Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101001
Just fantasizing. Is there anyway the more reputable ATM posters can help?
I didn't spend much time in ATM, but the threads I did read seemed to feature a fairly standard set of pro-science attackers, a set that seemed bereft of ATM proponents. I often wondered why that was. And, I concluded, jokingly, maybe it was some sort of professional courtesy that ATM proponents extended each other: I won't criticize your idea if you don't criticize mine.
|
Perhaps in some cases that happens. For my part, I really don't read that many threads, so I don't know what is being said. I will tell you that I spent considerable effort trying to get Mychael Cyrek to understand that he was wrong in claiming that the conservations laws disprove the Big Bang - but to no avail.
However, I would point out that I see the same thing you describe among mainstream attackers. Mainstreamers will sometimes make blatant errors and it is rare in the threads I've participtated in that another mainstreamer corrects the mistake. It usually falls to the ATMer to do it.
Quote:
I still wonder why ATMers, who enjoy creating ATM ideas, don't seem to spend much time demolishing their weaker competitors' poorer ideas -- or even if my haphazard sampling yields results reflecting reality.
If it is true, how can their participation be harnessed? Would they want to be harnessed? Would it actually be useful?
|
According to what most are saying here, the typical ATMer doesn't know enough physics to know their own theory is wrong. How could they be expected to expertly critique someone else's ATM idea?
BTW, I think this labelling of people as "Mainstream" or "ATM" is a flawed dichotomy. I have some interests that are ATM, but I consider myself mainstream in regards to most of the prevailing scientific theory.