🚀 go-pugleaf

The postulate of the speed of light being the same in all reference frames 
is an absurdity, It is most certainly a constant WITHIN any reference frame 
but since the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity is 1/(1-V^2/C^2) and not 
unity (V/L) it cannot be unchanged in the absolute sense. The ABSOLUTE 
velocity of light changes as a result of a change in velocity, it only 
appears to be unchanged when observed locally.

Relativistic physics woulld not be confusing if Dr. Einstein had recognized 
is that what observations were showing is that matter uses the local 
velocity of light to control its parameters (length, time rate, etc.) He got 
the math right but screwed up the explanation. That shouldn't be a surprise 
since he screwed up with his Cosmological Constant.  He failed to recognize 
that the expression for the cosmological constant was the same as the 
expression for normal gravity except that it used the energy equivalents of 
the gravitational masses involved. His use of this constant to explain a 
static universe was nothing more than arbitrarily adding a negative 
gravitational force to balance the normal positive force. Of course such a 
postulate produced a static universe, it predicted that there was no net 
gravitational field. Actually, Einstein wasn't too bright.


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:a47ee915-67fe-4c2f-bc87-8fa2c78635b6@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that
> the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the
> whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this
> postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
>
> When Bryan Wallace wrote this he was dying in oblivion. So he could
> have been prejudiced: perhaps the falsehood of Einstein's light
> postulate is not so devastating, or not devastating at all, or even
> favorable for modern physics.  Just think: so far Einstein's special
> relativity was great because it was based on two simple postulates
> only. Now that one of them is false, Einstein's special relativity
> turns out to be based on a single simple postulate and this makes it
> even greater. Essentially, that is what a French Genius called Jean-
> Marc Levy-Leblond discovered while Bryan Wallace was dying in
> oblivion:
>
> 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."
>
> Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
> geniuses:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
> Tom Roberts: "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://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
> Jong-Ping Hsu: "....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."
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
> "Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
> of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
> involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
> Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
> Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
> have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
> technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
> velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
> the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
> In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
> several centuries before Einstein."
>
> So Bryan Wallace was wrong whereas Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond is right.
> Accordingly, dying in oblivion was what Bryan Wallace deserved whereas
> the position of Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond in Einstein Criminal Cult is as
> high as that of Tomas de Torquemada in the Spanish Inquisition. Jean-
> Marc Levy-Lebond deserves this.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev@yahoo.com