EINSTEINIANA: SILLY AND CLEVER EDUCATORS

Educator Michio Kaku teaches the false principle of constancy of the
speed of light in a silly manner (by telling the blatant lie that the
principle was inherent in Maxwell's theory) so Educator John Norton
mercilessly rebukes him:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When
Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the
question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found
that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was
frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found
that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same
velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is
supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich
Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the
formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results
described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based
Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows
light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a
sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Now it is Educator John Norton's turn to convey the same lie (that the
principle of constancy of the speed of light was inherent in Maxwell's
theory) by telling the truth. Is that possible? Yes it is - we all
live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world and Educator John Norton is
the "subtlest practitioner of doublethink":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ics/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a
little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow
down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says
no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of
the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal
traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his
acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of
electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The
theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years
before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating
in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed
of the ripple was a quite definite number: c. The speed of a light
signal was quite unlike the speed of a pebble, say. The pebble could
move at any speed, depending on how hard it was thrown. It was
different with light in Maxwell's theory. No matter how the light
signal was made and projected, its speed always came out the same. The
principle of relativity assured Einstein that the laws of nature were
the same for all inertial observers. That light always propagated at
the same speed was a law within Maxwell's theory. If the principle of
relativity was applied to it, the light postulate resulted
immediately."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

Clever educators know and sometimes even hint at the fact that, in
1905, the constancy of the speed of light had no justification:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

For the silliest educators the opposite is true - everything that had
happened before 1905, absolutely everything, had gloriously proved
that the speed of light is constant yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw,
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is
that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always
measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it
is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and
many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the
speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer
measuring it, so that c'=c."

There are medium-intelligence educators who know e.g. that the speed
of light is variable in Maxwell's theory but then how could Divine
Albert devise the constant speed of light without any justification?
He couldn't, so the justification must have come from the Michelson-
Morley experiment:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire. L'expérience de Michelson
et Morley, qui a montré que le déplacement de la Terre autour du
Soleil ne semble pas avoir d'influence sur la vitesse de la lumière
sur Terre (celle-ci reste la même dans toutes les directions),
démontre qu'en dépit du raisonnement effectué plus haut, c semble bien
être la même dans tous les référentiels Galiléens..."

Pentcho Valev