Changes

1,144 bytes added ,  19:28, April 9, 2012
Line 466: Line 466:  
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
 
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
 
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
 +
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
278

edits