🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Oct, 04:19, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Wings of Truth wrote:
> > Tom Roberts and I agree that the genuine
> > principle of relativity pertains in some
> > way to the laws of physics.
>
> > My only question to Tom is What is the
> > law in the case of light's one-way speed?
>
> If one considers Maxwell's equations to be a law of physics (as Einstein
> clearly did in 1905), then when using inertial coordinates the
> coordinate speed of light will be c, in any direction and using any
> inertial coordinates (frame), measured one-way or two-way.
>
> Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts your "If" suggests that you are also considering the
reintroduction of Newton's emission theory of light, that is, you want
to join your brothers John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt who have
reintroduced it explicitly. But, Roberts Roberts, you have already
done much more than that; together with your brother Jean-Marc Levy-
Leblond you have discovered that, even if "light in vacuum does not
travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", Einstein's
special relativity "would be unaffected":


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://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a 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 relalivity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

Pentcho Valev