EINSTEINIANA CAN DO WITHOUT CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT

On the one hand, the constancy of the speed of light is gloriously
confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment and is so "woven into the
very fabric of physics" that "to "vary" the speed of light is not even
a swear word: it is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics".
On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
variability of the speed of light as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light and therefore Einsteiniana simply does not need
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: even if "light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform",
Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected". Both informations
make believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) What Einstein realized was that if c
did not change, then something else had to give. That something was
the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply,
maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time
are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of
space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change,
expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the
observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that
didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of
the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation
used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word:
It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of
experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of
relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe
works."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...elativity.html
WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT RELATIVITY
29 October 2008, NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." (...) "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says.
"But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own
to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional
knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all
good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for
everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the
equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives?
Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the
success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to
Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels
at the same speed. 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 result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity
on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived
from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic,
purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in
relativity is a historical accident. (...) 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://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.physics.princeton.edu/~mc..._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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
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)."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 18, 4:05*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On the one hand, the constancy of the speed of light is gloriously
confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment and is so "woven into the
very fabric of physics" that "to "vary" the speed of light is not even
a swear word: it is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics".
On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
variability of the speed of light as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light and therefore Einsteiniana simply does not need
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: even if "light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform",
Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected". Both informations
make believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) What Einstein realized was that if c
did not change, then something else had to give. That something was
the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply,
maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time
are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of
space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change,
expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the
observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that
didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of
the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation
used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word:
It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of
experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of
relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe
works."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...view=article&i....
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...6801.500-why-e...
WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT RELATIVITY
29 October 2008, NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." (...) "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says.
"But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own
to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional
knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all
good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for
everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the
equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives?
Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the
success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to
Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels
at the same speed. 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 result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity
on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived
from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic,
purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in
relativity is a historical accident. (...) 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://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.physics.princeton.edu/~mc...hanics/levy-le...
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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela...aches-Theoreti...
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...g/dc1ebdf49c01...
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)."

Pentcho Valev


Einsteinia crashes like a house of cards when we all accept that
c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On the one hand, the constancy of the speed of light is gloriously
confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment and is so "woven into the
very fabric of physics" that "to "vary" the speed of light is not even
a swear word: it is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics".
On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
variability of the speed of light as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light and therefore Einsteiniana simply does not need
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: even if "light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform",
Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected". Both informations
make believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) What Einstein realized was that if c
did not change, then something else had to give. That something was
the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply,
maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time
are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of
space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change,
expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the
observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that
didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of
the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation
used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word:
It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of
experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of
relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe
works."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...elativity.html
WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT RELATIVITY
29 October 2008, NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." (...) "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says.
"But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own
to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional
knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all
good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for
everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the
equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives?
Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the
success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to
Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels
at the same speed. 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 result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity
on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived
from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic,
purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in
relativity is a historical accident. (...) 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://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.physics.princeton.edu/~mc..._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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
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)."

Pentcho Valev

Initially (e.g. in 1887) the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment unequivocally confirmed VARIABLE speed of light as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted any
possible theory consistent with the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the emitter (an independence to become
the essence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate). Only a special
ad hoc procrusteanization of the reality (time and length had to
become dependent on the speed of the system) was able to reverse the
importance of the experiment and make it confirm what it had
previously refuted:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

Einstein "resisted the temptation" because his 1905 false light
postulate immediately produced breathtaking miracles (travelling
clocks run slower etc) and thereby promised to convert him into Divine
Albert whereas the VARIABLE speed of light predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light, although true in virtue of how the world is
independently of ourselves, was only able to give unimpressive results
already established in the 18th century. Still remorse haunted
Einstein all along and in 1954 he even discovered that his 1905 false
light postulate had in fact killed theoretical physics:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain
fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission
theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I
believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics
will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the
oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

At present theoretical physics is dead but beautiful:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."

Beautiful dead physics institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...C0155A9 09EEF
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Selling beautiful dead physics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 19, 3:22*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Initially (e.g. in 1887) the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment unequivocally confirmed VARIABLE speed of light as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted any
possible theory consistent with the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the emitter (an independence to become
the essence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate).

Great! This only proves the power of propaganda! Now with that
(c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V) confirmed and e=0.5.m.v.v.N(N-k) we can have an
entirely new physics, by throwing out entropy and relativity, and
generalisind Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


Only a special
ad hoc procrusteanization of the reality (time and length had to
become dependent on the speed of the system) was able to reverse the
importance of the experiment and make it confirm what it had
previously refuted:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

Einstein "resisted the temptation" because his 1905 false light
postulate immediately produced breathtaking miracles (travelling
clocks run slower etc) and thereby promised to convert him into Divine
Albert whereas the VARIABLE speed of light predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light, although true in virtue of how the world is
independently of ourselves, was only able to give unimpressive results
already established in the 18th century. Still remorse haunted
Einstein all along and in 1954 he even discovered that his 1905 false
light postulate had in fact killed theoretical physics:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...ews_on_the_Com...
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain
fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission
theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I
believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics
will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the
oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi....
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

At present theoretical physics is dead but beautiful:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."

Beautiful dead physics institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...List&p=27DFC01...
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Selling beautiful dead physics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 19, 12:04*pm, Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
On Apr 19, 3:22*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Initially (e.g. in 1887) the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment unequivocally confirmed VARIABLE speed of light as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted any
possible theory consistent with the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the emitter (an independence to become
the essence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate).

Great! *This only proves the power of propaganda! *Now with that
(c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V) confirmed and e=0.5.m.v.v.N(N-k) we can have an
entirely new physics, by throwing out entropy and relativity, and
generalisind Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


This fits in well with your other theory that compressed peanuts can
power space ships to planet **** in the galaxy known as "morontopia"

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On the one hand, the constancy of the speed of light is gloriously
confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment and is so "woven into the
very fabric of physics" that "to "vary" the speed of light is not even
a swear word: it is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics".
On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
variability of the speed of light as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light and therefore Einsteiniana simply does not need
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate: even if "light in vacuum does
not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform",
Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected". Both informations
make believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) What Einstein realized was that if c
did not change, then something else had to give. That something was
the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply,
maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time
are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of
space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change,
expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the
observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that
didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of
the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation
used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word:
It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of
experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of
relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe
works."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...elativity.html
WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT RELATIVITY
29 October 2008, NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." (...) "Galileo's thoughts are almost 400 years old," he says.
"But they're still extraordinarily potent. They're enough on their own
to give Einstein's relativity, without any additional
knowledge." (...) This was a problem if Maxwell's theory, like all
good physical theories, was to follow Galileo's rule and apply for
everyone. If we do not know who measures the speed of light in the
equations, how can we modify them to apply from other perspectives?
Einstein's workaround was that we don't have to. Faced with the
success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a second assumption to
Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer, light always travels
at the same speed. 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 result turns the historical logic of Einstein's relativity
on its head. Those contortions of space and time that Einstein derived
from the properties of light actually emerge from even more basic,
purely mathematical considerations. Light's special position in
relativity is a historical accident. (...) 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://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.physics.princeton.edu/~mc..._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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
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)."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 19, 8:14*pm, Errol wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:04*pm, Arindam Banerjee
wrote:





On Apr 19, 3:22*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Initially (e.g. in 1887) the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment unequivocally confirmed VARIABLE speed of light as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted any
possible theory consistent with the assumption that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the emitter (an independence to become
the essence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate).

Great! *This only proves the power of propaganda! *Now with that
(c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V) confirmed and e=0.5.m.v.v.N(N-k) we can have an
entirely new physics, by throwing out entropy and relativity, and
generalisind Newton's first and third laws of motion.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

This fits in well with your other theory that compressed peanuts can
power space ships to planet **** in the galaxy known as "morontopia"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, that is your theory, and worth more than the silly ones of
einstein's, that are truly remarkable in pure nonsense.