I gave you the quote where Lorentz said that Einstein postulated what was previously proved. It is not speculation. Lorentz proved something called the theorem of the corresponding states, and Einstein just assumed it as a postulate.

The theory of relativity was certainly not solely Einstein’s work. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of every historian who has written about the matter.

Poincare understood the physical significance of special relativity much better than Einstein. Poincare was able to address the previous work, and say who was right and who was wrong. Einstein was not able to do that.

I did not say that Lorentz was generous to Poincare because sometimes Lorentz failed to credit Poincare.

I am not claiming any conspiracy theory. Just read the Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein papers. All of the original and brilliant ideas are in the Lorentz and Poincare papers.

You claim to be a mathematician, and you claim that Einstein’s contribution was mathematical rationalism, and yet you cannot find an idea or formula that was original to Einstein.

Therefore, Poincare’s ether speculations are in stark contrast from Einstein’s 1905 paper where he just abandons it without waffling.

–Roger: “His 1905 theory does not depend on the aether at all. He only mentions the aether when discussing the work of others.”

See pp. 131 and 152 of Poincare’s electron paper (1905) where he is dealing with the ether and specifically mentions the energy as being “mainly located in the ether parts nearest the electron.” Clearly, he is using the notion of ether by this time (1905), when Einstein abandoned it. Even in his 1908 book, Poincare was still toying with the ether hypothesis.

–”Poincare had all the equations correct, including E = mc^2.”

Physics is not merely about equations, but understanding their physical significance. The equivalence between mass and energy by means of this equation was not understood until Einstein, which is why he is credited for it.

–”But it does not change the facts that those theories were conceived before Einstein, that Einstein only postulated what his predecessors proved”

That’s like saying Euclid only postulated what the geometers before him proved. It is pretty clear by now that you have something against Einstein and are reinterpreting the history of relativity for a private agenda. That charge, by the way, can be levelled if one felt like it, against nearly any physicist today doing original work.

–”that this was the opinion of Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, and everyone else at the time, and that Lorentz credited Poincare over Einstein.”

Idle speculation. Lorentz already said that “the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work.” That’s the point. Learn to accept it. Otherwise it is your issue not that of the physics community.

I’ve many other things to do, so I won’t be bothering to look at your response since it’s clear you do not wish to approach this issue objectively. Your interpretation of Lorentz being “generous” to Einstein proves my point since you did not prefer to say that Lorentz was being generous toward Poincare instead. You have an agenda, and I think I exposed it, but I won’t waste more time on someone’s conspiracy theory.

Lorentz generously credited Einstein. It is true that Einstein’s papers included explanations of some points omitted by Lorentz. Einstein’s work can be considered independent of previous theories if you assume that Einstein would have conceived the work of all his predecessors. That is right. But it does not change the facts that those theories were conceived before Einstein, that Einstein only postulated what his predecessors proved, that this was the opinion of Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, and everyone else at the time, and that Lorentz credited Poincare over Einstein.

“The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t’ must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein’s theory, on the contrary, t’ plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x’, y’, z’, t’ we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x, y, z, t.”

p. 321 of his book “The Theory of Electrons”. Notice he’s giving Einstein credit for the correct physical understanding of the variables and transformation, not Poincare (who assumed the ether).

Further, Lorentz made the following comment regarding Einstein’s relativity:

“I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work. And there can be no doubt that he would have conceived it even if the work of all his predecessors in the theory of this field had not been done at all. His work is in this respect independent of the previous theories.”

Lorentz, H.A. (1928), “Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment”, The Astrophysical Journal 68: 345-351

Finally, your comment about Poincare denying the ether is plainly false. Look up Poincare’s 1905 paper “On the Dynamics of the Electron” in which he assumes the ether. He may have had some equations right — except E = mc^2 — but Poincare did not have the correct physical understanding of them — not to dismiss his genius as a mathematician, of course.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Pais makes the argument that Poincare never understood special relativity. But all the scholars acknowledge that Poincare got all of the formulas correct, and did it without any help from Einstein. And it was Poincare who explicitly denied the aether, while Lorentz’s position was similar to Einstein’s.

That is all.

We need rationalism in order to create a context and structure for all that data. Rationalism allows us to make forecasts for instance. That is the magic and danger of rationalism–knowledge without the dirty work of gathering data.

Rationalism should never be unhitched from the bridle of empiricism because it is easy, all too easy, to make errors of logic.

He advocates for the existence of “brute facts,” things that exist for no reason! And he gets to define which facts are brute.

That does not seem to be very “scientific,” but it is useful to him because it is the only way he can completely eliminate God.