Sabine Hossenfelder: "Of course the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics want me to stop pointing out they are working on pseudoscience." https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1490945304438345728

If "the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics...are working on pseudoscience", then fundamental physics is dead, isn't it? Who or what killed it? Let me guess: the killer is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood.

The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics has been long dead. The so called fundamental physics is actually a pernicious but lucrative ideology.

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is
embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very
keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not
present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light
without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Peter Woit: "Fundamental physical theory may now be over, replaced with a pseudo-science, but at least that means that things in this subject can't get any worse." https://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12604

Things can get much worse in terms of money:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "I want to tell you how particle physicists are wasting your money." https://youtu.be/9qqEU1Q-gYE?t=3

The more-than-a-century reign of the insane ideology called "relativity" is by far the biggest waste of money in the history of science. Einsteinians are insatiable money-grubbers. Here is one of the champions:

"Jim Al-Khalili on a £2m mission to reveal secrets of time" https://thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-ready-to-tackle-the-nature-of-time-in-2-1m-project-cv69ssxpg

Absolute champions are, of course, LIGO godfathers:

"Nine scientists just won an award that's worth more than a Nobel Prize, earning a cool $1 million for their cutting-edge research. Called the Kavli Prize, these lofty awards... [...] The three winners in astrophysics this year were Ronald Drever, Kip
Thorne, and Rainer Weiss. The trio won for detecting the ripples in space-time known as gravitational waves — arguably the most remarkable scientific achievement of the year, if not the past 100 years. "This detection has, in a single stroke and for
the first time, validated Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity for very strong fields..." http://www.techinsider.io/kavli-prize-winners-2016-6

"Weiss will share the $1.2 million prize with Kip Thorne, Caltech’s Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, emeritus professor of physics at Caltech. Together, they are cited by the Shaw Foundation “for
conceiving and designing the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), whose recent direct detection of gravitational waves opens a new window..." http://news.mit.edu/2016/rainer-weiss-awarded-shaw-prize-astronomy-0601

"LIGO Gravitational Wave Researchers to Divide $3 Million. The three ringleaders of the gravitational-wave experiment, known as LIGO, Ronald P. Drever and Kip. S. Thorne of the California Institute of Technology, and Rainer Weiss of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, will split $1 million. The other $2 million will be split among 1,012 scientists who were authors of the article in Physical Review Letters, or who made major contributions to the study of gravitational waves." http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/05/04/science/ligo-gravitational-wave-breakthrough-prize-yuri-milner.html

"In addition to a cash award of $500 000, to be shared equally between Drever, Thorne and Weiss, each of the three will receive a gold medal and a citation that reads: The Gruber Foundation proudly presents the 2016 Cosmology Prize to Rainer Weiss, Kip
Thorne, Ronald Drever, and the entire LIGO team for pursuing a vision to observe the universe in gravitational waves, leading to a first detection that emanated from the collision of two black holes." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/iau-
ro2050416.php

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 2017 was divided, one half awarded to Rainer Weiss, the other half jointly to Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne "for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves." https://www.
nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/summary/

This colossal money wasting should stop immediately.

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

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing
of the rest of contemporary physics." John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151 https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-John-Stachel/dp/0817641432

So "physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" but in 1954 it was too late to advance this caveat. The destruction of physics had started in 1905:

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." http://arxiv.org/ftp/
physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though,
why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with
an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this
kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added
vectorially to the velocity of light emitted. [...] If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. As long as Einstein expected a viable
theory of light, electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf

That is, Einstein killed physics by "borrowing" his fundamental axiom from the theory of the nonexistent ether and ignoring the correct Newtonian alternative (variable speed of light) confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

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

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)