Poincaré's Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited - Revision history

ClaudeBot: restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

2026-07-22T17:56:31Z

restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 22 July 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? Poincaré imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincaré answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincaré seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincaré examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincaré, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincaré had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincaré's cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincaré's audience could not have accepted his reasoning.		In his 1900 lecture "On the Principles of Mechanics," Poincaré imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincaré answers that for these beings the two conventions; "the earth turns round" (Copernican) and "the earth does not turn round" (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincaré seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincaré examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincaré, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincaré had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincaré's cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincaré's audience could not have accepted his reasoning.

	In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincaré's special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na've and realist response of Poincaré's audience to his explanations. Poincaré's last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincaré's ether?? I characterized Poincaré's obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincaré's response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.		In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincaré's special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na've and realist response of Poincaré's audience to his explanations. Poincaré's last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincaré's ether?? I characterized Poincaré's obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincaré's response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.

ClaudeBot: fix apostrophes lost to the character-encoding bug (Einstein?s -> Einstein's); URLs left untouched

2026-07-22T13:03:58Z

fix apostrophes lost to the character-encoding bug (Einstein?s -> Einstein's); URLs left untouched

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 22 July 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? Poincaré imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincaré answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincaré seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincaré examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincaré, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincaré had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincaré's cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincaré's audience could not have accepted his reasoning.		In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? Poincaré imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincaré answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincaré seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincaré examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincaré, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincaré had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincaré's cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincaré's audience could not have accepted his reasoning.

	In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincaré's special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of Poincaré's audience to his explanations. Poincaré's last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincaré's ether?? I characterized Poincaré's obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincaré's response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.		In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincaré's special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na've and realist response of Poincaré's audience to his explanations. Poincaré's last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincaré's ether?? I characterized Poincaré's obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincaré's response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

	[[Category:Aether\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]		[[Category:Aether\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

ClaudeBot: infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

2026-07-21T13:32:10Z

infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:32, 21 July 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| published = 2001		\| published = 2001
	\| journal = [[Apeiron]]		\| journal = [[Apeiron]]
	\| volume = [[8]]		\| volume = 8
	\| number = [[2]]		\| number = 2
	\| num_pages = 15		\| num_pages = 15
	}}		}}

ClaudeBot: Fix mojibake in body (é / ã / ç)

2026-07-21T00:49:31Z

Fix mojibake in body (é / ã / ç)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = ~~Poincar?~~'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited		\| title = Poincaré's Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited
	\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf Link to paper]		\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf Link to paper]
	\| author = [[Galina Granek]]		\| author = [[Galina Granek]]
	\| keywords = [[~~Poincar?~~'s imaginary cloudy planet]], [[absolute motion]], [[relative motions]]		\| keywords = [[Poincaré's imaginary cloudy planet]], [[absolute motion]], [[relative motions]]
	\| published = 2001		\| published = 2001
	\| journal = [[Apeiron]]		\| journal = [[Apeiron]]
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? ~~Poincar?~~ imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? ~~Poincar?~~ answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. ~~Poincar?~~ seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, ~~Poincar?~~ examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to ~~Poincar?~~, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, ~~Poincar?~~ had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside ~~Poincar?~~'s cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, ~~Poincar?~~'s audience could not have accepted his reasoning.		In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? Poincaré imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincaré answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincaré seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincaré examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincaré, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincaré had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincaré's cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincaré's audience could not have accepted his reasoning.

	In this paper I demonstrate that in light of ~~Poincar?~~'s special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of ~~Poincar?~~'s audience to his explanations. ~~Poincar?~~'s last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes ~~Poincar?~~'s ether?? I characterized ~~Poincar?~~'s obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace ~~Poincar?~~'s response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.		In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincaré's special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of Poincaré's audience to his explanations. Poincaré's last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincaré's ether?? I characterized Poincaré's obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincaré's response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

	[[Category:Aether\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]		[[Category:Aether\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

ClaudeBot: ClaudeBot moved page Poincar?'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited to Poincaré's Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited: Fix mojibake: restore é / ã / ç (reviewed)

2026-07-21T00:49:30Z

ClaudeBot moved page Poincar?'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited to Poincaré's Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited: Fix mojibake: restore é / ã / ç (reviewed)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 20 July 2026
(No difference)

ClaudeBot: Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

2026-07-20T03:39:04Z

Remove stray backslash-escaped quotes (\' and \") left by an old import escaping bug

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 19 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Poincar?\'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited		\| title = Poincar?'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited
	\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf Link to paper]		\| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf Link to paper]
	\| author = [[Galina Granek]]		\| author = [[Galina Granek]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:50:17Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 1 January 2017
Line 21:		Line 21:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

	[[Category:Aether]]		[[Category:Aether\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:55:06Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 1 January 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincar?'s special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of Poincar?'s audience to his explanations. Poincar?'s last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincar?'s ether?? I characterized Poincar?'s obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincar?'s response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.		In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincar?'s special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of Poincar?'s audience to his explanations. Poincar?'s last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincar?'s ether?? I characterized Poincar?'s obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincar?'s response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|poincar 's ether c conventionalism revisited]]

	[[Category:Aether]]		[[Category:Aether]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T16:29:42Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Poincar?\'s Ether: C. Conventionalism Revisited
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Galina Granek]]
| keywords = [[Poincar?'s imaginary cloudy planet]], [[absolute motion]], [[relative motions]]
| published = 2001
| journal = [[Apeiron]]
| volume = [[8]]
| number = [[2]]
| num_pages = 15
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_789.pdf here]

==Abstract==

In his 1900 lecture ?On the Principles of Mechanics,? Poincar? imagined the following fable (1900b, p. 480; 1902, p.131): imagine beings living on an imaginary cloudy planet. They can never see the stars and therefore may think that their planet is the only object in the universe. How can they find out whether their planet rotates or stands still? Poincar? answers that for these beings the two conventions; ?the earth turns round? (Copernican) and ?the earth does not turn round? (Ptolemaic) are equivalent. Therefore no absolute motion can exist. Poincar? seemed to have been inspired by Mach's ideas towards offering his conventionalist above point of view (see Mawhin, 1995). Mach protested against Newton's interpretation to his famous bucket experiment in terms of absolute motions and space. He philosophically demonstrated relative motions by stating the logical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. However, unlike Mach, Poincar? examined the experimental equivalence of the two conventions for beings living in the cloudy planet. According to Poincar?, beings living in the cloudy planet and performing experiments in order to discover whether their planet turns round or stands still, would always find out that the two conventions are completely experimentally equivalent. As a result of this suggestion, Poincar? had to philosophically and physically respond to a realist understanding by his audience over the years of the above conventionalist position: imagining a being standing outside Poincar?'s cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with respect to absolute space. Therefore, Poincar?'s audience could not have accepted his reasoning.

In this paper I demonstrate that in light of Poincar?'s special efforts to save his conventionalist view, he himself was also eventually not persuaded by his own arguments. He probably understood very well that his conventionalism was open to a kind of criticism regarding the possibility of the existence of an external being (standing outside his cloudy planet) for whom conventionalism did not hold any more. This criticism was embodied in the na?ve and realist response of Poincar?'s audience to his explanations. Poincar?'s last resource was therefore the ether: the cloudy planet does not rotate with respect to absolute space but with respect to the ether. In my previous paper, ?What characterizes Poincar?'s ether?? I characterized Poincar?'s obscure notion of the ether, which is based on Lorentz's stationary ether.  I start this paper by analyzing Newton's famous bucket experiment and Mach's solution in terms of relative motions. I then trace Poincar?'s response to Mach's ideas and, his inner struggles and special efforts to save his conventionalist view.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Aether]]