It smells like bullshit but people seem to gobble it up and call him a genius, for what? He hasn't published, there's no complete explanation it's just endless front-matter for never-completely explained "geometric unity." If you've ever heard of the internet scammer Ty Lopez... that's what this guy sounds like but for physics instead of self-help.
At least Wolfram has something to show.
It seems to me he's just exploring ideas in the open. That's great. I don't see the problem.
He is making REALLY HUGE claims in advance of releasing the actual products of his supposed 3 decades of work. He is making these claims in popular media and creating a buzz-- first. I suppose that's his prerogative, but it doesn't seem like science to me. The scientists I admire most take ENORMOUS effort to communicate clearly, adjust to their audience, focus on making compelling arguments, and above all "show their work". This guy does the exact opposite.
One other thing he keeps on citing is this bizarre quote from Dirac: > "... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations that to have them fit experiment...".
That's perfectly fine, for a while, but it doesn't BECOME PHYSICS until it agrees with experiment at a minimum.
Millionaires with connections.
Let's not pretend there is necessarily any more merit to their theories than that of any unconnected obscure crank or even intelligent outsiders.
They aren't getting publicity on the strength of their ideas (even if there is something to them).
Video links and discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/g0ioxq/if_it_is_...
- He omits that this study was from 2000, so quite some time ago. Given that the paper about that has 200+ citations, I would say that it got the eyeballs it deserved. He doesn't offer any recent evidence that indicate that this is still the case today.
- The core claim he makes "all mice are broken" is a hyperbole that a lot of people will tell you is unsubstantiated. He makes it sound like all tests done on mice are flawed because of it.
- "I called them up and they were not able to produce any records that they changed their breeding protocols" doesn't mean that they didn't change them in the 20 years that passed. It just means that they didn't produce them to some random person contacting them.
I'm not as "surprised nobody is breaking this story" as he is.
It isn't hyperbole, if Bret's claims are substantiated. The claims being that most lab mice are from the Jackson lab, that all of their mice have extremely long telomeres compared to wild mice, and that this could have serious implications on the potential harm to humans by some drugs - even while also accounting for the fact that mice are already not a good model of humans and that the same drugs are later tested on humans. (I could elaborate on this, but it's covered thoroughly in the paper and podcast.)
I agree Eric hasn't satisfactorily proved they didn't change the protocols, but if it is the case that all of their mice still have long telomeres, and if all of the other claims are true (most US researchers still using those mice + the other claims), then the claims "most mice used by US researchers are broken" and "most tests done on mice by US researchers are flawed because of it" are likely also true.
I have no idea if the above claims are true, of course, but they should be investigated on their merits.
Bret Weinstein's 2002 paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11909679
The podcast between Eric and Bret Weinstein covering the full story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLb5hZLw44s
Not sure if you already listened to the podcast, but if you haven't, I'd recommend listening to all of it.
His recent campaign was for his brother who he feels was badly mistreated by a Nobel laureate who he alleges failed to credit him for important related work.
You can hear the latter case on a recent edition of his podcast, The Portal.
I've read a book with this title once, full of formulas. I do not remember who the author was, and the book (or the math in it) did not make sense to me.