🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 5:42 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Many modern relativists think the two postulates are redundant.
> > Why is that?
>
> Using just the Principle of Relativity [#] one can derive the Lorentz
> transform with an unknown parameter "c" (infinite yields the Galilean
> transform, imaginary yields an unphysical Euclidean-like transform [@]).
> The value of c is then an experimental issue, and it is found to be
> equal to the speed of light (in vacuum) to high accuracy.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! That is
a deep insight indeed: you just use the principle of relativity, you
say nothing about the speed of light, and you obtain "the Lorentz
transform with an unknown parameter "c"!!! That is a great discovery
Roberts Roberts and Einstein criminal cult will celebrate it soon. And
it demonstrates your development Roberts Roberts. Remember you used to
plagiarize silly Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond who taught you the following:
you just use the principle of relativity, you say nothing about the
speed of light, and you obtain Einstein's Special Relativity, no
matter whether the speed of light is constant or variable:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf : Jean-Marc Lévy-
Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec
le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons
aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une
conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement,
cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure
expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec
certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à 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://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://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "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)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com