HenrikOlsen,

I agree that an "only vaguely similar" ATM idea would not be so good. It seems to me in my case that I am sometimes totally in agreement with the ATM proposal but have different understandings and observations to support the idea that seemingly would not distract from, or be contrary to, what the OP is saying.

Moose,

"make your own thread to present it." I have only presented one ATM idea. This was only by accident since it was separated from someone else's thread with my permission since I was not aware at the time that comments can be perceived as highjacks.

I feel certain that any proposal that I would make would be like the last one: seventeen pages long with 483 comments. Three hours a day seven days a week for me and still I was forced by moderators to keep giving sometimes unrelated answers. A one line question sometimes could take five to ten paragraphs or more to explain the general idea what on the surface may seem to the questioner that it could be answered in brief. The same person was allowed to ask 10 questions at one time and then complained to the moderators that I was also answering others' questions before all 10 of their sometimes very long unrelated answers were given.

Many of the questions on such threads are only vaguely relevant to the OP. Very few OPers have this kind of time to devote to such a proposal if they are compelled to answer questions concerning all peripheral ideas. I could probably make 20 or more such proposals, all with extensive evidentiary support involving unknown equations. I believe one of the biggest problems is that often those that reply do not read or cannot understand the answers being given and keep on asking the same questions when the answer has clearly been given several times.

Again people that believe they are "defenders of the faith" complain to the moderator. The moderator doesn't have time to read such long threads and he too may demand an answer that has already been giver maybe three prior times. It's not that any of the ideas are so complicated (equations aside), it's just that they are very foreign and therefore difficult to understand for many readers.

One suggestion I have on this matter is that any party agreeing with the OP could PM the OP and ask permission to add to the OP's support. Upon agreement it would seem to me to be no problem if at least one person is explaining/ defending the general idea of the proposal. The OP could also PM back at any time requesting no more comments. This might be a welcomed idea for some OP'ers that soon realize that they only have a vague concept of their proposal.

A recent example concerned a proposal which was that large black holes are the creators of the galaxy of stars that eventually surround them which includes the creation mechanism of the entire universe. This proposal I completely agreed with but have different ideas concerning the mechanisms involved. I was chased away when I proposed such possible mechanisms where the OP only suggested various possibilities on this matter and PMed me in thanks for my comments which included evidentiary support.

Sarcasm and disrespectful comments are often the case on this forum and few OPers enjoy having to complain to the moderators all the time. I never did, even with continuous violations and have seen others do the same. Even the most sensitive seem to rarely complain and often try to be overly polite.

Does anybody have thoughts on this general idea? or maybe there are other good ideas that might improve the ATM forum to make it something other than a joint effort to defeat the OP which it most often is -- without any real effort by most commentators to understand the concepts, possibilities, hypothesis, theory involved.

respectfully, forrest