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://smashingtelly.com/2009/01/16/einsteins-biggest-blunder/
"The theory of Relativity might be more usefully called the theory of the constancy of the speed of light. So what if the speed of light wasnt constant?"

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.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. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." 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. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. 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."

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
"La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin] devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais, comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement. (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne soit plus constante."

Needless to say, Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking etc. did not drop Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in the end, at least not officially. But they extracted maximum career and money from this particular heresy and then left the sinking ship. The world will never again be interested in whether or not the postulate is false. Accordingly, people are free to sing or not to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "Divine Einstein":

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
(No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-ohr!)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I cannot see here any goal. Be right, it is absolutely without importance. It is necessary to write so that somebody with other opinion could it read.

We are orchestra of soloists; we are not team.

To Anon,

Pentcho's goal is to besmirch Einstein and relativity as well as thermodynamics and its founders. For some reason he believes that any article on relativity pro or con does this. He blames the relative lack of interest in science in various countries to the fact that schools teach relativity and thermodynamics.

Don't bother trying to engage him in coversation. He doesn't appear to have the technical skill to defend his positions. He simply quotes every cockamamie idea he comes across or he quotes accurate material and says its wrong. Part of his lack of discourse may be a language problem although when he does write in English he looks like he knows it pretty well. I believe his sticking points are relativity and entropy.

The current level of discourse here is mostly due to AAF and I dueling with each other over various subjects and getting a few other souls interested along the way. Pentcho is just a sort of background noise.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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://smashingtelly.com/2009/01/16/einsteins-biggest-blunder/
> "The theory of Relativity might be more usefully called the theory of
> the constancy of the speed of light. So what if the speed of light
> wasnt constant?"
>
> 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.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. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." 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. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. 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."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
> "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
> paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
> longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
> directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
> inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
> quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
> devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
> comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
> independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
> constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
> notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
> (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
> l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
> admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
> soit plus constante."
>
> Needless to say, Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Paul Davies, Martin Rees,
> Stephen Hawking etc. did not drop Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate in the end, at least not officially. But they extracted
> maximum career and money from this particular heresy and then left the
> sinking ship. The world will never again be interested in whether or
> not the postulate is false. Accordingly, people are free to sing or
> not to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
> and "Divine Einstein":
>
> "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
>
> "DIVINE EINSTEIN"
> (No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-ohr!)
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Yet the revolution seems to be going on, carried out by philosophers and somewhat hidden from ordinary scientists:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Yet the revolution seems to be going on, carried out by philosophers
> and somewhat hidden from ordinary scientists:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
> Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
> Contemporary Philosophy)
> "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
> original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
> physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory
> of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the
> contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great
> deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory
> of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special
> Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology,
> metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available;
> hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
> publication."
> "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its
> epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be
> questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."
> Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
> respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
> time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
> effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
> Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
> radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
> invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
> the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
> purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
> Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
> include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
> structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
> spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
> picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
> uniquely decomposable into space and time."

A truly remarkable way to fight Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/philosophy/current/undergrad/studyguide/physics.html
"Another important issue in contemporary space-time philosophy concerns the nature of simultaneity. It was well known since Einsteins work that simultaneity is not absolute in the special theory of relativity. Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be so in another. Adolf Grünbaum further argued, following Reichenbach, that the definition of simultaneity in special relativity is conventional. This is because the one-way speed of light is not fixed by the theory, only the two-way (or return) speed is. Winnie derived space-time transformations more general still than the Lorentz transformations of relativity theory. But is simultaneity conventional also in the General Theory of Relativity?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Cincirob: "To Anon,

Pentcho's goal is to besmirch Einstein and relativity as well as thermodynamics and its founders. For some reason he believes that any article on relativity pro or con does this. He blames the relative lack of interest in science in various countries to the fact that schools teach relativity and thermodynamics. "

I disagree in principle, but problem is, we are not able to communicate. Cinci, your words are not correct. What to do, now, guys?

Anonymous idiot>>Pentcho's goal is to besmirch Einstein and relativity as well as thermodynamics and its founders. For some reason he believes that any article on relativity pro or con does this.
.
That's because the summation of those articles is a clear statement for one thing and its complete opposite; i.e. talk nonsense.

Anonymous idiot>>He blames the relative lack of interest in science in various countries to the fact that schools teach relativity and thermodynamics. "
.
The result of talking nonsense can only lead to destroying interest in science.

Anonymous idiot>> problem is, we are not able to communicate.
.
It is impossible to communicate when there are people who believe nonsense, and spout it at every opportunity.

Cincirob: "To Anon: Pentcho's goal is to besmirch Einstein and relativity as well as thermodynamics and its founders. For some reason he believes that any article on relativity pro or con does this. He blames the relative lack of interest in science in various countries to the fact that schools teach relativity and thermodynamics. "

anonymous: I disagree in principle, but problem is, we are not able to communicate. Cinci, your words are not correct. What to do, now, guys?


cinci: Disagree all you want. My words are correct.
*********************

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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://smashingtelly.com/2009/01/16/einsteins-biggest-blunder/
> "The theory of Relativity might be more usefully called the theory of
> the constancy of the speed of light. So what if the speed of light
> wasnt constant?"
>
> 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.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. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." 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. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. 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."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
> "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
> paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
> longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
> directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
> inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
> quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
> devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
> comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
> independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
> constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
> notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
> (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
> l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
> admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
> soit plus constante."
>
> Needless to say, Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Paul Davies, Martin Rees,
> Stephen Hawking etc. did not drop Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate in the end, at least not officially. But they extracted
> maximum career and money from this particular heresy and then left the
> sinking ship. The world will never again be interested in whether or
> not the postulate is false. Accordingly, people are free to sing or
> not to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
> and "Divine Einstein":
>
> "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
>
> "DIVINE EINSTEIN"
> (No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-ohr!)
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

The revolution WILL take place after all:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/wht/2009/02/nine_leading_researchers_join.html
"Nine leading researchers join Stephen Hawking as Distinguished Research Chairs at Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada. WATERLOO, Ontario, Canada, February 9, 2009 - Dr. Neil Turok, Director of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI), is pleased to announce the appointment of nine more outstanding international scientists to the positions of PI Distinguished Research Chairs. The new Chairs include Yakir Aharonov of Chapman University, Nima Arkani-Hamed of the Institute for Advanced Study, Neta Bahcall of Princeton University, Juan Ignacio Cirac of the Max Planck Institute, Gia Dvali of CERN and NYU, Subir Sachdev of Harvard University, Ashoke Sen of the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Leonard Susskind of Stanford University and Xiao-Gang Wen of MIT. They will join Perimeter Institute's first Distinguished Research Chair, Prof. Stephen Hawking, in spending extended research visits at PI each year. The appointments are for three years. As PI grows, it plans to reach a steady state of 40 Distinguished Research Chairs."

But first the nine oustanding international scientists will have to explain to Stephen Hawking that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and therefore Stephen Hawking should not use this experiment in his fight against Laplace and Michell:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Then Leonard Susskind will have to explain to Stephen Hawking what cosmology will look like when Einsteinians will officially have abandoned Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes, ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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://smashingtelly.com/2009/01/16/einsteins-biggest-blunder/
> "The theory of Relativity might be more usefully called the theory of
> the constancy of the speed of light. So what if the speed of light
> wasnt constant?"
>
> 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.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. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." 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. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. 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."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
> "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
> paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
> longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
> directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
> inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
> quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
> devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
> comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
> independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
> constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
> notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
> (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
> l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
> admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
> soit plus constante."
>
> Needless to say, Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Paul Davies, Martin Rees,
> Stephen Hawking etc. did not drop Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate in the end, at least not officially. But they extracted
> maximum career and money from this particular heresy and then left the
> sinking ship. The world will never again be interested in whether or
> not the postulate is false. Accordingly, people are free to sing or
> not to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
> and "Divine Einstein":
>
> "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
>
> "DIVINE EINSTEIN"
> (No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-ohr!)
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Einsteiniana's godfathers have now realized that no revolution should be allowed to occur and that the salvation could only come from string theory - Einsteiniana's silliest construction that has never questioned and will never question Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (in this sense quantum gravity is much more dangerous than string theory):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126951.800-mathematics-the-only-true-universal-language.html
Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society: "More than 200 years earlier, Isaac Newton showed that the force that makes apples fall is the same as the gravity that holds planets in their orbits. Newton's mathematics is good enough to fly rockets into space and steer probes around planets, but Einstein transcended Newton. His general theory of relativity could cope with very high speeds and strong gravity, offering deeper insight into gravity's nature.....String theory is not the only approach to a unified theory, but it is by far the most intensively studied one. This endeavour is surely good for mathematics, but there is controversy about how good it is for physics. Arguments rage over whether string theory is right, whether it will ever engage with experiment, and even whether it is physics at all. There have even been commercially successful books rubbishing the idea. To me, criticisms of string theory as an intellectual enterprise seem to be in poor taste.....Finding a unified theory would be the completion of a programme that started with Newton. String theory, if correct, would also vindicate the vision of Einstein and the late American physicist John Wheeler that the world is essentially a geometrical structure."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

It seems Einsteiniana's revolution (which consists in abandoning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and his special relativity called by some Einsteinians "the root of evil") will still take place but very imperceptibly and not before theoretical science has died irreversibly (then nobody will want to know what exactly Einsteinians have abandoned and whether they have abandoned anything at all):

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/39867717.html
"Observations from NASAs Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope hint that all forms of light may not travel through space at the same speed. Very-high-energy gamma rays may be slowed down as they propagate through the quantum turbulence of space-time. If future observations bear this out, it will rock the foundations of modern physics.....If Fermi sees a time lag for high-energy gamma rays that becomes larger with increasing distance, this would present compelling evidence that these theories of quantum gravity are indeed telling us something profound about nature at its most fundamental scales. At that time, Fermi scientists may do more than just uncork the champagne; they can start reserving themselves a round-trip ticket to Stockholm. "This one burst raises all sorts of questions," says Michelson. "In a few years, we'll have a fairly good sample of bursts, and we may have some answers."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com