"100% of his [Edward Witten's] efforts have been not making contact with physical reality" https://youtu.be/O76fjTNGbtI?t=170

This is Einstein's schizophrenic world, isn't it? Or, to say it more bluntly, this is dead science:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0

"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

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

"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

"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

Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know. [...] By the addition of enough extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/16/scientific-theories-never-die-not-unless-scientists-choose-to-let-them/

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...THE TRIUMPH OF RELATIVITY THEORY REPRESENTS THE TRIUMPH OF IDEOLOGY not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

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

Pentcho Valev

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:45:22 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "100% of his [Edward Witten's] efforts have been not making contact with physical reality" https://youtu.be/O76fjTNGbtI?t=170
>
> This is Einstein's schizophrenic world, isn't it? Or, to say it more bluntly, this is dead science:
>
> Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0
>
> "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
>
> "As seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444
>
> "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
>
> "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
>
> Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know. [...] By the addition of enough extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/16/scientific-theories-never-die-not-unless-scientists-choose-to-let-them/
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living.. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
>
> "This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...THE TRIUMPH OF RELATIVITY THEORY REPRESENTS THE TRIUMPH OF IDEOLOGY not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
The historian of science Stanley Jaki spoke of the "stillbirths of science." We can now speak of the stillbirth of physics in relativity.

"Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/

The genius's genius does not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In this video he teaches that the experiment confirmed constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light and disproved variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by Newton's theory:

Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77

The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

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

Pentcho Valev

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:26:21 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/
>
> The genius's genius does not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In this video he teaches that the experiment confirmed constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light and disproved variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by Newton's theory:
>
> Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
>
> The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory
>
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
>
> and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
>
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
>
> "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:32:25 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:26:21 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > "Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/
> >
> > The genius's genius does not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In this video he teaches that the experiment confirmed constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light and disproved variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by Newton's theory:
> >
> > Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
> >
> > The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory
> >
> > https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
> >
> > and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
> >
> > "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> >
> > Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
> >
> > "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> >
> > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.

I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.

http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html

"He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton, near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."

What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.

But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:32:25 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:26:21 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > "Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/
> > >
> > > The genius's genius does not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In this video he teaches that the experiment confirmed constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light and disproved variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by Newton's theory:
> > >
> > > Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
> > >
> > > The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory
> > >
> > > https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
> > >
> > > and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
> > >
> > > "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > >
> > > Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
> > >
> > > "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> > >
> > > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.
> I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.
>
>
> http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html
>
> "He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton, near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."
>
> What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
> to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.
>
> But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.

Einstein said science would fail.

On 3/16/2023 8:55 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>>> Pentcho Valev
>> Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.
>
>
> I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.
>
>
> http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html
>
> "He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton,

There is no "Market Street" in Princeton. It is likely you meant
"Mercer Street." The distance between Einstein's home and the Institute
is approximately 1 mile.

>near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."
>
> What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
> to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.
>
> But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.

Anyone versed in the economics of employment understands that the income
paid to an employee usually represents less than half the actual costs
that employee presents to the employer. Discussing/arguing what Einstein
cost Princeton University is about as asinine as any discussion can get.

In Einstein's case the *only* important thing was his work product.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:32:25 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:26:21 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > "Among the brilliant theorists cloistered in the quiet woodside campus of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, Edward Witten stands out as a kind of high priest. The sole physicist ever to win the Fields Medal, mathematics' premier prize, Witten is also known for discovering M-theory, the leading candidate for a unified physical "theory of everything." A genius's genius, Witten is tall and rectangular, with hazy eyes and an air of being only one-quarter tuned in to reality until someone draws him back from more abstract thoughts." https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/
> > >
> > > The genius's genius does not understand the Michelson-Morley experiment (or is a blatant liar). In this video he teaches that the experiment confirmed constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light and disproved variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by Newton's theory:
> > >
> > > Edward Witten on modern physics https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
> > >
> > > The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory
> > >
> > > https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
> > >
> > > and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
> > >
> > > "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > >
> > > Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
> > >
> > > "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> > >
> > > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.
> I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.
>
>
> http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html
>
> "He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton, near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."
>
> What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
> to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.
>
> But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.
Considering how much bullshitting is done here it's good to know you were telling the truth. Clearly he did not win the position by merit. He was given it by a millionaire. Princeton is still big on publishing laudatory tomes on Einstein. This would be disillusioning if I didn't already know how pseudo-scientific relativity is.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 7:38:02 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 3/16/2023 8:55 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >>> Pentcho Valev
> >> Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits..
> >
> >
> > I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.
> >
> >
> > http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html
> >
> > "He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton,
> There is no "Market Street" in Princeton. It is likely you meant
> "Mercer Street." The distance between Einstein's home and the Institute
> is approximately 1 mile.
> >near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500.. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."
> >
> > What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
> > to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.
> >
> > But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.
> Anyone versed in the economics of employment understands that the income
> paid to an employee usually represents less than half the actual costs
> that employee presents to the employer. Discussing/arguing what Einstein
> cost Princeton University is about as asinine as any discussion can get.
>
> In Einstein's case the *only* important thing was his work product.
From the link provided about by Hertz it does not seem so productive: "However, his stay in Princeton was not as fruitful as he, and the lecturers at the Institute and the university, would have liked. Philip Franck, who replaced Einstein at the university of Prague and became an expert on his life and work and one of his most reliable biographers, puts this disappointing outcome down to Einstein's "absolute independence from his surroundings". Einstein himself recognised how little sway he had at the institute when he wrote (12/4/1949) to Born, whom he had promised a long stay: "I suggested it, but I have little influence; they consider me to be petrified because over the years I have become deaf and blind (in a figurative sense). I do not mind much; it suits my temperament quite well"."

On 3/16/2023 10:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 7:38:02 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 3/16/2023 8:55 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>>> Pentcho Valev
>>>> Interesting that he's at Princeton where Richard Hertz said a Jewish millionaire paid the university a million dollars to pay Einstein $10,000 per year for life. That would have left them with about $800,000 plus profits.
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't just say that. I quoted his most notable biographer.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://dipc.ehu.es/digitalak/orriak/english/princeton.html
>>>
>>> "He set up home at 112, Market Street in Princeton,
>> There is no "Market Street" in Princeton. It is likely you meant
>> "Mercer Street." The distance between Einstein's home and the Institute
>> is approximately 1 mile.
>>> near the Institute of Advanced Studies, founded with an endowment of five million dollars given by Louis Bamberger and his sister Mrs. Felix Fuld, wealthy Jewish financiers, to Abraham Flexner, a well-known reformer of the American educational system, to create an elite institution devoted to research and education. Despite several attempts to tempt Einstein back to Europe, Flexner finally managed to lure Einstein to the institute. Einstein suggested that he should receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, but to his own surprise and Elsa's joy, it was set at $15,000 dollars and he was guaranteed retirement at 65 (he was then 54) with a pension of $7,500. The offer was unquestionably generous, especially given that he had no teaching duties, except to attend occasionally to small groups of students."
>>>
>>> What I did say, a time ago, is that in 1944, when he reached his retirement age and saw his income cut in half, he menaced to go
>>> to the press. So they, afraid of consequences with the ((( ))) community, extended the full payment until his death.
>>>
>>> But you WILL NOT READ this by regular biographers, as it shows the cretin as the rat he was.
>> Anyone versed in the economics of employment understands that the income
>> paid to an employee usually represents less than half the actual costs
>> that employee presents to the employer. Discussing/arguing what Einstein
>> cost Princeton University is about as asinine as any discussion can get.
>>
>> In Einstein's case the *only* important thing was his work product.
> From the link provided about by Hertz it does not seem so productive: "However, his stay in Princeton was not as fruitful as he, and the lecturers at the Institute and the university, would have liked. Philip Franck, who replaced Einstein at the university of Prague and became an expert on his life and work and one of his most reliable biographers, puts this disappointing outcome down to Einstein's "absolute independence from his surroundings". Einstein himself recognised how little sway he had at the institute when he wrote (12/4/1949) to Born, whom he had promised a long stay: "I suggested it, but I have little influence; they consider me to be petrified because over the years I have become deaf and blind (in a figurative sense). I do not mind much; it suits my temperament quite well"."

Criticism almost always comes easily. It is difficult to know what
outcome(s) his groundwork will yet provide. People generally
misunderstand my viewpoint. Personally I never liked the guy, but
as always, even the devil must have his due. I've always felt that
he coasted for much of his life, as much as one can coast while
still actually trying to make advances. When your greatest
achievements come early it is usually impossible to match or
exceed such results later. Mine (that I will not discuss) happened
when I was age 28 and it was impossible to maintain that pace.

Still, I am content with my life's work, no one else need be.