RELATIVITY WITHOUT EINSTEIN LIGHT POSTULATE

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:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a 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://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)."

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."

Now the dream has come true or at least so a scientist claims on
sci.physics.research:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...50228753ef23c?
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0708.0929
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/p...708.0929v1.pdf
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?

Pentcho Valev

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?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

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

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?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

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

On Aug 14, 5:06 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:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a 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://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...owse_frm/threa...
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)."

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."

Now the dream has come true or at least so a scientist claims on
sci.physics.research:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...708.0929v1.pdf
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?

Pentcho Valev

Hi
I took a look at the mentioned paper.
So,..... let's get rid of the second postulate and
use a mathematical supposition (based on God's whisper ?)
instead ! There you go!
I am truely disappointed !
Regards,LL

On 16 Aug, 04:55, xray4abc wrote:

Hi
I took a look at the mentioned paper.
So,..... let's get rid of the second postulate and
use a mathematical supposition (based on God's whisper ?)
instead !

You need not do so. The second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

is false and you should get rid of it indeed but then you could use
its negation instead:

Light is always propagated in empty space with a speed which is
dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to
the emitting body and v is the relative speed of the emitting body and
the observer. In the presence of a gravitational field and if the
emitting body and the observer are at rest relative to one another,
the speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the
gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and
the point of measurement.

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 16, 2:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 16 Aug, 04:55, xray4abc wrote:



Hi
I took a look at the mentioned paper.
So,..... let's get rid of the second postulate and
use a mathematical supposition (based on God's whisper ?)
instead !

You need not do so. The second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

is false and you should get rid of it indeed but then you could use
its negation instead:

Light is always propagated in empty space with a speed which is
dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to
the emitting body and v is the relative speed of the emitting body and
the observer. In the presence of a gravitational field and if the
emitting body and the observer are at rest relative to one another,
the speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the
gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and
the point of measurement.

Pentcho Valev

The main question here is:
Is there a SAME LIMITED speed
for information/action transmission in all IRFs?
It seems that it is!
And THIS is the real second postulate !!!
(The accent here should be on the word "LIMITED" after
all, as variations around the c value still would
let room for relativistic effects !)
The light itself counts only as a means for this purpose
of doing measurements of length or time.
The difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics
comes exactly from the different answers to this question.
As per mentioned above, I do not think that
one can construct SR theory without the second postulate
or its equivalent.
Regards, LL

On 16 Aug, 15:48, xray4abc wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 16 Aug, 04:55, xray4abc wrote:

Hi
I took a look at the mentioned paper.
So,..... let's get rid of the second postulate and
use a mathematical supposition (based on God's whisper ?)
instead !

You need not do so. The second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

is false and you should get rid of it indeed but then you could use
its negation instead:

Light is always propagated in empty space with a speed which is
dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to
the emitting body and v is the relative speed of the emitting body and
the observer. In the presence of a gravitational field and if the
emitting body and the observer are at rest relative to one another,
the speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the
gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and
the point of measurement.

Pentcho Valev

The main question here is:
Is there a SAME LIMITED speed
for information/action transmission in all IRFs?

There can be no such "main question". Either Einstein's light
postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

is true and then special relativity is correct, or Einstein's light
postulate is false and then, as Einstein himself puts it, "nothing
will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of
gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics".
Nature has already taken the decision concerning the truth or
falsehood of the light postulate; our task is to inform the world
about that decision. That is the "main question".

Pentcho Valev

"xray4abc" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Aug 16, 2:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On 16 Aug, 04:55, xray4abc wrote:
:
:
:
: Hi
: I took a look at the mentioned paper.
: So,..... let's get rid of the second postulate and
: use a mathematical supposition (based on God's whisper ?)
: instead !
:
: You need not do so. The second postulate:
:
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
: always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
: independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
:
: is false and you should get rid of it indeed but then you could use
: its negation instead:
:
: Light is always propagated in empty space with a speed which is
: dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body and obeys the
: equation c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of photons relative to
: the emitting body and v is the relative speed of the emitting body and
: the observer. In the presence of a gravitational field and if the
: emitting body and the observer are at rest relative to one another,
: the speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the
: gravitational potential difference between the point of emission and
: the point of measurement.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: The main question here is:
: Is there a SAME LIMITED speed
: for information/action transmission in all IRFs?

The answer is no.

: It seems that it is!


"Seems" isn't good enough.

: And THIS is the real second postulate !!!

No it isn't, Pentcho quoted it correctly. You are a liar.