Peter Woit: "...as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Dead physics means dead civilization. Woit blames string theory but actually physics was killed by the metastases of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light nonsense.

Peter Woit: "There's a very real danger...that we will in our lifetimes see the end of fundamental physics as a human endeavor" http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8392

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Looks like Chris Anderson was right when he proclaimed the end of theory." https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11961

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is "theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Neil Turok: "The extensions of the standard model, like grand unified theories, they were supposed to simplify it. But in fact they made it more complicated. The number of parameters in the standard model is about 18. The number in grand unified theories
is typically 100. In super-symmetric theories, the minimum is 120. And as you may have heard, string theory seems to predict 10 to the power of 1,000 different possible laws of physics. It’s called the multiverse. It’s the ultimate catastrophe: that
theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

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

Pentcho Valev

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

"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 texts above suggest that, if the speed of light is variable, fundamental physics, entirely predicated on Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light axiom, is long dead (exists as a farce).

So the constant-speed-of-light axiom is fundamental in physics, and yet it "seems to be nonsense" even to high priests in the Einstein cult:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem
over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

The constant-speed-of-light axiom is OBVIOUS NONSENSE. The frequency increases for moving observer BECAUSE the speed of light pulses relative to him increases (no other reason exists):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

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

Pentcho Valev

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

El domingo, 6 de diciembre de 2020 a las 18:35:11 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev escribió:

...
John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this

problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

The constant-speed-of-light axiom is OBVIOUS NONSENSE. The frequency increases for moving observer BECAUSE the speed of light pulses relative to him increases (no other reason exists):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

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

Pentcho Valev

Speed of light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMwFjqGeAtE
Carlos L

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

On 05.12.2020 14:52, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Peter Woit: "...as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Dead physics means dead civilization. Woit blames string theory but actually physics was killed by the metastases of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light nonsense.

Peter Woit: "There's a very real danger...that we will in our lifetimes see the end of fundamental physics as a human endeavor" http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8392

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Looks like Chris Anderson was right when he proclaimed the end of theory." https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11961

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is "theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Neil Turok: "The extensions of the standard model, like grand unified theories, they were supposed to simplify it. But in fact they made it more complicated. The number of parameters in the standard model is about 18. The number in grand unified

theories is typically 100. In super-symmetric theories, the minimum is 120. And as you may have heard, string theory seems to predict 10 to the power of 1,000 different possible laws of physics. It’s called the multiverse. It’s the ultimate
catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

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

Pentcho Valev

The quotations are out of context. If you read the full text of Peter
Woit for example, he does not mean that the physics is dead or even
should be replaced by something else.

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