PDA

View Full Version : What Level of Mathematical Formalism is Expected for ATM Ideas?



inflector
2010-Dec-23, 04:47 AM
In the ATM forum, I recently presented a quantum gravity idea (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings) which I believe has some potential for further research.

I presented what I believe to be a complete definition of the idea. Other forum members disagreed vociferously.

I made the specific claim that I thought it was plausible that General Relativity is a statistical approximation to the new theory I was discussing, I was challenged to prove that assertion through formal mathematical proof and told that until I had such a formal proof, I was not prepared to present my theory in the ATM forum by another forum member (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings?p=1833001#post1833001).

I had previously made it clear that:

A) Such a criterion was not something that the most popular mainstream research ideas for quantum gravity can currently meet; not any of the various formulations of LQG or String Theory.

B) If I had any such formal proof, I wouldn't be presenting in ATM, I'd be trying to get a paper published in Nature or Science.

The Advice for ATM Advocates post says:


Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

It does not mention having formal mathematical proofs for your ideas. It says "evidence."

It seems to me that if BAUT is going to require, or even expect, that any quantum gravity ideas meet standards which not even one of the current quantum gravity candidates can meet, then this just ensures that no one will ever present any quantum gravity ideas here, or even the germ of one.

I know many, perhaps most think it highly unlikely that any good ideas will come from the ATM forum, but I do know from reading old threads on the history and changes to ATM that Fraser and even the Bad Astronomer himself have hopes that BAUT might offer a means for amateurs to forward ideas that might turn into serious research and perhaps develop into accepted mainstream theory. I don't see how this will happen if the expectations are set beyond anything that even the professionals are able to achieve after years of work.

This leaves the question for this forum: "What level of mathematical formalism should be expected for an idea to be presented in ATM?"

Luckmeister
2010-Dec-23, 06:16 PM
Unfortunately, there is no fine line between what is defined as mainstream or not. It's a judgement call which will sometimes not have full agreement between members.

This board began and has established itself as an exposer of bad science. The membership is heavily weighted with scientific minds who consider fighting pseudoscience a priority and they have an especially high disdain for unsupported ideas. I'm painting with a broad brush but that mindset does heavily influence the personality of this board.

There are other boards that allow or even encourage speculation without heavy proof being a requirement. When visiting them, a voice of reason is frequently found to be lacking with serious discussion becoming difficult. They serve a purpose but after spending some time there, a return to BAUT is very refreshing.

BAUT is not everything to everybody, and probably shouldn't try to be.

ETA: I realize I didn't address your main point. I have not seen evidence that Fraser and Phil have encouraged amateurs to come here and brainstorm ideas that are lacking in solid foundation. Members and moderators frequently remind ATM posters that this not a place to develop ideas but rather to present developed ones. Of course that's a catch-22 because, as you pointed out, if they're that well developed, they should be presented in a formal paper. That leaves ATM as the dumping grounds many feel it is. If I were capable of developing a serious theory, I wouldn't consider presenting it here.


Mike

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 07:04 PM
The issue is not whether or not something is mainstream since anyone posting to ATM is acknowledging that the idea itself is not mainstream. Nor whether or not good science should be practiced and encouraged by the membership, clearly it is proper to promote good science at all times here and elsewhere.

The issue is rather, whether or not one should subject a new ATM idea to greater mathematical scrutiny than can be reasonably expected here.

The ATM forum exists for two reasons: a) to serve as a place for amateurs to show their ideas to receive scrutiny and feedback (as several moderators and Fraser himself has confirmed in at least a few threads I've read in only the last few months), and b) to keep discussions of whacky ideas out of the main forums to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in those forums.

In order to address the intent of the first reason for the forum, it seems to me that one should not expect a level of mathematical proof that does not exist in quantum gravity for mainstream theories, namely that they can demonstrate that they reproduce GR in the continuum limit. Requiring this level of proof is against the spirit of a) above as it effectively precludes any ideas that wouldn't be accepted in reputable professional journals, it also seems against the spirit of the specific advice given by moderators to ATM proponents where the word "evidence" is used rather than "formal mathematical proof."

Further, as a matter of BAUT policy, it seems like discouraging threads because they don't meet a burden of proof that not even LQG or String Theory can meet after hundreds of professional theorists have not been able to meet after many long years of trying also goes against the spirit of a) above. How can we expect amateurs, even those who (unlike myself certainly) have educated themselves to the level of a PhD, to do what many professionals have been unable to do?

And if any amateurs can actually do this, they won't be publishing on BAUT anyway so this seems like a perspective that will exclude any discussions in quantum gravity, or for alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy that can't also meet this burden. It seems to me like these are all topics very relevant to astronomy so an exclusion of these topics, de facto or official, does not make sense.

Or is there some intentional exclusion of new gravity ideas from BAUT's ATM?

baric
2010-Dec-23, 07:14 PM
The problem in your case is partially one of scale. To suggest that a bedrock theory like GR is a statistical equivalent of yours is an extraordinary claim, to say the least. You cannot use an established theory as a starting premise for your proofs and not expect to get called out for it.

Example exchange:
Q) Does your theory properly predict the orbit of Mercury as does GR? (THIS IS A STANDARD QUESTION FOR GR REPLACEMENTS)
A) Yes, because GR is an approximation of my theory, so our predictions will match
Q) Please provide evidence that GR is an approximation of your theory
A) I'm still working on that

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 07:29 PM
Right baric,

I agree that the exchange you outline above isn't really evidence.

But I think I made it clear in the beginning that I thought the theory was an interesting idea (just like CDT, for example, is an interesting quantum gravity idea), not that the theory was proven or that I was pretending to prove it. I'm sure that could have been made clearer in my responses, but what kind of responses should someone offer in this case?

As you noted, this is a standard question. So if you post a theory describing any sort of idea for quantum gravity, someone will always ask about GR related phenomena. Unless they have established formally the relationship with GR, then the answer will always have to be that they expect to find GR in the continuum limit. Won't it? Why would anyone who wasn't an idiot work on a theory that didn't have that expectation?

That would be the response of any of the various proponents of any of the mainstream professional scientist flavors of quantum gravity to the same question.

So then, how would you suggest an ATM poster respond? And if they respond in the way you suggest, what do you think the response of the forum members should be to that response?

My point is that the question itself is flawed if the expectation cannot be met by anyone in quantum gravity. As it is a generic question and applies to a broad class of ATM ideas, it seems like a reasonable issue to discuss here.

Swift
2010-Dec-23, 07:49 PM
This leaves the question for this forum: "What level of mathematical formalism should be expected for an idea to be presented in ATM?"
I can't give you a specific answer to that question. It all depends upon the specific ATM idea. The evidence for some areas of study are much more mathematical than others. I personally would be quite content for an ATM advocate to show experimental evidence for their idea, versus a mathematical proof, depending upon exactly what their idea was.

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 08:12 PM
What about a specific idea in the area of study for quantum gravity?

baric
2010-Dec-23, 08:22 PM
But I think I made it clear in the beginning that I thought the theory was an interesting idea (just like CDT, for example, is an interesting quantum gravity idea), not that the theory was proven or that I was pretending to prove it.

Exactly. And that is why I said that you are not prepared to post your theory in the ATM forum.

I think you may be operating under the same premise as I was in the past but was quickly corrected. This is in no way an ATM-supporting site. The primary purpose of the ATM subforum is to keep the ATM ideas out of the rest of the subforums so that the regular posters can discuss mainstream science. If you post an ATM theory, expect it to be attacked vigorously. If you post ATM ideas in other subforums, expect it to be moved there and attacked vigorously.

The ATM forum is NOT intended as a workspace for you to flesh out your ATM ideas. It is there for you to present and defend your ATM theory in isolation from the rest of the site... and nothing more (per the posted ATM rules). If you cannot do so adequately, your thread will be locked. If you get belligerent about the expectations or refuse to answer questions, you will be infracted and possibly suspended.

This is not intended to be a criticism of BAUT. It's just the way it is and there are real benefits to this approach that we all enjoy. Mainly, the woo-woos don't hang around and the discussions are more productive.

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 09:07 PM
The ATM forum is NOT intended as a workspace for you to flesh out your ATM ideas.

There is a difference between fleshing out ideas that are not developed to any level and checking ideas that are developed to a certain point where it is fruitful but not finished. Again, by your standard, no existing MAINSTREAM quantum gravity ideas or MAINSTREAM theories for the various observational anomalies including Dark Matter and Dark Energy would pass muster as theories that have mathematical proof or direct observational evidence and therefore suitable for posting on ATM.

This seems extreme to me.

My read of the difference between presentation of an idea for scrutiny and development of an idea is that with development, the idea itself is in flux and needs sorting out. That's not the case for ideas that are specific and fixed unless the poster expects that the forum members are going to help them complete the rest of their idea. For posters only looking for feedback on a fixed idea that is sufficiently specified, it goes against the spirit of the Bad Astronomer and Fraser's expectation for this forum as expressed here, for example:


There are two kinds of people who post threads in the ATM section:

1.People who have an interesting idea to explain some aspect of the Universe. They post their idea, community members generously donate their time to help think it through and provide ways to test the theory. It happens quickly and we all move on.

2. People who are looking to use BAUT as a marketing platform for their alternative theories. Tell us your idea, that's fine. But we're not going to allow the forum to turn into a marketing vehicle for them. 30 days should be plenty of time to present your concept, deal with objections, answer anything else.

He then goes on to explain that he is implementing the 30-day rule to keep people from using BAUT for the purposes in 2 above.

In another post in the same thread as above, Fraser states:

We still value the ATM section. It's my hope that people with genuinely original ideas will have a place they can post their ideas. People with knowledge about the field of science will be able to spot the weakenesses in the theory. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll recognize the genuinely original theory and help get it promoted to working scientists who can take the idea further. That's my hope for the ATM section.

and later addressing the same issue when asked: "Why not be honest about it and just shut down the ATM section completely?" He says:


Because ideas from outside the mainstream have a genuine value to science. Who knows where the next great idea is going to come from? It won't always be scientists; although, they've got the training to understand why some ideas won't work. I'd never want to shut down ATM.

And showing the process, from the initial concept to seeing how it compares against current evidence is very valuable.

and a bit later, he says:


As I mentioned in the beginning, our objective with this new policy is to shut down the marketing and promotion, while allowing geniunely new ideas to get through and have an opportunity to shine.

I'd love to go even further, potentially bringing in partners from the scientific community to help evaluate theories. And my greatest hope would be that a member of the community could propose a new idea, scientists would be able to help look for evidence, and the whole process could contribute to science.
(emphasis mine)

and finally (though there are more examples I could bring from just that one thread alone), Fraser says:


Let me give you an absurd example, just to give you some perspective.

Let's say that some believes that the Moon is really made of swiss cheese. They're very dedicated, and want to get the word out. So they come to BAUT and create a thread. They also reply to each and every thread in the entire forum, so that the last post in every thread in the entire forum somehow relates to their swiss cheese theory.

Are they promoting a book? Are they trying to make money? Are they trying to start a religion? Who knows? I don't care. What I do care is that BAUT has suddenly turned into a communications tool by the lunar swiss cheese movement.

Now, let's go to the other end of the extreme. A clever housewife is thinking about the nature of time, and comes up with a genuinely unique theory that answers problems that have plagued Einstein. She wants to see if her idea has merit, so she searches Google, finds BAUT and posts her idea. Scientists and amateurs who understand the math and evidence can give her feedback. Maybe her idea has enough merit that one of them decides to submit a paper to Arxiv. Then she wins a nobel prize in physics. BAUT provides a genuine service to science, helping someone from the outside contribute to our understanding of the Universe.

So you see, we're looking at a spectrum, one region that we absolutely want to deny, and another region that we want to foster and nurture.
(emphasis mine)

I did a lot of reading prior to posting in the ATM section so I am pretty certain that this remains Fraser's hope for the ATM section and that he would be very pleased if any new science came from BAUT's ATM forum, and that he still wants to foster and nurture those ideas through this site, if possible. I have seen many moderator comments along those lines as well.


This is not intended to be a criticism of BAUT. It's just the way it is and there are real benefits to this approach that we all enjoy. Mainly, the woo-woos don't hang around and the discussions are more productive.

As show above, I don't think this is what Fraser or the Bad Astronomer want for the ATM forum. Keeping the woo woos away, yes, but restricting the level of proof to an unmeetable level, no.

If anyone believes I am mistaken in this impression, I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary in either the Bad Astronomer or Fraser's words.

Grey
2010-Dec-23, 09:26 PM
But I think I made it clear in the beginning that I thought the theory was an interesting idea (just like CDT, for example, is an interesting quantum gravity idea), not that the theory was proven or that I was pretending to prove it. I'm sure that could have been made clearer in my responses, but what kind of responses should someone offer in this case?I think that the intention for the AtM section is that it should not be a place for just bouncing a new wild idea off of other people to see what they think. If you want to present an idea in AtM, you should already have checked out the basics to make sure it works, and be prepared to defend it against serious challenges.


As you noted, this is a standard question. So if you post a theory describing any sort of idea for quantum gravity, someone will always ask about GR related phenomena. Unless they have established formally the relationship with GR, then the answer will always have to be that they expect to find GR in the continuum limit. Won't it? Why would anyone who wasn't an idiot work on a theory that didn't have that expectation?I would agree that you should expect that, and that if it's not the case, you can throw your new theory out the window. It would therefore seem be a really good idea to check whether or not that's true as a first step, and only if you've confirmed that it does match should you proceed with trying to defend your idea. If you haven't gotten that far, it needs more work.

There's more than one way to do this. You could indeed show via formal mathematics that your theory reduces to general relativity in the continuum limit, which would be the ideal choice. But if you don't want to go that route, you could also simply test out your idea by checking what your predictions would be for some of the classic tests that showed general relativity was valid in the first place, like the precession of Mercury, or the deflection of starlight by gravitational lensing. It should be fine to say, "I haven't worked out a formal proof, but here are the calculations using my theory for these observations, and they match within experimental error". It does not work to say, "My theory reduces to general relativity in the continuum limit, so all experimental results should match", if you do not then provide any evidence that your theory really does reduce to general relativity. In the latter case, you're simply assuming something that you hope is true (since otherwise your theory is without merit), without actually having evidence that it is true.


That would be the response of any of the various proponents of any of the mainstream professional scientist flavors of quantum gravity to the same question.I'm pretty sure that most mainstream scientists working on possible theories of quantum gravity do indeed check to make sure that they give the same predictions as general relativity in the places where we have experimental data.


So then, how would you suggest an ATM poster respond? And if they respond in the way you suggest, what do you think the response of the forum members should be to that response?Ideally, an AtM poster should already have realized that the first questions for any proponent of a new theory of gravity are going to be whether this new theory matches our current observations, and so he or she should already have done at least a check on some of those results to confirm that, yes, this new theory does indeed give the same results as general relativity. So the poster could then present that calculation and show that it matches. Otherwise, an appropriate response might be something like, "You're right, I haven't checked yet whether my theory gives the same prediction for the precession of Mercury as general relativity; I'll go work that out, and then come back when I've determined whether it works out or not". If the new theory isn't sufficiently developed to be able to make that calculation, then it's not really a theory at all, and there's no way to give it any kind of real critique. All we can do is ask the proponent of that theory to work on it further until it's sufficiently developed that it's possible to make those kinds of calculations, and then we could determine if it has any merit.

baric
2010-Dec-23, 09:45 PM
This seems extreme to me.

Please read the ATM posting rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107271-Advice-for-ATM-Idea-Advocates-Read-before-posting-in-ATM), last updated just four months ago.

Specifically, Rule 3


3. Be prepared to defend your ideas. You are going to be challenged to defend them with evidence and you are expected to do so. Doing your preparation and your research before you even start your thread is an excellent idea. The ATM forum is not intended for you to develop your idea, it is for you to present your idea.

My emphasis.... your theory should be developed before posting.

and Rule 6:

6. 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. When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it was shown to be wrong and don’t keep repeating it. Be willing to modify your views.

My emphasis... Claiming equivalence with GR without any proof violates this.

I lobbied at one time (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106544-ATM-Observations) against the harsh interrogation of ATM and was clearly in the minority among the regulars with that opinion. In the end, it's not my forum and the ATM section is not why I'm here anyway -- so I acceded to those who have been around longer.

If you read some of the responses of the regulars in that thread, you'll get a good idea of exactly how steep the hill is that you're trying to climb.

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 10:42 PM
I would agree that you should expect that, and that if it's not the case, you can throw your new theory out the window. It would therefore seem be a really good idea to check whether or not that's true as a first step, and only if you've confirmed that it does match should you proceed with trying to defend your idea. If you haven't gotten that far, it needs more work.

Maybe I am assuming that many people here are more familiar with quantum gravity than they really are.

Just to be clear. I am asserting that no mainstream theory for quantum gravity can prove a relationship with GR in the continuum limit. Not one.

There are mainstream theories that have hundreds of postdocs and senior scientists working on them. Some have been working on them for a decade or decades.

They still can't do what you think ATM proponents should be able to do.


There's more than one way to do this. You could indeed show via formal mathematics that your theory reduces to general relativity in the continuum limit, which would be the ideal choice. But if you don't want to go that route, you could also simply test out your idea by checking what your predictions would be for some of the classic tests that showed general relativity was valid in the first place, like the precession of Mercury, or the deflection of starlight by gravitational lensing. It should be fine to say, "I haven't worked out a formal proof, but here are the calculations using my theory for these observations, and they match within experimental error". It does not work to say, "My theory reduces to general relativity in the continuum limit, so all experimental results should match", if you do not then provide any evidence that your theory really does reduce to general relativity. In the latter case, you're simply assuming something that you hope is true (since otherwise your theory is without merit), without actually having evidence that it is true.

Yes, and again, this is true of every mainstream quantum gravity theory too.


I'm pretty sure that most mainstream scientists working on possible theories of quantum gravity do indeed check to make sure that they give the same predictions as general relativity in the places where we have experimental data.

This is not true. Not even close.

It is possible that String Theorists have worked this out in Minkowski space by throwing out general coveriance, but this limited application would surely be frowned about by the ATM watchmen right? But that's about as good as it gets. String theory only gets this far because they claim to have a graviton. There is no experimental proof anywhere nor any falsifiable predictions within the grasp of current technology.

Causal Dynamical Triangulation is a mainstream effort that is considered one of the most promising approaches. Go look what they've done and you'll see they are nowhere near being able to compute the precession of the perhelion of Mercury. They aren't even trying as that step is far far off. Their big success was getting a 4 dimension universe out of a computer simulation. They are very very far off from being able to specify equations for dynamics which could then be used to develop a continuum limit.

Go look at Carlo Rovelli's work in Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and see how far he has gotten.

Most LQG (which generally just means non-string-theory these days) approaches still have no idea how they are going to account for matter even in principle, that is an open future task. How could they possibly account for the precession of Mercury when their theory doesn't yet include matter.

Think about that. How can you compute the dynamics of matter without matter?

All these theories are works in progress. And everyone working in LQG will tell you that their efforts are just starting to scratch the surface of the problem.

None would meet the standards you set out above.


Ideally, an AtM poster should already have realized that the first questions for any proponent of a new theory of gravity are going to be whether this new theory matches our current observations, and so he or she should already have done at least a check on some of those results to confirm that, yes, this new theory does indeed give the same results as general relativity. So the poster could then present that calculation and show that it matches.

I think you seriously underestimate the task of tying the quantum with the cosmos if you think anyone can do this. Anyone, not even the best of them: Witten, 't Hooft, Ashketar, Rovelli, Susskind, et al. None of them check their theories against the precession of Mercury as a check because they can't yet. They have not defined the macro-scale dynamics sufficiently. They are not even trying to do this.

This is the whole reason that quantum gravity is an open area of research. They can't link the quantum with general relativity yet, and don't expect to do so in the near future. Being able to do that is the holy grail of quantum gravity. It is what they all hope to do someday. It will win the team that does it the Nobel Prize.

Again, the best I've heard of is the kinda-sorta if you flatten space and throw out dipheomorphism invariance of String Theory's graviton approach assuming you are okay with the landscape problem and the lack of any direct falsifiability.

I'm not an expert so I'm only going on what I've read on this issue but I've been looking precisely for these sorts of claims for over three years many hours a week, and the claims are simply not out there.

Read Lee Smolin's: "The Trouble with Physics" for some general overviews of the problems with quantum gravity.


Otherwise, an appropriate response might be something like, "You're right, I haven't checked yet whether my theory gives the same prediction for the precession of Mercury as general relativity; I'll go work that out, and then come back when I've determined whether it works out or not". If the new theory isn't sufficiently developed to be able to make that calculation, then it's not really a theory at all, and there's no way to give it any kind of real critique. All we can do is ask the proponent of that theory to work on it further until it's sufficiently developed that it's possible to make those kinds of calculations, and then we could determine if it has any merit.

None of the posters who expect this of others could do this starting with any of the loop quantum gravity theories that have the greatest support in modern theoretical research. If they could they would be famous and we would have heard about it already.

How do you expect an ATM proponent to do this?

Will someone answer this direct question: Why do you expect an ATM proponent to do what none of the modern theorists working on the problem can do?

korjik
2010-Dec-23, 10:49 PM
There is a difference between fleshing out ideas that are not developed to any level and checking ideas that are developed to a certain point where it is fruitful but not finished. Again, by your standard, no existing MAINSTREAM quantum gravity ideas or MAINSTREAM theories for the various observational anomalies including Dark Matter and Dark Energy would pass muster as theories that have mathematical proof or direct observational evidence and therefore suitable for posting on ATM.

This seems extreme to me.



Quite a bit clipped by me.

What you are missing is that you made a claim, specifically that your idea reduced to GR. If someone came here and posted that the mainstream quantum gravity idea worked, they would get the exact same reaction, namely, show it.

It is really simple: You make a claim, then you prove the claim. If you cant prove it, then you dont make the claim!

To answer the OP question directly tho, the amount of formalism needed is enough to show that you are not just handwaving and that your idea has some merit. Swift pointed out that even just showing that and how your idea matches exisitng observation would be nice. I would add that you should have the math to show why your idea matched observation, but that is preference.

One thing that seemingly every ATMer misses is that being asked to do the math is not a bad thing. You have not been dismissed out of hand, but you are being told that either a) your idea has an obvious flaw that doing the math would show, or b) your idea is not bad and now needs some shoring up. Like with some math.

If you cannot show even the simplest math tho, then you arent at the point where you can go any farther, and making claims is very premature. This will get you aggressively attacked.

So, if you want to make a claim, you need the math to back it up.

korjik
2010-Dec-23, 10:54 PM
Will someone answer this direct question: Why do you expect an ATM proponent to do what none of the modern theorists working on the problem can do?

snipped by me

Why do you think you can do something that mainstream theory cant? For one thing, you are wrong about quantum gravity theories not being checked against GR. They all are. That is why we know that they are garbage that dosent work.

You are completely missing that if you put ANY quantum gravity idea in ATM, it would be aggressively attacked and told "SHOW THE MATH".

You dont get a freebie because there is no good theory of quantum gravity. You still have to prove any claim you make.

With the math.

Otherwise, you are cheerleading, not doing physics.

inflector
2010-Dec-23, 11:34 PM
Quite a bit clipped by me.

What you are missing is that you made a claim, specifically that your idea reduced to GR. If someone came here and posted that the mainstream quantum gravity idea worked, they would get the exact same reaction, namely, show it.

It is really simple: You make a claim, then you prove the claim. If you cant prove it, then you dont make the claim!

I thought I made it clear that it was an interesting idea at this point not something that I had proved in the beginning of the post. I could have added lots of disclaimers like: "It is my belief that..." instead of "Theory X posits" or some such thing, or could have not included many ideas but they would have made it impossible to evaluate, if I had not included them.

But how does this level of requirement meet Fraser's intent for ATM as I quoted in post #9, how would a househusband or housewife "post her idea" so that "scientists and amateurs who understand the math and evidence can give her feedback." as Fraser stated, if the requirement is even as strict as you state?


To answer the OP question directly tho, the amount of formalism needed is enough to show that you are not just handwaving and that your idea has some merit. Swift pointed out that even just showing that and how your idea matches exisitng observation would be nice.

That seems reasonable to me and what I thought the intent of Fraser's comment alluded to. If you can't explain, even with a reasonable diagram and story, how an idea handles a commonly known observation, then clearly you should think things over a bit first.


Why do you think you can do something that mainstream theory cant?

I'd like to address this but since the other thread is closed, I can't without violating forum rules. Request the other thread is opened and I'll address it there.


For one thing, you are wrong about quantum gravity theories not being checked against GR. They all are.

I claimed they were not checking the precession of Mercury's perihelion, not that they weren't checking them against GR. Clearly when they attempt and fail that counts as checking.


You are completely missing that if you put ANY quantum gravity idea in ATM, it would be aggressively attacked and told "SHOW THE MATH".

I don't think I'm missing this point. That's what I've been trying to say. I believe you are absolutely right in this and that this does not make sense. It effectively cuts any quantum gravity theories out of ATM.

Hornblower
2010-Dec-23, 11:36 PM
As has been pointed out already, the level of mathematics that is needed depends upon the nature of the idea that is being tested. For example, simplified versions of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the solar system, with circular orbits throughout, can be compared with sketches of the vector combinations. This requires nothing more than analytic geometry at the high school level. Since Copernicus would require fewer terms, he prevails via Occam's Razor unless we find the lack of observable stellar parallax to be fundamentally unacceptable. That objection has no basis in physics as we know it now.

By comparison, any quest to unify gravitation with quantum mechanics requires mathematical skill and knowledge on the order of what Einstein spent ten years learning after earning his Ph.D. and presenting special relativity. He thought of the possibilities of general relativity early on, and recognized what he needed to do to make it convincing.

Moose
2010-Dec-24, 12:18 AM
Inflector, if you're going to claim that the current standard model produces predictions that are an approximation of the predictions produced by your proposed model, then you must be prepared to demonstrate empirically that your model produces more accurate predictions. That means you must be able to 1) produce predictions, and 2) demonstrate that your predictions match all existing observations better than the standard model does.

You need exactly as much math as is required to 1) produce predictions using both models and 2) compare them with observed data.

If you're unable to produce the one, the other, nor either, then you aren't ready to present it in the ATM forum.

baric
2010-Dec-24, 12:20 AM
Math requirements are funny.

Someone tries to refine Titius-Bode in ATM and we literally get spreadsheets of data and formulations. Then someone wants to replace General Relativity and all we get is a syllogism.

Only on the internet!

macaw
2010-Dec-24, 12:41 AM
I made the specific claim that I thought it was plausible that General Relativity is a statistical approximation to the new theory I was discussing, I was challenged to prove that assertion through formal mathematical proof and told that until I had such a formal proof, I was not prepared to present my theory in the ATM forum by another forum member (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110692-Everything-is-One-Interconnected-Tree-of-Strings?p=1833001#post1833001).

The problem was that that:

-in an earlier post, you claimed very high math skills

-when challenged to use your theory in order to prove anything, you dodged the request repeatedly and produced no math whatsoever.

-making tall claims and not being able to back them up does not bode well for your ATM. Argh, baric beat me to it.

baric
2010-Dec-24, 12:51 AM
Argh, baric beat me


ahhh, music to my ears.

inflector
2010-Dec-24, 02:36 AM
By comparison, any quest to unify gravitation with quantum mechanics requires mathematical skill and knowledge on the order of what Einstein spent ten years learning after earning his Ph.D. and presenting special relativity. He thought of the possibilities of general relativity early on, and recognized what he needed to do to make it convincing.

So are you saying that Einstein wasn't prepared to present in ATM until he was done with GR? That the standards of ATM are essentially higher than those of the journals who published his ideas and works in progress while GR was under development?


Inflector, if you're going to claim that the current standard model produces predictions that are an approximation of the predictions produced by your proposed model, then you must be prepared to demonstrate empirically that your model produces more accurate predictions. That means you must be able to 1) produce predictions, and 2) demonstrate that your predictions match all existing observations better than the standard model does. .

What I claimed was that I thought I could eventually establish the relationship with GR as a statistical approximation. I never claimed to have proof of this. It seems to me that implications of theories have been presented many times without rigorous proof in ATM, and that the only expectation was that questions be answered and evidence for claims be presented, not rigorous proof.

I also thought I had been clear in my initial italicized comments that I only thought I had an interesting idea, not a theory that was a complete proof. But if interesting ideas that might lead somewhere but that don't come with rigorous proof are not welcome in BAUT's ATM forum anymore, I certainly misread Fraser's comments, and I think that the moderators should make this clear up front so that people like me don't waste my time based old statements that no longer hold.


You need exactly as much math as is required to 1) produce predictions using both models and 2) compare them with observed data.

If you're unable to produce the one, the other, nor either, then you aren't ready to present it in the ATM forum.

Okay, so this effectively rules out any quantum gravity ideas in ATM, or any ideas relating to dark matter or dark energy. If that's the way it is, so be it. That certainly wasn't my impression. It also doesn't seem to be the standard to which most of the threads in ATM are being held. Try and find the math in the thread here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/108586-Forces-of-nature-donít-exist

Which was allowed to continue for 495 posts and the full 30 days. This was a thread from last month, not last year. At it was certainly filled with plenty of contentious back and forth. So is this new moderator requirement a change? If so, when was the change instituted and why?


The problem was that that:

-in an earlier post, you claimed very high math skills

I claimed very high aptitude, not skills, the words have very different meanings. I also claimed that I could learn the math and intended to, not that I had already learned it, there is a big difference. I also noted that I had only taken up to differential equations in college, much less than the typical science undergraduate. I further claimed that I understand Einstein's equations and their major implications. I never claimed that I was fluent in GR or experienced with it, or even differential geometry, for that matter. The difference between being able to read and understand the development and major implications of some specific equations, like Einstein's equations, and being able to do the calculations with them or derive the equations yourself is substantial. I claimed the former, not the latter.


-when challenged to use your theory in order to prove anything, you dodged the request repeatedly and produced no math whatsoever.

As I pointed out to you many times, the rules of ATM do not state that I have to produce the proof you required, only that I answer your questions. The Advice for ATM Idea Advocates also states that answering: "I don't know" is sufficient.

I was not aware of this seemingly new requirement to have mathematical proof of every claim. Otherwise, I wouldn't have wasted my time. The Forum Rules and Advice for ATM Idea Advocates specify nothing of the sort.

macaw
2010-Dec-24, 02:40 AM
As I pointed out to you many times, the rules of ATM do not state that I have to produce the proof you required, only that I answer your questions.

I fully understand that. The fact that you consistently dodged any quantifiable answer speaks for itself.
The reason that I asked you questions that have precise mathematical answers is to gauge the validity of your ATM. And I did, your repeated dodges were very clear answers.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-24, 04:46 AM
My understanding of the situation is that math is the language of science, and without any math, you're short on what you need for the science.

macaw
2010-Dec-24, 06:10 AM
My understanding of the situation is that math is the language of science, and without any math, you're short on what you need for the science.

Absolutely.

Moose
2010-Dec-24, 09:34 AM
What I claimed was that I thought I could eventually establish the relationship with GR as a statistical approximation. I never claimed to have proof of this. It seems to me that implications of theories have been presented many times without rigorous proof in ATM, and that the only expectation was that questions be answered and evidence for claims be presented, not rigorous proof.

There's a wide distinction between "I want to develop this in ATM" which we'll act to prevent, and "I'm clearly not ready to present, but I'm going to pretend that I am and waste my only shot at getting taken seriously" which is where the vast majority of ATMs are. Where people get infracted and threads get closed is when they dip into "I'm clearly not ready to present, and so I'm going to refuse to answer any questions by various means. After a while I'll declare victory."


Okay, so this effectively rules out any quantum gravity ideas in ATM, or any ideas relating to dark matter or dark energy.

Quantum anything means statistics and probability. Statistics and probability are both fields of math. QED.

So yes, Rule 13 certainly allows you to answer everything with "I don't know", but how you think that means anything other than "I'm clearly not ready to present", I have no earthly idea.

In any case, if that's the approach you want to take, fine, but we're in no way required to host it, and that'll be the one shot we'll permit you. Please understand very clearly that we're not a public carrier in any way, shape, or form, and so we're not under any obligation whatsoever to be all things to all people. Just like actual peer-reviewed journals are free to reject your papers if they are incomplete, or that you are unable or unwilling to respond to reviews in a satisfactory way.

Strange
2010-Dec-24, 12:03 PM
So are you saying that Einstein wasn't prepared to present in ATM until he was done with GR? That the standards of ATM are essentially higher than those of the journals who published his ideas and works in progress while GR was under development?

Actually, it may be surprising, but I think that is exactly right. "Mainstream" on BAUT does not have a specific definition but generally means anything published in peer reviewed journals. So, in the mainstream fora on BAUT you will find some discussion of some pretty fringe ideas - because they have been published by mainstream scientists in mainstream journals.

ATM is not for works in progress, developing ideas, etc. It is for solid theories that can be defended (or not).

There are two slightly different concepts here, which you may be mixing up with your references to quantum gravity.

There are mainstream ideas: scientific theories which are accepted as the best explanations we currently have - these may be modifed, extended and in vary rare cases even replaced over time.

Then there are ideas (which may not yet count as theories, in the strict scientific sense) which are developed by mainstream scientists. These, however wacky and controversial, may be considered mainstream just because they are from scientists who have done their time in the subject, proved they have a deep knowledge of the area and the mathematical skills required, and persuaded people to let then pursue these ideas and get them published.

Unfortunately, your ideas don't fit into either of these. If you hadn't dropped out of college perhaps you could have had a succesful career in science and then been allowed the freedom to develop "crazy" ideas of your own. As it is, well, uphill struggle doesn't begin to describe it...

inflector
2010-Dec-24, 02:44 PM
My understanding of the situation is that math is the language of science, and without any math, you're short on what you need for the science.

Of course math is important. And of course, there is no proof without it.

I posited that what I showed was mathematically sufficient to derive the dynamics of the system described at the scale less than 10-22 meters. No one challenged this assertion except by saying that I had no math. When I claimed that geometry was math then I was told that I showed no math. But I believe the math was sufficient to show several of the ideas I claimed which distinguished it from mainstream theory, for example. No one disputed the claim that I showed that gravity would be anisotropic, nor that there would be no black hole singularities under this model, for example, because the description was sufficient to show those two claims to anyone who can follow basic steps in their head, as anyone who is practiced in math is generally capable of doing. I even had some good questions that related to these claims, even one by macaw at the end before the thread was shut down.

I realize there is a huge gap between what I showed, which was the structure of the elements at the scale less than 10-22 meters, and general relativity, or quantum theory. But, even at that risk that the dead horse whinnies again, this is precisely the problem that all quantum gravity ideas have, at the moment. Every "whacky" LQG idea from mainstream scientists has this problem because they are trying to build spacetime from Planck-scale elements of some sort.


There's a wide distinction between "I want to develop this in ATM" which we'll act to prevent, and "I'm clearly not ready to present, but I'm going to pretend that I am and waste my only shot at getting taken seriously" which is where the vast majority of ATMs are. Where people get infracted and threads get closed is when they dip into "I'm clearly not ready to present, and so I'm going to refuse to answer any questions by various means. After a while I'll declare victory."

Agreed. But I never refused to answer questions. I offered up some very specific answers to questions about the bullet cluster and the other questions that tensor offered that did not involve proving the relationship with GR.

A quantum gravity idea necessarily involves everything we know about, so just by claiming to have an idea for quantum gravity you open yourself up to questions that you will never be able to answer. That is the nature of the beast.


Quantum anything means statistics and probability. Statistics and probability are both fields of math. QED.

Most quantum gravity ideas are taking an either or approach. They either start with particle physics/quantum theory ideas and then have to figure out how to get to dipheomorphism covariance, or they try to start with quantized elements that will have dipheomorphism covariance and then have to figure out how to get matter and GR in the continuum limit.

I thought it might be fruitful to present a type of idea that was a hybrid approach here. Based on my having followed many prior threads in ATM, it is clear that the standard has not normally been that one must rigorously prove mathematically any given contention or the thread will be shut down in a few days.


So yes, Rule 13 certainly allows you to answer everything with "I don't know", but how you think that means anything other than "I'm clearly not ready to present", I have no earthly idea.

Answering "I don't know" to the macaw's repeated assertions is not the same thing as answering that to all the questions. I would have received the same questions and had to answer the same way (albeit with much more sophisticated answers, no doubt) had I been Carlo Rovelli.


In any case, if that's the approach you want to take, fine, but we're in no way required to host it, and that'll be the one shot we'll permit you. Please understand very clearly that we're not a public carrier in any way, shape, or form, and so we're not under any obligation whatsoever to be all things to all people. Just like actual peer-reviewed journals are free to reject your papers if they are incomplete, or that you are unable or unwilling to respond to reviews in a satisfactory way.

I don't dispute this. You have your requirements and rules. I only expected that they would be reinforced somewhat consistently. Others seems to have been given 1,000 miles of rope by comparison. I answered some very specific questions from Tensor with much more than: "I don't know" because they are the sort of questions that I anticipated and had actually thought about long before posting. Likewise, I could have answered macaw's non-generic question about Gauss's theorem because, I had already thought about it and it was very relevant to the dominant difference between a completely handwavy idea and the one I proposed there: namely that there was a specific difference between that idea and accepted theory which could, in principle, be tested. That it predicted something different.


ATM is not for works in progress, developing ideas, etc. It is for solid theories that can be defended (or not).

Again, how does the idea of "solid theories" fit into Fraser's desires for ATM as expressed above in post #9? Unless I'm missing something, no one has addressed this question. Expecting a houseperson to be able to propose a theory of time that is a "solid theory" is stretching credulity beyond the breaking point.


There are two slightly different concepts here, which you may be mixing up with your references to quantum gravity.

There are mainstream ideas: scientific theories which are accepted as the best explanations we currently have - these may be modifed, extended and in vary rare cases even replaced over time.

Then there are ideas (which may not yet count as theories, in the strict scientific sense) which are developed by mainstream scientists. These, however wacky and controversial, may be considered mainstream just because they are from scientists who have done their time in the subject, proved they have a deep knowledge of the area and the mathematical skills required, and persuaded people to let then pursue these ideas and get them published.

I undersand the difference between scientific theories and "theories" like String Theory, CDT, LQG, the various interpretations of QM, etc. which are not strictly speaking "scientific theories" because they don't meet the definition because they lack falsifiability or some other criterion. I also understand that I'm not a scientist so I can't expect my ideas to be taken seriously just because of who I am or what I have done.


Unfortunately, your ideas don't fit into either of these. If you hadn't dropped out of college perhaps you could have had a succesful career in science and then been allowed the freedom to develop "crazy" ideas of your own. As it is, well, uphill struggle doesn't begin to describe it...

I am aware of the uphill struggle, and even prepared to go back to school to get a physics PhD, I'm very interested in quantum gravity, this is one idea, there are others.

macaw
2010-Dec-24, 03:56 PM
Of course math is important. And of course, there is no proof without it.

I posited that what I showed was mathematically sufficient to derive the dynamics of the system described at the scale less than 10-22 meters. No one challenged this assertion except by saying that I had no math.

This is false, I have not only showed you that you had no math but also that the little that you had (F=ma) was wrong.







When I claimed that geometry was math then I was told that I showed no math.

Because the pictures of fractals is not geometry.



But I believe the math was sufficient to show several of the ideas I claimed which distinguished it from mainstream theory, for example. No one disputed the claim that I showed that gravity would be anisotropic,

Another false claim. I challenged you to show how your "anisotropic gravity" confirms the Gauss theorem. You did not answer.



nor that there would be no black hole singularities under this model,

Since your theory has no metric, this claim is not falsifiable and, as such, it is automatically false.





for example, because the description was sufficient to show those two claims to anyone who can follow basic steps in their head, as anyone who is practiced in math is generally capable of doing. I even had some good questions that related to these claims, even one by macaw at the end before the thread was shut down.

You had a lot of challenges but you produced no answer, just dodges.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-24, 05:48 PM
I posited that what I showed was mathematically sufficient to derive the dynamics of the system described at the scale less than 10-22 meters.

I'm sure you did. I can't speak to whether you actually showed it or not, because I didn't participate in the thread and probably wouldn't understand it if I did. However, you will surely have noticed that everyone posting an ATM idea here thinks they've done enough so that we'll all gone along with it, or as near to everyone as makes no difference.

korjik
2010-Dec-24, 05:59 PM
I'd like to address this but since the other thread is closed, I can't without violating forum rules. Request the other thread is opened and I'll address it there.

And you completely missed the point. You keep using 'but mainstream quantum gravity couldnt be posted here by the rules' as an excuse to why you should be allowed to present your idea. Pretty much everyone who lurks in the dark alleys of ATM has told you 'yeah, and we would bash their mainstream idea just as vigorously'. Yet you still seem to think you should get a free pass.



I claimed they were not checking the precession of Mercury's perihelion, not that they weren't checking them against GR. Clearly when they attempt and fail that counts as checking.

And you are wrong. The very first check of any gravitational theory is to check Mercury's orbit. Always. It is the first hurdle. If you want to be taken even the slightest bit seriously, you should show up with the proof that your theory does Mercury's orbit at least as well as GR



I don't think I'm missing this point. That's what I've been trying to say. I believe you are absolutely right in this and that this does not make sense. It effectively cuts any quantum gravity theories out of ATM.

No, it means that if you want to be treated like a physicist, expect to be treated like a physicist. What every ATMer misses is that we have to play nice here. Every ATM idea I have gone through, if presented seriously, would be laughed out of the room.

This does not in the slightest cut anything out of ATM. All it demands is that the ATMer show some competence at the science involved. By professional standards ATM here is the kiddy pool.

inflector
2010-Dec-24, 06:06 PM
I am not going to address the specific issues you outlined because you never raised them specifically in the thread and discussing them here is a violation of forum rules. I'll be happy to address them in that thread should forum moderators decide to reopen it at some future date.

I will address the veracity of this specific issue, however, since it relates to this thread (without answering the underlying question since that also would be against several forum rules):


Another false claim. I challenged you to show how your "anisotropic gravity" confirms the Gauss theorem. You did not answer.

I stated that you asked a good question. Are you now claiming that my statement was false? That your question wasn't a good one?

I was actually looking forward to answering the question about Gauss's theorem, as I would have been able to include enough equations in the derivation to show that my original mathematical description was sufficient to answer that specific question. So I thought we could have made forward progress because of that as it would have been a way to close the gap in our perspectives.

I don't argue that I know how to present my ideas professionally. If I did, I wouldn't be presenting them here, and I'd have preempted a lot of the criticism. I posit that my math was sufficient to explain the dynamics, you and others disagree, a mathematical derivation that showed whether or not Gauss's Theorem was valid for the idea would have shown perhaps some of the assumptions I'm making that are not clear because of my amateur presentation. It would have been a much easier problem to address than proving GR as a statistical approximation by many orders of magnitude, as you noted.

In the process of answering this question, it was my belief that others—including you—would see that the idea wasn't as hand-wavy as it seems to be.

But it was late when I read your post, I knew it would taken me some hours to formulate a response, that I needed a little clarification on your question, and then perhaps a day or more to make sure I had the math right since I've never had any classes in differential geometry, so I went to bed figuring I'd respond in the morning. The thread was closed the very morning after you posted it at 4:26 AM where I live, and before I had time to respond.

If you report the thread to get it reopened and moderation concurs, then I'll answer it. Otherwise, I cannot do so at this time.


I'm sure you did. I can't speak to whether you actually showed it or not, because I didn't participate in the thread and probably wouldn't understand it if I did. However, you will surely have noticed that everyone posting an ATM idea here thinks they've done enough so that we'll all gone along with it, or as near to everyone as makes no difference.

Yes, I've noticed. That is precisely why being able to answer macaw's question would have been valuable as it would have been a non-trivial demonstration whether or not my claims fit into the category of "nearly everyone posting an ATM idea here" or the few which actually contain enough math to start writing significant equations.

macaw
2010-Dec-25, 05:30 AM
I stated that you asked a good question. Are you now claiming that my statement was false? That your question wasn't a good one?

I asked a very good question that points out that your theory is at odds with something as simple as Gauss theorem. Meaning that your theory is false.




I was actually looking forward to answering the question about Gauss's theorem, as I would have been able to include enough equations in the derivation to show that my original mathematical description was sufficient to answer that specific question.

I pretty much doubt it.








Yes, I've noticed. That is precisely why being able to answer macaw's question would have been valuable as it would have been a non-trivial demonstration whether or not my claims fit into the category of "nearly everyone posting an ATM idea here" or the few which actually contain enough math to start writing significant equations.

This is why I ask questions that are hard to dodge. With math, you either have it or you don't.

inflector
2010-Dec-25, 06:30 PM
Sorry, korjik, I wasn't neglecting your post, it must have come in just before my response to macaw and Gillianren.


And you completely missed the point. You keep using 'but mainstream quantum gravity couldnt be posted here by the rules' as an excuse to why you should be allowed to present your idea. Pretty much everyone who lurks in the dark alleys of ATM has told you 'yeah, and we would bash their mainstream idea just as vigorously'. Yet you still seem to think you should get a free pass.

And you are wrong. The very first check of any gravitational theory is to check Mercury's orbit. Always. It is the first hurdle. If you want to be taken even the slightest bit seriously, you should show up with the proof that your theory does Mercury's orbit at least as well as GR..

If you can explain how to compute orbits without mass, I'm all ears.

In order to make sure I wasn't missing something important, and hence talking out by butt. I asked a question over on Physics Forums where many LQG aficionados hang out (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3052792) to specifically determine if LQG could compute orbits for planets. The answer I received from marcus, the forum's most seasoned quantum gravity expert, was no, that we couldn't yet do this:


started trying to answer and got interrupted, have to go.
Present inclusion of fermions is preliminary. No definite way to include mass, very much just a start. No way to compute orbits yet, which would be a classical application anyway. Some years more development needed.
(Note: this was much shorter than marcus' normal answers because it is Christmas, I'm sure)

I think you may be thinking primarily of cosmological extensions to GR like, MOND, TeVeS or STVG which are theories intended to compete with dark-matter theories. In contrast with quantum gravity theories, in these cosmological-scale gravity theories, computing the perihelion of Mercury would make very good sense.


No, it means that if you want to be treated like a physicist, expect to be treated like a physicist. What every ATMer misses is that we have to play nice here. Every ATM idea I have gone through, if presented seriously, would be laughed out of the room.

This does not in the slightest cut anything out of ATM. All it demands is that the ATMer show some competence at the science involved. By professional standards ATM here is the kiddy pool.

Well I, for one, don't expect to be treated like a physicist until I am one. I expect to be treated like an amateur who is serious about science, does not want to be a pseudo-scientist, knows he needs to learn many years of science and math before he will be able to do professional-level work, and hopes to gain some help and insights from the more experienced amateurs and actual scientists who frequent this forum.

And, yes, of course I understand that ATM is the kiddy pool, filled with kiddies and quite a few crazy old uncles and aunts who murmur to themselves while splashing around.

I'm hoping to be one of the kiddies who grows up to be a real scientist and not one of the crazy uncles.

inflector
2010-Dec-25, 06:45 PM
I asked a very good question that points out that your theory is at odds with something as simple as Gauss theorem. Meaning that your theory is false.

I pretty much doubt it.

This is why I ask questions that are hard to dodge. With math, you either have it or you don't.

I'm positing that the theory isn't at odds with Gauss' theorem. I'm willing to answer the question and prove my point with actual math. I can't do so with the thread being closed.

If we can get the thread opened, I'm willing stipulate that I'll answer your Gauss's Theorem question with a mathematical proof that meets the satisfaction of moderation starting only with the information contained in my prior posts, and that I will post no other replies until I have received such approval.

If this proposal isn't satisfactory to moderation, I'd like to know why not please.

macaw
2010-Dec-25, 06:49 PM
I'm positing that the theory isn't at odds with Gauss' theorem. I'm willing to answer the question and prove my point with actual math. I can't do so with the thread being closed.

Do it here, let's see your derivation of the Gauss theorem under your assumption that gravitation is anisotropic.

inflector
2010-Dec-25, 07:10 PM
I'm happy to do so if I can get someone from moderation to approve my doing it here. I don't want to get infracted.

Swift
2010-Dec-25, 08:04 PM
Do it here, let's see your derivation of the Gauss theorem under your assumption that gravitation is anisotropic.
inflector is exactly correct. Macaw, that is not an appropriate request for Feedback or this thread. And no, we are not going to approve this.

Frankly, this thread is getting entirely too specific with regard to inflector's ATM thread, is getting far from the general question asked in the OP, and I think is getting close to having run its course.

baric
2010-Dec-25, 09:04 PM
If we can get the thread opened, I'm willing stipulate that I'll answer your Gauss's Theorem question with a mathematical proof that meets the satisfaction of moderation starting only with the information contained in my prior posts, and that I will post no other replies until I have received such approval.



inflector is exactly correct. Macaw, that is not an appropriate request for Feedback or this thread. And no, we are not going to approve this.

I'd like to point out that Macaw made a request for a specific mathematical formulation and Inflector has stated rather unequivocally in this thread (quoted above) that he has such a formulation and he has also requested that the ATM thread be re-opened so that he can present it.

Considering that Tusenfem closed the ATM thread right after Macaw's request with the comments


inflector, once you come up with a real fundament for your ideas, including at least some mathematical support (and not of the kind that you put in post 1 or 2) that may bring some falsifiable predictions, then we might consider another discussion on this topic

I, for one, am rather interested in seeing this mathematical proof.

Moose
2010-Dec-26, 01:11 AM
I've chosen to re-open the ATM thread on the stipulation that satisfactory mathematical support be provided. Failing that, the thread will likely quickly be closed again, this time permanently. Given this, I will now close this thread.