Einsteiniana's hypnotists trying to camouflage the falsehood of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"How grotesquely badly we teach special relativity encapsulates the
practical problem of teaching physics to the freshman physics major. I
have never found a single freshman physics textbook that teaches
Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on General
Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two postulates." Every physics
freshman is taught ... well, let me quote an example. In the fall of
2007 I will, for the second time in my career, teach introductory
physics for physical science majors at the Johns Hopkins University.
One text that has recently been used for that course is "University
Physics," by R. L. Reese. On page 1155 we read "The entire special
theory stems from only two postulates. ... Postulate 1: The speed of
light in a vacuum has the same numerical value c when measured in any
inertial reference frame, independent of the motion of the source and/
or observer.”... Postulate 2: The fundamental laws of physics must be
the same in all inertial reference frames." The reader is invited to
recoil, not only at the bizarre re-numbering of the infamous two
postulates, but of course at the use of the postulates at all. There
is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did
introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered
special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one
concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!)
did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a
development from relativity—the discovery of the implication that E =
mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But
the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's
equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not
know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle
Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman
numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more
advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching
special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but
historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as
"Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning
students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all
have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g.
relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course
the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of
texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's
second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs
to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski."

Other hypnotists do not see Minkowski space-time as suitable
camouflage for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY
Harvey R. Brown, Oliver Pooley
"It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep
structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of
relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical
community."

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/c...st%20tense.doc
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetime’s many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On
this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Sooner or later the problem "False premise, true conclusion?" will
become the central problem in some movement towards resurrection of
science:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev