PDA

View Full Version : Alternative theories and questions (ATM) cannot be “discussed” anywhere on BAUT



forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 07:20 PM
Alternative theories and related questions cannot be discussed on BAUT concerning their pros and cons, only proposed and defended.

The ATM forum is the only place on BAUT where alternative-theory/ ideas can be discussed at all and the rules seem to preclude general discussion of ATM ideas or even to ask general questions that would lead to ATM discussion/ answers in the BAUT forum. ATM in this context would mean those theories or hypothesis that are different enough from the mainstream model whereby they could not be called alternative mainstream, and if they were valid they would replace the mainstream model.

A case in point involved a thread that I started in the ATM section recently where questions could be asked by a poster where they thought mainstream answers seemed unsatisfactory or incomplete to them. My answers could have been either mainstream or ATM, possibly discussing the advantages and disadvantages or different possibilities of various theories / hypotheses in this case generally relating to my own book of my own alternative theory. This thread was closed within minutes by moderation. Here is the thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108336-What-one-science-question-would-you-want-answered)

Maybe such a thread might have been too potentially unwieldy and divergent, or lead to other alternative ideas (ATM) proposed by posters. I expect that it would have involved general discussion of, mainstream theory, and the defense of my own ATM answers. It was perceived as being an unacceptable format for BAUT discussion. The moderator simply said “the ATM forum is a place for you to present a theory or idea of yours, and then defend that against questioning,” implying that an ATM proposal must come first before any ATM answer or defense of a ATM answer can be given.

My realization was that there is nowhere on BAUT where any general ATM discussion (as defined above) can take place in an open forum. Is this a good feature of BAUT or not?

Swift
2010-Oct-06, 07:29 PM
Moose's A Very Brief History of the ATM Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/91853-A-Very-Brief-History-of-the-ATM-Forum) may offer some insights as to why things are the way they currently are.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 07:36 PM
Thanks Swift. I have been aware of this history and know potential problems lurk, but I'm not sure that not to allow ATM discussions anywhere on BAUT is the best answer. Why not allow it in off-topic babbling for instance. It could be assumed to start with, even stated in the heading to "be aware, the commenter probably does not know what he is talking about." :)

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 07:51 PM
Alternative theories and related questions cannot be discussed on BAUT concerning their pros and cons, only proposed and defended.

I don't think that is entirely true. there have been several threads discussing "non-standard" hypotheses; for example, a while ago there was something about cosmology without a big bang (based on a paper by Shu?).

ATM is more (it seems to me) for when an amateur comes up with their pet "theory" typically based on a misunderstanding of popular science articles (or complete ignorance of any science) and asserts it is true in the face of all logical inconsistencies and contradictory evidence. (No criticism of your ideas intended; I am not familiar with them!)


My realization was that there is nowhere on BAUT where any general ATM discussion can take place in an open forum. Is this a good feature of BAUT or not?

Yes, it is a good thing.

Moose
2010-Oct-06, 07:52 PM
Briefly:


There were other abuses, where certain ATMers would refuse to defend their ideas. It was causing a great deal of frustration among everybody concerned and was very time consuming for the mods. That pattern of abuse forced a more current form of Rule 13 into place, requiring ATMers to defend their ideas in exchange for visibility.


It's safe to suggest that any proposal to modify ATM rules that does not effectively (and self-evidently) address that long history of abuses is very likely to be rejected out of hand.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 07:58 PM
Strange,

Big Bang theory without necessarily having a beginning BB I think is now part of standard cosmology. In any event I have only seen such alternative-hypothesis discussions concerning what is thought to be possibly "Alternative Mainstream."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 08:01 PM
Why not allow it in off-topic babbling for instance.

Other than a way to circumvent the ATM/CT rules, why would posting ATM ideas to BABBling be preferable?

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 08:04 PM
My realization was that there is nowhere on BAUT where any general ATM discussion can take place in an open forum. Is this a good feature of BAUT or not?

A meaningless question since it is based on a false premise.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Oct-06, 08:13 PM
Why not allow it in off-topic babbling for instance.
Because that was what started the whole thing in the first place.

ATM really has nothing to do here at all and it would be really nice if they'd just go away and stop posting their drivel. The ATM forum is provided, not for the benefit of ATM proponents, but for the rest of us because by letting them have a designated place to throw their feces they don't stink up the whole place.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-06, 08:22 PM
Thanks Swift. I have been aware of this history and know potential problems lurk, but I'm not sure that not to allow ATM discussions anywhere on BAUT is the best answer. Why not allow it in off-topic babbling for instance. It could be assumed to start with, even stated in the heading to "be aware, the commenter probably does not know what he is talking about." :)

Similar ideas are regularly proposed. The problem is that, if ATM proponents didn't have to be concerned about their claims being moved to ATM, they would just avoid posting in ATM, and they would never be required to answer questions about their claims.

Now, sometimes people do ask questions about what are clearly ATM ideas, and as long as it doesn't turn into advocacy, and the question is space/astronomy related (or even sometimes if it isn't) it generally seems to be okay.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 08:25 PM
Big Bang theory without necessarily having a beginning BB I think is now part of standard cosmology. In any event I have only seen such alternative-hypothesis discussions concerning what is thought to be "Alternative Mainstream."

This differs from ATM in a number of ways, including:

- These "alternative mainstream" ideas are created by scientists who know what they are talking about (usually:)).
- They also have a thorough understanding the existing theories they are attempting to replace or modify.
- They are published in peer reviewed journals.
- They attempt to explain observational evidence at least as well as existing theories.

With very rare exceptions none of the above are true for ideas posted in ATM.

Swift
2010-Oct-06, 08:31 PM
The ATM forum is provided, not for the benefit of ATM proponents, but for the rest of us because by letting them have a designated place to throw their feces they don't stink up the whole place.
That seems to be an unnecessarily harsh way of phrasing your position on this.

Everyone, please keep this polite. Just like elsewhere on BAUT, we debate the idea, not the people.

AndreasJ
2010-Oct-06, 08:33 PM
Discussion about ATM ideas does seem to be accepted in Off-Topic Babbling; see frex the First annual conference on geocentrism (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107633-First-annual-conference-on-geocentrism) thread. It ran to three pages and had a moderator post in black in it, so it's not just that it went under the radar either.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 08:34 PM
Moose,

What do you think of my idea concerning allowing ATM "discussions only," with a warning, in the off Topic Babbling section (my posting #3) ?

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 08:37 PM
Strange,


...ATM is more (it seems to me) for when an amateur comes up with their pet "theory" typically based on a misunderstanding of popular science articles (or complete ignorance of any science) and asserts it is true in the face of all logical inconsistencies and contradictory evidence.

I agree

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 08:43 PM
Andreas J,


Discussion about ATM ideas does seem to be accepted in Off-Topic Babbling; see frex the First annual conference on geocentrism thread. It ran to three pages and had a moderator post in black in it, so it's not just that it went under the radar either.

I have seen moderator comments that alternative theory was not allowed in Off-Topic Babbling. I think geocentrism could be allowed, something like the Earth-is-flat society proposals, because there is probably no "real" science involved with either.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-06, 08:49 PM
Andreas J,



I have seen moderator comments that alternative theory was not allowed in Off-Topic Babbling. I think geocentrism could be allowed, something like the Earth-is-flat society proposals, because there is probably no "real" science involved with either.

If you do a search, you'll find geocentrism threads in ATM, where someone was seriously advocating geocentrism.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:10 PM
Van Rijn,


Similar ideas are regularly proposed. The problem is that, if ATM proponents didn't have to be concerned about their claims being moved to ATM, they would just avoid posting in ATM, and they would never be required to answer questions about their claims.

I don't see what harm such discussions could have in the Off-Topic-Babbling section, even without defense, if an appropriate warning in the Heading was included. I think my particular proposal/ thread might have been cool in the ATM section but maybe not.


Now, sometimes people do ask questions about what are clearly ATM ideas, and as long as it doesn't turn into advocacy, and the question is space/astronomy related (or even sometimes if it isn't) it generally seems to be okay. I guess you are right. I have seen short meta-discussions without advocacy tolerated. However, I have never seen "serious" general ATM discussions here on BAUT, simply questions and answers concerning the OP in the ATM section which sometimes have a discussion tone concerning a particular proposal.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 09:10 PM
I have seen moderator comments that alternative theory was not allowed in Off-Topic Babbling. I think geocentrism could be allowed, something like the Earth-is-flat society proposals, because there is probably no "real" science involved with either.

And how does that differ from 99.999% of ATM "theories" - no real or artifical science invovled in most of those either.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 09:13 PM
This differs from ATM in a number of ways, including:

I knew I had forgotten one: These "alternative mainstream" hyoptheses are also the stake through the heart of the common ATM claim that there is some sort of conspiracy to preserve the outdated mainstream ideas. (Why anyone would collaborate in such a conspiracy when Nobels are available for radical new theories, I don't know.)

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:18 PM
R.A.F.


Other than a way to circumvent the ATM/CT rules, why would posting ATM ideas to BABBling be preferable?

OTB would seemingly be better than anywhere else if BAUT were to allow such discussions. I was proposing such a discussion in the ATM section which apparently is also not allowed.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:23 PM
Strange,

And how does that differ from 99.999% of ATM "theories" - no real or artifical science invovled in most of those either.

I agree that many ATM threads are initially based upon misconceptions. In my opinion, however, a number also have at least a "hint" of possible validity to them.

AndreasJ
2010-Oct-06, 09:24 PM
I have seen moderator comments that alternative theory was not allowed in Off-Topic Babbling. I think geocentrism could be allowed, something like the Earth-is-flat society proposals, because there is probably no "real" science involved with either.

Shall I dredge up my Nibiru thread from Fun & Games, or my Martian canals* thread from Q&A? Neither attracted moderatorial attention.

Sorry to be flippant, but I think it's a lot easier than you make it out to be. Threads about such ideas are okay - what's not okay is when someone starts advocating them (and yes, giving ATM answers to questions is advocacy) outside the ATM forum.


* Which idea produced a fair lot of scientific papers, so more real science than what you generally see in ATM.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:25 PM
I knew I had forgotten one: These "alternative mainstream" hyoptheses are also the stake through the heart of the common ATM claim that there is some sort of conspiracy to preserve the outdated mainstream ideas. (Why anyone would collaborate in such a conspiracy when Nobels are available for radical new theories, I don't know.)

I agree

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:33 PM
Shall I dredge up my Nibiru thread from Fun & Games, or my Martian canals* thread from Q&A? Neither attracted moderatorial attention.

Sorry to be flippant, but I think it's a lot easier than you make it out to be. Threads about such ideas are okay - what's not okay is when someone starts advocating them (and yes, giving ATM answers to questions is advocacy) outside the ATM forum.

* Which idea produced a fair lot of scientific papers, so more real science than what you generally see in ATM.

I don't consider these proposals to be serious science. Although I do agree that a number of such seriously intended proposals have been in the ATM section over time.

Jim
2010-Oct-06, 09:40 PM
What you wanted, forrest noble, was for people to read your book and ask you questions about it. However, you wanted the questions to be asked outside of ATM, which removes the requirement that you actually answer those questions.

If the ideas presented in your book are not repeats of ideas already presented in ATM, start one or more threads. Present your idea(s) there and I'm sure you'll get a few questions about them. Which you will be required to answer.

The geocentrism thread in OTB is about a conference on geocentrism and, while there may be some discussion of it, does not advocate "strong geocentrism." If it ever does, it will be split or moved entirely into ATM.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 09:40 PM
I don't see what harm such discussions could have in the Off-Topic-Babbling section, even without defense, if an appropriate warning...

The "harm" is that without accountability, this board would be no different than a multitude of boards "out there".

That's partially the reason why this board is special...your idea would remove part of that "special-ness", and I see no reason to do that.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 09:43 PM
OTB would seemingly be better than anywhere else if BAUT were to allow such discussions. I was proposing such a discussion in the ATM section which apparently is also not allowed.

You didn't answer my question...why would it "be better".

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:48 PM
Because that was what started the whole thing in the first place.

ATM really has nothing to do here at all and it would be really nice if they'd just go away and stop posting their drivel. The ATM forum is provided, not for the benefit of ATM proponents, but for the rest of us because by letting them have a designated place to throw their feces they don't stink up the whole place.

Although your comment may be inappropriate, I agree that similar type sentiments run deep in much of moderator beliefs. I understand that you think this is a good thing but I do not, concerning the future of BAUT.

korjik
2010-Oct-06, 09:49 PM
The "harm" is that without accountability, this board would be no different than a multitude of boards "out there".

That's partially the reason why this board is special...your idea would remove part of that "special-ness", and I see no reason to do that.

I would go a step further. The 'harm' is that there would be so much pseudo-scientific babble presented that someone who wanted an accurate answer would not be able to tell what was correct and what only sounded plausable to a layman.

Moose
2010-Oct-06, 09:49 PM
What do you think of my idea concerning allowing ATM "discussions only," with a warning, in the off Topic Babbling section (my posting #3) ?

My opinion on the matter is adequately summarized by post 5.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 09:50 PM
I agree that many ATM threads are initially based upon misconceptions. In my opinion, however, a number also have at least a "hint" of possible validity to them.

Please list the ATM ideas that in your opinion "hint" at validity, because I see nothing of the sort.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 09:52 PM
I don't consider these proposals to be serious science.

The content had as much serious science as nearly all of ATM (maybe more). The only difference is that they were being discussed not advocated.

Almost by definition, anything being advocated in ATM is meaningless nonsense and, as others have pointed out, doesn't belong in a science forum. If someone has an idea with merit, then get it published and then it can be discussed anywhere here.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 09:56 PM
You didn't answer my question...why would it "be better".

"Better" is just a matter of opinion, hence the question in the OP, "Is this a good feature of BAUT or not?" My opinion is that BAUT's future could be brighter and more fun for some, if there were no excluded science topics primarily concerning astronomy, cosmology and physics, including alternative perspectives/ opinions/ hypothesis/ theories concerning interpretations of observations.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 10:03 PM
I would go a step further. The 'harm' is that there would be so much pseudo-scientific babble presented that someone who wanted an accurate answer would not be able to tell what was correct and what only sounded plausable to a layman.

Of course it could be allowed in the ATM section which was my first choice. But if not there then the OTB section with the appropriate "warning" seems appropriate to me. Just the title itself implies that the subject matter should not necessary be taken seriously.

Swift
2010-Oct-06, 10:03 PM
Van Rijn,

Similar ideas are regularly proposed. The problem is that, if ATM proponents didn't have to be concerned about their claims being moved to ATM, they would just avoid posting in ATM, and they would never be required to answer questions about their claims.
I don't see what harm such discussions could have in the Off-Topic-Babbling section, even without defense, if an appropriate warning in the Heading was included. I think my particular proposal/ thread might have been cool in the ATM section but maybe not.
I do see the harm, even if they are in OTB. An ATMer comes along and posts in OTB that they just want to discuss the pros and cons of the idea that the moon is made of green cheese (for example). Of course, even outside of OTB (and even outside of BAUT) people ask why he thinks the moon might be made of green cheese. The ATMer, without any requirements to answer questions, post evidence, or even a time limit, never really answers these questions but just goes on and on about this idea, maybe with links to some youtube video or something, and we get a 1573 post thread with everyone annoyed at everyone else and completely pointless.

Want examples - go look at the numerous Electric Universe threads, or the Iron Sun thread, or Moon Man's hoax thread - and those were in ATM/CT!

It is entirely too disruptive to BAUT, and too pointless. And there are plenty of websites where people can post like that.

I'm willing to consider ideas about alternative ways to control ATM. But I am personally not going to think much of any proposal that essentially removes all controls (other than our usual politeness and such rules) off of ATM. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 10:04 PM
Better is just a matter of opinion, hence the question in the OP, Is this a good feature of BAUT or not? My opinion is that BAUT's future could be brighter if there were no excluded science topics primarily concerning astronomy, cosmology and physics, including alternative perspectives/ opinions/ hypothesis/ theories concerning observations.

But, but but .... there are discussions and questions about "alternative perspectives/ opinions/ hypothesis/ theories". It is one thing to say "is it possible that..." or "what do you think of ..." and quite another to say "no, you are all wrong, I am right, gravity is caused by green vibrating cheese"

Swift
2010-Oct-06, 10:10 PM
The content had as much serious science as nearly all of ATM (maybe more). The only difference is that they were being discussed not advocated.

Almost by definition, anything being advocated in ATM is meaningless nonsense and, as others have pointed out, doesn't belong in a science forum. If someone has an idea with merit, then get it published and then it can be discussed anywhere here.
My bold.

I think the almost is the critical difference. I think the group could collectively count on any individual member's one hand the number of ATM threads that have presented well thought out and defended ideas, at least worthy of discussion. But I think that is exactly Fraser's hope/intent (and one I share) is that there just might be those couple of ideas, and that's why we allow ATM.

I do not agree with the idea of ATM as a dumping ground, to keep the rest of the forum clean of ATM stuff. If that was our intent, we would just flat out forbid the discussion of ATM ideas - it would be easier to moderate.

But as I expressed above, uncontrolled ATM is not an option either.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 10:17 PM
Swift,


........I'm willing to consider ideas about alternative ways to control ATM. But I am personally not going to think much of any proposal that essentially removes all controls (other than our usual politeness and such rules) off of ATM. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. OTB was only one suggestion or question. It seems to me, however, that there should be somewhere and some way on BAUT where such discussions might take place with appropriate limitations/ controls. The ATM section would seem to be the appropriate place.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 10:18 PM
My opinion is that BAUT's future could be brighter and more fun for some...

Swift said it best...your "brighter and more fun" future would be disruptive and pointless.

Why do so many (relatively speaking) come here, decide that they like the board, then go about doing everything they can to change it??...just thinking out loud. :)

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 10:19 PM
It seems to me, however, that there should be somewhere and some way on BAUT where such discussions might take place with appropriate limitations/ controls. The ATM section would seem to be the appropriate place.

I don't understand....how would you change ATM from the way it is now??

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-06, 10:21 PM
I think the group could collectively count on any individual member's one hand the number of ATM threads that have presented well thought out and defended ideas, at least worthy of discussion.

How many fingers are on this "individual members one hand"?

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 10:24 PM
Strange,


But, but but .... there are discussions and questions about "alternative perspectives/ opinions/ hypothesis/ theories". It is one thing to say "is it possible that..." or "what do you think of ..." and quite another to say "no, you are all wrong, I am right, gravity is caused by green vibrating cheese"

There may have been such serious discussions of alternative theory over the last 3 years but I haven't seen any. Do you have a link to such a serious science alternative theory discussion? If you have seen them I believe you but I would like to know where I can post mine? That's my point.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 10:30 PM
R.A.F.

@ Swift

How many fingers are on this "individual members one hand"? Again it's just a matter of opinion. In my opinion there is usually always at least one proposal on the board at any given time that is something more than just casual speculation that I think is worthy of discussion.

Concerning your question to Swift,
you forgot the link to the picture of the hand so that I could also count the fingers :)

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 10:42 PM
I don't understand....how would you change ATM from the way it is now??

I would allow ATM discussion without defense in the ATM section as long as there was no advocacy involved. With advocacy and assertions then the defense of all such statements would be required, the same that it is now. The ATM proposer could say "I quit" rather than "I withdraw my statements." Once quitting a particular topic the proponent could not make any more statements on the subject but others could.

The point of my comments concerned my particular proposal that can be seen in the OP. I think it would have been a cool thread, but maybe not. I would have had a lot of defending to do based upon answering many of the conundrums in science today with ATM proposals, that's for sure. But who knows maybe I would have had little or no response to the thread whereby I would not have presented any ATM answers or presented any considerations/ possibilities.

I think it was also an interesting proposal in that I could not just babble ATM theory. The format required a question for each of my replies.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 11:05 PM
Strange,



There may have been such serious discussions of alternative theory over the last 3 years but I haven't seen any. Do you have a link to such a serious science alternative theory discussion? If you have seen them I believe you but I would like to know where I can post mine? That's my point.

Several have been mentioned in this thread already. Others have been mentioned pretty much every time this topic comes up. A few from a very quick search:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106575-Was-our-universe-born-inside-a-black-hole
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103302-Infinite-Space-Infinite-Time
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104760-Gravity-and-entropy
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108289-Shell-Theorem-A-Contracting-Shell
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108251-a-star-like-pre-big-bang-object
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108292-Fastest-thing-in-the-universe
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107995-Time-may-be-disappearing
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107601-Coincidence
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107060-The-past-could-be-changed
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107545-Can-I-put-planet-Earth-in-my-pocket-and-if-so-how-heavy-would-it-be

OK. I'm bored now. I'm sure not all of these really fit the description but, then again, there are others I have missed. And all of these are relatively recent.

Valid ATM ideas? I can only remember seeing one reasonably well presented and argued (but wrong - obviously) idea in ATM in the last 12 months.

Strange
2010-Oct-06, 11:09 PM
Also, a fair number of "alternative" (bonkers) theories get discussed (no advocacy) under CT just because they are incidentally related to 2012 or UFOs.

AndreasJ
2010-Oct-06, 11:15 PM
I don't consider these proposals to be serious science.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that the ATM rules don't apply to ideas that don't live up to forrest noble's standards of seriousness.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-06, 11:15 PM
The ATM proposer could say "I quit" rather than "I withdraw my statements." Once quitting a particular topic the proponent could not make any more statements on the subject but others could.

Yeah, that's a terrible idea. It's not improbable that more people would get banned, because of course you'd have to enforce the part about how the proponent couldn't say anything more on the subject. You'd just let them off the hook for all answers but let them have their say anyway. How is this different from the state of affairs now, except escaping the bonds of ATM?

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 11:17 PM
Several have been mentioned in this thread already. Others have been mentioned pretty much every time this topic comes up. A few from a very quick search:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106575-Was-our-universe-born-inside-a-black-hole
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103302-Infinite-Space-Infinite-Time
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104760-Gravity-and-entropy
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108289-Shell-Theorem-A-Contracting-Shell
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108251-a-star-like-pre-big-bang-object
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108292-Fastest-thing-in-the-universe
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107995-Time-may-be-disappearing
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107601-Coincidence
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107060-The-past-could-be-changed
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107545-Can-I-put-planet-Earth-in-my-pocket-and-if-so-how-heavy-would-it-be

OK. I'm bored now. I'm sure not all of these really fit the description but, then again, there are others I have missed. And all of these are relatively recent.

Valid ATM ideas? I can only remember seeing one reasonably well presented and argued (but wrong - obviously) idea in ATM in the last 12 months.

Although you are making a good point, most of these links/ proposals might also be considered alternative mainstream. In the Q&A section one can ask concerning ATM theory, "what's wrong with this idea" but would not be allowed to discuss what might be right with it since that could be construed as advocacy. I think "serious" ATM discussion would be theories that if valid, would replace the present model, not just bagging that certain observations don't seemingly support the mainstream position/ model/ theory.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 11:32 PM
Yeah, that's a terrible idea. It's not improbable that more people would get banned, because of course you'd have to enforce the part about how the proponent couldn't say anything more on the subject. You'd just let them off the hook for all answers but let them have their say anyway. How is this different from the state of affairs now, except escaping the bonds of ATM?

This would involve an ATM "discussion thread" which would conceivably have some different rules.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-06, 11:53 PM
R.A.F.


Please list the ATM ideas that in your opinion "hint" at validity, because I see nothing of the sort.

"Hinting at validity" is again a matter of opinion, hence the words "I think."

"Hinting at validity" in my meaning would be that of hinting at something that seems possible in some way to the person reading the proposal.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-07, 12:41 AM
This would involve an ATM "discussion thread" which would conceivably have some different rules.

Which, as I'm sure you're aware, would make it easier for people to come in, advocate until they ran afoul of the rules--whichever these may be--and probably try again until they're banned. What, exactly, do you propose would be better about this than the previous system?

forrest noble
2010-Oct-07, 01:11 AM
Gillianren,


Which, as I'm sure you're aware, would make it easier for people to come in, advocate until they ran afoul of the rules--whichever these may be--and probably try again until they're banned. What, exactly, do you propose would be better about this than the previous system?

The idea here would be that there would be different rules in such a ATM discussion forum. It could be something as simple as allowing discussion providing no advocacy is involved. Once advocacy beginnings it could go into the regular ATM section. The "I quit" idea was mentioned meaning once ATM defense of an idea is finished and after "I quit" is stated (concerning the ATM discussion thread), further discussion of the ATM topic will cease concerning the proponent, or else his statements would become a regular ATM thread. Just throwing around ideas here.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-07, 03:24 AM
What you wanted, forrest noble, was for people to read your book and ask you questions about it. However, you wanted the questions to be asked outside of ATM, which removes the requirement that you actually answer those questions.

If the ideas presented in your book are not repeats of ideas already presented in ATM, start one or more threads. Present your idea(s) there and I'm sure you'll get a few questions about them. Which you will be required to answer.

The geocentrism thread in OTB is about a conference on geocentrism and, while there may be some discussion of it, does not advocate "strong geocentrism." If it ever does, it will be split or moved entirely into ATM.

Sorry Jim, I missed your comment on the first pass. You don't know me very well. Yes it would be nice for people to read my more than 400 page long book first, which are all original theory and equations but the audience would be small. Nereid called my book a tome, which I considered a compliment at the time but realize her meaning was just that it was the "longest theoretical book she could imagine." Anyway without reading my book first it would be hard to understand my concepts since one hypothesis leads to theory, leads to hypothesis, etc. I could maybe make at least 20 ATM threads before I came up for my first breath, but I don't have time. The smaller of my last ATM proposals was 17 pages long. It took 3 active moderators to control the "blood and gore" on my threads. Ask Swift who was witness to the last one. The first one was not as bad but it required maybe 2 hours of my time per day for the entire month.

What I wanted this time was a different kind of thread whereby all that wished to partake, could discuss possibilities of theory. They would ask whatever questions in any science that they thought could not be answered in the Q & A section, and I would give answers. Some would be mainstream, some would be my own ATM, and some might be a combination of both. Of course each ATM answer of mine would have to be defended against all questions. Based upon my previous threads only knowledgeable "seasoned veterans" would want take part in questions concerning the details of related theory.

I thought the idea was cool but I realize moderation might have an additional burden concerning the moderation of such a potentially widely ranging ATM thread. But I don't think their burden would be any different for any of my proposals. The advantage would have been that I could spout nothing ATM without specific questions being asked to start with. You can tell by my first answer on the thread (linlk below) how the thread might have gone concerning the non-confrontational aspect of it. No initial ATM proposals were made. What do you thinK? This was the thread http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108336-What-one-science-question-would-you-want-answered

Gillianren
2010-Oct-07, 04:11 AM
I think it sounds exactly like advocacy.

Jens
2010-Oct-07, 04:36 AM
In response to the OP, I should mention that I've discussed a number of ATM topics in the Q&A section, and never had anybody, moderator or otherwise, say that it wasn't appropriate. I think I asked a question once about whether it is possible that mass is shrinking instead of space expanding, and what difference that would make. I think the key point is that I was asking questions about what the consequences would be, or asking for advice on where to find more information about those things. Because I wasn't saying, "I believe I have this new theory. . ." it wasn't seen as a problem.

I think I asked once if there was a connection between the spiral shape of galaxies and the shape of hurricanes. Stating that they are the same phenomenon would likely get me in trouble or sent to ATM, but just asking, could there be a relationship, seems to not invite any ill-will.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-07, 04:40 AM
Gillianren,


I think it sounds exactly like advocacy.

You're correct. Every time I would give an ATM answer it must be defended. I accordingly would be advocating my ATM answers. Each answer could be considered a separate an ATM proposal as you suggest. That's why it would belong in the ATM section if it were allowed.

Gillianren
2010-Oct-07, 04:55 AM
Maybe I'm confused. What's different, then? Because I have to tell you, if you're waiting for us to spontaneously ask questions about your ideas, you're probably going to have to wait a long time. Longer, were you someone we didn't know had an ATM proposal to go on about.

forrest noble
2010-Oct-07, 04:58 AM
Jens,


In response to the OP, I should mention that I've discussed a number of ATM topics in the Q&A section, and never had anybody, moderator or otherwise, say that it wasn't appropriate. I think I asked a question once about whether it is possible that mass is shrinking instead of space expanding....

Jens, this is not ATM. This is obvious logic if one understands Machian relativity. I and Ken G have mentioned this exact possibility/ perspective on numerous occasions in the Q & A section concerning the perspective of mass getting smaller rather than space expanding. As a matter of fact, this is the foundation for my entire theory of cosmology in my book, maybe as much as 200 pages long including equations.


I think I asked once if there was a connection between the spiral shape of galaxies and the shape of hurricanes. Stating that they are the same phenomenon would likely get me in trouble or sent to ATM, but just asking, could there be a relationship, seems to not invite any ill-will. This is the basis for my theory concerning the vortex motion of pushing gravity and related equations, that has already been discussed on BAUT. See the OP for the related link.

pzkpfw
2010-Oct-07, 05:40 AM
And thus this thread in "feedback" becomes a place for forrest noble to advertise his ideas. Thread closed. It wasn't going to get anywhere, anyway.

The answer to your request to open your ATM thread, forest noble (unanimous among the mods who discussed it) was "no".

If you want to hold a general discussion based on your book and ideas, you'll need to find a different vehicle. I'd suggest getting in touch with BAUT member tommac - he runs a forum somewhere (see his signature).