Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  • Complete archive

Individual archive files:


Note:

  1. please add your comments below at the end of the appropriate section,
  2. if possible, please use indentation to distinguish your comments (an initial colon will tab a paragraph),
  3. please don't forget to sign and date your comments by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment.

For example, here is my sig: CH 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Background Radiation

I deleted the comment about zero point energy from the Background Radiation section because zero point energy is not any kind of "background radiation", and bears no resemblance to Le Sage's momentum flux streaming rectilinearly through space. In quantum field theory the whole notion of mechanistic entities that can be tracked through space like normal objects is discarded. I simply think it's too much of a stretch to credit Fatio or Le Sage for predicting quantum field theory. To my mind, this is a "novel historical narrative and interpretation" of the kind that does not belong in Wikipedia. I would need to see a reputable source stating that Le Sage theory predicted the zero point energy of quantum field theory.SJC1 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edits and only included some wikilinks (also the headline "background radiation" was doubled before). But I thought it would be worth mentioning, that indeed a "attracting force" like the casimir effect arises from some sort of push process in the vacuum. Of course, it's not exactly a Le Sage type shielding.... --D.hainz 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I think the POV tag at the beginning of the article should be removed. The entire article is mainly based on primary historical sources. Also the prediction/criticism section reflects mainstream science and therefore is NPOV according to Wikipedia policies. --D.hainz 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection was made, so I removed the POV tag. --D.hainz 17:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits

Now, after some months I think that the greatest parts of my edits are over. The historical and thematic parts are fully discussed in the article. (There are only a few changes in the Le Sage and Tommasina section to made....if I can grasp some primary sources). Here is a list of my recent edits:

  1. Minor corrections in the Fatio and Le Sage sections.
  2. Including a description of the wave theory of Keller in the Keller, Leray, Boisbaudran section.
  3. Creation of a new Isenkrahe, Rysanek, Du Bois-Reymond section.
  4. Expanding the Lorentz section.
  5. Shortening the Poincare/Thomson section.
  6. Some edits in the Porosity of Matter section (Including a comment to the electrical constitution of matter).
  7. Rename and rewrite the mass accretion section into Absorbed Energy.
  8. Inserting some links to: Keller, Picart, Du Bois-Reymond, Farr (all primary) and to a new mathpages article (secondary). --D.hainz 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Including the Mainstream - The Silent Majority

I think the recent edits of D.hainz are pretty good, but I think the article is still lacking any coherent and comprehensive presentation of the mainstream view. What I mean is this: The article contains a lot of non-mainstream assertions along with the associated non-mainstream reasoning... and then it says "Mainstream science disagrees", or "Mainstream scientists don't take this seriously", or words to that effect. The problem is, the article rarely gives the mainstream REASONS for disagreeing or for not taking something seriously. Newton laughs at it, Herschel says it's grotesque, Euler says it's repugnant, Darwin says no man of science agrees with it, Poincare speaks disdainfully of it, Feynman says it doesn't work, and so on... yet the article rarely explains WHY all these scientists held these views. The difficulty here (in Wikipedia) is that the mainstream scientists regard Le Sage as SO self-evidently wrong and childish, that it would be a waste of time to publish anything about it. So almost the only things that have been published about it are things written by people to whom the foolishness of the theory is not self-evident. Hence we never get the mainstream side of the story. At most, we get a handful of popular expository articles that just cite Le Sage as an example of a theory that doesn't work, but never really explaining in scientific detail WHY it doesn't work. The same is true for other discredited theories, such as the theory that gravity is due to all material bodies expanding at an accelerating rate, causing the distances between them to shrink. Now, this is an absurd theory, but the only things published on it are in favor of it, because no serious person would stoop to address it. Le Sage is not quite in that same category, but it's close. So, to try to address this problem in the article, I made some additions to the Energy Absorption section, under Criticisms and Predictions. This isn't chisled in stone, but it indicates the KIND of explanation of the mainstream view that I think is needed in the article.SJC1 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, that the article "rarely gives the mainstream REASONS for disagreeing". In fact, every reason for the overthrow of the theory (thermodynamic, drag, aberration, shielding, infinite energy etc.) ís discussed in detail. And the same arguments against the theory are valid today. BTW: The only "official" discussion between Le Sage gravity proponants and mainstream physisists are the newsgroup discussions of Steve Carlip with Stowe/Mingst or Van Flandern - but newsgroup postings are hardly a reputable source of information....
Maybe the Maxwell section was a little bit unclear, so I added a sentence refering to the handling of the thermodynamic problem in the Poincare section. Also I included a citation of Aronson in the Absorbed Energy section and left your corrections regarding "conversion from hot to cold" unchanged - but I removed the passage of the unexplained absorption capability of the ultramandane corpuscles. The problematic of cohesive forces and the nature of particles is already mentioned in the Bois-Reymond section. Every step beyond that would lead us to some sort of original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia (for some very good reasons). --D.hainz 18:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Du Bois-Reymond Cone-Proof?

I question the value of describing the "du Bois-Reymond cone-proof" in so much detail, because all he is saying is that, according to Le Sage theory, there is gravitational saturation, so it doesn't maintain mass proportionality for masses greater than a certain size. The "cone proof" is just a convoluted and obscure way of saying the same thing. It could be summarized in just a sentence, saying that du Bois cited saturation as an objection to the theory. (Of course, since saturation can be made as small as we like, this isn't really a very strong objection, except that it highlights the lack of falsifiability of Le Sage theory, since it has enough free variables to nullify every prediction.) Much more important is du Bois's comment that even if Le Sage theory was empirically viable, it would not accomplish its intent, which is to eliminate elementary attractive forces at a distance.

So, my suggestion is to delete the image and most of the description of the "cone proof", and just note that du Bois cited saturation and the lack of strict mass proportionality as objections to the theory. Then expand on his comments on the failure of Le Sage gravity to eliminate elementary attractive forces at a distance.SJC1 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstandings. Bois's argument has nothing to do with saturation or shielding. It is only based on the finite strength of the ultramundane flux, which means that mass proportionality is nicht strictly fulfilled in Le Sage's theory, independent (!) from the question, whether there is some shielding or not (The shielding effect must be computed additionally). --D.hainz 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not independent, they are the same thing. In Le Sage theory the force of gravity is essentially equal to the product of the flux intensity and the surface area per gram of mass. To achieve approximate mass proportionality, we need to minimize saturation and shielding, which means we need to make the surface area per gram of mass extremely small, which means the flux intensity must be extremely great. To completely eliminate saturation and internal shielding, it would be necessary to have ZERO surface area per gram, and therefore infinite intensity of flux. But this is not possible. (The force of gravity would then be infinity times zero.) So du Bois was NOT saying anything new. He was simply objecting to the saturation limit implicit in Le Sage theory, expressing it in a different way.
This highlights one of the problems with the existing article: It has section headers like "Later Developments", implying that there have been "developments" in Fatio-Le Sage theory. That isn't accurate. Nothing new has been said about Fatio-Le Sage theory since about 1694. All that has happened since then is that new people have come along to repeat the same things, over and over. The way the article is presently written, it could easily mislead the reader into thinking this is some kind of "active" field of research, when in fact there has been nothing new in over 300 years (and it was anachronitic already in the 1690s!)SJC1 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatio and Le Sage

First of all, I created a Wikisource page, where I placed Plarfair's Notice de la Vie et des Ecrits de George Louis Le Sage (in English).

I think SJC1's recent edits do not provide an accurate historical description.

  1. It isn't necessary, to comment on every single statement Le Sage's, that Fatio hat the same idea before. So I inserted one passage, which present Zehe's statement on this issue. I wrote: Le Sage discussed the theory very detailed, but by comparing it with Fatio's theory, Zehe judged that Le Sage actually contributed nothing essentially new and, although Le Sage was in possession of Fatio's papers, he often didn't reach Fatio's level.
  2. It's not true, that "in none of Le Sage's published works did he acknowledge any of his predecessors". He did in the 1756 paper and in the 1818 paper (published by Prevost). Sometimes he says, Fatio's theory is "perfectly similar" to his own, that he said it is "ill-assured". Therefore I've created an extra section for "Fatio and Le Sage" - including the citations of the letter to Lambert, and his comment in Lucrece Newtonien. The section shows, how contradicting Le Sage's statements were. I think that's sufficient.

PS: In my POV, the reasons of Le Sage's peculiar statements are founded in his mental and physical constitution. We know, that Le Sage had an accident, which left him almost blind. Also his catastrophic memory must be considered as well. But my POV doesn't belong in the article. --D.hainz 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For aspects of the theory that have already been described by Fatio, there really is no need to repeat them at all in the Le Sage section. I agree it is tedious to have a long list of statements, each prefaced with the words "Like Fatio, Le Sage said...", but the proper way to fix this tedium is to simply delete the statements. Once we have said that Le Sage's theory is essentially identical to Fatio's, what else needs to be said? Fatio's theory has already been described in detail in the previous section.
You are counting Prevosts 1818 publication as one of Le Sage's "four" published works, and this is certainly justifiable for technical content, but since it was prepared for publication by Prevost many years after Le Sage's death, it is obviously not valid testimony of Le Sage's willingness to credit Fatio in his published works. Furthermore, the "crediting" that Fatio receives in Prevost's publication is actually more of an denigration than a credit. It was on the basis of Prevost's account that all subsequent researchers who relied on him believed that Fatio "had really not explained gravity at all", and that Le Sage was very generous to even mention him. But this is all irrelevant, because, as I said, this was Prevost's publication. Of the remaining three "publications", only two actually have the status of real publications, and in neither of those did Le Sage credit his predecessors. So, I think D.hainz is padding and slanting the history to suit his tastes.
Furthermore, Le Sage's most polished mature presentation, Newtonian Lucretius, does not simply omit mention of his predecessors, it contains a long section in which Le Sage arrogantly berates all previous thinkers for failing to discover "his" theory, which is so simple that HE was able to discover it as a mere child. I think this material is very appropriate for inclusion in this article, as it gives the fullest direct account of what Le Sage claimed regarding his own accomplishment and that of his (unnamed) predecessors. Deleting this primary material from Le Sage's most famous work (as D.hainz has done) is motivated only by the fact that it doesn't support a particular POV. I think the material should be re-instated, to give an accurate historical account of Le Sage.
As to the actual reasons for why Le Sage wrote what he did in Lucretius, and whether it was a result of blindness or a bad memory, or a preference to believe that he had accomplished something with his life, we obviously aren't in a position to know. All we can do is accurately report what he published. On that basis, by today's standards, the readers can conclude for themselves that Le Sage clearly was either mentally impaired or else he was knowingly claiming undue credit to himself (or perhaps both).SJC1 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The current list of references to the article lists only two publications of Le Sage on this theory, so I'm removed the comments about his FOUR published papers until those are cited.SJC1 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. I thought the phrase "vague and ill-assured fashion" would be sufficient. But if you want to insert more specific material from Lucrece Newtonien, no problem. BTW: Is the Smithsonian-Lucretius-paper public domain? Than I could place Abbot's translation as a Wikisource page - what about that?
  2. Also the letter to "Mercure de France" is a publication and must be mentioned. And regarding the Physique Mechanique publication: Well, it wasn't published by Le Sage himself. But also the Lucrece-paper wasn't published by Le Sage, but was read by Prevost in Berlin. So at the end, both papers carry the fingerprints of Prevost. The only papers "published" by Le Sage himself were his various letters and his "Essai" (but which was only in possession of a handful people.)
  3. Regarding POV: My edits are mostly based on primary sources, which is the best way to avoid POV. --D.hainz 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My apparent quibbling about what qualifies as a "publication" is due to the fact that there seems to be a double standard applied to Le Sage and Fatio. The article asserts flatly that Fatio never published anything on the subject, and this is sometimes offered as justification for not crediting him, and yet Fatio actually presented papers to the Royal Society, and circulated drafts, and got prominent fellow scientists to sign them, wrote letters, and even submitted a description of his theory to a Prize contest in Paris (similar to Le Sage's prize entry)... yet none of this counts as publication or "communicating his ideas". Well, okay... but when we then consider Le Sage, is it correct to credit him with essays, letters that circulated among a small number of people, and with contest prize entries, and with things that were actually published by others, especially many years after his death? In my opinion, Fatio and Le Sage were not much different in how much they, themselves, actually "published" in a formal sense. Le Sage was more fortunate to have a friend (Prevost) interested in promoting his ideas, and also in living at a time when formal modern ideas about "publication" were becoming more prevalent.SJC1 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a "double standard". In fact, none of the Fatio-material in the article was published in his lifetime, but was published long after his death by Bopp and Gagnebin. Also the Fatio-reception section is only based on letters, which were'n published for a long thim. So under those circumstances, it would be unfair not to include Le Sage's material like the "Phyisque Mechanique" or some of his letters. Of course it's true: The main difference between Fatio and Le Sage was not the number of published works, but the existence of friends like Prevost, Deluc etc., who presented Le Sage's theory in their papers. But none of Fatio's "friends" like Huygens, Bernoulli etc. did something like that. --D.hainz 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. As I said initially, it's perfectly appropriate to cite posthumous works and letters and anything else for technical information as to their theories. But the question at hand is the proper crediting of the person who originated the theory, and the avoidance of giving posterity a false impression of whose theory it was. For this purpose, we can place very little weight on posthumously published works assembled and edited by other people. We are interested in what the person officially claimed, for the record. And for this we must rely most heavily on any formal publications... which for Le Sage limits us to just two (at most!) documents, namely, the prize essay and Lucretius, in neither of which he credited anyone else, and in fact strongly claimed that he was the first to successfully grasp the theory. On the other hand, the double-standard arises when people say that Le Sage deserves to be credited with the theory, even though he wasn't the first to think of it, because he published it whereas Fatio did not. This is where I see some double standard, because Fatio promoted and publicized his idea as energetically as Le Sage did, and both submitted prize contest entries, and so on.SJC1 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "If it is a dream..."

The claim that Lichenberg "supported Le Sage's idea for a long time" is substantiated only by the quotation that begins "If it is a dream, ...". This, in itself, does not really indicate support of a scientific theory, to call it a dream. It should also be noted that this somewhat anachronistic form of "if" expression in English has the meaning "Although it is a dream..." So, I suggest providing some actual reference for the claim that Lichenberg supported Le Sage for a long time. Also, the aspect of Kant's philosophy that compelled him to change his mind, and his final mature considered opinion of Le Sage's theory should be presented.SJC1 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I will provide more information. PS: Thanks for the info regarding the word "if". I replaced it with "in case". --D.hainz 09:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The replacement of "if" with "in case" doesn't really address the point. Here's a sentence from one of Fatio's friends for you to parse: "If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". This is a semantical device, considered slightly affectatious, whereby someone explains something without having to actually assert it. It is NOT exactly a conditional if/then statement, as in "IN CASE I have seen further than others, THEN I stood on the shoulders of giants." No, he is saying "Far be it from me to ever claim that I have seen further than others (I am much too modest)... but if I have, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Of course, shorn of the nuanced syntax, his real message is "I have seen further than others because I stood on the shoulders of giants". The "if" is just for being nice. I don't think this kind of "if" formulation is confined to English, because when I read what Lichtenberg said, it strikes me that he was speaking in the same sense. Ultimately the sentence must be placed in context. Trying to do history by isolated "sound bites" is risky... and susceptible to manipulation and distortion.SJC1 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits concerning Lichtenberg are not correct. I know the meaning of Lichtenberg's german statement very well, but maybe the way of my description was unclear. The word "although" (which you used) is inappropriate - Lichtenberg made his statement in a time, when he supported Le Sage's model - not afterwards, as your edits suggested. So I tried to make a better one:

In 1790 he expressed his enthusiasm for the theory, because Le Sage's theory embraces all of our knowledge und makes any further dreaming useless. But should Le Sage's theory have been only a dream "it is the greatest and the most magnificent which was ever dreamed".

--D.hainz 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It still sounds fishy to me. Instead of paraphrasing him, could you provide the entire quote in context, and cite the reference?SJC1 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Inelastic?

I think there's a problem with the paragraph describing Le Sage's basic concept. It says he postulated totally inelastic colisions, but then it says he talked about reducing the speed of the corpuscles by 2/3. Well, if the colisions are totally inelastic, the speed (relative to the ordinary matter) is reduced to zero, by definition. So the corpuscles just stick to the bars, perhaps slipping off later. The thing about reducing speed by 2/3 must be based on some assumed elasticity. The thing about angles of incidence really doesn't make sense either. This is presumably when Maxwell meant when he said Le Sage's theory of impact was faulty.SJC1 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One other point: The article tries to excuse Le Sage for not realizing that Fatio's theory involved inelastic interactions by saying the section of Fatio's paper where this is explained is difficult to understand. That's not a valid argument, because throughout Fatio's description, in all the sections, he states explicitly several times that the force of gravity is due to the particles having less speed going away than they had when approaching. There is simply no plausible way for any sentient being to "miss" this. You don't have to slog through a difficult sections of his paper, he states it right up front, in just so many words. So, I think the attempted excuse about the difficult sections should be removed from the article.SJC1 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding elasticity: The same argument (including absolute hardness, inelasticaty) was made by Isenkrahe - and he derived the same value as Le Sage. The explanation was as follows: Suppose a straight line, and many particles travelling relativ to that line. The particle-velocity after the impact of two particles is zero only in the case, that both particles are travelling on the same straight line and therefore after the impact their kinetic energy if fully destroyed. But if only one particle is travelling on that line, and the other particle is coming from another angle, only the velocity component in the direction of that line is destroyed in the second particle, but the other component remains. Under those assumptions Isenkrahe calculated the resultant mean velocity, and like Le Sage, he came to the conclusion, that the mean velocity of the particles after the collision is 2/3. --D.hainz 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. According to Le Sage theory, the ultramundane corpuscles are moving so much faster than the greatest speed of motion of ordinary matter that drag is negligible. In other words, from the standpoint of the ultramundane particles, the particles of ordinary matter at all essentially stationary. Now, if Le Sage (and Isenkrahe) want(s) to claim that the particles of ordinary matter are spherical (for example), and the ultramundane particles lose all their motion in the direction normal to the surface of the ordinary matter particle, but none of their motion is lost in the tangential direction, then this should be stated. This isn't really describing perfectly inelastic collisions, it is describing a more complicated kind of scattering interaction. But from what you said, this is not what they had in mind, because you talked about both particles moving in various directions prior to contact, and that is simply not relevant to Le Sage theory. As far as interactions are concerns, the ordinary matter is essentially a stationary target for the incoming corpuscles.SJC1 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A follow-up on this point: A 2/3 factor is easily seen to come from assuming spherical particles of ordinary matter, and assuming the collisions are totally inelastic normal to the surface, and totally elastic tangential to the surface. But three points need to be made about this. First, it is not what you described, regarding the lines of motion of the particles. Second, as Darwin showed, Le Sage's theory does NOT give an inverse square law if you assume the normal elasticity is different from the tangential elasticity. Third, the 2/3 factor applies only to the ultramundane corpuscles that make contact with ordinary matter, which is a negligibly small fraction of all the ultramundane corpuscles, so the whole thing is irrelevant anyway. So, unless we want to present this "2/3 business" as an example of the senseless and misguided thought processes of Le Sage and his adherents, I think it should just be charitably deleted.SJC1 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your description is correct. Isenkrahe first used the example with the "straight line" only ot show the difference between the various forms of collision. Then in the next chapter he calculated the effect of the collision of the gravific particles on a stationary body and he derived the 2/3 factor. Isenkrahe also noted that under this suppositions the inverse square law is only valid on greater distances.

BTW: Le Sage derived the 2/3 factor as well, but he never clearly pointed out why -- maybe the issue should be discussed in the Isenkrahe section, not in the Le Sage section. --D.hainz 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lomonosov ??

Since every other person who ever uttered a word about this theory has been included in the article, it seems we should include a few words on Losomonov, or whatever his name was. I think he described the theory in a letter to Euler.SJC1 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was Mikhail Lomonosov, but I wasn't able to find out what exactly he said on this topic. --D.hainz 14:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholared Associates?

The article says Le Sage's ideas attracted little support, except for his "scholared associated Prevost, Bonnet, Deluc and L'Huilier". The word would be scholarly instead of scholared, except that I don't think this is a good characterization. Previously the article called them "close associates", which was better. Basically, Prevost and L'Huilier were Le Sage's students, and Bonnet was his best friend, and Deluc was a Swiss geologist and meteorologist. All four were either very close associates/students/friends, with the possible exception of Deluc (I don't know if he was personally friends with Le Sage or not), but Deluc wasn't a physicist anyway, so the word "scholarly" is misleading anyway. I think it was more accurate the way it was written previously, i.e., his close associates, or maybe identify them as "his students Prevost and L'Huilier, his close friend Bonnet, and the Swiss geologist Deluc". The point is, list his next-door neighbor and his barber and his brother-in-law as scholarly supporters of his theory is kind of silly and POV slanting on the basic fact that his theory essentially attracted no supporters. Sure, a couple of his students and his best friend wrote favorably about it, but that's just silly and POV to list those people without acknowledging how closely they were related to Le Sage (if they are going to be mentioned at all).SJC1 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the text, but: To bring scholarly people like Prevost, Bonnet, Deluc and L'Huilier in connection to "barbers", "brothers-in-law" etc. is the only thing, which is "silly and POV". So I please you to tone down your comments. --D.hainz 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] em-waves

I was able to find some historical material on the connection between Le Sage gravity and electromagnetic waves.

  1. The secondary re-radiation mechanism was first developed by Thomson in 1904 in his paper Electricity and Matter. The "matter" article in 1911 was only a renewed version of his 1904-paper. Therefore Poincare was only repeating Thomson's re-radiation argument. So I moved the Thomsons section into the Lorentz-section and finshed the section with as small Tommasina/Brush passage.
  2. Poincare published his criticism on Lesage for the first time in 1908 in his paper La dynamique de l'électron, Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 19, pp. 386-402. That paper was reprinted in the same year in Science and Methode.
  3. Aronson wrote : "Poincare notes without comment that as late as 1900 the eminent physicist Lorentz was still working on Tommasina's wave formulation of the theory of gravitation." That's wrong. It was Lorentz, who first introduced such a mechanism in 1900 - in that paper Tommasina's name isn't mentioned. But Tommasina published his first explanation of gravitation in 1903 - Tommasina also said in one of his papers, that his theory is "competely different" from that of Loretnz, because Tommasina also introduced long-wavelength radition. But because Poincare first mentioned Tommasina and after him Lorentz, Aronson obviously believed, that Poincare's description was in a historical order. So based on those primary sources I've changed the order of the theories.
  4. I've included a link to Maxwell's "Atom" from Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition and created a wikisource-version of Thomson's article "Matter" from Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition. --D.hainz 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shielding

I've shortened the shielding passage and re-inserted the passage in the article on gravitational shielding. --D.hainz 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some edits

I wrote some passages about P.G. Tait, Hendrik Lorentz and Richard Feynman and included links to
Le Sage: Deux traités de physique mécanique
Tait: Lectures on some recent advances in physical science with a special lecture on force
Lorentz: Lectures On Theoretical Physics (pp. 151-155)
Arp: Le Sage gravity
Mathpages: Kinetic Pressure and Tetrode’s Star
Auffray: Preston on E=mc² and Dual origin of E=mc²
--D.hainz 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/_/Talk%7ELe_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation_9a8a.html"