Friedwardt Winterberg

== Einstein–Hilbert dispute ==

== Einstein–Hilbert dispute ==

{{main|General relativity priority dispute}}

{{main|General relativity priority dispute}}

Winterberg was also involved in a dispute relating to the [[history of general relativity]] in a controversy over the publication of the general relativity field equations (both [[Albert Einstein]] and [[David Hilbert]] had each published them within a very short time span). In 1997, Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn, and John Stachel published an article in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' entitled "Belated decision in the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute", arguing that, after looking at the original proofs of the article by Hilbert, that they indicated that Hilbert had not anticipated Einstein's equations.{{harvnb|Corry|Renn|Stachel|1997}}

Winterberg was also involved in a dispute relating to the [[history of general relativity]] in a controversy over the publication of the general relativity field equations (both [[Albert Einstein]] and [[David Hilbert]] had each published them within a very short time span). In 1997, [[Leo Corry]], [[Jürgen Renn]], and [[John Stachel]] published an article in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' entitled "Belated decision in the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute", arguing that, after looking at the original proofs of the article by Hilbert, that they indicated that Hilbert had not anticipated Einstein's equations.{{harvnb|Corry|Renn|Stachel|1997}}

Winterberg published a refutation of these conclusions in 2004, observing that the galley proofs of Hilbert's articles had been tampered with — part of one page had been cut off. He argued that the removed part of the article contained the equations that Einstein later published and alleged that it was part of a "crude attempt by some unknown individual to falsify the historical record." He alleged that ''Science'' had refused to print the article and thus he was forced to publish it in ''[[Zeitschrift für Naturforschung]]''. Winterberg's article argued that despite the missing part of the proofs, that the correct crucial Field Equation is still imbedded on other pages of the proofs, in various forms, including Hilbert's variational principle with correct Lagrangian from which the Field Equation is immediately derived.Winterberg (2004). Winterberg presented his findings at the American Physical Society meeting in Tampa, Florida in April 2005.{{Citation needed|date=April 2009}}

Winterberg published a refutation of these conclusions in 2004, observing that the galley proofs of Hilbert's articles had been tampered with — part of one page had been cut off. He argued that the removed part of the article contained the equations that Einstein later published and alleged that it was part of a "crude attempt by some unknown individual to falsify the historical record." He alleged that ''Science'' had refused to print the article and thus he was forced to publish it in ''[[Zeitschrift für Naturforschung]]''. Winterberg's article argued that despite the missing part of the proofs, that the correct crucial Field Equation is still imbedded on other pages of the proofs, in various forms, including Hilbert's variational principle with correct Lagrangian from which the Field Equation is immediately derived.Winterberg (2004). Winterberg presented his findings at the American Physical Society meeting in Tampa, Florida in April 2005.{{Citation needed|date=April 2009}}