Re: Relativistic aberration

Am Freitag000009, 09.08.2024 um 10:56 schrieb Python:

Le 09/08/2024 à 07:35, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Donnerstag000008, 08.08.2024 um 13:17 schrieb Python:

Le 08/08/2024 à 09:05, Thomas Heger a écrit :
...

Actually Poincare did and assumed a four dimensional 'curved' spacetime, from which Euclid's three-dimensional space is a 'sub-chapter'.

>
This is not true.
>

This euclidean space is kind of projection into the realm of the local observer, who 'cuts' spacetime into time and space, simply by being somewhere.

>
This is not true.
>

This is a very different concept than the usual mainstream interpretation and actually different to the interpretation of Einstein in his 1905 paper, too.

>
This is not true.
>

Poincare's idea was further developed by Hermann Minkowski.

>
This is true.
>

So Poincare's relativity is different to Einstein's, which was mainly based on Hendrik Lorentz and his 'Lorentz transform'.

>
This is not true.
>

But Poincare regarded this concept of Lorentz as wrong

>
This is not true.
>

(even if he invented the name 'Lorentz transform').

>
This is true.
>

>
Would mind telling a little about your reasons to think so?
>
You just say:
>
this is true and that ain't.
>
But why do you think so?

 Because I've actually read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.
 

I don't speak French good enough to read Poincare, even if I have tried.
Poincare was a mathematician and wrote extremely difficult papers about obscure mathematical problems.
Those were way over my head and also not interesting enough for me.
But I have tried 'Sur le dynamic d'electron' (something similar in French)..
The reason was, that Einstein seemingly quoted it, even if it was printed a few days after Einstein's paper was handed in to 'Annalen der Physik'.
So I had assumed, that Einstein had lied about this date (together with Planck).
TH