CARLO ROVELLI ABOUT EINSTEIN 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
them: rather, he re-derivedÖ¼them, starting from two "postulates" with
clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."

That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
"facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
"facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev