Weeelllll.... Authors are given their own subforums when there are enough discussions ongoing to merit going to the trouble of setting such up. Bradbury, sadly, does not have that sort of following at this point (this could always change, but I doubt it, given the trends in sff fandom for quite some time).
As for your observations... well, there is merit in noting these things, but frankly it seems to me a "and your point is...?" blind alley to go up; rather too literalist a reading of Bradbury (or anyone else, for that matter). Bradbury never considered himself a science fiction writer; he saw himself as a fantaisiste; as J. B. Priestley put it: "His stories use the familiar properties of science fiction ... but ... to express some of his own deepest feelings. It is significant that he lives in Southern California.... Here, on this sign-post to the Future, sits Mr. Bradbury, telling us his dreams."
Bradbury was never concerned with scientific accuracy or prediction or world-building as such (including extrapolating trends); he was interested in a modern mythic addressing of the concerns he shared with his times. Often, though the detail differs considerably, what lies at the root of his symbols continues to be relevant today, for he is addressing the rather timeless aspects of the human condition, often against a fantastic backdrop to set them in high relief. One doesn't go to Bradbury for "tech" or hard science fiction, any more than one does with Ballard, but both writers will, I think, continue to resonate long after the more technically accurate portions of sf are forgotten.
(And for those who see in Bradbury simply the sentimentality, I strongly suggest they look into his early work, as well as some of his later collections. A darker vision than some of these it would be difficult to find.)
