EINSTEINIANA: SILLY AND CLEVER EDUCATORS

[Pentcho Valev]

Educator Michio Kaku teaches the false principle of constancy of the
speed of light in a silly manner (by telling the blatant lie that the
principle was inherent in Maxwell's theory) so Educator John Norton
mercilessly rebukes him:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When
Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the
question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found
that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was
frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found
that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same
velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is
supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich
Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the
formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results
described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based
Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows
light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a
sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Now it is Educator John Norton's turn to convey the same lie (that the
principle of constancy of the speed of light was inherent in Maxwell's
theory) by telling the truth. Is that possible? Yes it is - we all
live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world and Educator John Norton is
the "subtlest practitioner of doublethink":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_basics/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a
little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow
down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says
no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of
the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal
traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his
acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of
electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The
theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years
before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating
in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed
of the ripple was a quite definite number: c. The speed of a light
signal was quite unlike the speed of a pebble, say. The pebble could
move at any speed, depending on how hard it was thrown. It was
different with light in Maxwell's theory. No matter how the light
signal was made and projected, its speed always came out the same. The
principle of relativity assured Einstein that the laws of nature were
the same for all inertial observers. That light always propagated at
the same speed was a law within Maxwell's theory. If the principle of
relativity was applied to it, the light postulate resulted
immediately."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Clever educators know and sometimes even hint at the fact that, in
1905, the constancy of the speed of light had no justification:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

For the silliest educators the opposite is true - everything that had
happened before 1905, absolutely everything, had gloriously proved
that the speed of light is constant yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw,
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is
that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always
measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it
is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and
many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the
speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer
measuring it, so that c'=c."

There are medium-intelligence educators who know e.g. that the speed
of light is variable in Maxwell's theory but then how could Divine
Albert devise the constant speed of light without any justification?
He couldn't, so the justification must have come from the Michelson-
Morley experiment:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire. L'expérience de Michelson
et Morley, qui a montré que le déplacement de la Terre autour du
Soleil ne semble pas avoir d'influence sur la vitesse de la lumière
sur Terre (celle-ci reste la même dans toutes les directions),
démontre qu'en dépit du raisonnement effectué plus haut, c semble bien
être la même dans tous les référentiels Galiléens..."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[xxein]

> http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/...

> Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is
> that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always
> measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it
> is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
> speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
> stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
> Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
> that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
> in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and
> many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the
> speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer
> measuring it, so that c'=c."
>
> There are medium-intelligence educators who know e.g. that the speed
> of light is variable in Maxwell's theory but then how could Divine
> Albert devise the constant speed of light without any justification?
> He couldn't, so the justification must have come from the Michelson-
> Morley experiment:
>

> http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata...

> Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
> Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
> vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
> classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
> premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
> référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
> constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
> elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
> si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire. L'expérience de Michelson
> et Morley, qui a montré que le déplacement de la Terre autour du
> Soleil ne semble pas avoir d'influence sur la vitesse de la lumière
> sur Terre (celle-ci reste la même dans toutes les directions),
> démontre qu'en dépit du raisonnement effectué plus haut, c semble bien
> être la même dans tous les référentiels Galiléens..."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

xxein: Now what did you actually prove?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> xxein:  Now what did you actually prove?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Matter and light are moving through the same space at different speeds
and have closing Velocity relationships.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Pentcho Valev]

Educator Gary Gibbons FRS and Educator Albert Einstein 1911 teach that
the youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the
acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack
has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of
the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect
that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the
effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical
accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as
far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78: Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs
slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of
direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does
not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce
a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However,
the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a
given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of
the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical
sudden change."

Educator John Norton and Educator Albert Einstein 1918 teach that the
youthfulness of the travelling twin is entirely caused by the
acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler
abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial
motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the
analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely
the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces
of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-
around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler
will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days.
That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have
jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump
puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that
it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of
the travelers when they reunite."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the
coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed
this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean
(unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems
relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in
straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not
the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from
the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running
behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles
of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock
U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the
resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster
pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory
of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational
potential of the location where it is located, and during partial
process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential
than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes
exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial
processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox
that you brought up."

Educator David Morin teaches that the youthfulness of the travelling
twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and
is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin
paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a
distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up
again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B
does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs
during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note,
however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to
quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

The educated, after consuming so much wisdom:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X6Zo6k0LaHU/Tb3Vga-Y3_I/AAAAAAAAA30/McyYdyFFXhs/s1600/0089EinsteinZombieCAD.jpg

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The Divine Teacher shapes, irreversibly, human logic: The speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential but this by no means
implies that it varies with the speed of the source or observer:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/
"The physicist and humanitarian took his place beside the great
teachers with the publication of Relativity: The Special and General
Theory, Einstein's own popular translation of the physics that shaped
our "truths" of space and time. CHAPTER 22: Albert Einstein: "In the
second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of
this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity
cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so
long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational
fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light). Since it has often been
contended by opponents of the theory of relativity that the special
theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of
relativity..."

The opponents were right. There is a VALID argument based on
Einstein's equivalence principle (Einstein was well aware of it): If
light falls in a gravitational field like all material bodies, that
is, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), then, in the
absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light (relative to the
observer) varies with v, the speed of the source or observer, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v. Illustrations:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we
must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the
same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

In some cases one cannot tell whether Einsteiniana's educators are
extremely silly or extremely dishonest (or are just experimenting on
Einsteiniana's zombies). So from time to time Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond,
Tom Roberts and other distinguished educators fiercely teach that,
even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform", Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would
be unaffected":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark
Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "This "second postulate" is the source of all
Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks.
And with a little further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass
and energy embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is
not about the physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It
is about whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting
light onto its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says
Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in
the maths - one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous.
(...) The idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light
could actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a
nasty shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles
of light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small -
less than 10^(-49) grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply
that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that
electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough,
but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second
postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel
at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many
physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[xxein]

On Feb 19, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

xxein: So after all this blathering, do you think or follow?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com