Is principle of constancy of light velovity necessary?

On Jul 4, 9:12*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
It seems to me that principle of constancy of light velovity should be
integrated to principle of relativity in special theory of relativity.
[...]

Yes. This is basically a simplified version of the group theory
derivation of the Lorentz transform. You assumed a sign for C^2 which is
a hidden assumption of your derivation. Had you been more careful, you
would have replaced your C^2 with a constant 1/K, and found you had
three choices:
* * * * K = 0: Galilean relativity
* * * * K 0: Euclidean geometry (4-d, time is just like space)
* * * * K 0: Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity

So while you don't need to explicitly assume the constancy of the speed
of light [#], you do need some assumption to make this choice. This is a
good place for an experimental fact to be used, such as the fact that
pion beams exist -- that uniquely selects the Lorentz transform. Another
good choice would be to assume there is a finite upper bound on speeds.

* * * * [#] Or equivalent (e.g. Einstein's original postulate that
* * * * light's speed is independent of the speed of its source).

Tom Roberts

But Honest Roberts you contradict yourself so flagrantly! Three years
ago you were still teaching Einstein zombie world that 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...1ebdf49c012de2
Honest 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)."

And if you had been the author of that teaching Honest Roberts people
would excuse you but in fact that was the teaching of your superior
brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu:

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 enévidence 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
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? 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 economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....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."

Why did you plagiarize your superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
and Jong-Ping Hsu, Honest Roberts?

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 7, 3:43*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:12*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:


In physics it of course is. Since it's a law of math for the mental
midgets
anyway, and has nothing to do with light or speed or any velocity,
anyway,
other than the velocity of the null set,






wrote:
It seems to me that principle of constancy of light velovity should be
integrated to principle of relativity in special theory of relativity..
[...]

Yes. This is basically a simplified version of the group theory
derivation of the Lorentz transform. You assumed a sign for C^2 which is
a hidden assumption of your derivation. Had you been more careful, you
would have replaced your C^2 with a constant 1/K, and found you had
three choices:
* * * * K = 0: Galilean relativity
* * * * K 0: Euclidean geometry (4-d, time is just like space)
* * * * K 0: Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity

So while you don't need to explicitly assume the constancy of the speed
of light [#], you do need some assumption to make this choice. This is a
good place for an experimental fact to be used, such as the fact that
pion beams exist -- that uniquely selects the Lorentz transform. Another
good choice would be to assume there is a finite upper bound on speeds.

* * * * [#] Or equivalent (e.g. Einstein's original postulate that
* * * * light's speed is independent of the speed of its source).

Tom Roberts

But Honest Roberts you contradict yourself so flagrantly! Three years
ago you were still teaching Einstein zombie world that 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...g/dc1ebdf49c01...
Honest 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)."

And if you had been the author of that teaching Honest Roberts people
would excuse you but in fact that was the teaching of your superior
brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu:

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 enévidence 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
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? 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 economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....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."

Why did you plagiarize your superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
and Jong-Ping Hsu, Honest Roberts?

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 7, 2:43 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
It seems to me that principle of constancy of light velovity should be
integrated to principle of relativity in special theory of relativity..
[...]

Yes. This is basically a simplified version of the group theory
derivation of the Lorentz transform. You assumed a sign for C^2 which is
a hidden assumption of your derivation. Had you been more careful, you
would have replaced your C^2 with a constant 1/K, and found you had
three choices:
K = 0: Galilean relativity
K 0: Euclidean geometry (4-d, time is just like space)
K 0: Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity

So while you don't need to explicitly assume the constancy of the speed
of light [#], you do need some assumption to make this choice. This is a
good place for an experimental fact to be used, such as the fact that
pion beams exist -- that uniquely selects the Lorentz transform. Another
good choice would be to assume there is a finite upper bound on speeds.

[#] Or equivalent (e.g. Einstein's original postulate that
light's speed is independent of the speed of its source).

Tom Roberts

But Honest Roberts you contradict yourself so flagrantly! Three years
ago you were still teaching Einstein zombie world that special
relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform":

That is not a contradiction. It's a valid statement.

Honest 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)."

And that's true.

And if you had been the author of that teaching Honest Roberts people
would excuse you but in fact that was the teaching of your superior
brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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."

So what. I list 7 derivations of the Lorentz transformation in my
special relativity index that don't require Einstein's constancy of
light postulate.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

Shubee

On Jul 7, 4:22*pm, Shubee wrote:
Honest 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)."

And that's true.

So what. I list 7 derivations of the Lorentz transformation in my
special relativity index that don't require Einstein's constancy of
light postulate. http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm

Shubee

Einsteiniana is a contagious malignant disease. It destroys the brains
of Einsteinians, anti-Einsteinians, sycophants, passersby etc. As far
as the destruction of human rationality is concerned, the situation in
Divine Albert's world is much more desperate than that in Big
Brother's world.

Pentcho Valev

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 2:43 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
It seems to me that principle of constancy of light velovity should be
integrated to principle of relativity in special theory of relativity.
[...]

Yes. This is basically a simplified version of the group theory
derivation of the Lorentz transform. You assumed a sign for C^2 which is
a hidden assumption of your derivation. Had you been more careful, you
would have replaced your C^2 with a constant 1/K, and found you had
three choices:
K = 0: Galilean relativity
K 0: Euclidean geometry (4-d, time is just like space)
K 0: Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity

So while you don't need to explicitly assume the constancy of the speed
of light [#], you do need some assumption to make this choice. This is a
good place for an experimental fact to be used, such as the fact that
pion beams exist -- that uniquely selects the Lorentz transform. Another
good choice would be to assume there is a finite upper bound on speeds.

[#] Or equivalent (e.g. Einstein's original postulate that
light's speed is independent of the speed of its source).

Tom Roberts

But Honest Roberts you contradict yourself so flagrantly! Three years
ago you were still teaching Einstein zombie world that special
relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform":

That is not a contradiction. It's a valid statement.
===================================

Yes it is a contradiction.



Honest 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)."

And that's true.
=================

No it isn't.

And if you had been the author of that teaching Honest Roberts people
would excuse you but in fact that was the teaching of your superior
brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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."

So what.
==========
So you are an idiot that can't answer a simple question, that's what.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Imbecile Shubert: Why does Androcles want to know? Read my obsession with 7
varieties.

Cretin Van lintel: "Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.