Brian Keating: "All of modern physics relies on LI [Lorentz invariance]. But we should test it." https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1627729732099014662

The Lorentz invariance is tested and disproved by Doppler-type experiments. Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer. That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer. Accordingly, the Lorentz invariance is false. Physicists know that:

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time...It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way.." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On 2/20/23 3:41 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [... nonsense]

Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we have.
Valev doesn't have a clue, and just makes stuff up and pretends it is true.

Tom Roberts

On 2023-02-21 16:36:57 +0000, Tom Roberts said:

> On 2/20/23 3:41 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [... nonsense]
>
> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we have.
> Valev doesn't have a clue, and just makes stuff up and pretends it is true.

Yes, and he's a quote-miner par excellence: he finds something to quote
that he hopes he can fool you into thinking it supports his idiocies
and carefully avoids giving any context or qualifications.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

John Norton unwittingly exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, Norton and Stachel, high priests in the Einstein cult, are trying to exculpate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the original liar - in 1921 he informed the gullible world that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constant speed of light:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEIN-Lecture-on-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-Time-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 2/20/23 3:41 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > [... nonsense]
>
> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we have.
> Valev doesn't have a clue, and just makes stuff up and pretends it is true.

This is a very common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.
Lorentz invariance cannot be tested, it must be postulated.
It is a postulate about the kind of space-time we live in.
Or in other words, local Lorentz invariance is -not- a physical theory.
By itself it is empty, nothing but kinematics.

The only things that -can- be tested are Lorentz invariant -theories-.
And indeed, Lorentz invariant theories are empirically adequate.
(at present, and afawk, and to very high accuracy)

This is not a test of Lorentz invariance itself,
for we cannot exclude the possibility
that non-Lorentz invariant theories
can be equally empirically adequate. (or even better)

This is not a a far-fetched hypothetical possibility,
for the Lorentz invariant theories that we have
are not all-encompassing.

It is quite possible in principle that for example
unification of gravity and quantum mechanics
will require dropping Lorentz invariance.
(and indeed, there are people working along these lines)

If such were to be the case
all of physics will not be Lorentz invariant,
with Lorentz invariance only holding to a very good approximation
for the part of reality that we nowadays have access to.

Or in other words: All our Lorentz invariant theories
could be merely approximations to deeper non-Lorentz theories.
There is no way that we can tell,

Jan

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 11:11:32 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/20/23 3:41 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > [... nonsense]
> >
> > Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we have.
> > Valev doesn't have a clue, and just makes stuff up and pretends it is true.
> This is a very common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.
> Lorentz invariance cannot be tested, it must be postulated.
> It is a postulate about the kind of space-time we live in.
> Or in other words, local Lorentz invariance is -not- a physical theory.
> By itself it is empty, nothing but kinematics.

For sure it is a common mistake between your
bunch of idiots. For sure The Shit is nothing
but a consequence of a postulate of a mad
guru, violating both common sense and basic
[Euclidean] math.

On 2/22/23 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we
>> have.
>
> The only things that -can- be tested are Lorentz invariant
> -theories-.

Yes. I should have said: Local Lorentz Invariance is among the
best-established principles we have.

At present all of our fundamental theories are based upon LLI, and there
is no compelling reason to expect it to not be part of future theories;
there is no guarantee of that, however.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 26 February 2023 at 18:17:12 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/22/23 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we
> >> have.
> >
> > The only things that -can- be tested are Lorentz invariant
> > -theories-.
> Yes. I should have said: Local Lorentz Invariance is among the
> best-established principles we have.

Unfortunately, sane people (like those of GPS)
don't care how well it is established and make clocks
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 2/22/23 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we
> >> have.
> >
> > The only things that -can- be tested are Lorentz invariant
> > -theories-.
>
> Yes. I should have said: Local Lorentz Invariance is among the
> best-established principles we have.

If we still dared to have a Kantian a-priori
then local Lorentz invariance would be one.
There is nothing you can do without it,

Jan

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:31:40 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/22/23 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> Local Lorentz Invariance is among the best-tested theories we
> > >> have.
> > >
> > > The only things that -can- be tested are Lorentz invariant
> > > -theories-.
> >
> > Yes. I should have said: Local Lorentz Invariance is among the
> > best-established principles we have.
> If we still dared to have a Kantian a-priori
> then local Lorentz invariance would be one.
> There is nothing you can do without it,
>
> Jan

Where does distance go away to in the universe?
You are wrong jan. There has been no measurement
to back space contraction. It has never been real.
The opposite is. We know dimension is expanding.

Mitchell Raemsch