LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago

Physics Nobel Committee Should Learn Physics! And the notion of truth!

The truth shall not just make us free, but also safe, and moral. Teaching thinking is to teach truth and how to get to it. One should start by not deliberately lying. And understanding when it is that humanity started to understand something.

Intellectuals should revere the truth. If Satan speaks the truth, intellectuals should quote him approvingly.Why? Because ethics is truth! The Nobel in Physics was given to screwdriver turners for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”

However the rest of the press release from the Nobel committee on physics is a lie: it attributes the original idea of gravitational waves to a German. Surely the physicists who sit on the Nobel Committee are knowledgeable enough to know this is a lie. That sort of lies may sounds innocuous, it’s not: it’s anti-scientific, and proto-Nazi. It teaches the youth wrong. It teaches present day Nazis wrong.

The generation of waves by a central source field is easy to understand in primary school.

It’s because of these sorts of nationalistic distortions that Germans, a century ago, got so full of hubris that they went mad: everybody told them they invented everything! Everybody told Germans they were the superior race! And Max Planck was one of the prophets of this German superiority. ! And the hated French, were nothing, because that “inferior race” had invented nothing! Thus, naturally enough, since they were told from everywhere that they were so smart, the Germans decided to subjugate the rest of humanity, be it only to enlighten it (that was the idea of Keynes in “The Economic Consequence of Peace”).

Actually, it’s not a German who discovered, and named, “Relativity”, but a Frenchman.    

In press releases announcing the detection of gravitational waves, the collaborations LIGO and VIRGO, as well as the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France), explicitly (and WRONGLY) attributed to the German Albert Einstein the original prediction of the existence of gravitational waves in 1916. A similar comment is made in the Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO.

But actually, gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light, were clearly predicted by Henri Poincaré on June 5, 1905, as a relativistic requirement. Poincaré made this requirement explicit in his academic note Sur la dynamique de l’électron (On electron dynamics, June 5, 1905) published by the French Académie des Sciences.

At the time, Poincaré was already world famous, and Einstein, nothing. Planck, a German nationalist, would make Einstein everything by allowing Einstein to publish articles without any reference on preceding he knew about, and parroted. This was sheer propaganda.

After explicitly formulating special relativity in this fundamental article, Poincaré further develops the requirement suggested by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz that the new space-time transformation leading to special relativity should apply to all existing forces and not just to the electromagnetic interaction. (At the insistence of Poincaré, Lorentz got the Nobel for Relativity in 1902)

Henri Poincaré concludes that, as a consequence of the new space-time geometry, gravitation must generate waves traveling at the speed of light in a similar way to electromagnetism.

Following the pre-Nazi German nationalistic propaganda contained in the press releases of scientific collaborations and institutions, almost all medias attribute to Albert Einstein the original prediction of gravitational waves.

The Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,  PRL 116, 061102 (11 February 2016), explicitly sates https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 : “In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves”. What, then, about the work done by Henri Poincaré 11 years before the Einstein finding ?

Actually, the situation seems quite clear. In his short article of 5 June 1905 Sur la dynamique de l’électron, C.R. T.140 (1905) 1504-1508 (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, France), http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Poincare/Poincare_pdf/Poincare_CR1905.pdf , the French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré explicitly formulated special relativity upgrading the space-time transformations that he called “Lorentz transformations” and to which he referred as the “Lorentz group”. After having worked out and discussed the new space-time geometry, Poincaré writes:

… Mais ce n’est pas tout: Lorentz, dans l’Ouvrage cité, a jugé nécessaire de compléter son hypothèse en supposant que toutes les forces, quelle qu’en soit l’origine, soient affectées, par une translation [a change of inertial frame in Poincaré’s language], de la même manière que les forces électromagnétiques, et que, par conséquent, l’effet produit sur leurs composantes par la transformation de Lorentz est encore défini par les équations (4).

Il importait d’examiner cette hypothèse de plus près et en particulier de rechercher quelles modifications elle nous obligerait à apporter aux lois de la gravitation [HOW TO MODIFY GRAVITATION]. C’est ce que j’ai cherché à déterminer; j’ai été d’abord conduit à supposer que la propagation de la gravitation n’est pas instantanée, mais se fait avec la vitesse de la lumière. (…)

Quand nous parlerons donc de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attirant, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où l’onde gravifique [GRAVITATIONAL WAVE] est partie de ce corps; quand nous parlerons de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attiré, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où ce corps attiré a été atteint par l’onde gravifique émanée de l’autre corps; il est clair que le premier instant est antérieur au second… [End of quote]

Gravitational waves were thus explicitly predicted by Henri Poincaré in his 5 june 1905 article formulating special relativity. All of these ideas got incorporated in the gravitational wave equation of Einstein (who worked closely, day by day, with a number of top mathematicians at the time, including crack mathematician David Hilbert, who found a different approach).

In special relativity, such as already defined explicitly, with all its equations, by Poincaré and Lorentz, the speed of light c is not just the speed of a specific object (light) but a universal constant defining (local) space-time geometry. As a consequence, no physical object, signal, or correlation can travel faster than c. Poincaré explained in extreme details the philosophy behind it (if something is always true, it’s a law of nature), in a book which Einstein and his student friends studied in thorough detail (although Einstein didn’t quote Poincaré in his famous 1905 parrot work, naturally enough for a nationalistic parrot (later Einstein would have a fall-out with another French Nobel, Bergson, about Relativity).

According to Poincaré in his article of 5 June 1905, the requirement of a universal space-time geometry with the speed of light c as the critical speed implies that the gravitational force must be propagated by gravitational waves with a speed equal to c , just as electromagnetic waves carry the electromagnetic interaction.

As Henri Poincaré explicitly underlines, the space-time geometry defined by Lorentz tranformations applies to all existing forces including the gravitational ones. Thus, gravitation cannot propagate instantaneously and must instead propagate at the speed of light. The same argument clearly applies to any object associated to gravitation.

Considering as a simple example the gravitational interaction between two bodies, Poincaré introduces a “gravific wave” leaving the first body, traveling at the speed of light and reaching the second body at a later time. This was the original formulation of the prediction of gravitational waves in a context where its general scope was obvious. Poincaré had been working for years on electromagnetism, and knew perfectly well that more sophisticated scenarios than the example he was providing could be imagined without altering the role of c as the critical speed.

A decade later, with general relativity, Albert Einstein considered in detail more involved scenarios than the one made explicit by Poincaré, incorporating in particular an effective space-time curvature generated by gravitation in a static universe. But this does not invalidate the basic principle discovered and formulated by Henri Poincaré in 1905.

In his article, Poincaré also refers to the previous work by Pierre-Simon de Laplace, Count of Laplace (1749-1827), one of the main French scientists of the period of Napoléon Bonaparte. Laplace had already considered the possibility that gravitation propagates at some finite speed, but he did not question the basic space-time geometry.

Poincaré had demonstrated and published E = m c^2… in 1900, more than 5 years before Einstein plagiarized it.

I have talked about this for years. I am happy that Science 2.0 picked up the notion in “Henri Poincaré Predicted The Existence Of Gravitational Waves As Early As June 5, 1905”

Correct attribution of civilization defining discoveries is fundamental. Example: India discovered numbers & zero as used today.

The chronological hierarchy of discoveries reflects, in general, the logical hierarchy of evidence supporting these discoveries. Whether in science, or in global thinking. Thus who discovered what, when, how and why, is not just anecdotal. it’s logical, according to the most natural logic.

As it turns out, few places in spacetime made most civilization defining discoveries, and then they made plenty of them, and that was related to political processes: a few Greek city-states, especially Ionian cities and Athens and Paris and its satellites are obvious examples.

One can learn to learn better, one can learn to think better, this is what the existence of concentrations of civilizational genesis, show.

It’s crucially important to understand what made these places tick and how, with the aim of reproducing such circumstances. Paris was the pioneering place in science, worldwide, for around a millennium, and this was the core mental skeleton of Europe, and even civilization. Buridan discovered in particular the inertia, thus the heliocentric system (attributed to Copernicus, well after the Catholic Church made studying Buridan into a capital crime!), Lamarck, evolution (taught in Paris while forbidden in England, etc… The same crowd probably wants us to believe in Donald Trump and Neo Liberalism, as no good idea could possibly come from anywhere else not Germanoido-Anglo-Saxon. The Nobel Committee is dominated by US physicists anxious to demonstrate US superiority and, in particular, the superiority of US universities, because there is beaucoup money in it, and it could please their sponsors (the tax-free plutocrats).

It’s also important to make correct attributions, because the original authors are always clearer about their reasonings, and how they got there. Plagiarists tend to be more obscure, because they hide their tracks.

Re-attributing the correct discoveries can be shattering, and teaches us how obscurantism proceeds to eradicate knowledge. The disappearance, for two millennia, of non-Euclidean geometry, is a case in point. So is that of atomism, and “Brownian” motion. The suppression of Buridan and the heliocentric system, by the Christian church is a particularly sinister instance: it was vicious, deliberate, and motivated by the hatred for thinking..

So let’s celebrate the discovery of gravitational waves. My little drawing above shows that one does not need even relativity to make waves. A big motion of the source will do, as anybody watching a tsunami on TV knows.

The gravitational wave detectors inaugurate a new sort of measuring instrument. However, the idea is at least as old as the Michelson and Morley interferometer of the Nineteenth Century. There is nothing new to it. (That’s why I called the laureates “screwdriver turners.)

And what of Planck, Einstein’s unhinged sponsor? Planck signed a disgusting message in World War One denying Germany had committed war crimes (he later denounced it, when the war was over). The French made one of Planck’s sons prisoner in World War One, and the other son was caged and executed by Hitler. That Hitler interlocutor, Max Planck, got, unfortunately, not just for him, but all humanity, his just deserts. But let’s not keep on having them now. Want Relativity? Think Henri Poincaré, forget about his parrots!

Planck enabled Einstein to post in the Annalen der Physik, the oldest journal in physics (1799), WITHOUT any reference, on the three most famous subjects in physics at the time. It was vicious and deliberate, to serve the satanic god of hyper-nationalism of the racist type. Playing with hyper-nationalism, Planck ended up losing, and Einstein, and the German Jews, became double losers (they lost as Germans and as Jews). So here is a case of the losers writing history… German hyper nationalism was encouraged by Einstein and Planck, with a false flag attribution, and they, and their kind, lost twice.

Truth is not seen just with the eyes. Truth is seen through the mind of a thorough debate.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: ,

18 Responses to “LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Hey you, watch it! If you say French are smart are we going to suffer from socialism, universal health care and gun control?


  2. colettebytes Says:

    History, as laid down by ‘winners’ is full of inaccuracies! Truth! What is truth? Only what we see with our own two eyes, but even then we can be duped!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In this case, Planck enabled Einstein to post in the Annalen der Physik, the oldest journal in physics (1799), WITHOUT any reference, on the three most famous subjects in physics. It was vicious and deliberate. Planck ended up losing, and Einstein, and the German Jews, became double losers (they lost as Germans and as Jews). So here is a case of the losers writing history… German hyper nationalism was encouraged by Einstein and Planck, with a false flag attribution, and they, and their kind, lost twice.

      Truth is not seen just with the eyes. Truth is seen through the mind of a thorough debate.


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Sabine H, Quantum Gravity Physicist.]

    The Nobel Committee insists that the idea of gravitational wave came from Einstein, something which is not correct, but a form of truthiness:

    In general, each time a discovery is announced the Committee should report in great detail upon the history of a subject, going back 3 millennia if need be (don’t laugh, there are examples, for example in biology: Ionian Greeks were the first to write down correct ideas about evolution!)

    The Prize people should teach truth, not truthiness and personality cult, not even when Max Planck launched the lie!


  4. Nobel, Not Noble: Fictitious Fiction Is An Addiction | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Morality Without Intelligence Makes As Much Sense As Will Without Mind. Intelligence Is At The Core Of Humanism. « Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago […]


  5. EugenR Says:

    Sorry i don’t get you. What’s so important about who made the discovery? Anyway every discovery is just a top of the hill of a long process of climbing done by many. Who discovered calculus? Newton or Libnitz? Or was it result of previouse findings from Descartes or Pascal? Or maybe even Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī? Or even Pythagoras? What is so important about if it is a Franchman or not? More important is that this new knowledge, sometimes only based on different presentation of knowledge already discovered by someone, was brought to the awareness of the scientific community, that could continue the climb on the mountain of knowledge.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Actually, it’s FERMAT who discovered calculus. He went as far as demonstrating the fundamental theorem of calculus, namely that differentiation and integration are inverse of each other (in some general sense).
      The chronological hierarchy of discoveries reflects, in general, the logical hierarchy of evidence supporting these discoveries. Whether in science, or in global thinking.
      I tried to explain this.
      Thus who discovered what, when, how and why, is not just anecdotal. it’s logical, according to the most natural logic.

      One can learn to learn, one can learn to think better, this is what the existence of concentrations of civilizational genesis, show.

      Al Khwarizmi transmitted Indian math, mostly…

      What so important about France, was the “TRANSLATIO STUDII” from Athens to Paris, which the Franks proclaimed. The University of Paris and the legal system which produced it (extending all over the Imperium Francorum and Renovatio Imperium Romanorum, was not an accident, but a deliberate plan.

      Buridan (1350 CE) went where the Greeks had not been (nor any sort of Arabs… Or Muslims:

      Buridan invented graphs, inertia, circular inertia, heliocentrism, Newton one could say, and had countless students, including Nicholas Oresme, and Oxford U…



  6. EugenR Says:

    One more thing, to call all the experimental physicists “screwdriver turners” is not only rude, but also misleading. Galileo was an experimental and theoretical physicist. Without the discovery of steem engine would have not been discovered the laws of thermodynamics. And what about Faraday? Was he also only a screwdriver turner? Darwin himself was an experimentalist, who made his conclusions based on evidence he personally collected like a good detective. Etc.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am not calling Galileo a screw driver turner. And the insult was deliberate: we have known, at least since Michelson and Morley, the principle of an interferometer.
      Too many physics prizes have been given to non-geniuses. (Even the Higgs attribution is suspect; the Higgs reasoning is a few lines, others held it first…)
      If the gravitational waves project heads deserved the prize, I want to be shown what it is they really found, what device they devised. Even Nobel himself, specifically made several specific discoveries he was first to make….

      Faraday was a great scientist, although he knew no math. He discovered himself something fundamental Ampere had missed… Basically the inverse effect….

      Research professor Lamarck was an immense observationalist, and theoretician. Amateur Darwin same just much smaller and later… 😉


  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Commented on
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/momentum-force-inertia-middle-ages-buridan/ ]

    Thanks Eugen for the compliment…
    What I tried to say in the ‘Einstein didn’t think of gravitational waves first’ essay
    is that we have to be weary of Einstein. I love Einstein and read him approvingly for decades. Only later did I discover that Lorentz, Poincare’ and others discovered Relativity. Aside from writing a nice abstract in German (1905), and advertizing it don’t really know what Einstein did in Relativity (and I have struggle to understand Relativity for decades, now I think I get it, paradoxes included; it’s like a particular case of my subjacent theory).

    Einstein was especially a genius at picking up other people’s ideas. He did that for the Brownian motion, he did it with photoelectric effect, with Planck (Planck was furious). He did it with Relativity (nobody of note said anything). He did if with Bose-Einstein statistics, he did it with the nonlocal EPR.

    In the case of the EPR the input from Karl Popper may have been crucial, and one will think that the more, the more Popper one reads. There is actually a POPPER THOUGHT experiment, a variant of the EPR. Of course not as important than my variant of the two-slit.

    The crux is that I believe that Einstein made a big mistake in his Photoelectric paper of 1905, justly famous, and for which he got the Nobel (said Nobel.Org). He assumed the particle stayed a particle when in translation, and that led to 112 years of error by physicis viewed as a culture:

    A bit more of defiance vis a vis Einstein may lead to a revolution in Physics…


  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sabine H, the Quantum Gravity physicist, blocked my little comment above. However she allowed outrageously sexist comments in the same post. So I sent another comment, to check whether the hatred of France was greater than the appreciation of sexism. I will recopied one sexist comment she enabled, and didn’t comment on… In another comment.

    The difference is grounded in physics: Ms Sabine H believes we “live on one side of a wave function”, that is she believes in the Many World/Multiverse; I believe such beliefs are akin to madness: the “wave function” is not physical! Hence all the troubles of physics. Thus her blocking my comment is akin to serious censorship in physics.]

    By giving the Prize to living scientists only, Nobel.Org deforms history. They know it, so they mentioned one dead scientist when they attributed the Prize for the “Higgs”. A rare event. (The probable reason being that the Sakurai Prize had been given to 6 scientists, earlier, for the same “Higgs”. And even that didn’t cover all the discoverers, according to another famous Nobel Laureate who thought he deserved a share!))

    However, Einstein is long dead, but Nobel.Org just mentioned him for gravitational waves.

    The Nobel Committee insisted, when giving the Prize to three particular individuals for gravitational waves that the idea of gravitational wave came from Einstein, something which is not really correct, as Henri Poincaré predicted “onde gravifique”. And the prediction is (in part) elementary physics.

    (Let’s mention in passing that the Nobel Committee had deliberately NOT given the Physics Prize to Einstein for “Relativity”, as it was viewed that the by then dead Henri Poincaré deserved it; Einstein got the Prize for the photoelectric effect and other contributions.)
    I wrote a whole essay. complete with extensive quotes of Henri Poincaré on this. (Science 2.0 also mentioned it)

    In general, each time a discovery is announced the Nobel Committee and other organization attributing prizes, should, report as a matter of basic ethics, in great detail upon the history of a subject, going way back in history if need be.

    Scientists should teach truth, not personality cult. I adore Einstein, but he would have been the first to dislike a personality cult.

    Teaching the history of a subject doesn’t just teach attributions, but often the logic of discovery. And in particular, how discoveries are made, not just by particular individuals, but by an entire culture, or civilization.


  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Overall sexist comment enabled by Sabine Hossenfelder (from a famous physics family), whereas mine reproduced here on top, was blocked. Seems like sexism is OK, but truth about Henri Poincaré and gravitational waves, or that Planck contributed to the Nazi disaster of Germany in more ways than two, is, simply, not OK!
    Here is the reproduced, and highly offensive, highly sexist “women are shit at science”, which Sabine Hossenfelder didn’t mind:

    Jim said…
    Vera Rubin, together with Kent Ford made pretty easy observations after getting access to the best telescopes. They weren’t original observations, and they weren’t intellectually deep – they got to check rotation speeds of galaxies, wow, that’s kinda retard level science compared to all the particle physics discoveries and theoretical physics going on at the time. It’s like people forgo all the normal judgements in scientific discovery when a female is involved, Jocelyn Bell Burnell basically was a dumb obedient observer of a blit pattern, Rosalind Franklin was a posh 3rd degree chemist who, for some reason, obtained the best dna samples and held back scientific progress by months because she was irrational and unwilling to share them, (it took a few seconds for a competent man to see a photograph and deduce the helix structure, in fact it is common knowledge that Franklin and Dorothy Hodgkin had a meeting on the (obvious) evidence and ended up dismissing it). Also, “Madame” Curie just stirred a “soup”, that her much more able husband had developed a sophisticated detector for.

    Women are mostly shit at science, technology and math,
    it’s historical fact, the few that genuinely are good are to be celebrated, Noether is one.

    8:43 PM, October 07, 2017


  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Here is a general idea I have made a cult of, hence my comments on censorship above:
    All passes, decays, dies. So we may as well stand for what’s right, because, if anything survives, what’s right will


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, who published it…]

    That the discovery of gravitational wave deserved a Nobel Prize is obvious. It gives us a new sort of telescope, based on gravitational, rather than electromagnetic, waves. However, a huge numbers of individuals brought this forth. It serves no purpose, but the cult of the cult of personality to give the prize to just three individuals. In contrast, the Nobel Peace Prize was just given to a number of nuclear disarmament organizations, not just three individuals. The nobel Committee makes physics into what it is not, by rewarding, and thus singling out, just a few. It compounded its mistake by singling out Einstein was a gravitational wave maven.

    Making a few super stars in physics does not help people understand how discovering physics work.

    Einstein was just one of the individuals who helped with the notion and discovery of gravitational waves. The prediction of gravitational waves was from Poincaré, and it was published in the French Academy of Sciences June 5, 1905. All what Einstein did, in contradicting the existence of gravitational waves later in his career, is that he didn’t understand Relativity. No wonder, it is Jules Henri Poincaré who named and discovered Relativity. Poincaré pushed the Nobel Committee to give the Nobel to Lorentz for work on Relativity in 1902.

    Here are extensive quotes of Poincaré on gravitational waves, from 1905:


  12. Watch This Ocean Of Galaxies, And Tremble! | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] such as the Nobel lionize, erroneously, a few people misleading us in how the achievements of humanities in the matter of science are […]


  13. Patrice D. Ayme Says:

    Sent to: https://www.quora.com/Was-Einstein-a-fake-and-a-plagiarist

    It’s complicated. Einstein himself admitted to hiding his sources, and even claimed that was the source of his creativity (!!!).
    All the equations of Special Relativity were known before Einstein. The deepest ideas of gravitation theory were not from Einstein (but Riemann, etc.) . Gravity waves from Relativity published by Poincare’, June 5, 1905, Academies des Sciences… A century earlier, Laplace.
    LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago (https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/henri-poincare-not-einstein-discovered-gravitational-waves-111-years-ago/)
    However, Einstein was totally great at taking other people ideas, and making them much better. He did that for the photoelectric effect (expanding on Planck), relativity (nice exposition in a tight package), gravitation (ideas and collaborators from all over), Bose-Einstein statistics (Bose had contacted Einstein with the fundamental idea). Nonlocality (EPR; more or less false ideas from Karl Popper put Einstein on track).
    The story is not finished. It’s a testimony to Einstein’s genius that much, all too much, physics, including QFT, depends upon him, in depth:
    EINSTEIN’S ERROR: The Multiverse (https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/)


  14. Pinker Than Pink: Pinker Paid For Seeing World Through Rose Colored Glasses | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] in 1899, at the Sorbonne, in physics journal in 1900, and in all generality, 1905… and also Poincaré discovered gravitational waves, relativistic […]


  15. Patrice Ayme Says:


    Poincare was extremely generous person, he routinely attributed his contributions to others left and right. For instance, he contributed the transformations to Lorentz, while Lorentz himself admitted he didn’t do them in the form in which Poincare presented them, and didn’t see their value at the time. That was one factor why Poincare did not insist on attribution to his work from Einsten.
    Einstein was told by his mentor Minkowsky about Poincare’s work, which included pretty much everything on special and general relativity, including mc2 which was derived by Poincare. Minkowsky was friends with Poincare, and theyt had a lot of private communication with stuff which was not published. Einstein took everything that Poincare did, and did not refer to him until way-way later, many years later. He then pretended that he forgot. Yes, of course. Rightfully, he did not get Nobel for relativity work, because at the time everyone knew what was going. Minkowsky spoke with Poincare on the subject, and the latter did not want to complain.
    There was some anymosity between German and French, and also physicists vs. mathematicians kind. So Planck and other German dudes kept promoting EInstein’s work, and consistently ignored Poincare’s. For instance, there are myths that somehow Poincare did not do general relativity (false), or that he wanted ether (false) etc. It sort of worked, the general population thinks Einstein did it all, but all physicist know that something’s not right with this business.
    You can find a few historical researches on the subject out there, like this one.

    shareciteimprove this answer
    answered Mar 4 ’14 at 15:01



What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: