🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 1:23 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Smolin Smolin you are a genius! No other hypnotist in Einstein
> criminal cult can reject Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so
> imperceptibly:
>
> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.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. Because Einstein's special
> theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
> implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
> former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
> and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
> found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
> dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
> than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
> wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
> Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
> observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
> relativity simply fails....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!"
>
> Your sycophants in the Perimeter Institute are trying to emulate your
> subtlety Smolin Smolin but they are so silly (perhaps you should kick
> them out):
>
> 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."

http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2008/01/15/News/Speakers.On.Campus.Planck.Units.Quantize.Universe-3151923.shtml
"The tentative conclusions that arose from Smolin's seminar were that
there "exists a GZK cutoff, Einstein's relativity principle is
continued at Planck scales and double special relativity and good old-
fashioned special relativity are fine."

Bravo Smolin! Although your sycophants' comment above is extremely
dangerous, you still did give an answer: Einstein's relativity
principle is OK and Einstein's special relativity is OK. But then your
sycophants' comment implies there could be no Lorentz violations while
all criminal Einsteinans, yourself included, are fiercely predicting
Lorentz violations nowadays!?! Your sycophants Magueijo and Moffat are
quite straightforward Smolin Smolin:

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."

That is, either Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false or there
could be no Lorentz violations. Could you get out of this predicament
Smolin Smolin?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com