Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: BINGO THE EINSTEINIANO
Posted:
Apr 4, 2013 8:43 AM


Bingos trying to convince other Bingos that, even if light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform, special relativity would be unaffected, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2 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://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be affected by a nonzero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern physics would not be threatened."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500whyeinsteinwaswrongaboutrelativity.html Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf JeanMarc LévyLeblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais nonnulle, 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 procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie ellemême en seraitelle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf JeanMarc LevyLeblond: "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."
Why do Bingos behave so dishonestly? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw
Pentcho Valev



