Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Of course, the entire thread lacks focus & always has. The "shotgun" approach, to overwhelm the opposition with quantity over quality seems a common ATM tactic, and is especially so for this thread.
A good idea would be to get EU proponents to prioritize their own arguments. Pick one or two ideas, preferably one idea to keep it focussed, and run it to completion. What is the one piece of evidence which, more than any other, "screams" EU? What is the one biggest argument in favor of the validity of the EU hypothesis? Have a single thread devoted to that single topic, and ruthlessly move or delete off topic comments. That will produce some kind of result fairly quickly I think.
|
Good idea!
Since we've covered a huge amount of ground in this thread, how about we ask the following of the OP, of any "focussed EU idea" thread?
* State whether the idea includes only mainstream physics (e.g. plasma physics, classical electromagnetism), or includes at least some new physics. If in doubt, assume the latter.
* If the idea has a (public) history, provide a succinct summary of its antecedents, and where one can read the prior work done on it.
* If the idea is chacterised as a theory, or a model (or includes these), provide references to (publicly available) material which details the theory or model (doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed publication, though that would be nice).
* If the idea is not quantitative (maths, OOM, numbers, equations, etc), provide a summary of how the idea could be tested, in principle, using today's technology.
As always with ATM ideas, be prepared to have the idea challenged ... and be so prepared to defend it.