🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 25, 12:29, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One can never know how exactly silly Einsteinans draw their
> conclusions but at least one can guess. So this Eric Baird may have
> decided to get rid of special relativity after reading the following
> two texts:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
> John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
> relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
> velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."
>
> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] COMPATIBLE WITH
> AN EMISSION THEORY OF RADIATION, since it implies that the velocity of
> light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
> requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
> absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
> radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
> circumstances."
>
> Eric Baird's possible conclusion: "Master John Norton clearly says the
> emission theory is incompatible with special relativity whereas Master
> John Stachel says it is compatible with "the theory". The only
> solution to the problem is to abandon special relativity and continue
> to worship, as fiercely as possible, general relativity."

Silly Eric Baird is still much cleverer than a few distinguished
Einsteinians who believe that, even if "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", special
relativity "would be unaffected":

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)."

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://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "...an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-
standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity
theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and
retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This
question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of
special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz,
Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com