2 ms·
I downvoted you mainly because Sabine is a font of misinformation in areas outside her direct expertise. Particle beams for cancer therapy aren't new; shortly
by dekhn 3y ago
I downvoted you mainly because Sabine is a font of misinformation in areas outside her direct expertise.
Particle beams for cancer therapy aren't new; shortly after the invention of the cyclotrone, EO Lawrence did this with neutrons in the late 1940s and proton beams were being used successfully in the 50's. She leaves out these details and only mentions trials from the 1990s.
- blashyrk 3y ago> I downvoted you mainly because Sabine is a font of misinformation in areas outside her direct expertise. Just curious, since I've run into her channel recently and found her generally pleasant and informative (minus the unfunny jokes part), do you have any specific examples of this?
- dekhn 3y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/15o0fx7/i_just_recently_watched_a_video_by_sabine/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/15o0fx7/i_just_... To be fair, her criticism isn't that LIGO itself was fake, but it's really hard to tell, from the video and from https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/whats-up-with-ligo.html https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/whats-up-with-ligo... If you read that blog, you can see she is using a collection of rhetorical techniques to cast down on the LIGO results (for example, using the term retraction out of context). But it's mainly her videos about health-related stuff that doesn't have good support. She approaches most of these things with a "assume a spherical cow" approach, common when physics folks try to do biology.
- mdp2021 3y agoThank you for the warning about Dr. Hossenfelder and for the information about the technology, but we have not effected any blind endorsement. Just informed of a consistent parallel piece, esp. after the coincidence, which may be useful in itself - or just interesting.