Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
I want to add some suggestions that would, imo, benefit the ATM section where I think making some subdivisions could help.
e.g.
- Your NOvel Theory (YNOT, original theories from BAUT members looking for advice, comparable with the current ATM section).
|
-
This could be quite interesting; I'd like to explore it a bit further. However, if we do go with it, I'd recommend that it be done, initially, as a trial, with limited scope, and a pre-defined END date.
Oh, and I would most surely want such a thing to use the word 'idea' (or similar) instead of 'theory'! |
Yep, theory is apt only in a few cases, and theories need experimental confirmation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
- New Physics (allows discussions of both mainstream (DM/ST/DE/MOND) and ATM theories where new physics is involved, without the specific ATM rules that can get you banned, (except the normal "be nice" rules).
|
-
Perhaps you could say more on how you see this might work?
For example, if there's a theory in there somewhere, there will be a paper or three (hundred), so access to the math, equations, numbers and stuff should be trivially easy. Should a guideline for any discussion of any such include a requirement that a link be provided to the key papers (where the theory is presented, in detail)?
And would you expect any such discussions to involve "amateurs" (per your earlier definition)? I mean, how many "amateurs" do you expect would be able to follow the key theory papers, let alone discuss them? |
Having links to key papers is a good idea, about your concern about the level of expertise: just let it happen, amateurs and professionals should both make an effort to learn/educate. I for one would like to see both posts on very specific details together with more speculative posts where the implications are discussed. Restricting the questions to one area and excluding the speculations to another section just unnecessarily complicates the discussions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
:
- Anomalies (Pioneer, MgII absorbers GRB's/QSO's etc).
|
I've struggled with this one, quite a bit.
Let's take the Pioneer anomaly, as a test case.
There are quite a few papers on 'the observations' - the data, the reductions, the analyses, the hypotheses, etc.
In summary, the conclusion seems sound - the data contains residuals, after all modeled effects, which seem consistent with a constant, sunward acceleration of {number} m/sec2.
What is there to discuss? My impression is that few folk who post in the ATM section have an interest in data analysis (and only one of those few might be called an 'ATMer'). So would the discussion be around ideas which claim to account for the anomaly? If so, then isn't that exactly what we do in the ATM section now?
So, could you please say more about how you think discussion of this category would be different from what we already have? |
Do not underestimate the amateurs; it should be as in-depth as possible. To take the Pioneer example: although there are papers outlining why the Pioneer anomaly is real and what they have considered (and discarded) as causing it, there are many questions that remain. Why do the residuals seem solid? Could it (still) be due to errors? Did they consider all possibilities? If it is real, do we need new physics? What is the most likely solution? What proposals exist already? Which one do you prefer and why? How can we devise experiments to test the different proposals?
Maybe the Pioneer anomaly is not the best example because most of these questions have probably been answered already. But a new finding, like the MgII absorbers in front of GRB