Why do you give an opinion before looking at it in detail?

Bell et al. show that the total redshift distribution shows a peak at z=0.7 (just like Tang et al did) and subtract the smoothed distribution from the raw data (the reverse of a selection bias is also a "bane of an astronomer's life"). The resulting peaks are strongly supporting Bell's (and Burbidge's) equation that was beased on a specific example of 14 QSO's around NGC 1068.
Btw, shouldn't this be discussed in the Arp et al. thread?

Cheers.

Before proceeding to challenge your claims here VanderL, I would like to hear whether you will be defending these or not.

In particular, your assertion that "The resulting peaks are strongly supporting Bell's (and Burbidge's) equation that was beased on a specific example of 14 QSO's around NGC 1068." (my bold)

Why not answer my questions first? I'm not aware that I "claimed" anything, merely summarizing parts of the article in my own words.

Cheers.

Hypothetically a person can give an opinion before looking at the details because Bell&McDiarmuid are proposing an ATM ... ... idea - which means that their statistical analysis must be flawed. It is a wise course of action to load up on Vitamins BB, DE and DM before reading any ATM papers. It helps to keep your immunity to ATMuenza strong.

Tang and Zhang - on the other hand - have provided a statistical analysis supporting the mainstream ... ... position. Their statistics must therefore be right and will provide a healthy dose of mainstream fiber to keep your system properly functioning. So you see - just based upon what they are claiming it is very clear who will of course be right.

That would be one reason that you might give an opinion without having looked at the papers in detail - but there can certainly be other equally legitimate reasons. I'm just offering up one that comes to mind and may happen in some cases - although that is in no way an implication that that is what is happening here.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

It is possible to select a subject and do a perfectly valid statistical analysis on the available data set and find something that supports an idea that doesn't work when applied more broadly (mainstream or ATM). I don't think anyone believes that because Bell&McDiarmuid are working on an ATM idea that their statistical work must be flawed. Nor is it the case that anyone working supporting a mainstream idea must have it right. Certainly there have been a lot of people along the way who leaped ahead working near the limit of what observation could show, and come up with wrong conclusions, or had done wrong work. One recent example was the "speed of gravity" experiment with light passing Jupiter.

Concerning quantized redshifts, we have statistics on the redshifts of quite a few galaxies and quasars right now. My understanding is that the claim of the quantization level is smaller than the differential we can measure using our usual wideband techniques. It is also likely to be the case that the difference (70 km/sec) is less than the thermal variation in redshift from any one quasar, or orbital mechanics redshift variation from any one galaxy. This whole thing is trying to find signal buried deep in noise.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This question provides a succinct summary of what, IMHO, is a common misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is 'for'.If you, VanderL, or iantresman, or dgruss23, or turbo-1, or ATKINS, or TomT, or any other BAUT member wishes to argue the idea that quasar redshifts are quantised, or that the observational data is consistent with "an ejection model", or any other ATM idea, then you are welcome to do so.

Other BAUT members are then welcome to attack your ideas, as presented.

If you are not presenting, and then arguing and defending an ATM idea, then surely there is nothing to discuss?

But, since you asked, there is a specificity about this case which warrants comment.

As you know, the EU thread was recently closed. It was, and still is, the largest thread, by far, here in the ATM section.

Yet it is also spectacularly devoid of any meat*; in fact, AFAIK, the only quantitative analyses presented in that thread came from challengers.

As dgruss23 (in the Arp et al. thread), and Tim Thompson (in several threads), have pointed out, it takes considerable time and effort present good cases, and good challenges - one can really only challenge an idea well if one first understands what it is.

In this thread, iantresman asked a straight-forward question (about the Tang and Zhang paper, and the Bell and McDiarmid paper), and I answered it in a straight-forward way. iantresman was not making any claims.Fair comment.

On the surface, you claimed a summary of Bell and McDiarmid paper - are you prepared to stand by you claim (that it is a (good) summary of that paper)?

However, you did not state your claim as a mere summary of parts of the article in your own words - your assertion was absolute ("The resulting peaks are strongly supporting Bell's (and Burbidge's) equation that was beased on a specific example of 14 QSO's around NGC 1068." - interestingly, the Bell and McDiarmid paper doesn't seem to make this claim.)

If your (ATM) claim is merely a summary of a paper, then what is there to challenge (other than the accuracy of your summary)?

So, let's be clear about this: are you prepared to defend the claims made in the Bell and McDiarmid paper? Specifically, are you prepared to show that their analyses of selection effects; the statistical tools, techniques, and results are sound (and more robust than those used by Tang and Zhang)? That their derivations of the likely observations signal, assuming the DIR model, is consistent with the data?

If you are not, then what is there for anyone to challenge?

*It it to be hoped that the much more focussed threads that will now be started, on EU ideas, will, at last, contain some real meat.

Let's run the first few comments here through a special filter ...Of course, it might also be instructive to see what Nereid actually said about the Bell & McDiarmid paper:A quick test of the likely robustness of statistical analyses (in modern astronomy, using datasets the size of the SDSS QSO datasets) is the use of standard terms that you would expect to find in describing such analyses (of course, the use of such terms doesn't mean the analyses are good, but the absence of such terms suggests that the authors are unfamiliar with some of the well-known tips and traps of doing good statistical analyses on large astronomical data sets).

In this case all the following are found in the Tang and Zhang paper: windowing, Hann function, bootstrap, weighting, (a test of the statistical code, against a "known" dataset - in this case "the 290 QSOs in Karlsson and Napier & Burbidge’s data sets"). None of these are found in the Bell & McDiarmid paper.

A similar 'sanity check' can also be applied wrt the robustness of the analyses of selection effects.

It may well be that the Bell & McDiarmid paper reports a powerful statistical analysis ... is any BAUT member prepared to make that case?

Ditto, wrt selection effects?

Papers like this actually convinced me that the observation of periodicity in quasar distances most likely IS an artifact of selection bias, but in a way it is just begging the question:

Why is there the appearance of a periodic effect in an incomplete sample?

The Mainstream, John Keirein, and Jacques Moret-Bailly can all answer this question, although it is Jacques who first articulated the solution:

The Lyman Forest forms when light is redshifted throught the Lyman alpha, beta and gamma absorbing bands of the hydrogen spectra. Since these effects SHOULD be periodic with increasing distance if the intervening medium is roughly consistent, or statistically consistent on the greatest of scales. This means that there is a sudden dimming of the spectra at certain distances and that as these bands of spectral dimming over-lap each other, the periodic effects found by Bell should and do emerge at multiples of the Lyman frequencies.

The fact that incomplete cuts from the Sloan survey demonstrate periodic distributions in magnitude biased samples but not 'complete' samples is consistent with this explanation. Notice that the effect should be exhibited whether or not the quasar redshift is cosmic or local, as JMB and John Kierein argue. So which is it?

Accornding to the Mainstream argument, the Lyman Forest absorbing clouds are in very extended space about quasar systems, While both John and Jacques argue there is an intrinsic mechanism that rachets the Lyman forest very very close to the quasar galaxy.

The defining test of whether or not there is intrinsic factors is the transverse proximity effect:When high redshift quasars are 'nearly behind' low redshift quasars, a second iteration of the Lyman Forest should appear in the spectra of the high redshift quasars. Several studies have concluded this effect does not occur nulling this hypothesis, and the only reasonable answer is that some of the redshifting mechanism is contained within the galaxies themselves: Quasars and their galaxies are both intrinsically and cosmically redshifted.

This is also apparent in the Butcher-Oemler effect, which has also been confirmed in these large galaxy surveys: Young, often quasar containing galaxies are more likely to be 'field' rather than 'cluster' galaxies in local space, while with increasing distance they are more likely to be cluster-centered. This is also a periodic effect which is certainly not anticipated in any evolutionary scenario: Why would young galaxies suddenly hatch from clusters and speed off on there own? Again, the reasonable solution is to conclude there is an intrinsic, not periodic, redshifting that falsely catalogues near-by quasar galaxies as much more distant, artificially placing them in the distant 'field' rather than in closer clusters where they rightly belong.

I cannot fathom why mainstream researchers are so blind to the implications of these mainstream studies: This is not a case where new physics is required, only an acceptance that the long-held prejudice against non-Doppler mechanisms is blurrying their judgement:

How dare we say our science is complete! New observation should always trump old theories.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I had not made an appearance here for a reason, although I find it interesting that you call me out on this thread. I find the arguments for quantized redshifts interesting, but not compelling, and I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point. I am prepared to gleefully and vigorously defend bridges as evidence for interaction between objects of discordant redshifts, as are many of us. Unfortunately, the "More from Arp et al" thread is almost entirely bereft of mainstreamers, and has been for over a month. I think your last post was in early April. We may eventually get to a discussion of redshift quantization, but I doubt that it will be soon. We have lots better fish to fry.

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

I think I don't have to be defending the ATM "quantization of redshift" idea in order to post to this thread. What I wanted to know has nothing to do with my ideas/opinions on the subject, it has to do with your comments on the Bell paper. You said the paper's conclusion missed their intended goal, but admittedly did so before studying the details.
I don't think that is a fair comment, and I said so.

Next you tried to make me defend claims I was supposed to have made without answering to my objection. I don't think anyone should be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims, ATM-er or challenger. You have now posted additional reasons why you think Bell's paper fails, but you haven't convinced me that not using the correct buzzwords amounts to a bad paper. If you claim the paper is wrong, just explain why, and I (or anyone else) might want to discuss the points you raise, you might be correct in your assessment but I'm unconvinced.

If I overstated the conclusions of Bell's paper, just show it, and I should either explain, adjust or retract my comments. The thread is about quantized redshifts and, imo the Bell&McDiarmid paper is important and I'm curious what the experts think.

Cheers.

Surely one doesn't need to be a 'mainstreamer', an 'ATMer', or anything else in order to challenge an ATM idea, as presented in a thread here in the ATM section of BAUT?

No, one does not have to belong to any 'camp' in order to engage in dialogue on this board. My point is that you have called me out in this thread, yet you have only lurked on the 'More from Arp et al' thread for more than a month, despite your assertions that you wanted to undertake an organized, structured, discussion of Arpian ideas. You have been noticeably absent for all that time, depite personal and public requests to rejoin the discussion. It is your perogative to engage in any discussions that you feel worthy of your efforts, of course, but it is disengenuous to encourage such engagement, then to avoid the engagement entirely, and then to issue a challenge on an entirely different topic that is more to your liking. Can we expect to engage you on 'More from Arp et al' or will you continue to hide?

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

I haven't participated in this thread, so how did I get dragged in?
TomT

Why is anybody dragged in? The Bell paper has been linked to. Anybody can defend or attack the paper. If someone thinks the paper is flawed - then attack it. If someone thinks it is sound, then highlight the strengths.

I don't understand why every time a topic is brought up or a paper is linked to we must go through this cataloging of who will be taking what position. I say use the NIKE philosophy - Just Do It! This micromanaging is ridiculous and pointless.

The same questions were asked on Arp et al. "Is any arpian willing to defend X,Y,Z, X',Y'Z' ?" ... I stepped forward and said I would defend the notion that bridges provide evidence for interaction. Cougar, antoniseb, and Fram engaged in that discussion. Perhaps the relevance of this pre-discussion cataloging is best recognized by a post-cataloging of the bridges discussion participants.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

A really good point turbo-1. This type of calling people out discourages good discussion. I haven't decided whether or not there is compelling evidence for redshift quantization. There are interesting studies. And the weaknesses or strengths of those studies are worth discussing. One doesn't have to be committed to a position to discuss them. I wonder how many people avoid contributing and asking questions on some of the controversial topics because they're afraid it will be demanded that they defend the theory they would like to ask and find out more about?

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

That's a valid question. Some of the people on the "bridges" sub-topic on the "More from Arp et al" thread seemed to want to learn more about the strength of bridges as evidence for interaction (even if the redshifts are discordant), but don't want to be categorized into one camp or another; so they end up lurking, and occasionally post supportive comments like "thanks for doing this work" or similar. This is sad. Categorizing people and intimidating them is detrimental to real science. I think that the last month or so on the "More from Arp et al" thread is an example of how scientific inquiry should be conducted. At the least, we have gotten the encouragement of some people who have been pretty quiet until now, and who seem to want us to continue.

__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.

Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924

And that's what this board is supposed to be about - learning and testing what we think we know. People can be mainstream in one topic and ATM in another. And people can be undecided. It is counterproductive to demand that a person defend a certain position or remain quiet when the person might be genuinely undecided about the controversial idea.

That's why IMO the best approach is just to let the discussion unfold. Someone ought to be able to say: "This paper looks interesting. It seems to support alternative X. Any comments." Then someone who sees flaws in the paper can simply say: "The problems with this paper are A,B,and C."

Instead of that we keep getting: "Will you Joe and you Frank and any of you other Xians be defending this paper?" And those that were just curious may decide it is not worth their time and aggravation.

Yes - and notice that the only moderation that was needed during that entire discussion was the times antoniseb needed to remind some people that we were for the time being focused on bridges. Outside of that people behaved themselves, defended what they said, and both sides offered some give and take. Good stuff.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Why should any BAUT member make such a case? Isn't the paper it's own case? Doesn't any paper published have to stand up to scrutiny? Why don't you just tell us where the paper is wrong and if and why their comments on the Tang and Zhang conclusions are faulty. If no one is able to refute the Bell & McDiarmid paper, shouldn't we then just conclude that there is support for redshift periodicity and Bell's model?

Cheers.

This sums up my thoughts on the forum exactly.

Cheers.

Can we expect to engage you - Nereid - on the bridges topic specifically? We're talking about other concepts too, but given all the pre-bridges discussion, preparation, and hoopla I'd like to get your reactions to that discussion.

Let's recall that on March 9 I agreed to defend the position that bridges are evidence for interaction in Arp systems. On March 10 in an attempt to set a goal of a focused discussion antoniseb asked me to select a paper on the bridges topic and I agreed on the same day, but noted that it would take me some time. Only 5 days later you said this: "and along the way a powerful, cogent Arpian case about bridges seems to have not materialised."

The case materialized on April 1 because I said it would take time and you've not been heard from in that discussion since ~April 6th despite vigorous activity on other threads. So I'm very much interested in hearing your thoughts on the bridges discussion when you find time to return to the Arp et al thread.

Edited to fix March 10 link.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

For example, you never did respond to this post . Since you provided the references, I felt it was fair to ask what you saw as the connection of those papers to the bridges discussion. It has been 6 weeks since I asked. People have had their accounts suspended for much shorter delays in responding so I hope that I will eventually get my answer to those questions.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

I'm not sure why Nereid can get away with not answering direct questions; two reasons I can think of and both are not pretty. Do we have double standards here?

Cheers.

I think that's probably because Nereid is not making any against-the-mainstream assertions in that discussion. Most anyone from the greater astronomical community would likely make the same points Nereid would make, perhaps with less research. I suspect other mainstream "professionals" are reluctant to jump in when there are just SO many points that need correcting in the discussion. Where do you start?

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

Well, that would be one of the ugly reasons I can think of, it just confirms that a double standard exists. Besides, Nereid specifically claimed to write a rebuttal on Arp; if you claim something like that and then walk away in the middle of the process it could mean Nereid feels it isn't worth the hassle, or the rebuttal can't be written. It would be honest to at least respond and tell us what is going on.

Personally, I think Nereid has realised that Arp et al. really have a point and doesn't want to discuss the matter in any more detail in the forum in order to avoid having to concede the reality of an intrinsic redshift component. Possibly this is a general reaction of mainstreamers when confronted with evidence against something they believe to be true and more so if they at first assumed the proposal was already proven to be "crackpot". How does one acknowledge not just being mistaken, but having been positively caustic and dismissive without "losing face"? Avoid and ignore is the easy way out.

Cheers.

Not. The standard is, if you're asserting something "new," you must show how it is consistent with what we observe. If you're not asserting anything other than standard physics, this is all known material... or it should be. This can be an educational site, but few professors* have time to give unpaid side courses in what's really going on in modern astrophysics.

.

* Not to imply any astronomy professors have contributed regularly to any of these contentious threads. I'm certainly not one. I suppose DGRuss is the "highest ranking" academically of the "usual suspects" in the Arp thread. Is it Mr. Russell or Dr. Russell? Is your "associated institution" still a high school?

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

So if you claim something as a "mainstreamer" or "challenger" you can walk away from it anytime? I don't think there is anything in the rules for that behaviour (I'll check, but "be nice" would, imo, include answering questions), but let me tell you it is very impolite if not downright dishonest.

Cheers.

It is and always will be "Mr." Since being involved in BABB/BAUT my status has always been that of a high school science teacher that has published some independent research in the research journals. I can't help it if some people come to wonder if "Dr." is the appropriate title based upon the posts I make and/or the fact that I have published a few papers. The information I provided on BABB was that I am a "science teacher/independent researcher". That information was transferred to BAUT and remains accurate - although I wouldn't put independent researcher under "occupation". I'll have to take a look and see if I can change that somehow.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Well one of my points when this new rule was brought up about ATMers answering direct questions in a timely fashion is that while it is not unreasonable to expect ATM proponents to anwer direct questions, it is also not unreasonable for an ATM proponent to say, "I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you."

But I think it is understood as part of fair dialogue that this rule about answering question in a timely fashion should equally apply to mainstreamers. This forum is a place of dialogue. If someone defending the mainstream POV chooses to engage in the dialogue taking place on an ATM thread - then IMO the mainstreamer has as much obligation to answer questions asked by an ATMer as the ATMer has to answer questions from the mainstream.

The questions I asked on post #1247 of the Arp et al thread were fair questions - and not exceedingly difficult. Since Nereid linked to those papers, I presume she saw some relevance of those papers to the discussion. I simply asked at that time and still would like to know now what specifically the relevance was.

Now perhaps Nereid has permanently disengaged from the Arp et al thread. In that case I will not get the answers to those questions. However, at whatever time she finds the time and willingly rejoins the Arp et al discussion, I will request an answer to post #1247 as well as ask for a reaction to the bridges discussion.

At this time I do not know whether or not Nereid will re-engage in the bridges discussion because she has not yet answered Turbo-1's question from May 15:

nor my question from May 18:

As long as those questions remain unanswered I will assume that the answer is "no" so as not to expect responses that will not be forthcoming.

But I do not think it is a rules violation to choose to disengage from a discussion. Some may justifiably view such an action as a concession to the opponent of the points of debate. Without an explanation as to why the person disengages, that is a reasonable interpretation. However, I do think that it would be a rules violation (or at least very bad form) to disengage from a discussion after being asked direct "pertinent" questions and then return at some later time and start posting to the thread as if nothing had been left unanswered.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

I hope this ad hominem isn't intended as a "dig", when most contributors to a BAUT hide behind pseudonyms.

I will point out that many breakthroughs in science came from scientists working outside of their field. Mr William Herschel (1738-1822) was musician and composer, M. Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was a tax collector, Mr Georg Ohm (1789-1854) was a humble schoolteacher, Mr Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was a book-binder apprentice, etc.

And Hannes Alfvén, an electrical power engineer, contributed significantly to astrophysical plasmas, succesfully predicting magnetic breaking, magnetohydrodynamic waves, field-aligned "Birkeland" currents, critical ionization velocity, jet streams, electrostatic double layers, and synchrotron radiation from astronomical sources.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.

The Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:Let's see if some recent misunderstandings can be clarified, by reference to these rules.Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'. (turbo-1 chose to make his intention to not so argue public ("I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point."); there is no requirement whatsoever about making any such intentions known).ATM threads are (or should be) focussed; discussion in each thread should be limited to the ATM claim being made by the OP (and any other directly relevant ATM claims raised during the course of the discussion)*

It follows that if there is no ATM claim, there is nothing to discuss.

BAUT has a very good Q&A section, where you may ask questions about astronomy and space science. So, for example, if you are curious to know what (scientific) flaws the Bell&McDiarmid paper has (if any), you can ask such questions in that section.

Some things that this ATM section is NOT about:

1) it is NOT about trying to convince those who hold ATM beliefs that their beliefs are inconsistent (internally, with good scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap, or with good observational results) ... except if you choose to present those beliefs here in an ATM thread, so they may be challenged.

2) it is NOT about educating readers on modern astronomy, mainstream cosmology, etc; BAUT has several other sections devoted to those ends.Anyone may attack the Bell paper, but there is no requirement that they should.

However, if anyone thinks it is sound, and says so here in this thread, then they may be challenged to defend their thoughts and claims.There is no requirement that we go through any such process.

However, it is totally legitimate to ask a poster if they are presenting and ATM claim (if so, then such claims can be challenged; if not, then there is nothing to discuss), and to ask them to state the claim(s) they are prepared to defend clearly (this is efficiency, if nothing else - what's the point of challenging a claim no one is prepared to defend?)

When in doubt, read the rules ("If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. [...]
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here")Of course not.

However, if no one is prepared to present an ATM case that they also prepared to defend, then what is there to challenge?

If all you wish to do is read some papers and discuss them, why post in this ATM section at all?If someone takes something personally, rather than seeing things in terms of the ideas, then they should think again, or use the Report a Post button.

If you think that challenging ideas is 'detrimental to real science', then I suggest that BAUT is not the place for you. Here's what the rules say: "If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."I sometimes wonder too, which is why I spend time pointing out the differences between the ATM section of BAUT and the General Science, Astronomy, Q&A, etc sections.

OTOH, if no one is prepared to present 'some of the controversial topics', with the intent of defending them, what has BAUT lost?

Look at this way: other than the Arp et al thread, which 'controversial topics' have legs?Indeed. It's also the intent of the ATM section ... interestingly, the rules for this section are very mild, compared with the intense scrutiny that professionals' ideas are exposed to, every day of their working lives; the ATM rules seek to provide a (gentle) copy of the process of doing astronomy.Because it's an ATM idea - ATM ideas need to be defended.AFAIK, neither Bell nor McDiarmid are BAUT members, and even if they are, they did not present the paper in this ATM thread.Yes it does ... but what has that got to do with this thread?Because no BAUT member is willing to defend the paper (read the rules).The logic of this ATM section is: A BAUT member who wishes to present an ATM idea does so. Claims made by that member can be challenged, by any member.

(to be continued)

*This does not include those ATM threads which are about 'a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang'