All revolutions declared by Einsteiniana have something to do with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Einsteinians challenge it and so make career and money but then keep it intact and so make even more money. Examples:

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html
"ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly going where no reputable scientific body has gone before. Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of science fiction writers...Crawford argues that modern physics may allow two possible ways around Einstein's theory....The theories will boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova Scotia."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

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=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"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.''

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26179686/
"Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light. We're talking about the very distant future, of course. The idea involves manipulating dark energy – the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion – to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Einsteiniana's most recent and really breathtaking revolution started à l'Université de Genève:

http://dpnc.unige.ch/photosmembres/field.html

http://xxx.tau.ac.il/abs/physics/0612041
John Field: "The physics of space and time II: A reassessment of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper"
Abstract: A detailed re-examination of the seminal paper on special relativity, taking into account recent work on the physical interpretation of the space-time Lorentz transformation as well as the modern understanding of classical elecromagnetism as a certain limit of the fundamental underlying theory --quantum electrodynamics-- is presented. Many errors both of physical principle and of a mathematical nature are uncovered. The `relativity of simultaneity' and `length contraction' effects predicted in the paper are shown to be the spurious consequences of misinterpretations of the second postulate and the Lorentz transformation, respectively. The derivation of the latter in the paper is shown to be flawed. In this case, and other instances, due to cancellation of mistakes, a correct result is obtained in a fallacious manner. Separate lists of the correct and incorrect predictions of the paper are given. Due to the unique and revolutionary nature of its epistemological approach (the use of `thought experiments' and axiomatic derivations) and the experimentally verified predictions of time-dilatation and mass-energy equivalence the fundamental importance of the paper for the development of physics is little affected by the many mathematical errors and (to modern eyes) physical misconceptions that it contains.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The question is: Where the bubble is. The Head, or the Butt?

A typical revolution designed to promote the career of a young Einsteinian at the University of West Georgia:

http://www.phys.unt.edu/Espinoso.ppt
"Conclusions: 1. Explanations of the precession of Mercury, the bending of starlight and gravitational redshift do NOT require the General Theory of Relativity. 2. Ritz theory explains both observations...."

In a few years the revolution will be forgotten and the young Einsteinian James Espinosa, just like his brother Max Tegmark at MIT, will be teaching his students how to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The revolution at the Perimeter Institute (Einsteinians there seem to have abandoned Einstein's 1905 false light postulate long time ago):

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030526/26beyond.htm
"We get E-mail and letters all the time from amateurs who think they have found a mistake in Einstein's theory," says Lee Smolin, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. "That's not what is going on here." .....They may have to bend his best-known principle: the one that says the speed of light is an absolute, always and everywhere the same, and faster than anything else. That principle was born in 1905, when Einstein wedded space and time into something called spacetime.....The speed of light would no longer be a constant. The more energetic a photon, Amelino-Camelia's calculations indicate, the faster it would navigate the minefield of quantized spacetime. If you were to pit blue photons against red photons in a race across the Atlantic, Amelino-Camelia says, the blue ones--being slightly higher in energy-- would win by about 0.000000000000000000000000001 of a second."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The revolution at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science. Its President, Harvey Brown, has discovered that the material world should be procrusteanized in order for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate to become true:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000218/00/Origins_of_contraction.pdf
Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis, it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2 and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "An examination of the status of length contraction in the context of Einstein’s 1905 treatment of SR will illustrate the way in which principle theories fail to be explanatory. Recall that in this derivation the first conclusion drawn from the two fundamental postulates is the invariance of the speed of light, that it has the same constant value in all inertial frames. This gives the ‘k-Lorentz transformations’, the Lorentz transformations up to a velocity dependent scale factor, k. What has, in effect, been shown is that if the speed of light as measured with respect to frame F0 is to be found to be the same value as when measured with respect to the ‘resting frame’ F, then rods and clocks at rest in F0 had better contract and dilate (with respect to frame F) in the coordinated way that is encoded in the k-Lorentz transformations. One then appeals to the relativity principle again—the principle entails that these coordinated contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The incredible revolution of Jean Eisenstaedt:

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> A typical revolution designed to promote the career of a young
> Einsteinian at the University of West Georgia:
>
> http://www.phys.unt.edu/Espinoso.ppt
> "Conclusions: 1. Explanations of the precession of Mercury, the
> bending of starlight and gravitational redshift do NOT require the
> General Theory of Relativity. 2. Ritz theory explains both
> observations...."
>
> In a few years the revolution will be forgotten and the young
> Einsteinian James Espinosa, just like his brother Max Tegmark at MIT,
> will be teaching his students how to sing "Yes we all believe in
> relativity, relativity, relativity":
>
> http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

Perhaps I was wrong and this James Espinosa is a genuine revolutionary:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4015/is_200601/ai_n17177144/pg_23
"THE LAST OF THE NEWTONIANS: WALTER RITZ, James Espinosa, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118. 2005 was declared the World Year of Physics by the United Nations in order to celebrate the life and work of Albert Einstein, who helped give birth to a new age of physics. It also marks the 100th anniversary of the end of the Newtonian world view. Walter Ritz who was a classmate of Albert Einstein was the last successful Newtonian scientist of the twentieth century. A biographical sketch of his life will be given. Two great pieces of work, which have been forgotten by modern physicists but received much serious attention by his contemporaries, are the magnetic model of the atom and the emission theory of electromagnetism. The first body of work challenged quantum theory and the other challenged Einstein's special theory of relativity. A brief description of these two areas of work will be presented."

The expression "the last SUCCESSFUL Newtonian scientist" is somewhat strange isn't it? After all, Walter Ritz "challenged Einstein's special theory of relativity".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The revolution at the Perimeter Institute (Einsteinians there seem to
> have abandoned Einstein's 1905 false light postulate long time ago):
>
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030526/26beyond.htm
> "We get E-mail and letters all the time from amateurs who think they
> have found a mistake in Einstein's theory," says LeeSmolin, a
> physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. "That's not
> what is going on here." .....They may have to bend his best-known
> principle: the one that says the speed of light is an absolute, always
> and everywhere the same, and faster than anything else. That principle
> was born in 1905, when Einstein wedded space and time into something
> called spacetime.....The speed of light would no longer be a constant.
> The more energetic a photon, Amelino-Camelia's calculations indicate,
> the faster it would navigate the minefield of quantized spacetime. If
> you were to pit blue photons against red photons in a race across the
> Atlantic, Amelino-Camelia says, the blue ones--being slightly higher
> in energy-- would win by about 0.000000000000000000000000001 of a
> second."

More attacks against Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Revolutionary Lee Smolin now has a theory (Deformed Special Relativity) according to which, although Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, Lorentz transformation equations remain unaffected:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3765v1.pdf
Lee Smolin: "Given the evidence against Lorentz symmetry breaking, from recent AUGER observations[7], as well as previously, DSR would be the only explanation were a variation of the speed of photons with energy observed, consistent with the full range of known experimental results."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

In fact, Silly Smolin's revolution is a continuation of an old one the slogan of which is: "Divine Albert's 1905 light postulate may be false, Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity is eternal":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, 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 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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an 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://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)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com