Is Einstein's Relativity Inexact?

On Jan 7, 7:19*pm, wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
In sci.physics.relativity Dave wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105150837.htm

This is a press release about a proposal for a new test of local
Lorentz invariance. *The actual paper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009)
010402, does not claim that "Einstein's relativity [is] inexact";
it says, to paraphrase, "Here's a new set of possible experimental
tests of relativity, which could show whether or not it's exact in a
certain kind of gravitational interaction."

That's what physicists *do*. *Theories in physics are not religions;
there are always new tests possible, and a successful falsification
of a major established theory is a good path toward a Nobel Prize.
This paper points out a new set of tests for a certain form of a
violation of local Lorentz invariance, which might otherwise be
quite hard to see. *The authors aren't arguing for some particular
alternate theory, or claiming that relativity is wrong; they are
saying, Here's something new that we can check.

If anyone wants to see what this paper is really about, the preprint
is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1459.

Steve Carlip

Honest Carlip how can you be so (intentionally?) confused? Why don't
you take more notice of what your brothers teach:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.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."

Pentcho Valev

On 8 Jan, 10:18, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted


1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.