If we were a little more consistent in keeping the ATM threads to the stated scope of BAUT (space and astronomy), then the section would be more focussed.

For example, an ATM idea that seeks to replace special relativity (SR), or claims that SR is inconsistent with good experimental results, would be beyond scope (and so immediately locked) ... unless the critical test of this alternative (or claimed experimental inconsistency) was one that could only be done in space or by astronomers.

More generally, if an ATM idea involves 'new physics', then the proponent first needs to establish the viability of that new physics, by experiments in Earth-bound labs, and then come to BAUT's ATM section to start a thread about the space and astronomy aspects of that. Again, unless the critical test of this new physics can only be done in space, or by astronomers ... and so the OP of any ATM thread presenting this would need to include details of why that is so.