Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Perhaps in some cases that happens. For my pa rt, 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.
|
But, again, how many ATM posters (however, see my last section) actually do that. Very, very few.(which is why I included you and Pete among the ATM posters I respect).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
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.
|
And that may be the nature of the threads you post in. From the threads I've seen you post in, you are probably the most knowledgable poster on the specifics of what the thread is talking about. I know in my case, I generally don't post in the threads you are active in, simply because I simply don't know enough to reply intelligently. If I see a mistake, on either side, I tend to mention it and I welcome any corrections to mistakes I make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
According to what most are saying here, the typical ATMer doesn't know enough physics to know their own theory is wrong.
|
This is the biggest problem I see. A lot of the theories presented here rely on the analogies you see on popular sites, not the actually math and physics. It is very difficult to make someone understand why the analogy doesn't work when they don't know the limits of the analogy or the actual physics and math involved. They simply don't understand and you end up with "do so" "do not" threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
How could they be expected to expertly critique someone else's ATM idea?
|
I've thought about this also. I think the part of the problem is what you have brought up. Again, though, there are a lot of times where even in plain language, one ATM theory directly contradicts another. Even in that case, the supporter of the second theory continues to support the proponent of the first. To me it looks like some posters support each other just because they are both fighting the "mainstream". I will concede that there may be posters on the mainstream side that post because the idea is ATM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgruss23
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.
|
This is a great point. As has been pointed out in other threads, there are several posters that most would consider mainstreamers that have ideas that would be considered ATM. The reason most of them don't post those ideas it they realize the ideas are not fully worked out or the ideas don't have a level of support needed to defend their ideas. As I've said before, I object more to the misunderstandings of physics and math not to mention the lack of rigor in most ATM "theories".