Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Request for clarification of policies

  1. #1

    Request for clarification of policies

    The two threads Quantized Redshift revisited and Harmonics Theory have now had their 30 days and closed. That is fine and I think it was very useful. After digesting this and as a result of various suggestions and criticisms I have done a bit of further study and would like report on that and seek some further advise. Having just been banned for a week, I am trying to avoid that again by getting an explanation of what actions are acceptable. I don't see how I can get that without mentioning a little of what it relates to here so that the advice is appropriate.

    It was suggested that Redshift periodicity be studied in the newer and larger surveys of galaxies. We agreed that this is desirable. I have looked at several of the databases and found that 2dF has uncertainties of +/-85 km/s and SDSS of +/- 30 km/s. That means that both are inappropriate for finding periodicities such as the 72 km/s one and others reported by Tifft as this requires errors of less than 18 km/s to detect.

    Those surveys are however suitable for studying the larger scale periodicities and I got a histogram of SDSS data that shows the number of galaxies found at various redshifts and entered this into the computer and did a FFT of that data. I would like to report the redshift periodicities found and compare this to Harmonics Theory predictions according to chi-square test as discussed in the previously mentioned threads. Can I please be advised on is it permissible to start a new ATM thread on this as it is new data analysis as recommended to be done in the previous threads?

    I would also like to discuss whether there are any suitable large surveys that have sufficient accurate data to do Tifft type analysis which requires accuracy better than 18 km/s (and I would prefer 10 km/s or better). Should this be done in the question and answer thread? Last time my question there was moved to the ATM section.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    For avoidance of doubt, this post is being written in non-mod mode; it reflects only my own views, not anything explicitly to do with BAUT's policies concerning ATM ideas.

    There are several threads, here in this About BAUT section, on the ATM section, and what the policies etc governing it should be; for example The Future of ATM, New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section, Reflections on a year and a half’s experience with BAUT’s ATM section, Consolidated suggestions on the ATM section, Discussion of minor variations on suggestions re new ATM policy, Less promotion of ATM outside of ATM, please?, Why do we have ATM here?, Keeping Mainstream in Mainstream !, and What to do about 'Jerry posts'.

    FWIW, Fraser, an admin and owner of this site, has stated quite clearly what might be acceptable in terms of revisiting an ATM idea whose 30 days are up. For example:
    (source) The whole purpose of this thread is for us to think on these ideas. Here's my thinking. I think the page count idea is open to abuse, as mentioned above. I also think that any decisions to reopen threads will be seen as playing favourites with certain theories (and theorists) and not others.

    So, any reason to re-open threads or start up new threads on topics already presented would require some kind of objective rationale. For example, relevant new research presented on Arxiv.

    However, even this will be open to abuse. I can imagine an ATM promoter starting new threads for any Arxiv paper, no matter how remote the connection.
    (source)
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror
    Are we supposed to consider all topics that have been discussed in the past as "off limits" in the future? If so, what is the point of having an ATM forum at all? What exactly is there to talk about?
    Sort of. If you have a new idea for a replacement for the Big Bang, go ahead and open up a thread. But if you want to revisit your old idea for a replacement for the Big Bang, then sorry, we already covered that.
    (source)
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror
    So? Wouldn't you have wanted Einstein to talk about his ideas openly on your board for more than 30 days, even if he was "marketing" the idea here? Wouldn't you have welcomed that?
    Yes, Einstein would only have 30 days to present and defend his alternative theories for the relative nature of the Universe. But this is still a dramatically easier process then having to write a paper and withstand the peer review process. Einstein would have the discipline, understanding of current physics and mathematical skills to make a very compelling case here in 30 days, or in a peer reviewed paper.

    Our rules would be of little concern to him, if this is the place we wanted to present his theories.
    (source)
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror
    The fact that none of you bothered to offer me any distinction between the two also says volumes. Can we stick to the topic? What's Einstein supposed to do around here after 30 days?
    Come up with a new and different theory to discuss. Because he did such a great job preparing and presenting his relativity discussion, mainstream scientists are taking his suggestions seriously.

    If Einstein wants to present his ATM theories here, he's got 30 days and then we shut him down. Galileo too.

    This is the part of the scientific food chain that I think BAUT ATM can serve. It can never replicate a peer-reviewed journal.
    (source) And it doesn't matter, Einstein and Galileo would only have 30 days to present their ideas. I'll bet they'd be up for the task, and would have done a wonderful job of presenting their ideas, verifying the evidence, and dealing with objections. They had it so much harder than the ATM theorists on this board, and yet, they applied themselves, showed discipline, and made a compelling case.

    So comparing yourself to them won't help you in this situation. You've got 30 days, they'd get 30 days. Show me you're up for the task. Make this situation better.
    (source)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
    In Fraser's announcement of the 30 day rule, he said "Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted." Subsequent discussion seems to have modified this, to something on the lines of "Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted if they are seen to merely repeat claims made in previous posts." Is this right?
    That's right. What we're trying to prevent is promotion of a specific theory. If the ATM has a brand new, unconnected theory, we'd love to hear it.
    (source)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
    I assume you mean dealing with the same theory, yes?
    That's right, new and different theories are welcome.
    (source) We've been having a discussion about what kinds of new evidence would open up a closed ATM for discussion. One idea would be a new relevant paper on Arxiv, or something published in a journal. However, I'm concerned that people will just spin unrelated stories together.

    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. [...]
    Draw your own conclusions, but wrt "Can I please be advised on is it permissible to start a new ATM thread on this as it is new data analysis as recommended to be done in the previous threads?" it would seem the answer would be something like "get it published, or at least on arXiv, first, then open a new ATM thread."

    I'd also suggest that you not put so much of your ATM ideas in posts in threads in sections outside the ATM one - Fraser was very clear on the unacceptability of using About BAUT threads for that purpose. Far better would be to PM a mod, or Fraser himself.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
    [snip]

    I would also like to discuss whether there are any suitable large surveys that have sufficient accurate data to do Tifft type analysis which requires accuracy better than 18 km/s (and I would prefer 10 km/s or better). Should this be done in the question and answer thread? Last time my question there was moved to the ATM section.
    The Q&A section is the right place for that.

    Just make very sure that your question is indeed a question, and does not contain parenthetical (or worse) references to ATM ideas.

    And, FWIW, google HIPASS.

  4. #4

    Will the forum organizers consider making redshift periodicity a non-ATM subject?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    For avoidance of doubt, this post is being written in non-mod mode; it reflects only my own views, not anything explicitly to do with BAUT's policies concerning ATM ideas.
    ....
    I'd also suggest that you not put so much of your ATM ideas in posts in threads in sections outside the ATM one - Fraser was very clear on the unacceptability of using About BAUT threads for that purpose. Far better would be to PM a mod, or Fraser himself.
    I don't consider that I am putting my ATM ideas in other threads outside the ATM area. I have started a topic on cycles in the science section, because that has been my main area of study over a long period of time. Because not many people study cycles as a discipline in its own right it means that I am bringing something different to the forum. However that should not be confused with my HT ideas. There is a huge body of mainstream cycles studies.

    I will contact Fraser as you suggest because it is not clear to me that the rules do allow me to raise this further study. To that extent I would like to make a statement in favour of changing the rules, or at least changing the statement on what is an ATM idea. Leave aside my own HT idea and just consider the redshift periodicity one for a moment.

    Ari Jokimaki made a list of 175 published papers in the quantized redshift revisited thread in three posts. Quite clearly redshift periodicity or quantization is mainstream astronomical issue of study. Equally clearly it is not a fully resolved and agreed matter, with different factions looking at things in different ways. Science does not progress by pretending that there are not contentious issues, and the issues only get resolved by exploring them in detail.

    I cannot understand why the forum organizers do not want discussion on this particular issue in the forum. While I was asked to defend my views on these matters in the recent thread, I would like to be able to question those that dispute the existence of redshift periodicity as reported by Tifft and others and try to understand the reasons for their views. It is my feeling that the reason is not based in the science but in prejudice because the believe that redshift equals velocity and so cannot comprehend how it could be quantized. I may be wrong about this, but would like the chance to explore it further and find out for sure.

    Further to this I would like to draw attention to a division of aspects of science where Nereid pointed out an extra category to me of derived results. Actually it is more of a spectrum than categories being the processing that goes on from observation through derived results to interpretation and theories. I think that there is contention where these categories get mixed up. In particular, the "normal" practice of quoting redshifts in km/s is a derived result that depends on theory and that theory is not accepted by all. This is a problem because when units of velocity are used and then you find quantization, it seems to be a deep quandary and that the results must be wrong. If z units are used and periodicity is found as a derived result then the problem does not exist. I think that it is the confusion of theory in getting derived results that leads to deep divisions.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
    [snip]

    I will contact Fraser as you suggest because it is not clear to me that the rules do allow me to raise this further study. To that extent I would like to make a statement in favour of changing the rules, or at least changing the statement on what is an ATM idea. Leave aside my own HT idea and just consider the redshift periodicity one for a moment.

    Ari Jokimaki made a list of 175 published papers in the quantized redshift revisited thread in three posts. Quite clearly redshift periodicity or quantization is mainstream astronomical issue of study. Equally clearly it is not a fully resolved and agreed matter, with different factions looking at things in different ways. Science does not progress by pretending that there are not contentious issues, and the issues only get resolved by exploring them in detail.

    I cannot understand why the forum organizers do not want discussion on this particular issue in the forum. While I was asked to defend my views on these matters in the recent thread, I would like to be able to question those that dispute the existence of redshift periodicity as reported by Tifft and others and try to understand the reasons for their views. It is my feeling that the reason is not based in the science but in prejudice because the believe that redshift equals velocity and so cannot comprehend how it could be quantized. I may be wrong about this, but would like the chance to explore it further and find out for sure.

    Further to this I would like to draw attention to a division of aspects of science where Nereid pointed out an extra category to me of derived results. Actually it is more of a spectrum than categories being the processing that goes on from observation through derived results to interpretation and theories. I think that there is contention where these categories get mixed up. In particular, the "normal" practice of quoting redshifts in km/s is a derived result that depends on theory and that theory is not accepted by all. This is a problem because when units of velocity are used and then you find quantization, it seems to be a deep quandary and that the results must be wrong. If z units are used and periodicity is found as a derived result then the problem does not exist. I think that it is the confusion of theory in getting derived results that leads to deep divisions.
    The first two links in my post (#2) contain lengthy discussions of the (then new) BAUT ATM policy.

    I strongly urge you to read them, before you put fingers to keyboard and recommend yet more changes to BAUT's ATM policy; I think you will find that the general points you make in this post (which I am quoting) have been covered.

    If you wish to continue to discuss BAUT's ATM policies, please choose from among the many About BAUT threads I listed, and post to one of them.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    The first two links in my post (#2) contain lengthy discussions of the (then new) BAUT ATM policy.

    I strongly urge you to read them, before you put fingers to keyboard and recommend yet more changes to BAUT's ATM policy; I think you will find that the general points you make in this post (which I am quoting) have been covered.

    If you wish to continue to discuss BAUT's ATM policies, please choose from among the many About BAUT threads I listed, and post to one of them.
    OK, I did a reply in the Future of ATM thread stating that I thought Fraser's ideal ATM methodology was very good. The other of these two is now closed (so I will make a comment here if that is OK) and in that one Fraser states:
    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.
    I simply want to point out that each of the two threads that I initiated in ATM had about 2000-3000 views, which with 10 pages of posts means 200-300 views per page. As any one person views a page multiple times as it is added to (and I know that I visited them extra times to do references and see that Nereid did the same) I would guess that this means maybe 50 people actually reading the thread over the month. In the days after that I posted a single article about redshift periodicity to my blog and got over 2000 unique visitors in a single day. So BAUT isn't much of a marketing platform for me. What it is, is the chance to get intelligent comments from people knowledgable in a particular area so that I can assess which areas my ideas are made clear or not, are well received or not, are weak or not, and are ignored or not.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    54
    Those new rules in my opinion are very bad also ...... cuz first of all there is 21 century we have so huge amount of data storage to keep ....why to close and delete ...this is like treasure for future ..memento...how mind were thinking ....

    ...simply.. all those threads after those 30 days- should be placed -in section -like even- out of science theories ... unproven theories etc ......

    ...but never completly closed and deleted !!!!

    ...why stoping folks creativity ??

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    all those threads after those 30 days
    The reason for the 30 day rule is explained in the link Swift gave you twice.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    Those new rules in my opinion are very bad also ...... cuz first of all there is 21 century we have so huge amount of data storage to keep ....why to close and delete ...this is like treasure for future ..memento...how mind were thinking ....

    ...simply.. all those threads after those 30 days- should be placed -in section -like even- out of science theories ... unproven theories etc ......

    ...but never completly closed and deleted !!!!

    ...why stoping folks creativity ??
    The ATM forum has posts going back to 2004. So 30 seconds of research would have shown that saying they were deleted after 30 days is simply false.

    I've seen flexibility on the 30 day rule - when the discussion was useful, productive and polite. When someone is just stating their beliefs over and over without any useful debate the 30 days rule is a great way to draw a line under a fundamentally useless thread.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    Those new rules in my opinion are very bad also
    New? You resurrect a SIX (6) years old thread. Funny.
    ____________
    "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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    Those new rules in my opinion are very bad also ...... cuz first of all there is 21 century we have so huge amount of data storage to keep ....why to close and delete ...this is like treasure for future ..memento...how mind were thinking ....

    ...simply.. all those threads after those 30 days- should be placed -in section -like even- out of science theories ... unproven theories etc ......
    The threads in ATM are closed after 30 days; they are not deleted. It is exceedingly rare that any thread (other than spam) is deleted on CQ. All the ATM threads are sitting there waiting for you to read.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    54
    Swift so whats the reason of closing them ...specially if someone wanna continue ....

    ..also you think such an agressive administrators (like in my case) ...who only one thought is how the quickest way to close thread ...cus in his narrow mind ... he makes point for proving hes "agrument"-->which is ..opposite side had no exact mathematical systems , you need evidences ,measures , calculations ,certificates for him etc......(otherwise you completly wrong crackpot)

    ..should exist on Science forums??


    ..my opinion ..all those cases should be placed to section ...Unexplained ......or rather it suposed to be also Science X section ..just for fun
    Last edited by Arkadius; 2013-Aug-25 at 03:31 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,370
    Is this going to be a repeat of your last feedback performance? Because I see no new points and again you are refusing to listen to anyone. Moose told you where to find the answer to
    Swift so whats the reason of closing them ...specially if someone wanna continue ....
    We covered
    ..also you think such an agressive administrators (like in my case)
    in the last thread. In case you have forgotten the answer was: You were not obeying the rules after several warnings.

    you need evidences ,measures , calculations ,certificates for him etc......(otherwise you completly wrong crackpot)
    This is a falsehood. The same one you persisted in the last feedback thread. You refused to answer questions to supply any clarification of your ideas. You presented your ideas poorly. People asked for the maths because your written English was not up to the job of getting you point across. And you claimed you had done the maths and refused to present it. As was pointed out to you last thread, repeatedly.

    ..my opinion ..all those cases should be placed to section ...Unexplained ......or rather it suposed to be also Science X section ..just for fun
    And in my opinion threads like yours should have been closed earlier. You got considerable leeway but, as was said last thread, you continued to act like the rules didn't apply to you, and then came to Feedback to demand that the board rules be changed to suit you.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    Swift so whats the reason of closing them ...specially if someone wanna continue ....
    I have posted the links with the explanations at least twice in the other thread; it is apparent you have not bothered to look at them. But the short answer is because many advocates of ATM have abused the system for many, many years and this is what we need to do to prevent such problems.

    ..also you think such an agressive administrators (like in my case) ...who only one thought is how the quickest way to close thread ...cus in his narrow mind ... he makes point for proving hes "agrument"
    No, your thread was closed because you do not listen to what people tell you, particularly moderators, and you seem to completely ignore our rules. The fact that you have now made these exact same complaints, with no constructive suggestions, in two separate threads, completely ignoring any explanation you are given, tends to prove this point.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    ...this is like treasure for future ..memento...how mind were thinking ....
    Some of us think it's like keeping a garbage dump as a memento.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkadius View Post
    ...why stoping folks creativity ??
    Be creative all you want but this small corner of the internet is not the place. It's for education.

Similar Threads

  1. Space-related Insurance Policies
    By sarongsong in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-21, 09:28 PM
  2. New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section
    By Fraser in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 232
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-27, 05:37 PM
  3. New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section
    By Fraser in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-01, 01:43 AM
  4. Germany's new nuclear policies
    By mopc in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-30, 01:12 PM

Posting Permissions

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