PF Postualtes Brian Green & Michio Kaku are Con Artists

[astro]

From:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146243
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8241&page=6

Marcus is a moderator at PF, and he writes:

IMO the longterm effect of giving media play to speculative untestable ideas (and treating them as science "docu mentary" rather than fantasy) is to distort public perceptions of science and undermine the credibility of theoretical physics.

What are loosely referred to as "theories" are often some work-in-progress better called a theory-in-development. The real bar-mitzvah day for a theory is when the logical/mathematical model is complete enough so you can derive a falsifiable prediction from it.

That is, the theory bets its life on an outcome of some future experiment or observation that hasn't been made yet. If the predicted result is not seen, the theory is dead.
It is always fair to ask a theorist who is working on some model this question: can you describe an experiment which hasnt been done yet where one possible outcome would make you abandon what you are working on? If he or she can't, then the ideas are still half-baked----not yet a scientific theory.

Inflaming the public imagination with untestable half-formed notions doesn't help matters.

I am not suggesting your budget would allow direct filming but there is some very beautiful stuff going on (which doesnt necessarily have anything to do with what Brian Greene talks about or Kaku or what is in scifi films or PBS series etc.---the media have to some extent been conned in recent years)

So why does PF link to Brian Green's "cons?"

Why does PF engage in "Inflaming the public imagination with untestable half-formed notions?"

Should you not remove links to Green's cons?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146243
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8241&page=6

[astro]

More from the most telling thread at PF:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146243

you flatter us, kiddo:biggrin: , we ain't all that prominent----but it was a nice thought.

a lot of what we do here can actually serve to debunk stuff that has been overhyped in the media

if your proposed doc umentary is about DEBUNKING some of the garbage about wormholes and time travel that somehow gets associated with names of legitimate scientists then maybe you can get some help here

there are some special part of PF for "alternative theories" and speculative stuff and debunking.

Maybe we should get this thread moved to some appropriate subforum.

Why are Brian Green's hype-laden docu mentaires on ST heavily promoted on PF?

I think that wormholes and time travel get associated with the names of prominent scientists such as Thorne and Kaku and Green and Davies because they write books about them and PF promotes them.

Why do ST and LQG have their own forum?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146243

[Epsilon=One]

More from the most telling thread at PF:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=146243

there are some special part of PF for "alternative theories" and speculative stuff and debunking.

Maybe we should get this thread moved to some appropriate subforum.There is much hypocrisy and little intellectual integrity mixed with much ad hominen argument on Physics Forums (PF). Brunardot was banned forever for discussing the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) and the revised Fibonacci sequence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/rFs), which were never refuted by any moderator . . . or anyone else.

Views beyond those of myopic-minded moderators, that are untrained in the fields where they wield unilateral power, have been little tolerated at PhysicsForums.com.

Should you doubt the above accusations, Google: "Brunardot and PhysicsForum.com. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=brunardot+physicsforum.com&btnG=Google+Search)" and read all of Brunardot's posts.

If you have further interest, I can dig up some posts that were archived before deletion that attack their logic in a straightforward manner. When PF moderators are caught in their discretions they simply delete the annoying posts. Something akin to peer review and dishonest intellectual pursuit.

Despite banning the discussion of the Elliptical Constant they continue to advertise their site with the EC. See Google: 4th and 5th hit of about 1 million (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=elliptical+constant&btnG=Search).

[sciencephilosophy]

More from the most telling thread at PF:

........
There is much hypocrisy and little intellectual integrity mixed with much ad hominen argument on Physics Forums (PF).
........
Views beyond those of myopic-minded moderators, that are untrained in the fields where they wield unilateral power........

If you have further interest, I can dig up some posts that were archived before deletion that attack their logic in a straightforward manner. When PF moderators are caught in their discretions they simply delete the annoying posts. Something akin to peer review and dishonest intellectual pursuit.

Despite banning the discussion of the Elliptical Constant they continue to advertise their site with the EC.

I agree. Those moderators and people from PhysicsForums are actually telling
some wrong concepts of physics. They themselves even don't understand some
basic theories.
If they were living in the age of Galileo, they would certainly bark together with those
people at that time in order to put Galileo to prison because Galileo suggested new theory
different from what they thought.

[Epsilon=One]

I agree. Those moderators and people from PhysicsForums are actually telling some wrong concepts of physics. They themselves even don't understand some basic theories.

If they were living in the age of Galileo, they would certainly bark together with those people at that time in order to put Galileo to prison because Galileo suggested new theory different from what they thought.Thank you for your perceptive comments.

Worse, the moderators at PhysicsForums have very little imagination.

As with peer review, where there is very little that will get beyond the discredited, unproven, metaphysical standard models that are without internal consistency or inter-reconcilability.

The moderators could well learn from two quotes of Albert Einstein [1878-1955]:


If at first the idea is not absurd,
then there is no hope for it.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

[sciencephilosophy]

Thank you for your perceptive comments.

Worse, the moderators at PhysicsForums have very little imagination.

As with peer review, where there is very little that will get beyond the discredited, unproven, metaphysical standard models that are without internal consistency or inter-reconcilability.

The moderators could well learn from two quotes of Albert Einstein [1878-1955]:


If at first the idea is not absurd,
then there is no hope for it.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Hi Epsilon,

I've just browsed this forum discussion content and the people here are much more nice and open mind.
This is also what Einstein told us "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
Even certain imagination is absurb, it can still be proved to be valid or not in future.
If it's rejected at the first time, then the truth will not be seen anymore.

Keep up your good works.

[Epsilon=One]

Even certain imagination is absurb, it can still be proved to be valid or not in future.
If it's rejected at the first time, then the truth will not be seen anymore.Right on!!!

Something so simple, that so few understand.

When logic seems to fail, you must look closely at the fundamental concepts for alternative rationale that usually has been discarded because it is often non-intuitive. Often these alternative concepts can be simply proven; however, because they are not mainstream (standard model) they are considered absurd (non-intuitive, unworthy of consideration) from the beginning.

Entanglement, Cosmic inertia, a clear definition of time, and the etiology of orthogonal dimensions are the rocks that all standard model theory crashes upon. Yet, most everyone in the rote of academia "pretty much" accepts and defends the status quo; even though an understanding of all enigmas is quite simple if only a few discarded concepts are considered.

Of course, I shouldn't leave out academia's over-reliance on unproven, contrived mathematics . . . to describe Nature. And, the laypersons impressed addiction to mythical faith for the same purpose.

Only that which does not reconcile with observation is absurd. Pomo theorists consider the absurd that which does not reconcile with their irreconcilable contrivances.

Now just who is crazy???

Keep up your good works.Thanks. A few persons agree; a few more tolerate; however, you are among the very few that encourage my thoughts.

[ste]

When looking at a set of ideas, it is important to ask very pointed questions testing whether they are consistent or even if they make sense at all. These questions will get people thinking in the right direction. Even if a statement is eventually proven to be false, it is better that you at least thought about carefully and came to the conclusion of it being false rather than blinding assuming that it was.

Free thinking should always be encouraged. I think that a certain German-born physicist put it best:

Imagination is more important than knowledge... -Albert Einstein

It is not wrong to question an idea that has been widely accepted. In fact, this is a great thing! People make mistakes, and the only way to avoid or at least minimize them is by reviewing them on a large scale.

Now, when I see statements claiming that an idea or paradigm is "absurd" or "ludicrous", or "contrived", naturally, I want to know more. WHY is it so? How have you come to this conclusion? Is it possible for me to refute your conclusion? Have you overlooked important information or facts proving otherwise? This process must be genuinely executed by as many people as possible before I will make my conclusion that something is "absurd". Even if this happens, there will always be that questioning little voice at the back of my head asking "what if?".

... however, because they are not mainstream (standard model) they are considered absurd (non-intuitive, unworthy of consideration) from the beginning...

... Yet, most everyone in the rote of academia "pretty much" accepts and defends the status quo;

Yes, the power of the mainstream and peer pressure must not be underestimated. They are powerful forces today, and are alive and well. Many a time have I seen my peers make terrible mistakes based on anomalous information. Too often do people make judgment based on either not enough information or information that is wrong to begin with. It is this that we must overcome. If imagination sparks innovation, then we must do whatever we can to support it.

Thanks. A few persons agree; a few more tolerate; however, you are among the very few that encourage my thoughts.

Keep thinking outside the box, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!

[sandisk]

conflict music

xD

i go with what the one above me says ;)

[vincejebsen]

same as what sandisk said i agree with ste

[AdamZimmer]

Hi:o

thanks for using this link and to post.....:)


www.staffingpower.com


sentersoftech

[topt578]

Nice! I think you will like them too.Enjoy our beautiful Women's clothes,enjoy your wonderful life.All in www.t578.com

[pjakesmith]

I really love to read articles which are very informative and the topics are based or concerned with the current issues in our society. I admire these writers in sharing their views and or opinions that can enlighten the mind of the readers. Great job!

[jolidon me]

you flatter us, kiddo:biggrin: , we ain't all that prominent----but it was a nice thought.

a lot of what we do here can actually serve to debunk stuff that has been overhyped in the media

if your proposed doc umentary is about DEBUNKING some of the garbage about wormholes and time travel that somehow gets associated with names of legitimate scientists then maybe you can get some help here

there are some special part of PF for "alternative theories" and speculative stuff and debunking.

Maybe we should get this thread moved to some appropriate subforum.