"The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)

  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
Nothing's stopping you. You might think carefully on how best to pose it to get what you're after and not a chaotic scrum.

What did it for me was her insistence that people who disagree with her are dishonest and/or secretly agree with her. The fact that her business model is to take money from crackpots to tell them that the establishment is being mean to them is secondary.

Further, while she is the first to crow about being a theoretical physicist, her publication record is...um...less strong than many others. She would (and has) argued that this is proof that the community is interested in the wrong things. I would say that is not the only possibility.


So basically she’s a grifter and a contrarian.
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I did not use those words.

Her statements on others' research are a matter of record. As is here publication and citation list. Her web site advertises her services helping..um...independent researchers develop their theories. Draw your own conclusions.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #38
Sorry I’ll be more respectful and try to talk about statements she’s made going forward, and dispute them, instead of attacking the person/passing judgement.

In order to keep it civil here at PF.
 
  • #39
I'm hoping @arivero will start a thread on "why are atoms neutral?".
 
  • #40
I am still thinking on it :-D In any case it should be not in "beyond the standard model"
 

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
461
Replies
72
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top