Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Interesting paper.
Let's see if any BAUT member steps forward to defend this .... (I for one would welcome the opportunity to challenge any such defence).
|
Read the conclusion of the paper. There is nothing to defend. The authors specifically state that the analysis is incomplete and that adequate knowledge (data) is lacking about the quasar environment and scattering medium. They've simply put forward a preliminary description of an idea.
Why does this type of thing always have to be put in the "defend/attack" context? Is discussion and dialogue possible here anymore? The description of this ATM forum is specifcally:
Quote:
|
Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.
|
I might be interested in discussing this paper, but I don't know enough about the details to attack/defend it. I suspect most members of BAUT would say the same.
Some people don't seem to grasp this concept, but sometimes a person might be interested in discussing an idea to understand it's flaws and strengths without taking a position of defending the idea. If everytime an alternative idea is posted, someone must step forward to "defend" it before anyone else will offer a critique ("attack"), then opportunities for dialogue are being lost.