Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
Oops, 13 hours. Sorry.
Thread moved.
Jerry, it is against the Rules for Posting to introduce an ATM topic outside of the ATM forum.
|
Sorry - this is supposed to be a discussion about ATM topics, not a discussion of an ATM topic, but I did get a little carried away.
Quote:
|
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see the connection between Jerry's post and what he quoted.
|
I think everyone will concede our vision of the universe becomes distorted, whether we are looking at the micro or macro scale. My (ATM) argument is that this distortion occurs much closer to home than anyone seems to realize.
The greater point - that I lost track of, is that whenever one speculates beyond the known event horizon, the hypothesis should be considered ATM. Otherwise, only the most popular of unproven theories get any press time.
Which brings us back the the ATM thirty day turkey timer. Dark Matter has failed yet another test; a small bubble technique that should detect the weak interactions necessary for DM to form the 'tuffs and curls' it is hypothesized to exist in. In my opinion, this failure places weakly interactive dark matter in an ATM subclass: A theoretical prediction that has been tested and failed.
Gravitational waves pedictions arguably fall into the same category: In spite of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours and gigaseconds of computer time, no one has been able to detect them locally. The theory that predicted these events is in jeopardy.
In neither case would anyone dream of limiting discussion to thirty days, and declaring the underlying theory off-limits to discussion. But like it or not, the theories are failing. If discussion of alternative concepts should be contained, where do we go from here?