🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 16, 11:20 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
> Dear JanPB:
>
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189963511.109963.323880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip idiocies]
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
> >> Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of
> >> modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light.
> >> Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on
> >> which special relativity is based. So far, however, little
> >> attention has been paid to the status of this postulate
> >> when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
> >> constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence
> >> of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate.
>
> > This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy
> > doesn't automatically follow from the first postulate
> > unless one adds the extra assumption of no aether.
> > The first postulate alone is not enough as one could
> > obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
> > postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a
> > happy (logical but not physical) family.
>
> > This happy family would not be SR and would not
> > match experimental results but its very existence
> > as a possible logical corollary disproves Petkov's
> > claim. Comments?
>
> The constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell, Maxwell
> formulated his "laws of physics" with an aether, and the aether
> "fell out" in the derivation.  So if Maxwell's relations qualify
> as laws of physics under postulate 1, then postulate 2 is
> superfluous.
>
> David A. Smith

Yes, that's a much better way of putting it.

--
Jan Bielawski