Empirical Confirmation of No Lorentz Violations

We have had some discussions in the forum about whether general relativity + available scientific evidence shows that we must conclude that the universe is billions of years old.* Some YEC physicists have posited that violations of Lorentz Invariance could permit the conclusion that the universe is only thousands of years old.

If I have understood it correctly, the result reported by the T-SAGE experiment confirms that the position of YEC physicists is not scientifically sustainable.

The researchers report that the T-SAGE showed that the two objects fell at very nearly identical rates—within two-trillionths of a percent of each other. The measurement was close enough to report that no Lorentz violation was detected.

@PdotdQ and from @stcordova have discussed this question in the past. I invite comment from them and from anyone else on this recent publication.



Before this experiment, the position where there are Lorentz violations has already been disproven a long time ago by experimental physics to one part in billions (for one measure, to one part in one thousandth billions).

However, this won’t stop the YEC physicists that claim otherwise. For example, @stcordova does not believe in the results of mainstream physics, both theoretical and experimental. He thinks that SR has absurdities (against mainstream theoretical physics), and that Lorentz violations have not been disproven to one part in billions (against mainstream experimental physics).

To wit, he cannot even answer the question I posed in a thread (Variable Speed of Light Theories):

(The answer is clear from his previous posts, I was asking almost rhetorically. He claimed before that he thinks SR has absurdities, in contrast to the mainstream physics position)

This is despite claiming that physics is at the top of his “pecking order” of science.

Why do you even ask for comments from @stcordova? He, to his own admission, has no expertise in physics. It turns out that he does not believe in mainstream physics. So, his understanding of physics is based solely on his lack of expertise in physics. What value could a comment on physics by such a person has?


I reject some of the claims of mainstream physics, not all of them. I think some claims need revision, especially regarding cosmology.

. It turns out that he does not believe in mainstream physics.

That’s not accurate. I believe most of mainstream physics, but I think there could be temporal spatial variations in the speed of light (aka Variable Speed of Light). VSL theories exist, not just in YEC quarters.

What value could a comment on physics by such a person has?

Well Chris, you can defer to PdotdQ since he has expertise, and not me. He can reassure you why VSL theories are false and/or un-needed and why the Big Bang is on a solid theoretical and empirical footing and why there is no crisis in cosmology.

As someone who, by his own admission, has no expertise in physics, the claims of mainstream physics that @stcordova rejects are just those that are against his pre-determined conclusions. Not only can a Christian cherry pick their bible verses, apparently this one can also cherry pick his physics.


The physicists’ point, as I understand it, is that VSL theories do not offer even a neutrino of support for the notion that the universe is over 6 orders of magnitude younger than the age predicted by the shared theory of the scientific community that is very strongly supported by empirical evidence.

In particular, the VSL, such as it might have existed in some point in the history of time and space, is effectively null in the frame of reference of the galactic cluster that contains the Milky Way.

Here’s an analogy: the cruise control on my car might not be perfectly constant. It could in fact have a 1% variance in speed. This slight variance does not support the conjecture that my car could reach Seattle in 100 milliseconds rather than 4 days.

Does that make sense?

@PdotdQ - Am I expressing the consensus in a more or less sensible way?

Peace on earth,


EDIT: It’s worth pointing out, Sal, that you’ve made a big deal out of conjectures opposing Lorentz Invariance. But the T-SAGE experiment demonstrates that such conjectures have no basis in empirical reality.

I really thought you might be able to deal squarely enough with us to admit that you were wrong in opposing Lorentz Invariance.


@stcordova’s claims about VSL is just him trying to deflect. No one is talking about the VSL. We are talking about Lorentz violations. They are different things.


. No one is talking about the VSL. We are talking about Lorentz violations. They are different things.

So can there be VSL without Lorentz violations? If so, then Chris saying that the absence of detected Lorentz violations makes YEC untenable is not necessarily true. If so, thank you for rescuing my case, and putting a dent in Chris’ view.

t him trying to deflect.

Imputing motivation to me. I see. Well, not very nice since you tagged me to respond. I might choose not to respond next time.

Of course, Lorentz violation is just the most popular way to get VSL, there are other ways to get VSL without Lorentz violations. This is mainstream physics; it is not true that there is no mainstream study on VSL. Your views that are against mainstream physics have nothing to do with VSL, but:

None of those wrong views have anything to do with VSL.

If it’s not you trying to deflect, then it’s you being too ignorant to know that VSL and Lorentz violations are completely different beasts.


You have completely misrepresented what I said, Sal. Since you missed it the first time, please be patient with me as I repeat my point about VSL:

Undentedly yours,

P.S. You are still acting as if your case against Lorentz Invariance is undamaged. You seem loath to admit that your voluminous writings against Lorentz Invariance have been strongly refuted by empirical evidence. Is my perception correct?