[olivelappers]

>>When Einstein formulated SR,.................Eh??????????????????


... he was adamant [damn near arrogant actually] that this was the way it was, and he was 100% correct...........????????????????


___________________


There are those who may not have such a clear cut, black and white view of history.

___________________


Einstein replied to his old friend Born



"Everybody does what he considers right... If he manages to convince others, that is their own affair. I myself have certainly found satisfaction in my efforts, but I would not consider it sensible to defend the results of my work as being my own 'property', as some old miser might defend the few coppers he had laboriously scrapped together. I do not hold anything against him [Whittaker], nor of course, against you. After all, I do not need to read the thing."



On the other hand, in the same year (1953), Einstein wrote to the organizers of a celebration honoring the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, saying



"I hope that one will also take care on that occasion to suitably honor the merits of Lorentz and Poincare."


macx

[Lhiistyssdds]

Thanks for that rundown based on what notes you have macx....
But it doesn't really answer my questions...which is.....
Under what observational and/or experimental evidence, [other then the M/M experiment was the acceptance of SR based on, at that period of time of course.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
he was adamant [damn near arrogant actually] that this was the way it was, and he was 100% correct.........
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::


Yes.....
from my notes:
quote:
"Einstein relied on his own intuition as to how things ought to behave"
unquote; and Einstein also was criticised by his professors for exactly the same attitude, Minowski being one, and Weber the other, who actually became quite obsessed with his criticism of Einstein. As far as Einstein was concerned the feeeling was mutual as Weber was stuck in the complete Newtonian rut, and neither accepted or taught and of the new physics that lead to SR.

also...
quote:
" Not only was experiment unimportant to Einstein 's construction of a new foundation for physics the ideas of other physicists was also unimportant. He paid little attention to others work. He seemed not even to have read any of the important technical articles on space/time and the aether that Henrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, Joseph Larmor and others wrote between 1896 and 1905.

In there articles, Lorentz Poincare and Larmor were groping towards the same revisions of our notions of space and time as Einstein, but they were groping though a fog of misconceptions foisted on them by Newtonian physics. Einstein by contrast was able to cast off the Newtonian misconceptions

His conviction that the Universe loved simplicity and beauty and his willingness to be guided by this conviction, even if it meant destroying the foundations of Newtonian physics, led him with a clarity of thought that others could not match to his new description of space and time"
unquote:


Quotes taken from that renowned experts on BH's and respected scientist, Kip S Thorne, in his equally acclaimed book, "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy.

[Oberjej]

Thorne chronicles the evolution of the concept of the black hole, from
abstract mathematical idealization to concrete physical object. The as-
ronomer Karl Schwarzschild first discovered what we now call a black hole
as a mathematical solution to Einstein’s gravitational field equation (while
he was serving in the German army on the Russian front during World War
). But for decades, most physicists stubbornly resisted the preposterous
mplications of Schwarzschild’s solution.

*********


This included Einstein himself,
who wrote a regrettable (and quite incorrect) paper in 1939 arguing that
black holes cannot exist.

*********


Not until the 1960’s did the black hole concept
firmly take hold in the community of physicists and astronomers. Thorne
nostalgically recounts how the “golden age” of black hole research opened
up around 1964 as the first hints emerged that black holes have no hair.


________________________


Hardly 100% right!!

from:

Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy
by Kip Thorne
Reviewed by John Preskill

[teodaschwartia]

Hardly 100% right!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>



Is that right?
Perhaps you may like to give us the history as it did happen then.

I also disagree with your bit thus...
"" The asronomer Karl Schwarzschild first discovered what we now call a black hole
as a mathematical solution to Einstein’s gravitational field equation (while
he was serving in the German army"


All Schwarzchild did was reveal one of many solutions to Einsteins GR equations...just as Kerr and others did,.
Cygnus X-1 was the first observational evidence that gravitationally Completely Collapsed objects [hereafter known as BH's could really take place.
From memory Oppenheimer and others were the first to really undertake proper research into the phenomena, but that was put aside temporarilly with the advent of the "Manhatten Project"

Again with all due respect my question concerns SR and its acceptance by the scientific community without experimental and/or Observational evidence...other then the M/M experiment.

[homerdienru]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This included Einstein himself,
who wrote a regrettable (and quite incorrect) paper in 1939 arguing that
black holes cannot exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>


Correct....Even the great man was in some ways tied to present day convention....
He of course made a similar blunder [kis biggest by his own admission] with his "static Universe" hypothesis, despite his equations telling him differently.

[weightpillsnow]

Again with all due respect my question concerns SR and its acceptance by the scientific community without experimental and/or Observational evidence...other then the M/M experiment. It was a more self consistent mathematical explanation of the observations at the time.

Those squiggly lines rule.

[Andoror]

It was a more self consistent mathematical explanation of the observations at the time.

Those squiggly lines rule.

I agree...As Einstein said, "beautifully consistent"
But in reality, other then the M/M experiment, and as far as I know, no actual observational and/or experimental evidence at that time in 1905.
Of course that evidence did come later.

[Waymninelia]

Every bit of evidence for the previous physics also applied to relativity... only it fit better.

[Ijkavylo]

http://suite101.com/article/paul-dir...y-of-th-a46451

Paul Dirac and the Positron

The Positron

Thus, this hypothetical particle became known as the “positron” – a positive electron

To many this must have seen like mere mathematical “conjecture” with no bearing on actual fact. After all, there was no experimental data to back this up at the time. All Dirac had to work with was his mathematical expertise and the totalitarian principle, which implied that this thing which worked so well on paper simply had to exist in real life, unless there was an as-of-yet undiscovered rule preventing it. it is not unusual for the maths to lead the experimantal verification.

[doksSirmAdods]

http://suite101.com/article/paul-dir...y-of-th-a46451

Paul Dirac and the Positron



it is not unusual for the maths to lead the experimantal verification.

Agreed....But just like Dirac's work, it doesn't really become accepted until observational and/or experimental evidence is forthcoming.
This does not seem to be the case with SR.

[fissasste]

This does not seem to be the case with SR. well, people could well have thought it was right but they still would have needed the evidence to be sure. otherwise we wouldn't still be doing experiments to test relativity. and as we all know nothing is proved in science.

[u8MmZFmF]

well, people could well have thought it was right but they still would have needed the evidence to be sure. otherwise we wouldn't still be doing experiments to test relativity. and as we all know nothing is proved in science.

Actually the gist of my opening post....Einstein was 100% confident in SR/GR and even in the face of opposition from one of his teaching professors [Weber], brushed the criticism off with daring confidence.

The real evidence of course was observed with particle accelerators and the extended life spans on Muons etc [time dilation] as well as length contraction

[avappyboalt]

"The Great Equations" by Robert Crease has a good section on Einstein's work on SR and GR, for anyone interested.

[sitescools]

SR fit with the "Newtonian" pbservations if you like. That is the mathematics still worked with the "old" observations. Now it was some time before the extra bits could be investigated (except maybe for MM and ether).

[PlanTaleks]

SR fit with the "Newtonian" pbservations if you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Albeit slightly more accurately...but yeah, good answer !

[doxinwasido]

Is that right?
Perhaps you may like to give us the history as it did happen then.

I also disagree with your bit thus...
"" The asronomer Karl Schwarzschild first discovered what we now call a black hole
as a mathematical solution to Einstein’s gravitational field equation (while
he was serving in the German army"



Yes it is correct!

Yes he did provide the first solution to Einstein's field equations, and this is universally accepted by the scientific community.
To suggest otherwise is to deny history!

____________________________

KARL SCHWARZSCHILD (1873 - 1916)

[mireOpekrhype]

I also disagree with your bit thus...
"" The asronomer Karl Schwarzschild first discovered what we now call a black hole
as a mathematical solution to Einstein’s gravitational field equation (while
he was serving in the German army"



Yes it is correct!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >

From your own post No 36:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Karl Schwarzschild was a German physicist, best known for providing the first exact solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity in 1915 (the very same year that Einstein first introduced the concept of general relativity)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Providing a solution to Einstein's equations, is certainly not "discovering" BH's...Others also provided solutions, Kerr our NZ friend being one.....


Now what I said and which it appears you failed to see in my disagreement with the first quote in this post....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All Schwarzchild did was reveal one of many solutions to Einsteins GR equations...just as Kerr and others did,.
Cygnus X-1 was the first observational evidence that gravitationally Completely Collapsed objects [hereafter known as BH's could really take place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Once again, my question was about observational and/or experimental evidence re SR, at that time in and around 1905, and the closest correct answer to that in my opinion was Martin S's answer thus....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SR fit with the "Newtonian" pbservations if you like. That is the mathematics still worked with the "old" observations. Now it was some time before the extra bits could be investigated (except maybe for MM and ether).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Yarmark]

Mercury's behaviour

The integration provides the perihelion shift per revolution: https://sites.google.com/site/testso...t=42&width=110
This formula helped Gerber in 1898, the perihelion shifts of the planet to calculate. The result was consistent with the observations. 18 years later appeared the same formula in General relativity. https://sites.google.com/site/testso...English/gerber

[Blellurgews]

Thanks for the extra info Zarky, but again, like macx, you avoided the question which was on SR thus...

Once again, my question was about observational and/or experimental evidence re SR, at that time in and around 1905,



And I think it has been answered.

[Markdogas]

I wonder if more information is available on this classic experiment

the variation of an electron’s mass with velocity were thought to imply that all of the electron’s mass must be electromagnetic in origin Thanks