On 1 September, 2005, the formation of BAUT was announced, and BAUT itself was launched on 3 September.

There are some 31 pages of ATM section threads which post-date BAUT’s launch¹; at 30 threads per page, that’s nearly 1,000 threads.

Making a generous allowance for moved threads and multiple threads on the same ATM idea (and the restrictive assumption that each ATM thread contains just one ATM idea), BAUT has hosted discussion on at least 500 ATM ideas, in ~18 months.

Clearly there is great enthusiasm for thinking up, posting, discussing, defending, attacking, … ideas which go against the mainstream in astronomy, cosmology, space science, and astrophysics!

Some proponents of the ATM ideas presented have shown great tenacity and huge energy. Much scepticism of mainstream astronomy, physics, and much else has been expressed, sometimes very vigorously indeed.

For many who have posted in this section in the last 18 months or so, or who have just been reading, the ATM section has been a significant learning experience.

All this, and much more, is to be applauded; I congratulate Fraser and Phil for their efforts to establish BAUT, with its ATM section, and to keep it going.

What of Fraser’s goal for the ATM section? How has that fared?

Sadly, I feel, very poorly.

Did anything new emerge, either an otherwise unrecognised hole in some mainstream theory, or a new idea that has legs (leaving aside, for now, the 30 or so threads that were still active on 6 March)?

My personal view is no, nothing like that came to light, even under the most generous interpretation of ‘unrecognised hole’ or legs. The two that came closest are john hunter’s ‘rescaling universe model’², and Ken Nicholson’s model of galaxy rotation curves³. However, the former does not incorporate relativity (so doesn’t, in its current form, have legs), and the latter addresses a problem that it turns out was explored, and run to ground, many decades ago (so is hardly new).

Why so little success?

There are many reasons, I think, but the main ones can be grouped under two headings: ignorance, or misunderstanding, of the nature of astronomy as a science; and lack of familiarity with current results in astronomy and related fields of science.

The second is relatively straight-forward – many, perhaps most, presentations of ATM ideas were apparently blind to easily accessible material directly pertinent to those ideas; someone just didn’t do their homework first.

I have some difficulty understanding this shortcoming; BAUT has an excellent Questions and Answers section, where many friendly, helpful, and very knowledgeable BAUT members are only too keen to help. At a higher level, there are several very powerful web-based databases and search sites that, with a little investment in learning how to use them, one can use to find at least pointers to relevant facts.

In my next post, I’ll reflect on what I see as the most important reason why the ATM section has seen so little success so far in fulfilling Fraser’s hope – ignorance or misunderstanding of what ‘astronomy as a science’ means⁴.

¹though many threads were inherited from either UT or BABB
²the only alternative to the Big Bang theory, presented in the ATM section, that could reasonably claim to have matched at least one of the five key sets of observations
³Nicholson started a thread on this, in UT; it was not live when BAUT began, but TomT started a thread on it, in the Q&A section
⁴I’ll also cover the ~30 threads that were still active on 6 March.

Although the BA doesn’t make it absolutely explicit, BAUT is avowedly science-based in its approach to space and astronomy. Fraser has reinforced the centrality of this foundation, today, as well as earlier.

Yet, as I said above, one of the main reasons – perhaps the most important reason – why the ATM section hasn't yet lived up to Fraser's hope is ignorance, or misunderstanding, of what 'astronomy as a science' means.

Some aspects of this ignorance are readily seen; for example, in the confusion of 'theory', meaning a 'scientific theory', with the everyday meaning of 'guess', or 'speculation', or 'idea'. So, if in the OP (opening post) of your ATM thread you say you are going to present a 'theory', but all you have is some speculative idea, then you've failed to communicate very effectively (and it may take a page of posts before this rather basic misunderstanding gets cleared up).

Another easy example is confusing the content of press releases, from NASA, or the ESO, or some university, with the science that those PRs refer to. That many of the marketing folk who are responsible for such PRs feel that a link to a preprint on ArXiV - or even a reference to the name, author(s), and publication in which a forthcoming paper will appear – detracts from the impact of the PR is perhaps a sad commentary on their own understanding of science. So, if your ATM idea is based on little more than a reading of some of these marketing pieces (selectively quoted), then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this rather basic deficiency gets acknowledged).

Then there's the confusion about scientists and science. We're all familiar with this confusion I'm sure – "here's what Einstein [or Newton, or Planck, or …] wrote; he was a great scientist, so his idea, expressed here, must be right!" Not always expressed so starkly, of course. So, if your ATM idea is based on little more than a stringing together of bits and pieces from the writings of various scientists, then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this is fully identified).

Related to this is the confusion about the words written and what those words mean, science as dogma, science as something frozen, immutable, even sacred. That there are many people who believe science to be like this can be easily demonstrated. And it is certainly an ATM idea, worthy of being presented, questioned, challenged, defended, and (above all) attacked! However, it's not really within BAUT's scope. If your ATM idea is based on little more than a set of science words from the past, frozen in time, then it's likely that your idea doesn't have legs (though it may take a page of posts before this shortcoming is fully identified).

However, the four most important misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science', in terms of why ATM ideas haven't realised Fraser's hope, may be summed up as the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the primacy of observational and experimental evidence, and the role of alternatives.

Before I address each of these, starting in the next post, let me enter a few caveats and make a few qualifications.

First, there is one ATM thread to which most of my comments about science are not applicable – More from Arp et al. Although the Arp-Narlikar VMH was mentioned in that thread, it was never put on the table. So at least the posts in that thread, from September 2005 (when BAUT started), are about 'empirical science', in which the role of theory is quite different than in any other of BAUT's ATM threads.

Second, there are some ATM threads which are not really about science, but are about philosophy (perhaps they shouldn't be in BAUT at all?). The key distinction is that no observation or experiment, even in principle, could ever be inconsistent with the (ATM) philosophical idea being presented.

Third, several threads on global warming and climate change have been either started in the ATM section, or moved to it, from other BAUT sections. My comments about science may not be applicable to those threads. Why? Most basically, because I've not read any of them; more generally, there is likely little space and astronomy in them.

What about the ~30 threads that were still active on 6 March? I'll get to them, promise.

Well I feel right squashed now! I thought I had
made a reasonable contribution with my hobby
horse and was grateful for finding a premium
forum to get the idea about. My model of an
internet forum is that everybody who has an
interest can see the raw idea without the
potential blocking of established ideas that
permit no deviation. And everybody who wants
can comment. The informed comment from
professionals was gratefully received though I
am sure it was noticed I defended with glee and
fervour as I really believe I have something.
And after my first posting in Sep 2005, I posted
further stuff after more research. Is this
allowed now? Anyway with my grb idea, ultimate
backing may come from "up there" if I am right
and that spacecraft is looking where it should

Two words are almost certain to generate an emotional response from working scientists (usually negative) – 'paradigm' (as in shift) and 'falsify'. They are almost universally associated with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, two 20th century intellectuals whose main works relate to the philosophy of science. Although their names may not be well known, to the general public, these two words are widely used in connection with science.

Sadly, neither term¹ helps much to understand what science is or how it works, at least in the way most folk come across the use of them.

How does this relate to the four most important misunderstandings of 'astronomy as science' I mentioned in my last post (the interconnectedness of science (especially physics), the role of maths, the primacy of observational and experimental evidence, and the role of alternatives)? It’s tied to the last one, the role of alternatives.

Many an ATM thread consists of little more than 'here's an (experimental, observational) anomaly, the theory of general relativity (GR)² is thus proven wrong!', or, using Popper's words (without realising it?) 'here's an anomaly, GR is thus falsified!' But that's not how science actually works – highly successful theories are not abandoned solely because an apparent anomaly is discovered. Indeed, if they were, then there'd be no scientific theories at all. Indeed^(squared), apparent anomalies are one of the main drivers of scientific research – is the anomaly reproducible? Under what (other) conditions does it arise? Have we overlooked something in either the experiment/observation or the theory? What else might be at play here³? And so on.

Instead, theories are abandoned when a better alternative comes along⁴. So, if your ATM idea is little more than taking potshots at a mainstream theory, it is likely that the holes you think you've found have either been addressed (and you just haven't done your homework), or are already well-known (and the subject of any number of current research projects). On the other hand, if you have an alternative …

We've sent instruments into (inter-planetary) space, into the magnetospheres (and even atmospheres) of several other planets; we've landed them on Mars, Venus, Titan, Eros; we've flown them through comet comas; and so on. But all we know of the universe beyond the solar system (and, indeed, still much of the solar system) comes from the detection of photons, and analysis of those detections⁵ – astronomy is the only means we have, today, for learning about the universe beyond our solar system.

To interpret these astronomical observations, we rely upon a cosmological principle, whether that is made explicit or not. One such is that the universe here works the same way as everywhere else; specifically, that 'the laws of nature' are the same everywhere.

Of course, you may choose to build your interpretation of astronomical observations on a different principle – and the ATM claims made in at least one ATM thread did so explicitly. However, if you don't use the mainstream cosmological principle, and don't make that clear in your OP, chances are that that thread will be a study in miscommunication, and (very likely) generate much heat⁶.

But what does "'the laws of nature' are the same everywhere" mean? For most ATM threads, it means that the best theories of physics can be applied everywhere. It means that if your ATM idea involves 'new physics', you should be able to say how such could (in principle) be tested, here on Earth. It means that if your ATM idea does not involve 'new physics', you should be able to at least sketch how that idea is consistent with the best theories of physics. It means that if you don't know how to answer questions of this kind, you haven't done your homework.

It's deeper than that … suppose you have a great idea about showing the theory of special relativity is wrong (this is a quite common theme among ATM threads), by re-interpreting the MMX for example. Well, no matter what you may be able to show, you have some other homework to do, before you can show that your idea has legs: you also have to show that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is wrong, and account for the fantastic success is has had in matching experimental results⁷ - it's the most precisely tested theory in science, period, and if there is any disagreement between theory and experiment, it's in the 12th (or is it 13th?) decimal place!

More generally, the interconnectedness of science, physics in particular, means that even a little tinkering with even one part of physics will likely lead you, logically, to be claiming that your PC doesn't - can't – work; that what, physically, delivers BAUT to you is just magic; that your flight from Sydney Australia to Beijing China was a miracle; that …

Which leads me naturally to the role of mathematics.

For some reason, 'show me the numbers', much less 'show me the math', causes some who propose ATM ideas much discomfort, even anger. Yet I'm sure these same folk will freely acknowledge the astonishing success of quantum mechanics and quantum theory. I'm currently reading Keith Devlin's book "The Millennium Problems"; there's a paragraph I'd like to quote (emphasis in the original):Perhaps we may explore this further, here in BAUT, but unless your ATM idea involves either only a realm where quantum theory plays no part⁸, or unless you intend to replace at least quantum mechanics⁹, how can you avoid mathematics?

Well, I've run out of space … the primacy of observation and experiment (and the ~30 ATM threads alive on 6 March), will have to wait.

¹They’re actually sets of terms
²Or some other modern theory in astronomy; the Big Bang theory, for some reason, seems to be a favourite
³especially important in astronomy, where there are no controlled experiments
⁴I’m assuming that the theory in question is internally consistent, and (to a lesser extent) consistent with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap.
⁵I'm neglecting cosmic rays, for now; we've also detected some neutrinos from beyond the solar system, some neutral gas (He), and a few interstellar dust grains. Soon we expect to detect gravitational waves, and maybe some dark matter particles
⁶There are several examples of this, in BAUT's ATM section
⁷If you don't know how special relativity and QED are related, why not start a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section, with just this question?
⁸and if such a claim is made, then there'd be a certain irony involved … all astronomy is is the detection of photons; and what are photons, if not quintessentially quantum entities?
⁹At least three of the ~30 ATM threads alive on 6 March did so intend!

You'll see that I explicitly excluded 'empirical science' ATM ideas from my reflections. Perhaps I was mistaken in saying that the only ATM thread which is about such empirical claims is the Arp one? Perhaps I should edit my comments?

If not, then perhaps it's strange that you didn't post to this thread (too late now, of course ... though please read the thread Fraser started here today).

Nereid,
Very interesting observations from you. I would think somewhere in all of this is at least a paper, if not a thesis, in some sort of observational sociology of ATMers.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I just wanted to add a thought to your comment about ignorance. I believe for some of these people (I am not saying a majority), it is deliberate ignorance. They are not trying to understand the universe; they have an idea and they are doing everything they can to promote THEIR IDEA. It essentially becomes an ego thing, with the possibility of becoming famous because THEY overturned GR or QM. They also tend to assume that the rest of the world in general and science in particular thinks the same way, and it just becomes a turf war. It doesn't matter if your idea best explains the observations, it becomes a popularity vote and if you attract more supporters, you win.

Lastly (and I'm not trying to kiss up to a mod ), I have to applaud the moderators generally and you in particular for your determination and patience in all of this. I don't think I could do it.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Nereid, from one adult to another, who's intellect I respect greatly, I believe you are tired. Maybe you should take a break from BAUT for a while. Come back with a fresh perspective.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

She seems pretty energetic to me.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Coug, it sounds like she's tired of correcting the homework of people who don't even know the class.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

Geez, your reflections read like a dissertation. I must say that your description of the way science works, is actually the very reason I am very suspicious of astronomy as a science. There are too many interconnecting assumptions, too little observations, too much emphasis on mathematical approaches, and precious little experimentation of the reproducible kind, namely in a laboratory under controlled conditions.

When, for example, I read of the enormous density of the matter in neutron stars, I will not believe this is really possible unless reproduced and shown to work as advertised. Until then I'm a skeptic, wary of every development that builds on such (to me) unproven quantities (and there are lots of them in astronomy).

Furthermore, your resistance to the use of falsification seems only when in connection with mainstream theories (DM comes to mind); whenever you ask ATMers about their theories/models, then it seems perfectly normal to ask how the theory/model can be verified/falsified with currently existing technologies. I'll leave it at that for now.

Cheers.

do you have to put the word "cheers" at the end of your posts?

Actually, Van, the densities in neutron stars are the result of the calculations using the equations of state based on either QED or QCD with a little GR thrown in) and have very little to do with astronomy, except tangentially. Now, if you want to claim that QED and QCD haven't been tested under controlled conditions in a lab and doesn't work as advertised, I'm afraid I (and many others) would have to disagree with you (and even GR, in measuring the constant g has been done under lab conditions). This is exactly the type of strawman argument that some ATM posters use.

Actually,(to use your example) while the exact nature of DM hasn't (to my knowledge) been formally proposed (there are some hypotheses out there, with some that have been falsified and if you know of an actually claim on what it is exactly, please pass along the reference) the idea for DM has passed the falsification test so far(see the bullet cluster and associated papers).

Actually, I spend more time and am more interested in asking how the ATM ideas can explain current observations better than the poster's new ideas. That usually doesn't get very far either.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question. Why don't Alternate theory poster 1 attack the reasoning and ideas of Alternate theory poster 2? Expecially when Alternate theory poster 1's idea is in direct conflict with Alternate theory poster 2's idea.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Why are you here?

No, really. If you won't believe anything until it's reproduced, then you should not study astronomy.

It's as if you said, "When I read about the continent called Australia, I will not believe it unless someone brings it here, into this room." That's not possible, and neither is the "reproduction" of almost all of astronomy.

I'm not trying to be mean, but shouldn't you be spending your time doing something else? Based on your own words, you are doomed to disbelieve a very large fraction of what you read here. Why do you read it? Why do you make US read your postings?

Nereid
i fit into this category (although my reinterpretation of the mmx is that it is a successful measurement of the inertial rest moment of the earth).



no, i don't think so.

as you will recall, my main proof was that, in the case of doppler radar, one of the "frames" does not obey the rules of SR.

ie: the moving car that is being tested for velocity with a radar gun, intercepts light at a non-C relative velocity.

SR is therefore shown to be incorrect at the macro level....and now (just like back at the time when my thread was active..and it suddenly morphed from an "idea" to a "testable theory"... and with no-one able to refute my proof) you want me to pass onto dealing with QED too.

again.. i say no.

SR does not describe reality...it is not my concern to then check whether QED does or does not as well....it is instead incumbent on the theorists to prove that they haven't made a fundamental error (in QED) just like they did in SR (as proven by doppler radar).


you mention that QED is very successful?.....you also said that about SR, yet it is wrong.

Nereid might be tired of being punished for trying to prod people into realizing the inconsistencies in their arguments without hurting their feelings. Frankly, I think too many people have misunderstood her good nature as a sign of weakness. She offers explanations, gets pounded, and sometimes forgets to admit she is not omniscient. I would walk through hell to bring her a glass of ice water.