Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Can we discuss the need for impartial moderation in the ATM forum?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181

    Can we discuss the need for impartial moderation in the ATM forum?

    My opinion:

    The collusion in the ATM section, between one or more Moderators and dedicated Relativists, neither of whom can provide empirical evidence for any effects caused by or suffered by either space or time or space and time or the theoretical 'spacetime', demonstrates a serious need for introducing impartial moderation. Scientific learning could occur in the ATM section if efforts to impose censorship is rejected.

    James A Putnam

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,553
    I'm not sure what you mean by "relativist," but I guess you mean a person who accepts Einstein's theories. If that is so, then I don't think there is any chance that you will convince the moderators (or other members) of this forum that it would be best for moderators to be "impartial" regarding whether relativity is valid or not. I think it would probably be much easier to go to a more "alternative" forum. And I'm not trying to be discouraging, rather different places have different culture and I really think you will end up wasting your time is you try to launch a campaign to make this forum impartial regarding anti-mainstream ideas.
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    I'm not sure what you mean by "relativist," but I guess you mean a person who accepts Einstein's theories.
    Of course! But most of all those who's dedication to it cannot be tempered by their lack of an answer for empirical evidence that shows that space and time either suffer effects due to the motion, or magnitude, of massive objects; or about how space and time cause effects upon massive objects. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of spacetime. There is the theory of Relativity. Relativists believe in the theory of Relativity. The Relativists that I am speaking about more than believe in Relativity theory. They act to require its belief.

    James A Putnam

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,331
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    Can we discuss the need for impartial moderation in the ATM forum?
    Yes, provided it is discussed in a civil manner, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    [...]Moderators and dedicated Relativists, neither of whom can provide empirical evidence for [...]
    Let's get this apparent misunderstanding out of the way. There is NO obligation whatsoever for anyone other than the ATM proponent to defend anything in the ATM forum. Not for moderators*, not for other members. The ATM forum is not for mainstream science to prove itself, its only purpose is for you to defend your proposal.

    ETA: *) meaning on the topic of the thread. Of course moderators can be asked to defend a moderation action, but not in the thread itself (approved ways: report button, PM or feedback thread).
    Last edited by slang; 2017-May-16 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Remove possible misunderstanding about moderator action
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,644
    The ATM forum is not there for people to have to defend the current mainstream. Demands that they provide 'empirical evidence' (which is this case actually meant 'evidence I deem meets my personal definition of acceptable evidence') were out of place and irrelevant to what was meant to be the point of the thread - the defence of an ATM idea. Over the last few pages of the thread in question moderator action was entirely about trying to get you to answer peoples' questions (which were mostly for more details about your ideas). No collusion, no demonstration of bias - just enforcement of a core part of the rules of that forum.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    Of course! But most of all those who's dedication to it cannot be tempered by their lack of an answer for empirical evidence that shows that space and time either suffer effects due to the motion, or magnitude, of massive objects; or about how space and time cause effects upon massive objects. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of spacetime. There is the theory of Relativity. Relativists believe in the theory of Relativity. The Relativists that I am speaking about more than believe in Relativity theory. They act to require its belief.

    James A Putnam
    It's unfortunate that you apparently didn't bother to study the rules of the ATM forum. Had you done so, you wouldn't be suffering from the misapprehension that you were treated unfairly.

    The onus was on you -- and only you -- to support your position. A common fallacy held by ATM'ers is the belief that throwing rocks at the mainstream somehow provides support for the ATM'ers idea, forgetting that an infinity of alternative theories exist beyond their own. So, they waste their time enumerating the various ways in which mainstream theory fails to satisfy their personal feelings of how the universe should work. In short, you wasted nearly all of your time declaring your beliefs instead of supporting them. The moderators gave you many opportunities to conform to the rules. You chose to ignore them. Consciously disregarding the rules, and then complaining about the inevitable consequences, seems to be the only unfairness.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of spacetime.
    First line in the Wikipedia page on spacetime contains the phrase "spacetime is any mathematical model ...". So certainly spacetime exists; Minkowski invented it.
    Text messaging is a frivolous vanity feature, not something serious like vBulletin.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,656
    James Putnam has made a request to the moderator team to reopen his ATM thread and assign an impartial moderator. Here in this thread's OP he makes an accusation against our already impartial moderator PetersCreek that he has somehow colluded with mainstream supporters of relativity against him. I can tell you with certainty that no such collusion happened, and that the accusation itself is a rhetorical form we don't like to see here. But the question comes up, what does James Putnam mean by impartial? The moderators here are very good at simply enforcing the rules. As always, the thread can be reopened if James Putnam makes a good case that he has new information and answers for the specific questions. No bias against him for his previous hesitancy, just the usual policy to avoid people abusing the forum. Our moderators will not be impartial in the sense of somehow weighing James Putnam's statements with equal weight to the collected writings of the rest of the science community about Relativity. How could such an effort be possible?
    Forming opinions as we speak

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,034
    Quote Originally Posted by spare part View Post
    First line in the Wikipedia page on spacetime contains the phrase "spacetime is any mathematical model ...". So certainly spacetime exists; Minkowski invented it.
    And that is the core of the problem. James is using his own definitions for the words "space" and "time" that are not the same as are used in the theory. There may not be any evidence for the words based on his definitions, but I doubt anybody has claimed that there is. His argument is akin to: "There is no evidence for bananas (I consider a banana to be a sub-species of unicorn)."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,057
    I think James Putnam sounds paranoid and irrational. Unless he has something rational and substantial to add to his ATM argument, and unless he abides by our community rules, I say tough chickens.

    CJSF
    "A scientific theory
    Isn't just a hunch or guess
    It's more like a question
    That's been put through a lot of tests
    And when a theory emerges
    Consistent with the facts
    The proof is with science
    The truth is with science"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,644
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    James Putnam has made a request to the moderator team to reopen his ATM thread and assign an impartial moderator...
    I think letting people pick which moderators are 'allowed' to moderate them is a terrible precedent that should not be set. If there is evidence of bias then it should be reported and the mod team should handle it, which I have complete faith that they would/do do honestly and conscientiously. Allowing the hand picking of moderators to suit a posters' aims is about the worst way to fix the original perceived problem.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,640
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I think James Putnam sounds paranoid and irrational.
    Let's not go there. This is not a discussion of either the merits of Mr. Putnam nor the merits of his idea.

    I think the question of the OP has been answered by Administrator antoniseb. If Mr. Putnam would like to make a case for reopening his thread, he may do so here, or in a PM to one or more moderators, or by Reporting the closing post in his thread and including his explanation.

    Additional comments along the lines of how things are moderated are fine too. But let's keep to such topics, as is appropriate for Feedback.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    But the question comes up, what does James Putnam mean by impartial?
    If there is a rule, either written or understood, for enforcement by moderator directives of opponent originated assignments for pointless work to be performed by the OP, then that rule should not exist. If it doesn't exist either written or understood, then there is no role for a Moderator to enforce such a request. Questions should be answered, but balanced time wise with the need to put forward the work that supports the answer. Why do corrective answers to questions that contain errors or lack of knowledge about the subject not suffice for settling those matters. Definitions in physics are not layperson style definitions. Mass is undeniably an undefined physics property. Temperature is undeniably an undefined physics property. This is the starting point for what I am proposing. Why is this established mainstream scientific fact not supported as fact? Why must I answer questions that repeat the error that these properties are defined properties? Or the error that their units are defined units. Rules for measurement and definitions are not the same thing and there is no confusion about this in physics. Why is confusion continuing about this here? There is more to be said. However, we should have gotten passed this point in a day or two. Is it possible with the help of moderators to quickly settle such settled science?

    James A Putnam

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I think James Putnam sounds paranoid and irrational. Unless he has something rational and substantial to add to his ATM argument, and unless he abides by our community rules, I say tough chickens.

    CJSF
    I feel I have to contest this assertion. James isn't paranoid and your sense that he is irrational might just be that you haven't understood him very well. That might not be your fault however, as it is the policy in ATM that the proponents thread be led somewhat by the preferences of questioners. Questioners do need to test the bounds of a proponents ability and their concept, so I'm not saying this system doesnt have its purpose. But one of the negative consequences is that the thread content can take on aspects that are irrelevant to the primary theme, which can add confusion for those trying to understand his premise.

    Some people here have spent a good deal of time conversing with James. Disagreements put aside, I trust that some of you have realized that James is an interesting person with interesting ideas. I dont see the point in criticizing him for being paranoid, because of his reaction to perceived treatment in ATM, because it is a very typical reaction of many who present here, and that included myself. If you have experience in ATM, then you know this, and that should lead you to extend some allowance towards James. Peoples reactions are understandable, so why use that as another stick to jab with, and once the thread is closed. Gloves off please

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,640
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    If there is a rule, either written or understood, for enforcement by moderator directives of opponent originated assignments for pointless work to be performed by the OP, then that rule should not exist. If it doesn't exist either written or understood, then there is no role for a Moderator to enforce such a request.
    Advocates of ATM ideas are not required to answer questions that are inappropriate, irrelevant to the discussion, or have already been answered (though you can just reference your previous answer). But it is entirely the moderation team's decision of what is relevant and what isn't, not yours. If you think a question is irrelevant, you Report the post and we decide. If we tell you to go ahead and answer the question, you need to answer the question. Your answer can be "I don't know", but you can't ignore it.

    Questions should be answered, but balanced time wise with the need to put forward the work that supports the answer. Why do corrective answers to questions that contain errors or lack of knowledge about the subject not suffice for settling those matters.
    I am not completely sure what you are saying here. But as far as the time it takes to answer all the questions, that is your problem. We warn people to be prepared, and if they are not, that is their problem. You wish to overturn all of physics, get to work.

    Definitions in physics are not layperson style definitions. Mass is undeniably an undefined physics property. Temperature is undeniably an undefined physics property. This is the starting point for what I am proposing. Why is this established mainstream scientific fact not supported as fact? Why must I answer questions that repeat the error that these properties are defined properties? Or the error that their units are defined units. Rules for measurement and definitions are not the same thing and there is no confusion about this in physics. Why is confusion continuing about this here? There is more to be said. However, we should have gotten passed this point in a day or two. Is it possible with the help of moderators to quickly settle such settled science?
    Do not debate your idea here. But what you think is settled is not. As best as I understand your idea, this is the heart of your idea. If people don't think your argument is settled, it is probably because you have not done an adequate job of explaining it; what you think is fact, evidence, or obvious, is not. As best as I can tell, you have offered no math, no data, no explanation to demonstrate anything you said, other than your declarations that such things are true and obvious. Thus people should continue to question it, until you do. If you can't get past this point, maybe there is a problem with your point, and not the form of the debate.

    In any case, you have not demonstrated any reason to reopen your thread, other than you would like to skip over the work you haven't done.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    I feel I have to contest this assertion.
    And I say "don't". I dealt with this in post # 12. If that didn't settle things for you, you Report the offending post, or my warning; you do not play moderator.

    That's it folks. We are not making this a debate about people. No more personal comments about other members, pro or con, or I'm going to start infracting people.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    If there is a rule, either written or understood, for enforcement by moderator directives of opponent originated assignments for pointless work to be performed by the OP, then that rule should not exist. If it doesn't exist either written or understood, then there is no role for a Moderator to enforce such a request. Questions should be answered, but balanced time wise with the need to put forward the work that supports the answer. Why do corrective answers to questions that contain errors or lack of knowledge about the subject not suffice for settling those matters. Definitions in physics are not layperson style definitions. Mass is undeniably an undefined physics property. Temperature is undeniably an undefined physics property. This is the starting point for what I am proposing. Why is this established mainstream scientific fact not supported as fact? Why must I answer questions that repeat the error that these properties are defined properties? Or the error that their units are defined units. Rules for measurement and definitions are not the same thing and there is no confusion about this in physics. Why is confusion continuing about this here? There is more to be said. However, we should have gotten passed this point in a day or two. Is it possible with the help of moderators to quickly settle such settled science?

    James A Putnam
    James argument here is simple and sound, both the premise for his thread, and the functionality of ATM. His idea is actually a beautiful and original realization, and people here at CQ can be the beneficiaries of a decades plus dedicated consideration towards it. If they will choose to hear it.

    I had been somewhat busy before now, with a sail boat, but I was looking towards asking James some questions. I hadnt thought it would be closed early, based on my judgment of the quality of his ideas, so I didnt think there was a rush. I for one would like to see his thread reopened.

    Those that know me here at CQ, know that I have a particular bent towards unifying concepts. So when I came across James work on the net, I was predisposed to his message. It makes sense that our system of units for physical measure, could, should all be drawn from the same foundation. And a foundation based on empirical evidence, why not? That foundation naturally reveals itself as being length and duration, from which every other unit measure can be built upon.

    Take our units of Temperature for example. We have arbitrarily selected the properties of one compound out of many possible options, to define our system of degrees. Dependent on freezing point and boiling point of water, relative to earths surface and atmospheric pressure, the difference then neatly divided by 100 units. The choice to use water in this role was natural enough, considering the historical utility of steam engines. But in this day and age we might realize choosing one compounds phase shifting properties over another, is quite an arbitrary and definitely unfoundational way to define a system of units. We know more about the properties of temperature now, and are capable of drawing units from a more fundamental level than waters phase shift. And if you think about it, the current approach is quite a limited or narrow outlook. parochial and old fashioned. I'm no expert, but I know this much. Temperature corresponds to the level of electromagnetic radiation given off by a heat source. Photons! Photons provide us the opportunity to define the property of temperature based on velocity C, for which Length and Duration serve as foundational units.

    The unit of kg's to define mass is a similarly arbitrary choice. It serves utility at earths surface because that is the relative environment where we employ our measures. But consider the utility of weight to define mass on a universal stage, and again it starts to seem parochial and old fashioned. A certain amount of mass weighs 1kg at earths surface, but that ceases to be true the moment you leave earth. And consider what it then means to say that the sun weighs 1.99 x 10^30 kg. What you are basically saying is, if the entire mass of the sun were considered to be at the earths surface, then it would weigh such and such. Because 1kg of weight only corresponds to that measure of mass in that unique environment. Measuring the universe in terms of weight is meaningless. If you consider that the value of mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the value of C, and C being a velocity which can be defined in terms of Length and Duration. Then it too, same as units of temperature might then be drawn from a common foundation.

    So anyway, these are a couple of the questions I would have liked to pose for James in his thread.
    Last edited by Questing1; 2017-May-17 at 04:14 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    If there is a rule, either written or understood, for enforcement by moderator directives of opponent originated assignments for pointless work to be performed by the OP, then that rule should not exist. If it doesn't exist either written or understood, then there is no role for a Moderator to enforce such a request. Questions should be answered, but balanced time wise with the need to put forward the work that supports the answer. Why do corrective answers to questions that contain errors or lack of knowledge about the subject not suffice for settling those matters. Definitions in physics are not layperson style definitions. Mass is undeniably an undefined physics property. Temperature is undeniably an undefined physics property. This is the starting point for what I am proposing. Why is this established mainstream scientific fact not supported as fact? Why must I answer questions that repeat the error that these properties are defined properties? Or the error that their units are defined units. Rules for measurement and definitions are not the same thing and there is no confusion about this in physics. Why is confusion continuing about this here? There is more to be said. However, we should have gotten passed this point in a day or two. Is it possible with the help of moderators to quickly settle such settled science?

    James A Putnam
    James, if you cannot operate by the same definitions and measurement techniques as the rest of the scientific community, the your idea is not ATM. It is not even physics.

    Reference the signature lines below, particularly korjik
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Advocates of ATM ideas are not required to answer questions that are inappropriate, irrelevant to the discussion, or have already been answered (though you can just reference your previous answer). But it is entirely the moderation team's decision of what is relevant and what isn't, not yours. If you think a question is irrelevant, you Report the post and we decide. If we tell you to go ahead and answer the question, you need to answer the question. Your answer can be "I don't know", but you can't ignore it.


    I am not completely sure what you are saying here. But as far as the time it takes to answer all the questions, that is your problem. We warn people to be prepared, and if they are not, that is their problem. You wish to overturn all of physics, get to work.



    Do not debate your idea here. But what you think is settled is not. As best as I understand your idea, this is the heart of your idea. If people don't think your argument is settled, it is probably because you have not done an adequate job of explaining it; what you think is fact, evidence, or obvious, is not. As best as I can tell, you have offered no math, no data, no explanation to demonstrate anything you said, other than your declarations that such things are true and obvious. Thus people should continue to question it, until you do. If you can't get past this point, maybe there is a problem with your point, and not the form of the debate.

    In any case, you have not demonstrated any reason to reopen your thread, other than you would like to skip over the work you haven't done.
    Or maybe it is because of Moderators let messages like Realitycheck's stay and insist that they get answered. Is it your opinion also that when I wrote that units in physics are defined in terms of pre-existing units that I meant units from the past instead of units existing in the same system? I made it clear how the units get defined. The partiality of the Moderator reached its high point when the Moderator insisted that I submit a list of all the special relativity types of effects that I say occur in Euclidean coordinates. My answer was all of them occur due to a cause that is not spacetime. Realitycheck's claim that they are effects of spacetime needed no defending here because the moderator believes like he does. No one here can provide empirical evidence to show that time or space either suffer effects due to the motion or size of massive objects, or, cause effects to massive objects. The moderator joined in promoting a belief in a theory while I am promoting learning that which direct empirical evidence is attempting to reveal to us.

    But as far as the time it takes to answer all the questions, that is your problem.
    If the moderator insists that I spend my time answering a slew of messages several of which are either irrelevant or falsely accuse my posts of being just my opinion about physics definitions of properties and their units, then the moderation is not impartial. I repeat that it is a physics fact that both mass and temperature are undefined physics properties. And are officially so!

    James A Putnam

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    James, if you cannot operate by the same definitions and measurement techniques as the rest of the scientific community, the your idea is not ATM. It is not even physics.
    I accept and use the same definition techniques and measurement techniques as the mainstream physics community currently does. It is established mainstream knowledge that all properties of mechanics are defined in terms of the three undefined properties: mass, length, and 'time'. I accept the same empirical evidence that the mainstream physics community does. I should not have to justify my lack of inclusion of beliefs. It is not possible to disprove beliefs because they exist without proof. If there are beliefs that are treated here as established facts, it should have nothing to do with my obligations as an ATM author.

    James A Putnam

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    A gross misrepresentation of what was occurring in my thread:

    The onus was on you -- and only you -- to support your position. A common fallacy held by ATM'ers is the belief that throwing rocks at the mainstream somehow provides support for the ATM'ers idea, forgetting that an infinity of alternative theories exist beyond their own. So, they waste their time enumerating the various ways in which mainstream theory fails to satisfy their personal feelings of how the universe should work. In short, you wasted nearly all of your time declaring your beliefs instead of supporting them. The moderators gave you many opportunities to conform to the rules. You chose to ignore them. Consciously disregarding the rules, and then complaining about the inevitable consequences, seems to be the only unfairness.
    James A Putnam

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    James, when you use the quote function, it would help if you left the poster's name in. It leaves it sort of undefined if you remove the originator's name.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,644
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    ...If the moderator insists that I spend my time answering a slew of messages several of which are either irrelevant or falsely accuse my posts of being just my opinion about physics definitions of properties and their units, then the moderation is not impartial...
    The main question you were being asked to answer was for a testable hypothesis that came from your ideas. You provided nothing of use. Despite several requests you continues to post more opinion, essay and so on. You also focused on a set of claims about mainstream science that you made. The questions about this (that I agree were irrelevant to your idea) came directly as a result of claims you made and you would not back down from. The moderator, rightly, insisted that you answer questions asking for evidence for all of your claims in the thread. That is not being biased, that is simply trying to make sure you adhere to the basic tenets of scientific debate.

    The death of that thread was entirely something driven by how you ran it. Instead of focusing on your ideas and the scientific exploration of them you decided to focus on claiming there were issues that invalidated the mainstream (which as others have pointed out would be irrelevant to the utility of your theory even if true), making a series of claims about your ideas that you would not then back up and playing games with equations and outdated models.

    You claim that the moderator unfairly insisted that you answer questions about spacetime. Did you ever think about just saying "I am sorry I cannot answer that question in satisfactory detail. It is not important for my idea so I will retract my claims to this effect and focus on my topic"?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by James Putnam View Post
    I accept and use the same definition techniques and measurement techniques as the mainstream physics community currently does. It is established mainstream knowledge that all properties of mechanics are defined in terms of the three undefined properties: mass, length, and 'time'. I accept the same empirical evidence that the mainstream physics community does. I should not have to justify my lack of inclusion of beliefs. It is not possible to disprove beliefs because they exist without proof. If there are beliefs that are treated here as established facts, it should have nothing to do with my obligations as an ATM author.

    James A Putnam
    As I have done here.

    James, 'definition technique's? Aren't you changing the definition of 'definition'?

    This is one of the reasons your ATM ran into so much trouble. Your assertions are a moving target.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,790

    Okay, just once more, let's NOT discuss physics here, this is the FEEDBACK part of the forum.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    James argument here is simple and sound, both the premise for his thread, and the functionality of ATM. His idea is actually a beautiful and original realization, and people here at CQ can be the beneficiaries of a decades plus dedicated consideration towards it. If they will choose to hear it.
    This was one of the few cases where I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see the thread closed.

    In particular, I wanted to get to the bottom of James's main idea (the definition of mass) and why it could not work. But this proved to be impossible because James kept introducing irrelevant side issues (nature of evidence, acceleration of light, problems with SR, etc). In the end, none of the topics were addressed in sufficient detail. And James failed to engage with the arguments against them, simply repeating the same assertions. Maybe this was, as James says, because of lack of time. But if so, that is James's fault for (a) being unprepared and (b) introducing too many ideas. But it looked to me like a lack of understanding.

    The problem may be that he has spent so much time thinking about this idea (alone?) that he has convinced himself that it works, without fully considering or understanding the reasons why it can't. He is now too attached to it to consider he may have a fundamental misunderstanding.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This was one of the few cases where I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see the thread closed.

    In particular, I wanted to get to the bottom of James's main idea (the definition of mass) and why it could not work. But this proved to be impossible because James kept introducing irrelevant side issues (nature of evidence, acceleration of light, problems with SR, etc). In the end, none of the topics were addressed in sufficient detail. And James failed to engage with the arguments against them, simply repeating the same assertions. Maybe this was, as James says, because of lack of time. But if so, that is James's fault for (a) being unprepared and (b) introducing too many ideas. But it looked to me like a lack of understanding.

    The problem may be that he has spent so much time thinking about this idea (alone?) that he has convinced himself that it works, without fully considering or understanding the reasons why it can't. He is now too attached to it to consider he may have a fundamental misunderstanding.
    I agree with you here, but I also can't help feeling that the ATM section has become somewhat redundant. I took a look at the section and currently there is only one thread unlocked throughout the whole section.

    I understand the rules and accept them, I would never consider starting a thread on this section regardless of how confident and prepared I was about my idea/hypothesis. I honestly believe its a tall order to expect a single person to develop an idea, be prepared with all the answers and in a position to successfully defend against a hungry "pack of wolves" (no offence but this is how it seems). There are full time theorists and scientists who spend their lives developing hypothesis's and theories who have the means and support to do this. I ask, if Stephen Hawking was to propose an idea here on the ATM forum would he suffer the same fate?

    Its wrong to judge a person by their ATM idea and I'm pleased that this was dealt with by the mod team, proof of their excellent moderation skills!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This was one of the few cases where I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see the thread closed.

    In particular, I wanted to get to the bottom of James's main idea (the definition of mass) and why it could not work. But this proved to be impossible because James kept introducing irrelevant side issues (nature of evidence, acceleration of light, problems with SR, etc). In the end, none of the topics were addressed in sufficient detail. And James failed to engage with the arguments against them, simply repeating the same assertions. Maybe this was, as James says, because of lack of time. But if so, that is James's fault for (a) being unprepared and (b) introducing too many ideas. But it looked to me like a lack of understanding.

    The problem may be that he has spent so much time thinking about this idea (alone?) that he has convinced himself that it works, without fully considering or understanding the reasons why it can't. He is now too attached to it to consider he may have a fundamental misunderstanding.
    Strange, you put in some good time and effort on this particular thread. You definitely deserve to have this opinion weighed.

    My position is, I understand James underlying theme and justifications, and I give large credit to them. Along the lines of how I have articulated above, the merit of defining units and in terms of unification's. He also paints a descriptive picture of relativity etc, which I relate too and greatly appreciate. However, it has to be admitted that I dont have the competencies necessary to validate James wider body of work, much of which is mathematical. He has offered to teach me, and he is a very good teacher. I feel honored. Perhaps I will return here with this conversation in years to come, and have the ability to bridge the communication divide which I believe just occurred.

    There is perhaps some merit in aspects of your criticisms. Yes there is an element of isolation involved, when an individual constructs a large original work. And perhaps he has advanced his thinking so far, that he doesn't relate well to what an entry level discussion might benefit for fresh minds. You are also right, he could have picked a narrower topic which is easier to defend, and I did suggest this too him. But he isnt familiar with CQ ATM and why this advice might have been useful. He didnt know questioners have ultimate power to direct his thread, and add confusions. But considering how much he did bite off to chew, wow I'm impressed with his showing. I think that the discussion between you and he would have been more productive, if you had of realized the simpler justifications that underlay his theme, before moving onto higher order complexities. But this is just my opinion I hope you might weigh.

    It cant really be said that he isnt well prepared, and wow, nice ability to construct an argument. This guy is pretty figgin good, I do think. Would have made a great lawyer, but actually perhaps too honest.

    Strange, closed thread doesn't have to close the conversation, pm, I'm sure James would be happy to take questions. But I wish people would halt use of that tone which for some reason is considered necessary within atm. This guy has much to offer, but you wont know it if he doesn't stick around. I think its time to but ideologies aside and admit this guy is pretty good.
    Last edited by Questing1; 2017-May-17 at 09:44 AM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I understand the rules and accept them, I would never consider starting a thread on this section regardless of how confident and prepared I was about my idea/hypothesis. I honestly believe its a tall order to expect a single person to develop an idea, be prepared with all the answers and in a position to successfully defend against a hungry "pack of wolves" (no offence but this is how it seems). There are full time theorists and scientists who spend their lives developing hypothesis's and theories who have the means and support to do this. I ask, if Stephen Hawking was to propose an idea here on the ATM forum would he suffer the same fate?
    This is a positive message. Its no secret that atm wasn't intended to be won. Except that beyond atm we are all individuals able to make up our own minds about any particular argument.

    Except for those who's opinions are predetermined by the herds apparent direction. There has to be some encouragement placed towards freedom of thought.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,034
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I honestly believe its a tall order to expect a single person to develop an idea, be prepared with all the answers and in a position to successfully defend against a hungry "pack of wolves" (no offence but this is how it seems).
    I agree. It is ridiculous to think that anyone is going to do that. But no one "expects" or demands that anyone do it. People come along, claiming to have already done it. And are then surprised when they find that they can't answer people's questions.

    There are full time theorists and scientists who spend their lives developing hypothesis's and theories who have the means and support to do this. I ask, if Stephen Hawking was to propose an idea here on the ATM forum would he suffer the same fate?
    But he wouldn't. As a serious scientist, he spends his time working with others discussing, testing and rejecting ideas. Then, if and when he comes up with a new idea that seems to have some merit, he has the background knowledge and skills to present it properly.

    If more people did that before presenting an idea here then they might have something with a bit more substance (and they would probably bypass the forum and go straight to a journal).

Posting Permissions

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