This comment is of course completely hyperbolic, and therefore entirely in keeping with the spirit of the plasma physics community.

Wibble.

Searching the web, I found many other devoted relativity-haters who seem also to go out of their way to diminish Einstein’s involvement in these theories by asserting that he plagiarised his ideas or somesuch drivel, rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, as all good scientists do. They clearly do not understand how science works.

No evidence is ever produced in support of their positions – no worked out alternative theories; no confirmed counter-examples; no novel predictions that might be tested. Basically they are like creationists. I find it all rather sad and pathetic, really.

They can’t all be Alan Sokals, can they? I would really like to understand the motivation of relativity-haters in the sense that I understand the motivation of creationists. I suspect a profound confusion between relativity and (moral) relativism.

For those unfamiliar with the physics, I should point out that Albert Einstein’s relativity is rooted in the ideas of Hendrik Lorentz, as incorporated by Einstein and the mathematician Hermann Minkowski. What distinguishes Einstein’s theory of special relativity is the assumption that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

If one doesn’t accept Einstein’s special relativity, then the default fall-back position is an updated version of Lorentz ether theory, which posits the existence of an ether that pervades spacetime and establishes a preferred frame of reference. This introduces a whole new set of problems, and violates the Occam’s razor principle which dictates that the simplest physical explanation is probably the best one. It also faces another problem: the failure thus far to observe any violation of the the so-called Lorentz invariance.

“Seriously though, maybe future scientists will find flaws in either or both of Einstein’s theories of relativity.” Yes of course, it might even be the case that the wunderkind of CERN are doing just that. I’m surely not the only one that has noticed a subtle shift back to Lorentzian ideas. Think of the implications of a BEC universe, and BEC particles. Negative refractive index, and phase change at the speed of light.

Back to that paper again. It appears to me, to be in support of Lorentzian relativity, and if I have minor criticisms it’s that, one, it’s a little too heavy on the arguments of Popper, and two it merely whets the appetite for more on the nature of the undoubted crisis in physics at the beginning of the twentieth century.

I’m pretty sure that Yahweh will turn Peter Haye’s light bulbs into candles, though even those shouldn’t be allowed. What I would baulk at, would be if Yahweh went on his hols and left the universal t.v. zapper in the hands of Albert Einstein. I’d much prefer a committee of Newton, Poincare, Reimann, Jeans and Ken Dodd. ken to add a note of music-hall bawdiness and keep the show going for hours.