If the ATMer has a real case to be made, then none of these responses should dissuade the ATMer from continuing to argue the point, and, most importantly, providing objective evidence that shows what they are proposing has merit. Re "flaming posts", fortunately those have a very short half-life here on the BAUT BB. Cites, please? Or is objective evidence the equivalent of "thick skin" in your lexicon?
It's not wrong or right. It's a scientific analysis of the case at hand. Such analyses don't result in "wrong or right". Instead they result in probabilities, i.e., which hypothesis or theory (if it's advanced to that stage) is more likely to describe accurately what's observed and predict results. If the ATM idea is flawed such that it doesn't match what it proposes to describe, then it either gets tossed out or receives a recommendation that it be modified.I don't miss those at all, since they're continually occurring in the ATM forum. But one must realize that most new models tend to be flawed when compared to current theories and the results of new experiments which see if such models can predict the particular behavior under study. If not changed, these models will not be considered as legitimate.
Bull And Finch to you sir!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

As one who regularly reads the ATM section, I think that what is most annoying in the postings and papers presented is the lack of mathematics. A lot of the fur that begins to fly comes from the fact that ATM posters do not present rigorous, quantative, backing for their ideas.

You can PM me also

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Yep, theory is apt only in a few cases, and theories need experimental confirmation.

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.

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

How can you continue to argue points after being banned for loosing your temper?

Sorry? I don't understand what you mean here.


I think you're describing a hypothetical ATM thread that does not exist in the real world. I think in many threads other things seem to be more important.

In effect you restate the original concern: "why do we have an ATM section" if most new models suffer these flaws, why not wait until some of them have become "legitimate" (mainstream) and just accept what comes our way. Actually, why have a forum at all, why not go to libraries and lectures and learn what amazing stuff the experts have found?


That's spam! Moderators to horse!

Cheers.

*Moose ducks and covers as his irony meter explodes and pelts him with shrapnel.*

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

I guess any new idea/model/theory has flaws, this means that the only way to avoid the fur from flying is to keep the tone of the exchange civil. Actually, if ATM posters present rigorous, quantitative backing for their ideas, they will probably be challenged on completely different lines of reasoning ("how is your idea consistent with.....", etc).

Cheers.

a) the thread was not locked

b) no BAUT member was banned.

VanderL (source): And contrary to what some people have asserted here’ "I don’t know" is not a valid answer for an ATM proposer. It can get you banned, or it can get the thread closed, or both.

Sorry if I gave the impression that this was an example where a ban or "threadlock" occurred, I merely wanted to highlight how a discussion of a paper can end because the ATM rules demand a proponent (otherwise "there's nothing to discuss"). An example where "I don't know" ended a thread is still on my "search" list.

Cheers.

"Probably"?? So now your opinions are based on what "might" happen??

Keeping the exchange civil is a desirable goal in its own right, I would think. And outright mandatory on BAUT, regardless of your position on aerial follical matter. (Apologies to Gillianren for being to darn lazy at the moment to look up 'follical'.)

Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be saying that like its a bad thing?

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

I have a radical idea ... lets have the ATM posters try this concept in a thread... to date they have not done so...

Since I have no idea what that is, spell it as you like! (I suspect you mean "follicle," but I can't tell from context, given I have no idea how that would become aerial.)

Yeah, no kidding. As if the whole point weren't to challenge ideas and have them defended. Again, I would think anyone presenting a concept would be glad to find out here that it's totally unfeasible rather than spend months and months presenting it to peer review first. Isn't it easier to come here first?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Apparently VanderL knows.

Thanks for having my back. Gillian.

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

That's what I get for not paying attention, huh? I can be just as slow as anyone else.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"