🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 29, 2:33 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The following "mavericks" are allowed to say anything since they know
> where to stop (other mavericks are cranks, crackpots, trolls etc. by
> definition):
>
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/13/quantum-challenge-usd-...
> "Clean-cut and middle-aged, a tenured professor at a conservative
> Catholic university, Sheehan is hardly a rebel. Yet for years, he and
> a few other physicists have been pressing peers to re-examine the
> Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most celebrated and cherished
> tenets of physics. (...) But Sheehan suggests big things are possible
> if even the tiniest of violations can be proven, and ultimately
> exploited in an economically feasible way. For example, it might
> become possible to convert ambient heat into an infinite energy
> source, he said."
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "The Second Law made its appearance in physics around
> 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much
> confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science
> decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing
> clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report
> (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the
> physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost
> as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions
> of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains
> so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification.
> A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The
> historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study
> of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period
> 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as
> 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to
> show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid.
> p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
> sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
> philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a
> century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
> the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
> follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
> and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot
> understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is
> fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of
> the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the
> unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the
> strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that
> Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion
> about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the
> thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."
>
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751...
> "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
> clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
> particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
> same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
> of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
> consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
> all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
> up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
> using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too
> restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said.
> ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of
> light.''
>
> Consider the official maverick Joao Magueijo for instance. He wants to
> drop Einstein's 1905 false light postulate but then stops and the
> postulate remains intact: Joao simply believes or is forced to believe
> that the false postulate was gloriously confirmed by the Michelson-
> Morley experiment:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
> Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
> definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
> at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
> St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
> held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
> lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
> at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
> than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
> missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
> speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
> that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
> light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
> the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
> case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
> if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
> each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
> on the same apparent speed!"
>
> Knowing where to stop is called by George Orwell "crimestop":
>
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

The condition c=cons, results from the Lorentz Transformation and that
is why it was accepted by Einstein as a postulat. He just explains it
in his book 'Relativity' by saying that they are both correct or both
false assumptions. I have explained that both are false assumptions in
many mine articles about the errant Lorentz Transformation. All these
articles are published in my Group: galilei-newton-group. Stamenin