🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:06:24 -0700:

> Einsteiniana's most recent camouflage of the falsehood of Einstein's
> 1905 light postulate:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824115758.htm "Despite
> the success of general relativity, one of the most important problems in
> modern physics is finding a theory of quantum gravity that reconciles
> the continuous nature of gravitational fields with the inherent
> 'graininess' of quantum mechanics. Recently, Petr Hořava at Lawrence
> Berkeley Lab proposed such a model for quantum gravity that has received
> widespread interest, in no small part because it is one of the few
> models that could be experimentally tested. In Hořava's model, Lorentz
> symmetry, which says that physics is the same regardless of the
> reference frame, is violated at small distance scales, but remerges over
> longer distance scales."

More science new press and more *misunderstanding* from Pentcho...

There is several quantum gravity theoretical models where Lorentz 
simmetry is 'violated' in some regime [#], e.g. loop quantum gravity.

Of course, all those hypotetical models reduce to Lorentz invariant 
models (e.g. SR) in some limit.

> Einsteiniana's new discovery that Lorentz symmetry "is violated at small
> distance scales, but remerges over longer distance scales" may allow
> Einsteinans to answer the existential question asked by Joao Magueijo
> and John W. Moffat without damaging Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

The models are 100% compatible with the *current* tests of Lorentz 
invariance and only predict deviations for future hypotetical experiments 
(which nobody did yet).
 
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo
> and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz invariance is
> broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that Lorentz
> invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of observers in
> inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the speed of light--it
> is clear that either or both of those principles must be violated."

Of course, their theories reduce to SR in the appropiate limit (e.g. 
above some hypotetical distance; i.e., below some very high energy scale).

The two postulates of SR continue being valid for 'low' energies and 
'large' distances [$$].

> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev@yahoo.com
> 
> On Aug 19 Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Philosophers of science have devised strange concepts such as
>> verisimilitude (proximity to truth) and pessimistic induction (all
>> theories in the past proved partially false so present and future
>> theories are partially false as well) which contradict the deductive
>> method. Consider Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>>
>>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/  "...light is
>> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>
>> By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
>> is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
>> of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
>> true, then all its consequences are true.
>>
>> If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
>> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
>> Then the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
>> antithesis deduced validly and in the absence of false or absurd
>> auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all its
>> conclusions are true.
>>
>> Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the concepts of truth content
>> and falsity content are irrelevant. Deductive theories are either
>> absolutely true or absolutely false.

Of course this is all plain wrong, including your claim that c'=c+v for 
arbitrary speeds v. And of course has nothing to see with double special 
relativity, deformed relativity, loop quantum gravity, and other 
approaches.


[#] More correctly "deformed".

[$$] Low means the usual high energies tested in accelerators. Large mean 
     the ultrashort distances for which QED has been tested for instance.

-- 
http://www.canonicalscience.org/