http://www.hist-analytic.org/Popper1.pdf
Karl Popper: "This false epistemology, however, has also led to
disastrous consequences. The theory that truth is manifest - that it
is there for everyone to see it, if only he wants to see it - this
theory is the basis of almost every kind of fanaticism."

In the following texts the truth is "manifest" - "it is there for
everyone to see it":

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "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."

Of course, the analysis might show that the speed of light is constant
after all and that the law of entropy increase is by no means a red
herring. But that would be truth again! Either "the speed of light
DEPENDS on the speed of the light source" or "the speed of light DOES
NOT DEPEND on the speed of the light source" is truth, even ABSOLUTE
truth, and "it is there for everyone to see it". If, however, "it is
there but nobody wants to see it", then this is FANATICISM.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev

On Jan 22, 1:44 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
[..]
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
> Of course, the analysis might show that the speed of light is constant
> after all and that the law of entropy increase is by no means a red
> herring. But that would be truth again! Either "the speed of light
> DEPENDS on the speed of the light source" or "the speed of light DOES
> NOT DEPEND on the speed of the light source" is truth, even ABSOLUTE
> truth, and "it is there for everyone to see it". If, however, "it is
> there but nobody wants to see it", then this is FANATICISM.

The principle "It is there but nobody wants to see it" has gradually
been converted, by Einsteiniana's teachers, into "It is there but
nobody can see it". The most pernicious form of camouflage consists in
accusing, explicitly or implicitly, Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate of everything so that career and money can still be be
extracted, even from criticism, and a true critic has simply nothing
to add:

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"How grotesquely badly we teach special relativity encapsulates the
practical problem of teaching physics to the freshman physics major. I
have never found a single freshman physics textbook that teaches
Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on General
Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two postulates." Every physics
freshman is taught ... well, let me quote an example. In the fall of
2007 I will, for the second time in my career, teach introductory
physics for physical science majors at the Johns Hopkins University.
One text that has recently been used for that course is "University
Physics," by R. L. Reese. On page 1155 we read "The entire special
theory stems from only two postulates. ... Postulate 1: The speed of
light in a vacuum has the same numerical value c when measured in any
inertial reference frame, independent of the motion of the source and/
or observer.... Postulate 2: The fundamental laws of physics must be
the same in all inertial reference frames." The reader is invited to
recoil, not only at the bizarre re-numbering of the infamous two
postulates, but of course at the use of the postulates at all. There
is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did
introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered
special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one
concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!)
did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a
development from relativitythe discovery of the implication that E =
mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But
the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's
equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not
know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle
Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman
numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more
advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching
special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but
historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as
"Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning
students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all
have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g.
relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course
the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of
texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's
second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs
to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant à sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au
plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en
mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIeme est infiniment plus interessante -
et plus utile pedagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a impose
l'ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev

Le 23-01-2009 6:29, Pentcho Valev a écrit:

[..]
> special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but
> historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as
> "Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning
> students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all
> have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g.
> relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course
> the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of
> texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's
> second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs
> to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski."

Moi, je préfère cette version:

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryMinkowski.pdf

Cordialement,

José Carlos Santos