of plagiarism? Do you have any references?