RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS PLAGIARIZE ONE ANOTHER

Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Tom Roberts's heroic attempts to show that relativity without
Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light is
possible:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4dc146100e32c?

Mike wrote:
Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

Tom Roberts: That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but
modern derivations avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we
denote the constant in Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the
invariant speed in the Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is
historical and no longer implies they are really "the same thing";
there is, however, considerable experimental evidence that these two
usages of that symbol have the same numerical value to incredible
accuracy. IOW: 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).

Mike:
If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Tom Roberts: Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates
are used to derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of
course, are unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations = same
theory. IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905. Tom
Roberts

Mike:
It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Tom Roberts: Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of
light, this would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's
equations and QED, not SR.

Mike:
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates.

Tom Roberts: Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.

Relativity hypnotists seem to be plagiarizing one another without
understanding anything:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "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."

Needless to say, in this case it is Tom Roberts that has plagiarized
Levy-Leblond - Tom Roberts is younger and less intelligent.

Pentcho Valev