Is science under attack?

[darth_timon]

I did not say that, but his work experience as claimed in wikipedia does not match his website. Either way, his books been rejected by mainstream science, considering he has a theory of everything. If his credentials are legitimate why wouldn't you just post them there? Why wouldn't they be made available in general? You couldn't even quote Tom for a college paper with no leg to stand on, considering he has worked for NASA and other hi-tech space programs he surely operates in stealth mode. This whole thing seems fishy

If he posted his credentials on his own site, then any libellous claims around those credentials would be something he's responsible for. If his claims are questionable, leaving them off his site means he's not vulnerable to such claims.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I did not say that, but his work experience as claimed in wikipedia does not match his website. Either way, his books been rejected by mainstream science, considering he has a theory of everything. If his credentials are legitimate why wouldn't you just post them there? Why wouldn't they be made available in general? You couldn't even quote Tom for a college paper with no leg to stand on, considering he has worked for NASA and other hi-tech space programs he surely operates in stealth mode. This whole thing seems fishy

Do you have reason to doubt his qualifications as quoted on Wikipedia?

B.S. in Physics
M.S. in Physics.
Ph.D. specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics

If he worked on hi-tech space programs and operated in stealth mode it would explain his lack of published papers.

 

[Total Power]

If he worked on hi-tech space programs and operated in stealth mode it would explain his lack of published papers.

Stealth mode was sarcasm. Every single scientist that i know of , working in hi-tech programs like LIGO or NASA have published papers. Granted his work has been rejected by mainstream theoretical physicists and probably have failed to pass peer review is a good explanation

 

[Frank Bunn]

Stealth mode was sarcasm. Every single scientist that i know of , working in hi-tech programs like LIGO or NASA have published papers. Granted his work has been rejected by mainstream theoretical physicists and probably have failed to pass peer review is a good explanation

If he's working for the US DoD on missile defence systems I'm guessing his research would not be published in New Scientist. But a quick google search found one of his papers on the NASA website. His credentials are listed in the paper.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014192.pdf

I am not familiar with all this guy's views but are his theories seem to be not too far from something like John Wheeler's participatory universe. There is a big unknown about how consciousness interacts with what is "out there" to create "reality". Scientists who speculate in this area are not attacking science.

 

[Total Power]

If he's working for the US DoD on missile defence systems I'm guessing his research would not be published in New Scientist. But a quick google search found one of his papers on the NASA website. His credentials are listed in the paper.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014192.pdf

I am not familiar with all this guy's views but are his theories seem to be not too far from something like John Wheeler's participatory universe. There is a big unknown about how consciousness interacts with what is "out there" to create "reality". Scientists who speculate in this area are not attacking science.

Not talking about his philosophical views aka the simulation hypothesis for example it's not science period. Did you read the last para of Wikipedia where it says his work received no response from theoretical physicists?

On SM-G920F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Total Power]

I mean just because scientists are speculating it's science and if a religious person does it it's crock? His toe is crap I read the book .. everything is based on what ifs. While I'm happy to give him the benefit of doubt it's just not science. Is string theory science? It's a framework model based on predictions. His work is the same but seems to be C grade science to me when he says universe is conscious and so are atoms. Deepak Chopra says hi

On SM-G920F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[darth_timon]

One area that I often see science come under attack for is evolution vs creationism. Never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to deny evidence, yet creationists have turned it into an art.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

its just a theory timmy

they (Dr. Ellis Silver) are now saying humans evolved on another planet ...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

its just a theory timmy

they (Dr. Ellis Silver) are now saying humans evolved on another planet ...

One crackpot ecologist is "they" now?

Stick to the Conspiracy board.

 

[darth_timon]

its just a theory timmy

they (Dr. Ellis Silver) are now saying humans evolved on another planet ...

Evolution is a theory that's passed every test asked of it. Creationism is the outright denial of evidence.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Long Live HFC]

its just a theory timmy

you have zero clue what a 'theory' is.

they (Dr. Ellis Silver) are now saying humans evolved on another planet ...

even if that were true (it isn't), so what? you're essentially stating that the "just a theory" mechanisms of evolution are therefore universal, moron

 

[Total Power]

its just a theory timmy

they (Dr. Ellis Silver) are now saying humans evolved on another planet ...

No other theory have survived a test through the ring of fire like evolution did and it has passed with flying colours. Evolution is testifiable, verifiable and can be witnessed in a lab or even in nature, right now. Given that creationists will deny thousands of verifiable evidence throughout history, is not for the science board.