🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 17, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hawking should rather be called Incredibly Silly Einsteinian (ISE).
> Note the relation between Einstein's first postulate (the principle of
> relativity) and Einstein's second postulate (the principle of
> constancy of the speed of light) that only ISE Stephen Hawking and ISE
> Albert Einstein (Chapter 7 in his "Relativity") were able to see:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
> ISE Stephen Hawking: "In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that
> because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through
> the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead,
> Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should
> appear the same to all freely moving observers. IN PARTICULAR,
> observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how
> they were moving."
>
> Yet this IN PARTICULAR above looks so silly that perhaps both Stephen
> Hawking and Albert Einstein should be called, in the end, Incredibly
> Dishonest Einsteinians (IDE).

The text where ISE or IDE Albert Einstein informs Einstein zombie
world that his second postulate (the principle of constancy of the
speed of light) is a corollary of his first postulate (the principle
of relativity):

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Albert Einstein (1879-1955).  Relativity: The Special and General
Theory.  1920. VII.  The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity:
"Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light
relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the
consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays
the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The
velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by
the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required
velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict
with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like
every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage--a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."

Another Incredibly Silly Einsteinian (ISE) or Incredibly Dishonest
Einsteinian (IDE) is Steve Carlip who teaches Einstein zombie world in
the following way:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
ISE or IDE Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum,
constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the
following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was
adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This
defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant":
Yes, c is CONSTANT BY DEFINITION!"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com