Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive 5

Edit request
To avoid an on-going edit war, admin SarekOfVulcan fully protected the article, pending discussion. Since no reasonable discussion is possible with people who make remarks like "you can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth", and since these edits were discussed before, admin SarekOfVulcan suggested we request to undo anon71's last edits containing badly sourced content, effectively restoring the article to this last known good version. See also ANI-notice Pushing original research beyond 3RR. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the article presents an inaccurate description of the views of Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein about the aether. If we avoid OR, then we are stuck with the historians, even if they are inaccurate. But it seems to me that D.H has also inserted OR. The Galison section says Poincare "still adhered to the concepts of Lorentz's stationary aether", and I don't see where Galison says exactly that. The Pais section says that "Lorentz himself stated in several post-1905 papers" that he never abandoned the concept of the stationary aether. Again, I don't think that is true and I don't see where Pais sais exactly that. If you don't want OR, then I suggest sticking to actual quotes for Galison, Pais, and others. Roger (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Poincaré stated clearly that Aether is 'superfluous' and is 'best left to metaphysicians'. Poincaré was correct. 71.98.135.234 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Poincaré's perfectly correct views on aether are quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARelativity_priority_dispute#Einstein_v_Poincare_on_the_ether 71.98.135.234 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I think you know very well, that most historians agree, that the main difference between Lorentz and Poincaré on one hand, and Einstein on the other, is the abandonment of the mechanistic-stationary aether; i.e, Lorentz and Poincaré adhered (at least philosophically) to the stationary aether concept before and after 1905, which is also indicated by their use of "apparent" and "true" time. Galison referred (I read the German translation) several times to Poincaré's relation to the aether in connection with "true" and "apparent" time (like Pais, Galison even alluded to Poincaré's use of length contraction as a third hypothesis). And Pais wrote a section 8.3, called "Lorentz and the aether" ("dynamical effects, aether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can sharply be separated, simultaneity without further specification, etc."). So if you really read this sources, then your questions make no sense. --D.H (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One can still today talk about true time and apparent time. In the Twin Paradox we on Earth can be considered true time, while the twin's clock is apparent, because the twin had undergone accelerations.  Also, Dirac wrote in the 1930's that one can always maintain a concept of ether, it is philosophical, and Poincaré also made this clear. Poincaré is correct. 71.98.135.234 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Opinions about what is correct or not, are irrelevant. Only reputable secondary sources are of interest. Your latest link to is only about a test theory for Lorentz symmetry violation, that is, a theory not equivalent to special relativity. The paper also does not comment on relativity priority dispute, thus the inclusion of it (in this connection) is WP:original research. If (and only if) you actually find a source someday, then write a new section. --D.H (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor point of text cleanup: search the article for the text ... the Lorentz' ... and you'll see that it should be either ... the Lorentz ... without the apostrophe ... or ... Lorentz' (or perhaps Lorentz's, following trends) ... without the word "the". (I used ellipses here instead of quotation marks because of the confusion they might cause with the single apostrophe involved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.163 (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (The unsigned comments are not from me.) I agree that some historians draw great attention to the aether when they credit Einstein for special relativity. But the differences are very slight, at best. Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein do not even mention any properties of the aether when they describe the heart of their theories. So I think that you should stick to what these historians actually say, because you are exaggerating the aether differences.
 * Galison seems to be trying to avoid the priority dispute, and he does not say much about the aether either. Your summary implies that Poincare's relativity was inferior because he "still adhered to the concepts of Lorentz's stationary aether". I think that this is incorrect, and that Galison does not say it.
 * Pais says some very silly things, such as claiming that Poincare never understood relativity. If you are going to summarize his views, then should stick to what he actually says, and insert your own personal arguments about the aether. Roger (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not exaggerating the aether question, because most Historians use this argument to support Einstein's priority, and the article must reflect this (BTW: My personal opinion is very different from that of those historians...yet I won't insert my opinion in any article, because I'm obeying the WP-rules). And again: The Galison-summary clearly states, that he gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for relative simultaneity, and Galison also alluded several times to the difference between their assumptions about aether, true/apparent time. And Pais (in the mentioned chapter) clearly says that Lorentz adheres to the stationary aether, and explained the relativistic effects "dynamically" - that's all, even if you don't like Pais' "silly" conclusions. --D.H (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Galison, Pais, etc, are trying to make excuses for Einstein. There is no question that Poincaré discovered the theory of relativity including E=mc2 and that Einstein was just a shameless plagiarist. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I still disagree, but I don't have Pais and Galison with me. Maybe I will propose something later. I also have quibbles about the Miller section, but I don't have those papers. Do you know what the quotes mean in the Miller section? Are "ideal" and "imaginary" supposed to be quotes of Poincare or Miller?
 * Galison does have some comments about Poincare's terminology. He says that Poincare uses "apparent time" to mean the time measured by clocks in the frame, while "true time" is what Einstein called "the time of the stationary system". However, I don't see what this has to do with relativity priority, and I don't recall Galison saying that it did. So unless Galison used the point to make a priority argument, I think that it should be removed. Roger (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, imaginary and real are Poincaré quotes (in his july paper) made by Miller. By that he argued, that Poincaré's frames are mathematically, but not physically equivalent. True time is the time in the aether, apparent (or local) time that of the moving frames - both Lorentz and Poincaré used these expression. While for Lorentz, local time was a mathematical device, Poincaré argued that it can be indicated by clocks. On the other hand, Einstein didn't use the words "true or apparent time", on the contrary, he (and Minkowski) argued that the "proper" times of all frames are equally valid - and it is this, to which most historians who gave priority to Einstein, allude (BTW: Galison credits both Poincaré and Einstein, but even he alluded many times to this conceptual difference between Einstein and Poincaré, and this of course must be mentioned). PS: It seems, that you are writing a Blog (darkbuzz.com) in which you claim that Einstein was a plagiarist who "ruined physics", and where you criticize those historians of science like Kragh, Galison, Pais etc, who give priority to Einstein. I don't think your view is balanced enough to give an account of their writings (see WP:COI). --D.H (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have opinions that differ with some historians. So do you, you say. I have expressed mine here and elsewhere. So now you say that you can give an account of the historians' writings, but not me? Having an opinion on a Talk page and a blog is not a COI.
 * I do not see where Poincare's July paper says anything about an "imaginary" rest frame, or about frames being physically inequivalent. This WP article should have verifiable references. If Miller says this, then quote him and spell it out. I have a later article by Miller where he makes somewhat different points, and maybe I will summarize that paper.
 * Einstein and Minkowski did use the term "proper" time instead of true or apparent time. Einstein used "time of the stationary system" and "time of the moving system". Minkowski used "proper time", but not for either. He used it for invariant time.
 * My concern here is that the views of Miller, Pais, and Galison are not accurately represented because they are mixed with what you say are the views of other historians. I favor sticking to what they actually say about priority, and if they say that Poincare or Einstein said something, give a reference to what was said. Roger (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Galison fails to mention that Einstein insisted ether was real in 1920. Galison is not aware of very much. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not just 1920. Einstein advocated the aether from about 1917, and for the rest of his life. Roger (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger, although Wikipedia is not Wikiqoute, here are some quotes of Miller, Pais, and Galison:
 * A) In Poincaré's july paper, search for "ideal electron", "ideal system", or "ideal field" versus "real electron" etc., which were denoted by Miller as imaginary...
 * B) Miller on Poincaré (1981, p. 172): "Although Poincaré's principle of relativity is stated in a manner similar to Einstein's, the difference in content is sharp. The critical difference is that Poincaré's principle admits the existence of the ether, and so considers the velocity of light to be exactly c only when it is measured in coordinate systems at rest in the ether. In inertial reference systems, the velocity of light is c and is independent of the emitter's motion as a result of certain compensatory effects such as the mathematical local time and the hypothesis of an unobservable contraction. Consequently, Poincaré's extension of the relativity principle of relative motion into the dynamics of the electron resided in electromagnetic theory, and not in mechanics...Poincaré came closest to rendering electrodynamics consistent, but not to a relativity theory." p. 217: "Poincaré related the imaginary system E' to the ether fixed system S'".
 * C) Pais on Lorentz: p. 118: "Throughout the paper of 1895, the Fresnel aether is postulated explicitly"; p. 125: "Like Voigt before him, Lorentz regarded the transformation ... only as a convenient mathematical tool for proving a physical theorem ... he proposed to call t the general time and t' the local time. Although he didn't say it explicitly, it is evident that to him there was, so to speak, only one true time t."; p. 166: "8.3. Lorentz and the Aether... For example, Lorentz still opines that the contraction of the rods has a dynamic origin. There is no doubt that he had read and understood Einstein's papers by then. However, neither then nor later was he prepared to accept their conclusions as the definitive answer to the problems of the aether." On the same page, Pais cites Lorentz's Teyler lecture (1913): "''As far as this lecturer is concerned he finds a certain satisfaction in the older interpretation according to which the ether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can be sharply separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be spoken of. Finally it should be noted that the daring assertion that one can never observe velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of what is accessible to us, a restriction which cannot be accepted without some reservation."
 * D) Galison on Poincaré: Since I have the German edition of his book, I quote what Galison wrote in this interview (Online). After crediting Poincaré's important contributions he wrote: "But Poincaré kept the fundamental distinctions between "true time" (in the frame of the ether) and "apparent time" as measured in any other frame of reference. And of course he kept the ether - which he thought he needed for a productive, intuitive physics. So, for Poincaré, the reinterpretation of time was a necessary patch to keep Lorentz's theory working, one more idea in the kit of ideas that would fix the broken engine of physics. ... Well, Einstein had a different picture of what modern physics should be. Einstein had as his ideal neither a machine on which we would do repairs, nor a set of assumptions that would maximize our human convenience in assembling a theory. Instead, Einstein aimed for a reformulation of physics in which the order of theory itself would mirror the order of the world. If the world of phenomena showed no observable distinction between frames of reference then (so Einstein believed) neither should the theory: a symmetry in the phenomena should show up as a symmetry in the theory. "Apparent time" and "true time" were terms he would never utter."

Now, this is exactly what I summarized in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would rather use the direct quotes, because they tell a different story. The summaries are confusing,

such as this about Miller:
 * He also argued that Poincaré distinguished between "ideal" electrons (in their "imaginary" rest frame) and "real" electrons in their motion through the aether.
 * So now you admit that "ideal" and "real" are quotes from Poincare, while "imaginary" is a quote from Miller. How would the reader ever figure that out?
 * Galison has a lot about differences between Poincare and Einstein, but what does any of it have to do with priority issues? Galison also said that Einstein liked to talk about God's choices, and Poincare did not. Is that relevant? The closest Galison gets to priority issues are statements like, "it would be gross distortion to treat Poincaré as a reactionary or a failed Einstein." : I don't know why Pais would say that Lorentz explicitly postulated Fresnel's aether in 1895. In your translation, Lorentz-1895 Lorentz spends several pages saying what is wrong with Fresnel's theory, and why it must be modified to reconcile it with experiment. Fresnel's aether is certainly not postulated. But if Pais said that, it is important to Pais's priority argument somehow, then go ahead an include the quote. There is no need to quote Pais quoting Lorentz. If that Lorentz quote is important, then it can be put elsewhere in the article.
 * Miller's arguments make even less sense. It is absurd to say that Poincare's principle somehow requires the speed of light to be different from c in a non-aether coordinate system. But I concede that Miller is a reputable historian and his opinions deserve to be in the article. But I suggest quoting him so that it gives his actual arguments. Roger (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your criticisms on the summaries were unjustified and based on misunderstandings - as everyone can see from the given citations. Some informations: Fresnel's aether is the (almost) stationary aether (sometimes also called Fresnel/Lorentz aether) as opposed to Stokes's completely dragged aether. When Lorentz wrote about modifying Fresnel's theory, then this is not about the aether concept, but about the necessity to combine Fresnel's stationary aether with the contraction hypothesis (because of the MM-experiment). The only real modification is, that Lorentz replaced Fresnel's "partial aether drag" with his local time, that's all. b) The Miller summary expresses what Miller said - my only error was to put "imaginary" in parenthesis, which is corrected now. c) The Galison summary clearly said, that he gave priority to both of them, but of course it also says that there are differences between Poincaré and Einstein, and that he thought that this doesn't mean Poincaré was conservative. --D.H (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As everyone can see that I am wrong? Okay, I'll bite. Does anyone else here agree with you and Pais that Lorentz explicitly postulated Fresnel's aether in 1895? Lorentz says, "The difficulties for Fresnel's theory stem from the known interference experiment of Michelson" and "It is not my intention to enter into such speculations more closely, or to express assumptions about the nature of the aether." It seems to me that Lorentz's theory does not depend on either Fresnel's or Stoke's aether. Roger (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This question is related to the state of motion of the aether, not its "nature" or substance. As Lorentz wrote in 1895: "By that I was long ago led to believe that with Fresnel's view, i.e. with the assumption of a stationary aether, we are on the right way....but secondly, it may be assumed - and this hypothesis I will use in the following - that ponderable matter is absolutely permeable ... That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether." Thus, avoiding speculations about the nature of the aether, Lorentz followed Fresnel's idea of the stationary aether (i.e. an aether at rest, against which matter has "absolute permeability"). Unfortunately, he had to improve Fresnel's explanation of Fizeau's experiment, and also the MM-experiment seems to contradict Fresnel's theory, so Lorentz combined Fresnel's stationary aether with the length contraction hypothesis. (Search in google for "fresnel-lorentz theory") For example, Brown: : "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag....Fresnel-Lorentz assumption that the interferometer does not drag the ether with it while in motion". --D.H (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are all arguing over ether. Poincaré correctly said ether is superfluous and best left to metaphysicians, while Einstein foolishly insisted ether was real. Fact is, ether does not matter, and Poincaré is the true discoverer of relativity, whle Einstein is a shameless plagiarist. Make no excuses over ether. Sir Edmund Whittaker was correct. Poincaré discovered relativity, including E=mc2, not Einstein. 71.98.130.237 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that because I can get google hits for "Fresnel-Lorentz theory" then Lorentz must have agreed with Fresnel? Yes, I get 115 results. But when I google "Lorentz-Einstein theory", I get 19,700 results. So I guess that proves that Einstein agreed with Lorentz's aether, as many physicists of the day referred to the Lorentz-Einstein theory under the belief that Einstein merely elaborated Lorentz's ideas.
 * Yes, Lorentz concluded that matter does not push around the aether as Stokes had theorized. That is all Lorentz meant by saying that the aether was at rest, as Lorentz specifically disavowed saying that the aether was at absolute rest. He said that does not make any sense.
 * Yes, Lorentz reconciled the MM-experiment with the previous theories of Fresnel, Maxwell, and others. That is how special relativity was born.
 * I think that it is very misleading to say that Lorentz believed in an aether at rest, unless you also explain that he rejected the idea of an aether at absolute rest, and only said that the aether was at rest because he was denying that it was pushed around by matter.
 * Since you like Brown, I am adding his view. Roger (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Lorentz said that there is relative motion between earth and aether which can be measured by the MM-experiment, therefore he invented length contraction and local time for moving bodies in motion with respect to this aether. Any motion to a stationary luminousness aether is forbidden in relativity, regardless whether one calls this motion "absolute" or "relative" (although most are calling this absolute)... This is one of the most basic principles of relativity. However, since Pais doesn't mention this choice of words of Lorentz, this discussion is useless anyway because we cannot include it into the article. So I'll stop it.
 * Thanks for inserting the Brown section, I will check it. --D.H (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you are all talking about, but the article is no longer protected so I have disabled the editprotected &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Brown section
Roger has written a new section on the contributions of H. R. Brown (who is a notable philosopher of science). Luckily, I was able to quickly obtain the book. Unfortunately, in his account, Roger has mostly ignored what Brown wrote in the relevant section 4 about Lorentz and Einstein (only Poincaré is mentioned in the article). It is exactly this section, where Brown deals with priority issues. For example: Therefore I expanded and modified the Brown section to show what Brown wrote about the priority candidates Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein, around and before 1905. --D.H (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Brown criticizes Lorentz's understanding of the transformations - not mentioned in the article.
 * The article also ignores that Brown clearly gave priory to Einstein to certain features of relativity, especially in respect to the principles of the theory (The full meaning of relativistic kinematics was simply not properly understood before Einstein. Nor was the 'theory of relativity' as Einstein articulated it in 1905 anticipated even it its programmatic form).
 * The article says that "He criticizes Poincaré for adopting the view that relativity is a property of spacetime". To be precise, what he criticizes in sections 6 and 8, was the (in his view) insufficient kinematic/operational interpretation of Einstein and afterwards the geometric Minkowski spacetime interpretation, which Brown criticizes because of his own "dynamical" interpretation of special relativity. But what has this to do with the relativity priority dispute?


 * Luckily, you were able to correct my biases, I guess. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Maybe no one else has the book. Roger (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the quotes says "the the", faithfully copied from the book. I would just leave it that way, as it is unlikely to confuse anyone. I don't know if WP has any style guidelines on this. Roger (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed lunatic conspiracy theory
Referring to, and  by user. I fully agree that it is lunacy. Prion1's claim that is not sourced, is wrong though: see this pdf, which is referred to in the quoted reference. However, neither source probably qualifies as a wp:reliable source, so I will not insist. Someone's mileage might vary though. - DVdm (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, when I said "not sourced" I meant "not properly sourced". The referenced web site (which itself does not seem to be a very reliable source) in French merely contains a link to a pdf file which is even less of a reliable source, and even the pdf file basically points elsewhere (along with Darigol's quote acknowledging the existence of fringe conspiracy theories).  I suppose the actual source, if there is one, would be the publication mentioned in this passage from the pdf file:


 * ""It was also explained on this occasion that the decisive discovery of Poincare was obscured in June 1905 by two great scholars who each had strong reasons to do so, David Hilbert, mathematician from Göttingen and Max Planck, physicist Berlin. These entirely new facts of very great consequence were revealed in my work published in July 2004 under the title: "Relativity, Poincare and Einstein, Planck, Hilbert - True story of the theory of relativity", published by L'Harmattan, Paris.""


 * I'm not familiar with L'Harmattan, and whether they are a reputable publisher, but if someone wanted to track down that publication and see if it is a reputable source, that would be fine. But I rather doubt that it is.Prion1 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the same people have been at work on the Poincare article, where the reference


 * Leveugle, J. (2004), La Relativité et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert—Histoire véridique de la Théorie de la Relativitén, Pars: L'Harmattan


 * is given under the heading "Non-mainstream sources".Prion1 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Searching on the book title gives > 400 Wikipedia mirrors, and seemingly no book sites. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of Lorentz paper
Regarding the latest IP edits: As correctly pointed out by Holton, Lorentz's paper (both in Dutch and English) was published in 1904, not in 1903. More precisely, the entire volume is dated:
 * Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen der Wisen Natuurkundige Afdeeling van 30 Mei 1903 tot 23 April 1904. Dl. XII..


 * http://archive.org/details/verslagvandegewo12akad

As we can see, Lorentz's paper (in Dutch) was presented and published in the last issue on 23 April 1904, see p. 899 for the relevant issue and pp. 986-1009 for Lorentz's paper.

For the English translation of the entire volume, see Proc. Roy. Amst., Vol 6;
 * http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsofsec06akad

See p. 737 for the relevant issue (which also gives the date 23 April 1904 for the meeting) and pp. 809-830 for Lorentz's paper. According to Poincaré, the English translation itself was published on 27 May 1904, On the Dynamics of the Electron (June).

PS: Regarding the Hawking quote which I removed, maybe a new section should be created (however, Hawking is not a historian of science). --D.H (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Holton is flatly contradicted by those excellent sources on all his points. Wikipedia should not hide the facts. 71.98.134.96 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, okay, Lorentz's paper was 1904. I am not sure why it makes any difference, as Holton says that Einstein wrote his relativity paper in about 6 weeks in 1905. Roger (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important because they are trying to make Whittaker look  bad.    Whittaker  correctly  said 1903,  that is  when  the  paper  was  presented.  71.98.134.96 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it makes Holton look bad, because it is a petty and silly complaint. Roger (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Holton is sour grapes, he is a long time Einstein fan who is disappointed to learn that Einstein plagiarized relativity from Poincaré, the true discoverer.  Also Walter Issacson's book is equally poor, Issacson is not even a physicist and he should not have even tried to explain relativity in his  biography of Einstein. 71.98.134.96 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Einstein believed in Aether
In 1920 Einstein reversed himself and insisted aether was real. See page 318-320 in Walter Issacson's biography of Einstein, this should be included in wikipedia and not ignored. 71.98.134.96 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on how the aether is defined, nearly all physicists believe in it. The problem is that this article depends on secondary sources, and most of them are sloppy and misleading about their usage of the term. Roger (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Walter Issacson needs to have that explained to him, his biography of Einstein is filled with such inaccuracies, he is not even a physicist and doesn't know what he is talking about. Issacson is just trying to make excuses for Einstein, who was just a shameless plagiarist. 71.98.134.96 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "The problem is that this article depends on secondary sources": see wp:secondary sources:
 * Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
 * - DVdm (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the Einstein biographies are very confused about the aether. They do not seem to understand what was meant by the aether, or what is believed today. Roger (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that per wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH it is not our business to interpret/correct/criticise the biographies or comment on them. We're just here to say what they say. - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is WP policy. The article says, "But they [most historians of science like Holton] argue that it was Einstein who completely eliminated the classical ether". Yes, most historians like Holton say that, but it is also directly contrary to what other reputable sources say. For example, a very prominent physicist says: “Quite undeservedly, the ether has acquired a bad name. There is a myth repeated in many popular presentations and textbooks, that Albert Einstein swept it into the dustbin of history. The real story is more complicated and interesting. I argue here that the truth is more nearly the opposite: Einstein first purified, and then enthroned, the ether concept. As the 20th century has progressed, its role in fundamental physics has only expanded. At present, renamed and thinly disguised, it dominates the accepted laws of physics.” [Fantastic Realities: 49 Mind Journeys And a Trip to Stockholm, By Frank Wilczek, Betsy Devine, 2006, p.293] I say that if we are going to cite historians saying that Einstein eliminated the aether, then we should also quote Wilczek. Roger (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilczek is of course a reliable source, but nothing of what is written here in this thread seems relevant to the subject of the article. This is an article about a priority dispute, not about what Einstein is thought to have believed about some ether. - DVdm (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of quotes
This article has a lot of quotes, but who says that they are excessive? As this is not one of the main relativity articles, and there is not likely to be any consensus on the issues under dispute, including a lot of quotes from reputable people seems to be the only good alternative. So I agree with removing the tag. Roger (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Relativity priority dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060627211005/http://www.americanscientist.org:80/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611?&print=yes to http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611?&print=yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Link okay, but author or work not mentioned in article. - DVdm (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim
There is a long debate about Hilbert's possible claiming priority. He might well have had priority, whatever he claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.175.160 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Heaviside should be included.
In 1888 Heaviside published his paper on the effects of a moving charge. That paper contains an equation for the electric field of a moving charge in which can be found the Lorentz boost formula. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_effects_of_a_moving_charge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.127.151 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Whittaker (1954) General relativity subsection
Hi all, an IP user keeps adding back Sir Edmund Whittaker in the General Relativity section with no references discussing his role in that dispute. Can someone else revert the new revision so I do not count as being in a content war? You cannot synthesize results like that using a quote from Whittaker's book to say he was part of the dispute when no one discusses this in published works. Wikiepdia requires reliable references, the claim constitutes original research and is forbidden.Footlessmouse (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a no original research warning to the IP user's talk page in hopes that will help him or her understand the policy betterFootlessmouse (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made additional edits to correct the problem. I will try to make this a side project in the next few weeks and attempt to rewrite most of it to make it more clear and avoid all the according to whom? templates.Footlessmouse (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whittaker versus Torretti
As far as I know, there is one GR dispute involving Whittaker: In the chapter "Gravitation" on p. 151f. he attributed the following to Planck (1907):
 * "Now, said Planck, all energy has inertial properties, and therefore all energy must gravitate."

That this is incorrect was pointed out by Torretti in his book Relativity and Geometry, who translated the relevant passage in Planck's paper as follows (p. 134):
 * "The thermic radiation in a perfectly void cavity surrounded by reflecting walls certainly possesses inertial mass. Does it also have ponderable mass? If, as it seems most likely, this question is to be answered in the negative, the generally assumed identity of inertial and ponderable mass, confirmed hitherto by all experiments, is evidently destroyed."

to which Torretti comments on p. 310:
 * "In his eagerness to detract from Einstein's originality, Whittaker quotes the above passage as saying the opposite of what we have just read."

Torretti's translation is equivalent to the one I made several years ago, see Max Planck – s:Translation:On_the_Dynamics_of_Moving_Systems, "The thermal radiation in a fully evacuated space, bounded by reflecting walls, surely has inertial mass; but has it also ponderable mass? If this question is to be denied, which surely should be the obvious choice, then it seems that the identity of inertial and ponderable mass, which was confirmed by all previous experiences and was generally accepted, must be abolished." --D.H (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice job finding that. I am not convinced that qualifies him as a main actor in the priority dispute, but I think a "Whittaker v. Torretri" section or a "other disputes" section would be appropriate for thoroughness. Does anyone else mention this? I've read multiple times about how much credit Whittaker gave Einstein for the General Theory, saying such things as his developments were "remarkable achievements" and such. And no one reviewing the situation afterwards notes his role in the general relativity dispute, in fact they use his review of general relativity to surmise he did not have a big grudge against Einstein. Therefore, all broad statements about it are contested, but I think a "other disputes relating to general relativity" might be in order. Please note: Priority means the one who gets credit and Whittaker gave credit to Einstein. By definition of the priority dispute, then, he was not a real actor (unless you find other references saying I'm wrong, always possible).Footlessmouse (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I don't really think that this should be included in the actors or belligerents section, this information is highly relevent to the newly created A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity article. I believe this information should be included as a subsection of the Second volume section, with the title other disputes, just beneath the special relativity section. As Whittaker makes a claim in the book that is disputed, in addition to the special relativity statements, readers should find that there. Feel free to add it, since the attribution is yours. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With the exception of this website, I couldn't find another mention of this "dispute". Anyway, I agree with you that it should be added in the A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity article. --D.H (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that this page be split into General relativity priority dispute (or the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute as I believe it is actually called) and Special relativity priority dispute (or the Einstein-Poincare Connection as I've seen it called many times). The two sections of the current page seems to be large enough to make their own pages. In addition, I propose this page be converted to a disambiguation page, leaving the lead in place as a quick summary as to their connection. The split would be easy, as you can see everything is already worked out, we just need to untangle the references and it nicely makes two separate articles. More importantly, it paves the way to convert lists to prose without overwhelming the article.Footlessmouse (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ping recent editors Footlessmouse (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein controversy is an option as well that may be better that Einstein-Poincare connection in scope.Footlessmouse (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem for me. "General relativity priority dispute" and "Special relativity priority dispute" with redirects from resp. "Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute and Einstein-Poincare connection sounds fine.
 * I don't think we need a dab page. Just a single for clause at the top would be sufficient. I think dispute is better than controversy.
 * By the way, this article has a particular (and somewhat unusual, rather un-Wiki) section structure style, common for both cases. I can imagine that eventually these structures could drift apart. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, going by what DVdm says, if there are no objections, I will split General relativity priority dispute out and then move this page to special relativity priority dispute. That would leave the redirect for this page pointing to special relativity, which is the more notable of the two. Hat notes at the top of the pages will resolve any DAB issues. Let me know if there are any objections. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no objections as well. --D.H (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not so fast! I object. It should all  be  kept together,  so  readers  will  see  the  whole  coherent  picture  as  one.  It  is  all relativity and all belongs  together.  It  was  perfect  before  Footlessmouse  started  messing  with  it.  I  would  restore  it  all  to  what  it  all  was  before  Footlessmouse  came around here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Restore the entire article to July 3 version
Footlessmouse has come in here and ruined this article. I would restore the entire article to the July 3 version just before Footlessmouse started vandalizing it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, I apologize I just now saw this. First, I am not a vandal and have never vandalized Wikipedia. Could you point to an instance where I vandalized the article, please? I can't help but to take that as a personal attack. I have not done that much to this article, it was something I noticed on the side while editing other pages. I wish you had made your objection before I had actually created the new page, but it can still be discussed. Why do you believe it should all be together? It was split for sound reasons, being both too long and only tangentially connected, most of the references are different. They are different disputes with different actors that share only Einstein in common. Please let me know both your opinion on why they should stay together as well as how you justify your exceptionally rude attack. Thanks Footlessmouse (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No offense but  you  massacred a  perfectly  good  and  straightforward  article.  The  July 3 version was perfect, neat, clear, organized, straightforward, concise  and  perfectly  clear.  The  July 3 version is not too long at all,  and says  everything clearly as possible. They are not 'tangentially'  related, they are directly  related and it all belongs together. Please  revert it  all  back  to  July 3 version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Much offence taken, you've definitely ruined my night and killed all joy I have for trying to improve the encyclopedia. I like how the problem is just me, the only change I made to the article prior to October was to add a Wiki-link, but that's unacceptable because it was me. I think most independent editors will disagree with you on every single item on your list of things the July 3rd article was, but we'll have to wait for them to chime in. Many of the things I fixed were fixed because of policy issues. Reverting it back will just invite them to be fixed again. No original research is allowed, neutral point of view always. The article was lacking in those areas and I made a few changes to fix that. Wikipedia is not a book or textbook and it gives only an neutral encyclopedic overview of topics. So please, point out places where I have vandalized the page, otherwise I assume you said that only to insult me while exaggerating your claim. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please restore the  July 3 Version and keep  it as a structure, to which you can add any details without destroying the structure. I was particularly angry how you had removed Whittaker's quote about Hilbert publishing the Field Equation nearly simultaneously with Einstein, and I am glad you  put that  back, which I had gotten  you to restore.  Now please restore the entire July 3 Version without removing such key material as Whittaker's quote  as you did.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I replaced it because I realized that it would be a fine quote to use in the introduction; I told you many times, placing him in that section was labeling him as part of the dispute and that is original research, as none of our sources talk about his role in the dispute. So that would be fixed immediately. What key information did I erase? I certainly don't remember that and the history does not show me deleting a bunch of stuff, it is mostly rewording and rearranging. I am obviously not going to revert it and I obviously object. We will see what others think, but if you don't give them a reason, I don't really see anyone complying with your request. You have yet to say how I vandalized the page or point to any specific example of anything. Also, the fact that you are sticking with July 3rd instead of September 24th or later implies you did not check the history outside of finding the first reference to my name, you are not reading my comments, and you otherwise may not be acting in good faith. I will halt future editing pending other editors opinions on the matter. Thank you for your criticism. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

OK let's  revert the whole article  back to  the  September 24  Version, which was the last decent version, and which has no talk of  'belligerents' like you wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to change small things like "belligerents" without requesting everyone's edits get reverted as vandalism, that's ridiculously inappropriate. I've been thinking of changing it to "actors" for a while, go ahead and do that. You have to realize that "Attackers and defenders" is infinitely worse, though, right? They are called belligerents in articles on battles and I couldn't' really think of a better analog. The structure of the article is horrible and I'm not the only person who thinks that. Also, my edits of October 3rd to bring the section on Pais to NPOV standards is also required and would be immediately redone. So why not October 6th? Then I did some copyediting and rewording that was unobjectionable. I believe the only things you dislike are the moves I literally just did, the arrangement to separate the entirely different topics of special and general relativity priority, and the fact that I removed Whittaker from the section that claimed he was part of the dispute, but you have provided no grounds for showing they were wrong. I object any revision and "I don't like it" is not an argument for anything. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whittaker 1954  belongs  front  and  center, regarding  both  Special  and  General relativities. Whittaker  said  it  all  and  he is  the  most  reputable  and  most highly respected  person to  write on  this  topic.  He  belongs  at  the  top.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Restore the September 24 version immediately
Footlessmouse had no  business  cutting  this  all  in  half. It belongs  together  for  clear perspective. The September 24 version was clear  and  compact,  please restore  it  immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop singling me out, this is borderline-harassment. If you do not like the changes that were properly proposed and carried out in accordance with policy, please say you don't like the changes. Singling out editors and insulting them is disruptive and I'm very tired of it. You can read the above material, I did nothing wrong; given there were two support and no objections IT WAS PROPER TO SPLIT THE PAGE!!! So please stop spewing out obnoxiously ignorant garbage like I "had no buisiness...". Footlessmouse (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Watching from the sidelines, I don't see anything wrong with 's actions. The discussion about whether or not to split was open for a reasonable amount of time and had about as much input as I'd expect for a procedural matter about a niche topic. Each half is long enough to be its own article, and lumping them together doesn't really make for a different perspective. No harm, no foul. I'll remind everyone of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * IP-editor: made a spitting proposal. Two other editors were supportive, no-one opposed the proposal, and it was closed. Then Footlessmouse started to implement the proposal, and you accused them of vandalism. It is very clear that nothing like vandalism was involved. You need to withdraw that entirely unwarranted accusation. Maproom (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a fairly embarrassed of this whole thing, I apologize for my last remark, I definitely should not have responded. I will do better next time. Once this issue is settled, I believe refactoring the talk page to exclude this entire ordeal is in order. The conversation has revolved around us as editors and not on anything that can be done to improve the article. A summary of the whole dispute can be added saying the IP editor objects to the recent changes and proposed to restore the article to September 24th and I objected. Thank you to those who chimed in, I hope I have not wasted too much of anyone's time. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What do we want this page to be
Hi all, should this page be made like an article or like a timeline? I think it would be easier to make nice timelines out of the pair of these articles, but with a little work they can also be made into nice articles. Does anyone have comments or suggestions? Footlessmouse (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's easier to write the article in line with the current Timeline section (which I expanded a long time ago in 2011) that summarizes the statements of historians of special relativity (there is no lack of them). The corresponding sections can certainly be further expanded. Of course, it would certainly be an improvement if it were possible to represent those opinions more systematically in the form of an article instead of a timeline, but I think it requires considerably more effort. --D.H (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)