Einsteinians fear Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and teach that, although true, this postulate is somehow very bad and superfluous and should be avoided. Then, in moments of ecstasy, Einsteinians go even further: Even if the postulate is false and the speed of light is variable, Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains gloriously unaffected, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Richard Conn Henry: "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."

http://www.amazon.com/ambitieux-Eins.../dp/2729819541
Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité restreinte de Poincaré, Jean Hladik, p. 115: "Le postulat d'Einstein a été considéré par ses contemporains, et l'est encore à l'heure actuelle par ceux qui n'ont pas renouvelé leurs connaissances, comme étant un postulat nécessaire aux fondements de la Relativité restreinte. C'est ce qui a en grande partie conduit à attribuer la paternité de la Relativité à Einstein. Or ce postulat est non seulement superflu mais encore il engendre un sérieux doute sur la crédibilité de la théorie relativiste."

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=16963
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Mais l'inutile et depuis longtemps caduc « second postulat » (celui de l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière) garde encore une place de choix dans les exposés."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.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."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...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://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-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. (...) 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://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": "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."

Pentcho Valev