http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/ma...ropaganda.html
Motl: "Is special relativity true? According to all observations we
have, it is true and exact. The effect of all hypothetical violations
of special relativity on any phenomena that can be realistically
observed may be summarized by Lorentz-breaking terms in the effective
action. Experiments show that these terms are zero or at least
extremely tiny: the bounds are very stringent. Can we imagine that
special relativity is not exactly true? Even though it looks like
returning before 1905, the answer is: Yes, of course, we can. Just add
the small symmetry-breaking corrections. Can these hypothetical
corrections be associated with other physical phenomena? Maybe. If
they're associated e.g. with the quantum gravity scale, you may obtain
an order-of-magnitude estimate how large these violations should
be.....This violation is an assumption that has been made by many
people such as Nanopoulos, Mavromatos, Sarkar, Amelino-Camelia,
Mitsou, Farakos, Ellis, Kostelecky, Samuel, Pospelov, Myers, Alfaro,
Morales-Tecotl, Urrutia, and others. Quite many people for this non-
result, frankly speaking."

Motl is silly and thinks Lorentz violations are "non-result" but all
those Nanopoulos, Mavromatos, Sarkar, Amelino-Camelia, Mitsou,
Farakos, Ellis, Kostelecky, Samuel, Pospelov, Myers, Alfaro, Morales-
Tecotl, Urrutia, and others are not so silly and know that the "Beyond
Einstein" future of Einstein criminal cult passes through Lorentz
violations, more precisely through the adoption of Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

One of the not-so-silly Lorentz violators, Robert Meyers, has even
become a Boss in the Perimeter Institute, a subdivision of the
Ministry of Silly Walks (Einstein Criminal Cult):

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/New...nounced_at_PI/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

The not-so-silly walk Meyers is going to develop can be formulated in
the following way:

"How to reintroduce Newton's emission theory of light without
informing Einstein zombie world that Einstein's false light postulate
has been rejected."

Pentcho Valev