RELATIVITY WITHOUT EINSTEIN LIGHT POSTULATE

On 15 Aug, 15:52, Shubee wrote:
On Aug 15, 12:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 14 Aug, 16:02, Shubee wrote:

On Aug 14, 2:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have always tried to get rid of
Einstein's false second (light) postulate and build Einstein's
relativity only on the first postulate:

This is a very trivial thing to do.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
Why are you raising such a big fuss about it?

[From] Relativity Without Tears, Z. K. Silagadze
"Below I will try to show that, combining the ideas from [21, 22, 23,
31], it is possible to make the one postulate derivation of Lorentz
transformations mathematically as simple as was Einstein's original
presentation."

Strangely, hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult do not comment on
Silagadze's paper. Why?

Maybe because there's nothing original in the whole paper?

Nothing. Just trivialities like this one:

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/p...708.0929v1.pdf
"For example, between conducting plates [8, 9] or in a background
gravitational field [10, 11] light can propagate with speeds greater
than c. Yet the Lorentz invariance remains intact at a fundamental
level [12]."

Can you imagine anything less contradictory?

Pentcho Valev

There are many papers on the arXiv server that contain gross errors.
So what? Your complaint in your opening post is about special
relativity and the redundancy of Einstein's second postulate. Why are
you changing the subject? Didn't you claim that it is criminal and
cultic to derive the Lorentz transformations from the first postulate
alone?

You are NOT a criminal because you SINCERELY believe the Lorentz
transformations could be derived from the first postulate alone, that
is, special relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
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)."

If you read again the end of Chapter 11 of Einstein's "Relativity" you
may change your mind but I doubt it:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html

Pentcho Valev