Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 47 of 47

Thread: Background - Advice for ATM theory supporters

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Dr. Asimov is wrong. A theory is a guess, and should always be treated as such: A testable alternative that provides a better answer than a prevailing theory at any level of detail should be explored.
    You don't seem to have much familiarity with scientific theories or with scientific research.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Even more important, if there are facts in evidence that cannot be justified within the prevailing theory, it should be censored.
    Wrong.
    If it accounts for experimental results, it should be used as long as there is nothing better.
    And even in that case it still can be used (engineers still use classical mechanics).
    So...when Pasteur offered fairly substantial proof that flies do not originate in rotting bio-organics, we should have kept using this established theory until the discovery the role of DNA? Or should we keep believing in spontaneous generation until the creation of life from amino acids has been demonstrated?
    He had evidence, didn't he?
    Do you think you can use historical examples without providing the context?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Evoking unsubstantiated Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill evidentiary gaps in the Einstein-deSitter universe has zero scientific merit.
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    The model might incomplete: do you have actual evidence that disproves it?
    Absolutely. Using correct scientific principles, it is possible demonstrate supernovae Ia expansion produces a null result of the Wilson hypothesis. But since there are no known celestial mechanics that can replace the Einstein deSitter model, supernova researchers are granted the liberty of tweaking parameters until they can come very close to matching the Einstein deSitter model.

    Is is a poor precedent, very bad astronomy.
    That only shows that the theory is incomplete, or incorrectly applied, or works in a narrower range of situations than expected.
    Unless you provide some better theory, you have no reason to throw it away.
    We have good reasons to keep using classical mechanics, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Dr. Asimov’s definition discourages the challenge of existing theories, creates an unlevel playing field, and perpetuates the status quo. Bad astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    You are not familiar with scientific research.
    Wrong again.

    Researchers, who are trying to help me get published, have encouraged me to reduce the size of my papers and add as many papered and well- known names to the author list as possible. They have also urged me to use outlier tests to trim up plots and reduce the scatter in data. Reviewers have cited Carl Sagen ("Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). All good advice for getting published. Bad advice for challenging and advancing basic scientific theory. This is retarded.
    Is it retarded for researchers to ask you to provide evidence and back up your claims?
    If you don't show that you have done your homework, why should they take you seriously?

    Do I need to point out that if this what you think, you really don't understand what research is?

    EDIT to fix.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Evoking unsubstantiated Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill evidentiary gaps in the Einstein-deSitter universe has zero scientific merit.
    The model might incomplete: do you have actual evidence that disproves it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Absolutely. Using correct scientific principles, it is possible demonstrate supernovae Ia expansion produces a null result of the Wilson hypothesis. But since there are no known celestial mechanics that can replace the Einstein deSitter model, supernova researchers are granted the liberty of tweaking parameters until they can come very close to matching the Einstein deSitter model.

    Is is a poor precedent, very bad astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pap
    That only shows that the theory is incomplete, or incorrectly applied, or works in a narrower range of situations than expected.
    Unless you provide some better theory, you have no reason to throw it away.
    The validity of any theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is a competing theory! That is a fallacy. You throw away a theory when it has been nullified – proven to be incorrect. But if you bend the rules of science to prevent nullification of a theory, you have transformed what may have once been a scientific theory into a cult.

    Quote Originally Posted by P
    We have good reasons to keep using classical mechanics, for example.
    Astrologers are still using epicycles to predict when planets will go into retrograde. (My planet, whatever it is, must be in retrograde: The whole universe seems backwards…)
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Evoking unsubstantiated Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill evidentiary gaps in the Einstein-deSitter universe has zero scientific merit.
    The model might incomplete: do you have actual evidence that disproves it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Absolutely. Using correct scientific principles, it is possible demonstrate supernovae Ia expansion produces a null result of the Wilson hypothesis. But since there are no known celestial mechanics that can replace the Einstein deSitter model, supernova researchers are granted the liberty of tweaking parameters until they can come very close to matching the Einstein deSitter model.

    Is is a poor precedent, very bad astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pap
    That only shows that the theory is incomplete, or incorrectly applied, or works in a narrower range of situations than expected.
    Unless you provide some better theory, you have no reason to throw it away.
    The validity of any theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is a competing theory! That is a fallacy. You throw away a theory when it has been nullified – proven to be incorrect.
    I wrote: "incomplete, or incorrectly applied, or works in a narrower range". I did not say that it was disproven by experimental evidence.
    If you have a theory that explains more and better (for example, without "tweaking parameters"), then you can abandon the current theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    But if you bend the rules of science to prevent nullification of a theory, you have transformed what may have once been a scientific theory into a cult.
    It is April 1st: you are joking, aren't you? If not, take a hard look in the mirror.
    You spent more than 40 pages in the "Potential Threat to the Huygens Mission" thread, moving goal posts and tap-dancing because you do not accept that your variable G has been disproven by experimental results.

    On the other hand, you have not provided a shred of experimental evidence that disproves the Einstein-De Sitter model, except for your particular interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by P
    We have good reasons to keep using classical mechanics, for example.
    Astrologers are still using epicycles to predict when planets will go into retrograde. (My planet, whatever it is, must be in retrograde: The whole universe seems backwards…)
    And, as a matter of fact, epicycles can describe the orbits of the planets. We know what they can and what they cannot do.

    Now, why don't you address this:
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Is it retarded for researchers to ask you to provide evidence and back up your claims?
    If you don't show that you have done your homework, why should they take you seriously?

    Do I need to point out that if this what you think, you really don't understand what research is?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,635
    [quote="papageno"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    But if you bend the rules of science to prevent nullification of a theory, you have transformed what may have once been a scientific theory into a cult.
    It is April 1st: you are joking, aren't you? If not, take a hard look in the mirror.
    You spent more than 40 pages in the "Potential Threat to the Huygens Mission" thread, moving goal posts and tap-dancing because you do not accept that your variable G has been disproven by experimental results.

    ...On the other hand, you have not provided a shred of experimental evidence that disproves the Einstein-De Sitter model, except for your particular interpretation...

    Now, why don't you address this:
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Is it retarded for researchers to ask you to provide evidence and back up your claims?
    If you don't show that you have done your homework, why should they take you seriously?

    Do I need to point out that if this what you think, you really don't understand what research is?
    This is my homework. This is a discussion board, not a thesis defense. I am looking for information. I am also very willing to share. I get to change my position, because sometimes it is wrong - you have cornered me more than once. This is a very unusually way to do reseach, but it is productive. There are thousands of scientists out there beating their heads against the same wall. This is a better approach, at this time.
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    But if you bend the rules of science to prevent nullification of a theory, you have transformed what may have once been a scientific theory into a cult.
    It is April 1st: you are joking, aren't you? If not, take a hard look in the mirror.
    You spent more than 40 pages in the "Potential Threat to the Huygens Mission" thread, moving goal posts and tap-dancing because you do not accept that your variable G has been disproven by experimental results.

    ...On the other hand, you have not provided a shred of experimental evidence that disproves the Einstein-De Sitter model, except for your particular interpretation...

    Now, why don't you address this:
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Is it retarded for researchers to ask you to provide evidence and back up your claims?
    If you don't show that you have done your homework, why should they take you seriously?

    Do I need to point out that if this what you think, you really don't understand what research is?
    This is my homework. This is a discussion board, not a thesis defense.
    So? You still have to provide evidence to support your idea, if you want to be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I am looking for information.
    Do you mean that you do not have all the information before you make your claims?
    If this is th case, you have not done your homework, hence you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I am also very willing to share. I get to change my position, because sometimes it is wrong - you have cornered me more than once.
    I don't remember that you admitted you were wrong about the Huygens mission.
    Are you saying that your moving the goalpost is an admission of being wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    This is a very unusually way to do reseach, but it is productive.
    It is not unusual: it's at the base of the peer-review process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    There are thousands of scientists out there beating their heads against the same wall. This is a better approach, at this time.
    Thousands of scientists know how to provide evidence to support their claims.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    943
    Additional advice

    Do not try to have a PhD to look over your work. There minds are too old to be flexible and their thinking too entrenched in the standard model. They also will resist any change to their belief system, no differently than a person being coerced to believe in another religion. They will assume you are wrong, stupid, ignorant, or treat you in a condescending manner. In the long run, they will just ignore you. (Believe me, I know).

    Look for the Advanced Undergrad and Graduate students. Their minds are sharp and they are they still in a learning mode. They are also skeptical, which will only help in working out the details and improve the communication your ideas.

    Look for fellow skeptics, even if they have a Ph.D. They are even better than Grad students since they also know the struggle you are going through.

    Snowflake

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,199
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    Additional advice

    Do not try to have a PhD to look over your work. There minds are too old to be flexible and their thinking too entrenched in the standard model. They also will resist any change to their belief system, no differently than a person being coerced to believe in another religion. They will assume you are wrong, stupid, ignorant, or treat you in a condescending manner. In the long run, they will just ignore you. (Believe me, I know).

    Look for the Advanced Undergrad and Graduate students. Their minds are sharp and they are they still in a learning mode. They are also skeptical, which will only help in working out the details and improve the communication your ideas.

    Look for fellow skeptics, even if they have a Ph.D. They are even better than Grad students since they also know the struggle you are going through.

    Snowflake
    Your post seems to contradict itself. Do you mean "Old" PhDs should not be consulted, but "Young" ones are OK? And how broad based are your experiences with "inflexible" PhDs? I'm sure many on this board have contrary examples, including myself, though in my case the PhD might not be considered a "hard" scientist. His specialty was Geography and Anthropology, though he was very scientific minded.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    943
    Hi Christopher Ferro

    You are right, I was a bit confusing or ambiguous. The type of Ph.D that has “entrenched thinking” is one that would describe him or herself as an “expert” in the field or topic of discussion. There is no way anyone is going to “teach” him or her anything really new. (Adding to their accepted knowledge base is ok, but accepting new concepts that require a change in their basic understanding of nature, forget it. History repeats itself, the same process happened in the acceptance of a Keplerian model over a Ptolemaic model. (I prefer to refer to Kepler over Copernicus since Copernicus used the same flawed mathematical model of epicycles found in the Ptolemaic system. )

    (Now everything is really statistically based, So I should be more accurate, out of about 40 face to face encounters with professional physicists and over 200 email correspondence attempts, I can state that the general reaction is “I must get 40 of these a year, I’ve made up my mind to not look at them”. Their loss. )

    Snowflake

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    943
    The following experience may also be of help to those of us working in “alternative” theories.

    Presenting a Theoretical Model

    I have had the opportunity to present my uniform expansion model at a variety of Physics conventions and I would like to share some of my experiences. It is hoped that others trying to present fundamental or new theoretical models will benefit from my experiences.

    The first place I had an opportunity to present was at Wake Forest University in North Carolina at the 8th gravitational conference. The hosts at Wake Forest were gracious, not only did they offer helpful support for all the presenters; they even provided a dinner allowing the presenters to get together. Southern Hospitality exists at Wake Forest.

    Lesson 1.
    If a conference offers a dinner, even if it is not free, attend. The contacts that can be made will be more meaningful than any possible result of a presentation.

    Lesson 2.
    When it comes to gravity, no one really knows what is happening.

    After listening to 2 days of presentations on gravity, it was surprising to find the amazing differences in the possible theoretical models. From the 1930’s to the 1950’s the number of papers written on general relativity numbered about 5 to 10 a year. After Brans - Dicke (at least that is who I recall, please correct me if I am giving credit to the wrong people). published an alternative metric in the early 1960’s, all of a sudden it became the rage to publish various developments of general relativity. Now about 800 papers are written a year and the publication curve indicates that the number of publications will increase well beyond that annual rate as time passes.

    The various details of each model is so complex, few really understand each others work. Even spending time trying to figure out the details of someone else’s work is a distraction to figuring the details in ones own approach. Close alliances between faculty and graduate students are a fundamental aspect to these developing models.

    Lesson 3.
    A unified Field theory is highly unlikely to be found as a result of the extension of the techniques used in General Relativity.

    I know I will take “heat” for that statement, but the immense divergence in various applications of general relativity makes it unlikely any uniform agreement will be found within the various factions. The intellectual ego is well established after years of specialized study; who would ever admit someone is smarter than themselves?

    Lesson 4.
    Oral Presentations take a particular type of personality. If you are uncomfortable in front of a crowd, look for poster board presentations instead.

    I am a nervous type of person, talking in front of a group of people makes me anxious. Wake Forest was the first presentation I made in an “arena “ type classroom and I was so nervous it affected the quality of the presentation.

    Lesson 5.
    Do not expect anyone who hears your work to compliment you on your efforts.

    The only individuals I observed giving any positive feed back were by professors to their grad students. While personal interactions were cordial, when it comes to positive responses to another’s presentation, I observed no support for another individuals work. Now I could not be “everywhere” but I did look for this kind of interaction. Knowing this, it makes it a bit easier to accept the cold reaction to any presentation. (I even watched a number of people actually fall asleep during some of the presentations). This critique is not a personal indictment, it is a nature of the people in the field.

    Lesson 6
    You only have 15 minutes.
    There is no way you are going to convince anyone of anything that is different from what they presently believe in such a short time.

    Lesson 7
    It will take years of steady work to convince anyone of the validity of your model.

    I then went to the American Physical Society conference held at MIT. Here I had a Poster Board Presentation and an oral presentation. There are a few more lessons I learned in this forum.

    Lesson 8
    Poster Board Presentations allows the greatest level of personal interaction.
    Initially I thought that Poster Board presentations would be a step down from an oral presentation, this is not the case whatsoever. Some of the advantages of a Poster Presentation are
    a. Practice, you will repeat the same introduction to the model over and over. After awhile you will find that the conciseness of the introduction will improve. You will be able to observe the listeners while you talk and see were you have confused them and where you have intrigued them. You will gain confidence in expressing yourself.
    b. Time, while most will only have a few minutes to spend with you, some will spend over a half an hour discussing various details.
    c. Feed back. The closer, more intimate relationship developed between you and the listener will encourage a dialogue and an exchange of ideas. This allows the opportunity to discover different ways to evaluate your work, perhaps even finding a few errors or poorly expressed concepts.

    Lesson 9
    Undergrads and Graduate students are your best audience.
    A professor with a Ph.D usually has an “old” brain. They loose the flexibility in thinking or perceiving in a “new” or different manner. They also think they know everything already (even if they say they don’t, they do, ). Students are still in a learning mode of thinking. They also will be very skeptical and will ask the best questions.

    Another benefit of presenting to a younger crowd is the enthusiasm that these kids can give in response to your work. (When I gave them a copy of my work some said “this might be worth something someday”.) This really boosted my confidence.

    Lesson 10
    If giving an oral presentation, leave time for questions.
    After my experience in Wake Forest, I knew to not leave the traditional 2 minutes of time for questions. I reduced the presentation of the model to less than 5 minutes (after all that poster board practice I learned how to keep it simple), I asked for the remainder of the time to be devoted to questions. This was great since I finally got responses from the Ph.D guys, before this, almost all of them would have ignored me.

    Lesson 11
    Do not let your confidence go to your head
    This was a mistake I made at MIT in the oral presentation. After the positive feed back from the students during the poster board presentation I became a confident enough that I expressed myself with a bit of arrogance. I knew I was right, I found the basis for a unified field theory. Everything fit, and there were too many confirmations of the model to allow it to be fluke.

    One of the typical criticisms of my model is that “it is too simple to be true”. When one of the PhD guys in general relativity said my model was too simple, I could not help but respond in a rather fake laughing manner, I said, “you got to be kidding me, your criticism is that it is too simple to be true, what kind of criticism is that?” Not one of my more honorable moments, but in part it is born from frustration. (Particularly since I had just shown that none of the Relationships of General relativity were being altered and that the model itself is based upon a geometric relationships between distance and time, the very basis of general relativity in the first place).

    How is anyone going to get anyone to agree with one’s work if you alienate your most important critics?

    Lesson 12
    If your ideas are outside of the mainstream and you are looking for support for your work, look outside of the Mainstream.

    One of the “criticisms” from the general relativity guys of my work was that it was not applied to observation. When I pulled out a petition asking the American Astronomical Society to consider allowing me the opportunity to make a presentation which applied my theory to observation (the energy production of quasars without black holes and an explanation for the lack of time dilation associated with the energy production from a quasar) they refused to sign it. Again I made the same alienating mistake and said “you got to be kidding me, you criticize my work because it does not offer conformance to observation and when I ask you to give me the chance to present conformation, you refuse to do so”.

    (Again, How is anyone going to get anyone to agree with one’s work if you alienate your most important critics?)

    However, at this conference there were a few guys from the ‘Plasma’ crowd. They were very willing to sign the petition. They know what it is like to be an “outsider” and how hard it is to be listened to.

    I then went to the Annual American Physical Association in Florida for 5 days.
    This reconfirmed my experience with poster board presentations, but I also learned the following.

    Lesson 13
    Spend time knowing the people around you personally. This includes the people helping at the conference.

    Lesson 14
    Learn about publishing your work
    At this conference there were a number of publishers. I failed to take advantage of talking to all the various publishers and only talked to one in detail. I was not really aware that this opportunity would be there and had not scheduled any time for it.

    That’s it. I am sure there was more I should have learned, I’ll probably have to figure the rest of it along the way. It is odd. It is harder to figure out how to be taken seriously than it is to develop a unified field theory.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    33
    Gents: I have read down almost all of this thread, you might list on the sticky something like ; new posters please read this post it might be helpful. Just a thought . It is a nice set of guidelines to set the mood for
    posts.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    196

    Against The Mainstream (ATM)

    dgruss23

    A good sticky post for those promoting their theories, but who’s to say science is right anyway. If we put the principle of relativity to the test we see that if fails this sticky, as there is no real evidence that the one-way speed of light is constant.
    My ATM gets ignored because it challenges relativity. Even though science has not carried out a simple test using a start and stop clock, and a laser to verify the one-way speed of light is constant. Relativity will fail a simple two-clock one-way test.

    After 10-years developing my theory I self published and posted it on the Internet free. I have challenged many relativity supporters and gained a lot of experience promoting my theory. Here’s how it measures up when applied to your sticky.

    1. You’re going to be challenged to defend your statements with evidence.
    {Wisp: My theory shows that the one-way speed of light is c+/-V, where V is your velocity through the ether (the ether is ignored, not disproved). Scientists accept blindly that the speed of light one-way is constant, even though there is no experimental proof to support this. They should carry out the two-clock test, to back their claim. I haven’t got the funds to carry out this test, but hopefully someone will do it.}

    2. You’re going to be told you’re wrong when you make statements in conflict with published research. If you don’t agree with being told you are wrong. See statement #1.
    {Wisp: The two-way speed of light measures as c, but not the one-way. Many have discovered small effects in their results that suggest the speed of light is affected by a cosmological source. In this case it is the scientists that need to go back to #1 and carry out the simple test to prove c is constant one-way.}

    3. You have not been attacked if you are told you are wrong. Only your theory is attacked.
    {Wisp: I’ve never been rude to others. But some have been rude to me. I posted my ATM on this forum many months back, and one member made a personal attack. I’ve never been proven wrong in discussions, and pointed out mistakes to relativity supporters that challenged my theory.}

    4. Throwing a tantrum because your theory is not accepted will not win you support.
    {Wisp: True, but it is frustrating you’re right and get ignored.}

    5. Have a sense of humor, be friendly and be polite. Taking yourself too seriously usually leads to frustration.
    {Wisp: Good points. I’ve move away from science because of the lack of challenge and to avoid frustration. This is my first post for many months. I’ll be patient and wait for the cracks in relativity to widen.}

    6. People on BABB generally want to help – even when they disagree with you.
    {Wisp: I always learn from other people’s response, whether they agree with my or not.}

    7. Whenever possible, defend your points with published research – and make sure you can provide some explanation as to how that research supports what you are saying.
    {Wisp: Einstein managed to get his relativity work accepted without any links to published research. And research published that goes against relativity is amended to show neutrality towards it, or it fails to be accepted.}

    8. You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question – answer it. If you don’t know the answer – say so.
    {Wisp: Agree.}

    9. People on BABB will listen and discuss politely well-reasoned arguments – even when they disagree.
    {Wisp: I had some lengthy discussions and strong debates on other forums. My post on this forum was short lived and not very productive - probably the result of one rude poster.}

    10. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so.
    {Wisp: Agree.}

    11. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with one post.
    {Wisp: Agree. But even after 10-years work, a published book on the internet for free you still get ignored. Thanks Einstein.}

    12. You’re not going to convince everybody your idea is right with two posts.
    {Wisp: Or 100+ posts.}

    13. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it.
    {Wisp: I’ve been told many times that GPS is proof that the one-way speed of light is constant. This is clearly wrong. As too are the sticky posts on many forums that promote relativity. So others saying you’re wrong is questionable as they too can be wrong.}

    14. While some people may sound very dogmatic – the mainstream theories in astronomy and cosmology are not religion.
    {Wisp: They are not good science either. How can anyone accept theories that defy common sense (relativity) on a basis of no proof of its founding postulates! Or that space-time has 26 dimensions! Or prove that an object's length contracts with speed, or space and time are joined! It may not be religion, but it’s not good science.}

    15. Peer review may not be perfect, but it is necessary.
    {Wisp: How can an ATM that challenges relativity get a peer review? I was asked to publish my work by a professor for a new 2006 European science journal, but declined because of the costs involved, and that fact that I can publish my work on the Internet for free.}


    16. Don’t accuse people of being close-minded just because they disagree with you.
    {Wisp: I think many relativity supporters have to be closed-minded to accept it without challenging it. I’ve studied special relativity to degree level and beyond and fully understand why it became a huge success. But I can also see its failings and can provide a better solution.}

    17. Don’t create cute little names for mainstream theories and astronomers. Sure they might be funny on some level, but they’re going to irritate people and distract them from the points you’re trying to make.
    {Wisp: Wisp is a fundamental ether particle – Weightless I (one) State Particle WISP.
    I hope that’s not too cute?}


    18. If you think you’ve refuted Newton, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Big Bang all in one post – you haven’t. Whole books have been written challenging those theories. You’re not going to do it single handedly in a few hundred words on an Internet discussion board.
    {Wisp: Newton’s work is brilliant, although relativistic effects were not important in his time. My theory shows relativity to be based on founding postulates that are unproven and false. Quantum Mechanics is brilliant, and also at odds with relativity - that’s why the two are incompatible. Big Bang in principle is a good theory.}

    19. Be willing to modify your views.
    {Wisp: If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and one small error can kill off a life times work. It’s a moment any theorist dreads, but you should be prepared to accept the truth. Individually, wrong can be accepted, but what if relativity is wrong. Can the media, marketing, funding bodies, universities, publishers, etc, accept its failure, or will its demise be put off until the money runs out and it gets forgotten about. Who in their right mind would sponsor an experiment that kills off relativity? Think of the loss in revenue and the embarrassment to science.}

    20. Be realistic. You’ll have better luck trying to convince people your alternative is possible than you will have trying to convince everybody your idea is right – and everybody else is wrong.
    {Wisp: I’ve had lots of good responses and encouragement. But I really would like to see relativity binned and replaced with an ether theory that supports Lorentz invariance and relativistic effects. The only way to make progress is to kill off relativity and stop promoting it as the work of a genius – Einstein may have been clever, but he was wrong. Some people have said why didn’t Lorentz or Poincare develop relativity. I guess it’s because they believed (rightly so) in the concept of ether and never accepted Einstein’s relativity.

    21. You need more data. All scientists need more data.
    {Wisp: I can’t wait until the old ceasium atomic clocks are replaced with modern ion types, which are 1000+ times more accurate. Once the new data comes through, the cracks in relativity will get bigger.}

    22. Ask yourself – Is what you’re proposing proof against the Big Bang, or could it be something the BB theory can absorb?
    {Wisp: When I developed wisp theory I new little about relativity. When I discovered it was at odds with it, I studied a degree in Physics to better understand it. Then I developed an ATM, which revealed the flaws in relativity. My theory was about matter and what it is. I’ve since realized that Poincare had similar thoughts, and my concept of the cause of gravity was similar to Newton’s.}

    23. Be happy if people are respectfully discussing the strength and weaknesses of your ideas. If you’ve reached that point then you’ve accomplished a lot more than most of the alternatives brought forward on BABB.
    {Wisp: I’m happy that the Internet has allowed ideas to be shared and discussed. But I’m disappointed that science is fixated on relativity, and seems unable and unwilling to support alternatives.}

    WARNING NOTE:
    The only point I would add to the sticky is a note of warning. After years of developing your new theory, be prepared to for a sever knock back when you attempt to promote it. The feeling can be as bad as that you would feel if your theory were to instantly collapse.

    Wisp
    Last edited by wisp; 2005-Sep-18 at 01:53 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Wisp,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

    Just two comments:

    I did a search - it wasn't too hard to figure out who the rude poster was that you dealt with. Don't feel bad, I dealt with the same thing from that individual both on UT and BABB. However, I believe that that individual posts on another forum now and seems to have grown up a bit.

    As far as peer review goes. I believe Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society does not have page charges and I'm certain that Astrophysics&Space Science does not. So there are peer review journals for independent research if publication cost is an issue.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,029
    The concept of falsifiable predictions is what I am interested in, and what seems to be lacking in most great new ideas. I have mercilessly beaten the snot out of every lab tech I ever hired. I am evil. I've deliberately assigned tests when I already knew the answer - just to see if they are intellectually honest. I can't afford to be wrong when I walk into the board room.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440

    Note on thread surgery

    I have split out from this thread posts which are less than directly helpful to supporters of ATM theories looking for advice.

    All posts split out are now in the Discussion on "Advice for ATM theory supporters" thread, which is also in the ATM section.

    In a week or so, I will delete this post.
    Last edited by slang; 2016-Jan-17 at 08:51 AM. Reason: fixed url

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    In order to prevent this thread from cluttering up again, I am closing it. Please see the Discussion thread posted by Nereid above should you have anything you would like to add.

    For those items that have merit (in the eyes of your glorious mods and admins! :surprised ) we will paste them to this thread.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,200
    Our good friends at Astronomy Cast, Dr Pamela Gay and Fraser Cain have in one of their podcasts list what it takes to be taken seriously if you think you have something new to add to science.

    Their podcast is here

    If you wish to discuss that podcast you can do so in the Astronomy cast section of this site.

    Meanwhile I am locking this thread again

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,415
    This thread will now become the background and history for ATM Supporter Advice. The current, working guidelines are in this thread
    Last edited by slang; 2016-Jan-17 at 08:52 AM. Reason: fixed url
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Similar Threads

  1. Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters
    By Swift in forum Forum Rules, FAQs, and Information
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-30, 09:12 PM
  2. Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters
    By Swift in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-30, 09:07 PM
  3. Discussion on "Advice for ATM theory supporters"
    By Normandy6644 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-22, 08:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •