DESPERATE EINSTEINIANS

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f4d9841c6684a0
Tom Roberts: "SR's LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with light at all. Today we know several other sets of postulates for
SR that do not involve any assumptions about light. Indeed, as SR is
much more general than electrodynamics, it would be rather silly to
use a postulate about light."

In any deductive theory an original postulate can be formally replaced
(then it becomes a corollary) but this by no means implies that the
theory's "LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with" this
postulate. This is so trivial that only extremely dishonest
Einsteinians, in a state of despair, would camouflage the falsehood
of Einstein's 1905 light postulate in the way Tom Roberts does.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 30, 6:12*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/b6f4d9841c6...
Tom Roberts: "SR's LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with light at all. Today we know several other sets of postulates for
SR that do not involve any assumptions about light. Indeed, as SR is
much more general than electrodynamics, it would be rather silly to
use a postulate about light."

In any deductive theory an original postulate can be formally replaced
(then it becomes a corollary) but this by no means implies that the
theory's "LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with" this
postulate. This is so trivial that only extremely dishonest
Einsteinians, in a state of despair, *would camouflage the falsehood
of Einstein's 1905 light postulate in the way Tom Roberts does.

Pentcho Valev


xxein: You don't know how often I would like to take him to the mat.

On Sep 30, 1:12 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f4d9841c6684a0
Tom Roberts: "SR's LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with light at all. Today we know several other sets of postulates for
SR that do not involve any assumptions about light. Indeed, as SR is
much more general than electrodynamics, it would be rather silly to
use a postulate about light."

In any deductive theory an original postulate can be formally replaced
(then it becomes a corollary) but this by no means implies that the
theory's "LOGICAL foundations have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with" this
postulate. This is so trivial that only extremely dishonest
Einsteinians, in a state of despair, would camouflage the falsehood
of Einstein's 1905 light postulate in the way Tom Roberts does.

Einsteinians are desperate because their miraculous science is
obviously dying. But they have always been consistent in trying to
prove that, even if the original postulate is false, their miraculous
science is true and eternal:

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)."

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 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://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."

Few people know that, logically, Einstein's revolution is an exact
copy of Clausius's revolution. Initially, the miracle called "second
law of thermodynamics", just like the miracles called "time dilation",
"length contraction", "Minkowski's spacetime" etc., had been deduced
from a false original postulate. Then Clausius managed to "prove"
that, although the original postulate is false, the miracle is true
and eternal.

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 1, 2:11*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:12 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

xxein: I don't care for selected quotations. I care about the
understanding of the physic.

I am not influenced by just anybody's take on this. I don't care if
they were notable physicists either. You can already see that they do
not have a solution for the physic.

Your banter is useless although it raises some questions. For that, I
cannot fault you.

I do not have a particle accelerator in my basement. But that does
not meam that I cannot view a raw picture of an event presented by
physicists through journals. Now we have to consider if the picture
we get represents the physic or the physics we want to apply to it.

This is a big difference that you should be aware of. I'm not all
that sure that you are.

It's not how we make things work, it's how they can work.

Gravity did not arise from a mathematical equation or function, did
it?

Our feeble attempts at describing 'the physic' as 'a physics' is in
need of better thinking. We cannot 'get it all', but we can do
better.

Most importantly, and the crux, is that you rely on others to make a
judgement. Still not too bad until you relinquish whatever your
thinking ability is to others.

Where do physicists come from? Certainly not from accepting a dogma
(although that's where graduated "physicists" are weaned from).

They originate. How clever, huh? But what did you think that a real
physicist does? Follow past physics forever?

We have a lot to learn and we cannot rely on a past human judgement to
be the physic. In this respect, our physics is our current working
understanding just as heat from burning coal can drive a steam
engine. This does not mean that we understand (again) gravity.

Just do some thinking instead of citing your favorite belief quotes.