I have been motivated to start this discussion, by virtue of being increasingly frustrated with what I consider to be the flawed manner in which most of the advocates of alternative theories approach their topic. The intent is to avoid discussion of any specific alternative theory, except perhaps as some specific point applies to the general topic, but rather to concentrate on what makes an alternative viewpoint, hypothesis or theory potentially viable, and what renders it hopeless.

I will start by saying that I have no sympathy for, and will not discuss, any claim that 'mainstream' scientists hold to their theories for any reason other than that they believe them to be correct. The idea that standard theories are maintained by some kind of social pressure, or the need to maintain some standard theory, in order to remain employed, is nonsense. If this is used as an argument to support any alternative hypothesis, then that hypothesis is doomed to fail.

Standard theories are standard for a reason: They work. One common argument presented by the proponents of alternative hypotheses is that the mainstream scientists have overlooked some obvious fact that only the alternative thinker can see. This may be true in some isolated cases (though none in fact that I personally know of), but is so exceptional that it is not a reliable point to make, and is usually easily refuted. The adherents to alternative views would be well advised, I think, not to take the approach that the flaws in the standard are 'obvious', as it is almost never true.

Perhaps the most common failing I have seen here, a failing I've seen in every thread I've participated in, is the failure to understand the reality of the mainstream theory that is being criticized. When Einstein 'overthrew' the Newtonian view of space & time by his theory of special relativity, he did so by first studying 'mainstream' physics in intense detail. Only when he understood the 'standard' theories as well as anyone could, did he introduce his new approach. That's one of the reasons that special relativity became the 'standard' as quickly as it did. Amongst the current crop of alternative cosmologists, Jayant Narlikar is a champion of the Quasi Steady State Cosmology that originated with Sir Fred Hoyle, and a proponent of non-cosmological quasar redshifts. But he has studied the 'standard' cosmology more deeply than most, and understands it very well. Despite a belief in non-cosmological redshifts, for instance, he nevertheless mastered the standard interpretation enough to write a detailed and well received book on it (Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei, Ajit K. Kembhavi and Jayant Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 1999). And, despite being an 'alternative' cosmologist, he wrote an excellent review of 'standard' cosmology (An Introduction to Cosmology, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition 2002). The point is that he, like Einstein, has made himself a strong expert in the theories that he wishes to contest. Now, most of the people who post here are unlikely to study a standard theory with that kind of depth, but that does not preclude learning enough about the standard theory to see if the perceived weaknesses are real or not.

Another failing I think I see is the reliance on 'indirect' methodology. Historical tales or anecdotal evidence has its place, but neither can replace direct experience. If we see for ourselves that certain physical systems behave in a quantifiable & predictable manner, then we can discount claims to the contrary that are not based on equally rigorous observation. I think it is a particularly weak approach to claim support for a modern, alternative scientific hypothesis, by virtue of ancient historical records, without proper quantification of the purpose & sources. For instance, scientists have made use of historical records of eclipses to study long term variations in Earth's rotation rate. But in those cases, they have specific data as to time & place for an eclipe observation. But even then, they use the total set in a statistical sense, and do not use records that are insufficiently detailed. On the other hand, turning ancient descriptions of celestial artifacts into claims that modern plasma physics is all wrong, is a flawed methodology, doomed to fail.

Personally, I have lost much of my desire to take part in various threads, mainly because I don't have the time to deal with the heavy influx of thoroughly uninformed criticisms of the mainstream, which often leads to the alternative adherents sticking to claims tnat have already been factually disproven.

I have no problem with original thinking, and encourage it. People should explore new & alternative ideas, but not to the extent of denying the obvious. Supporters of alternative claims should at least have a sufficient grasp of the basics of the mainstream theories to know what does & does not make sense (and you must realize that 'common' sense does not always apply in the empirical sciences, where specific solutions to specific problems always reign supreme).

So, have I missed other failings? Overstated my case? Agreement? Disagreement? What do Y'all think?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I both agree with you and am guilty of many of the poor habits you mention. I think one problem is that those of us who feel we have an earth shattering idea get frustrated that we are unable to properly communicate our ideas or concepts. This frustration is often cause by our lack of knowledge about the real details of cosmology. So we often lash out and attack the standard model without true knowledge of it, poor wisdom indeed. I learned the hard way that this is not a good approach and you are only hurting any merit your idea may have.

My own idea for instance, I have learned that it does not destroy mainstream, but may serve to strenghthen it. I no longer attack the BB, but am trying to find if and how my ideas may fit in with it. Since, I have been doing so, I have found that I am learning so much more about the standard model as well as sharpening up my own ideas. I have also found that many "mainstream" thinkers are more willing to hear me out and discuss my ideas. I learn more from mainstreamers then others and have found this helps me strenghthen my case, and may oneday destroy it. Certainly if I am wrong, I want to know....however, ego is a powerful thing.

Your advice is great. It would be a shame if a great insight into nature were lost because of petty hostility and disinformation. But, mainstreamers should also keep all of this in mind and try to engage those with new ideas who may come across as overly contrary. But certainly I can see why some would just give up and eventually, I suppose one has to.

I know I have lots to learn before I could ever make a solid case for my arguments, and know I would have to convince a reputable astronomer of my iideas' merits. So hostility will get me no where but more frustrated and ignorant.

Good advice you have shared, indeed.

Words of wisdom Tim, thanks.

The very reason that I included this Alternative Theories section here in the forum is that I wanted a place where people could bring up ideas which are against the mainstream and have them tossed around by enthusiasts, experts, amateurs, and masters in the field.

Before you bring your idea forward, though, you have to be willing to accept that you're wrong, that you've misunderstood some aspect of cosmology, or physics, or whatever. Many of the experts in these fields have been at this subject for more years than I've been alive and have seen the theories attacked in every way imaginable. That doesn't mean they're right, though.

You could come up with a new insight, and new understanding that explain the observed phenomena better than the existing theories. I try to mention in my stories whenever a traditional theory is being challenged. At least once a month, new observations are forcing astronomers to completely rethink their long held ideas of [galaxy formation/duration of planetary accretion/environments for life/etc].

I would love to see the forum community develop a "best practices" approach that people can use think through their idea, propose it to the community, and even work to get it considered by the academic community. Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs make regular and valuable discoveries, and professional astronomers are grateful for their contributions.

Pitch your ideas, just don't buy into them too deeply.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Thank you Tim, it couldn't be said better.
Altought I am on the "alternative side", I too get frustrated with alternative hypothesis from the blue, where it is obvious that the proposer did not study "standard" theory.

Dear Svemir,
Allow me to disagree with you and in a way also with Tim Thompson.

A large number of science enthusiasts do not have the resources to follow through an idea and one of the best alternatives for them is to share them on an 'Alternative Theories Forum' such as this magnificent website provided by Fraser. The other alternative is to 'kill' an idea by hiding it in the closet.

In my opinion IDEAS ARE SACRED and deserve a second look by the 'experts' in the field. Mr.Thompson is one such person and if he has the time to read some of the interesting titles 'we' expect him to contribute actively.

Wouldn't it be a pity if we spend a lot of time discussing this point rather than reading the ideas of the guys and dolls out there?

... and come to think of it I have to go browsing... Svemir and Tim... see you somewhere else.

with respect,
Stephen, your man from kibish

Tim, I have the utmost respect for yourself, and your point of view, but I genuine feel that you are describing an ideal. You ARE generally correct in what you say, that scientists are indeed honest, and do genuinely seek out the truth in an unbiased manner.

You are also quite correct in criticising the approach taken by people with alternative viewpoints, who do seem to take a non-standard approach to their work, are often under-educated on certain aspects of knowledge.

But, I believe that there are mitagating circumstances.

1. Peer reviews in its efforts to separate the wheat from the chaff, does sometimes loose a few grains of valid research. I have no doubt that there is a genuiine bais to keep the status quo, and that extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. This may be acceptable, but it does put new valid work at an unfair disadvantage. If anyone really wants me to dig out some examples of papers which have been unfairly excluded, I will do so.

2. Money. It is very naive to exclude the influence of money on science. Very few people will turn down the opportunity of a $1-million dollar grant to (a) continue with their work, regardless of its ultimate value. (B) to research the health benefits of cigarettes © to find medicines to treat disease, rather than prevent their cause. Again, I can probably find some examples if requested.

3. Jobs. Once again, I know of scientists who have been fired for their beliefs.


I haven't provided specific examples, because I didn't want to debate specific cases. Hopefully everyone here is aware that they processes may not be ideal, even though the scientific method is arguably the best approach that this is.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I can only speak from my interdisciplinary interests in historical catastrophism here, so what I say here may not apply to other claims.

Because of its very nature, there are certain events in history that will never be proved, and can never be scientifically tested. We'll never know whether King Arthur was a real figure, and he supposedly lived only a thousand years ago. What chance do we have to study events 10,000 years ago, especially if they left little of no evidence?

I have no doubt that historical tales, if they corroborated existing knowledge, would be "accepted". That is not the same as relying on the historical evidence. And if we find that a dozen cultures talk of, for example, a particuar astronomical event that appears to match that derived by astronomers, then we readily accept the historical records.

I am well aware that this is not scientific. The Bayeux tapestry supposedly depicts Halley's comet. It probably is Halley's comet. But this is not scientific proof. There is a chance, albeit small, that it could be another comet.

So I'm quite happy to use historical records as evidence, but not proof. And sometimes if the evidence is numerous, corroborative, and independent, they do beg some some very interesting questions.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

So far I have been pretty much in agreement with the ideas you expressed here Tim, thanks, it is a grea manifesto.

My exception is that I have not gone out of my way to really demand much accountability from the younger members who have unprovable ideas about things that can't be measured. I do tell them that we can't measure anything that tells whether they are right or wrong, but leave it at that.

People who seem serious about their science, and have the capacity to develop a relatively serious alternative need to live up to a realistic standard. Explore incomplete ideas if you want, but when doing so be very willing to own up to having taken a bad path. It might not mean your whole idea is worthless, but don't stick to things which have been shown to conflict with observations.

One of the most frustrating things in this forum is interacting with people who are so set on an idea that they 'forget' after a few weeks that some part of their idea was defeated. This is why I have stopped putting a lot of time and effort into analyzing alternative theories lately. My helpful work has been ignored or forgotten.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The Flat Earth people held to their theory for a long time and wouldn't listen to anybody else.
Lots of people thought that we could never fly.
There are some that still deny that we have reached space.

Tim hit the target on the areas of frustration I have with most alternative theory.
Too much of it reads like fantasy. If a theory can not be tested, OK, gee whiz.
If a theory has been tested and and it is proven in error, test it again. Share your results. It's the confusing of theory with agenda that wastes everyone's time.
There seems to be a trend where a lot of people argue a point for the sake of a point, without doing much research.

I am facinated when a good alternative theory pops up, and I feel we need more of them to help us understand the cosmos, especially where conventional theory shows areas of weakness. But When an individual respects the scientific method, I'd love to hear their new theory. It might educate all, to varying degrees.

Hi,

Podkletnov discovered gravitational anomalies by accident in his lab & published his results, and was consequently blacklisted right out of the field.

I can't help but feel there is an ENORMOUS reactionary conservatism in science, particularly physics.

Unfortunately I think this stubborness is acerbated by the plethora of crackpot loonies out there spouting their half-baked personal Theories Of Everything...

Not many..One I might add that I have been harping on lately..
Pseudoscience proposes and defends an idea. Science deals with questions that are unanswered..

Mike Turner ( the assistant director of the NSF, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences) was quoted by Symmetry magazine : "Before you tell me what you want to build, tell me the questions you want to answer."

When my car breaks down in the road, three questions pop into my head.. Is it fuel...compression....or spark? Those along with a fourth..
What experiments answer those questions?

Pseudoscience will try and corner conditions and seal things undisproveable while science establishes the experiments to disprove hypotheses..Roger Penrose has prosposed an alternative explanation for entanglement and a corresponding beam splitter experiment to disprove it.

Your inputs have been very helpful and you have not hesistated to scold those of us who support the Standard Model when any of us fail to conduct ourselves propoerly in debate..I took your advice and many of us have been sending emails back and forth to tell each other to tone things down a bit or to back off entirely at times when emotions were getting out of hand..

Anton, any lack of response to you doesn't mean that no one is listening..I have printed up a number of your posts and given them very much thought. I have referred to them from other websites as well. You have set a very good example of how to conduct oneself in debate and I really appreciate your efforts..

Thanks blueshift, that's unexpected and appreciated.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks blueshift, that's unexpected and appreciated. [/b][/quote]
Oh, and it's well-deserved too antoniseb! (where's the "thumb's up" smilie?)

I agree with many things Tim has stated, but this is a general comment I want to make.
I'd like to add that scientists should also be well aware of proposing "unprovable things", that's the problem I have with inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, redshift equals distance, string theory and a bunch of other things. In every theory there is a point where we can't do more with our current technological standard. We should always keep in mind that nothing can be proven, only disproven. And sometimes it seems that people think that the only time the theories are completely correct is the current time. Just wait a few years and everything could be completely different. Keep your minds open to new possibilities and never assume.

Cheers.

My own experience, in another internet forum, is consistent with what Tim writes.

There was a time when this other forum tolerated 'Theory Development', but after a few years an open discussion was held on what its status should be, and the overwhelming consensus was that it added no significant value to the site, and likely tarnished the site's reputation!

Why?

At the time, I did an analysis of the ~1,000 threads in TD (which was not dissimilar to AT here in UT, except that its scope was all of physics - in the most general sense). These threads were an enormous drain on the moderators, and the 'return on investment' of their time and energy was ... precisely zero. I need to qualify this 'zero'; some 98% of threads contained such gross flaws - in terms of high school physics, or maths, or easily observable phenomena - that none of us could understand why the OP hadn't bothered to even read introductory physics texts. Worse, challenges to the OP's ideas were met with a barrage of responses ... almost NONE of which involved a defence in terms of
a ) internal consistency
b ) consistency with (other) mainstream physics (that was not being challenged by the OP)
c ) good experimental or observational results!

So what, I hear you ask, about the other 2%?

IMHO, there were about a dozen threads which brought to light subtle misunderstandings and differences in the way one could interpret the physics (and/or observations or experiments) - call these misplaced (i.e. they should have been posted in other areas, not TD). There was one idea (about a braking mechanism for the rotation of Venus, IIRC) that was beyond the expertise of anyone to evaluate; there was another (on the ZPE, the CC, and GR) that was poorly written, but ultimately we could tie it into an interesting, on-going set of research in the mainstream, and a post on SCC. I regard the last as an abberation - the OP had has his paper rejected by a reviewer, yet I suspect that if he cleans (cleaned?) up a few points and re-submits, he'll get it published.

(There's more, but I'll save it for later).

So, I can relate to Tim's frustration. And if anyone thinks taking an approach different from that Tim advocates, may I recommend that YOU set up an internet forum faithful to your alternative approach, and report back to us in a couple of years on your experience of moderating that website!

Pet peeves: Or, why I'm here and not somewhere else on the Web.

1) Paranoia, tantrums and pouting, equivalent to the seven-year-old's refrain:"Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna go and eat worms."

2) Ad hominem arguments, in any form.

3) Gathering evidence in support of a theory-- always turns out to be an editing process. Inconvenient data are suppressed.

4) Cognitive dissonance. The equivalent of: "This theory/paradigm has cost so much time/energy/effort that it has to be worth it!" The vast majority of scientists are above this, but not all. Folks out in the fringes are more susceptible.

Good scientists welcome a reality check. Inconvenient data force the paradigm to stretch, or even shatter, and so much the worse for it. Next paradigm. They force the scientists to consider ways of expanding standard viewpoints to be more inclusive. Fortean phenomena don't trash the entire scientific viewpoint-- they merely point out the aspects of reality that might merit more investigation.

Kudos, all. A stunning majority of the members of this forum have there heads in the right place. Polite and respectful discourse is the rule here. You ain't perfect, but you'll do.

Best regards--Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

So true, so true. Just look at the latest UT news! Scientists are finding evidence that Einstein's theories are flawed. There's no room for conservatism in physics & cosmology. After all, the universe is anything BUT a conservative place! Yes?

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity... Some day the piecing together of dssociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
[H. P. Lovecraft]

For some reason, that got me to reflect on the conservation of energy.

Then I realized that I always thought of the universe as this vast conservative space, scattered with countless pinpoints of liberal fury.

Wow, now there's a nice thought, I rather have this more sentimental notion that ultimately we will be able to understand the Universe, and accept our place in the infinite vastness.

Cheers.

Once upon a time Galileo was attacked for propagating what seemed to European wisdom then to be a completely shocking and deeply unsettling alternative point of view. Not so far back ecological considerations were laughed at, as has been any point of view that smacks of anything but most aggressive way of thinking and life. Nonsmoking, non-alcoholic, calmer ways of life are only now coming back into respect for those that follow the mainstream but slightly avant-garde 'standard' stream of thought and life. There are many such examples as far as specifics go. Impressionists, recently.

Today's attackers of alternate theories - alternate only to mainstream beliefs and what mainstream considers proof or eveidence, after all! - risk being laughed at for being fools or worse, tomorrow.

And of course, to go with any 'alternate' thinking is to basically put your own thought on line, it is not to be done just to be different or shocking to be noticed. Because that might get you notice of others but after all you are wasting your own life and for what?

Whether science or art or whatever intellectual discipline it is one is into, the only aim worth it is the quest of truth, and the only indispensible tools are perception and honesty.

We can be our own worst enemies if we don't take Tim's (and some others modifying points of balance). if we want to be taken seriously by the non-amature community then there needs to be at least some personal quality control.

I have a view on accidents that the scientist may not have had a concious view that was compatible with the potential discovery .'. s/he has an 'accident' (due to their un-conscious or intuition). The effective scientist sees the accident for what it is and deserves full credit for the discovery.

Now getting back on Tim's theme; many accidents are just that, useless. So are many alternative theories. My point here though is that perhaps alternative theories can be the new accidents. What we dont want is to over look crap for the compost it can be.

Nice to get a post in, Guys sorry very time poor!

__________________
"You can't talk to a brick wall but you can do Graffiti"

What will be?

__________________
"You can't talk to a brick wall but you can do Graffiti"

On Style and Content of Scientific Controversy

unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth
Albert Einstein

I think that the scientific controversy between mainstream and alternative theories progressively turns into an ideological system of belief in abstract ideas and mathematical models that may have nothing to do with the real world. That system uses all the tricks of an ideological fight, and boils down to the “good” and “bad” mentality; the good guys always being on our side. But in real life “good” and “bad” can be found on both sides, generalizations are dangerous and the treatment of scientific inquiry as a socially neutral process does not refer to real life. I think it is inappropriate to fulminate too quickly against an alternative conception, another point of view, and that it is important to listen very profoundly the arguments of the other, no matter on which side you, or they place themselves.

I agree with Tim Thompson that nothing can replace direct experience, and any alternative idea should not deny the obvious. I will add that the obvious is the direct observation, not the given interpretation, and I will extend these fundamental requirements to mainstream theories too. Mainstream theories should rely on direct experience, and should not deny the obvious. Any mainstream theory that does that should be discarded, no matter a viable alternative theory is proposed or not. I keep an open eye on dissenters, not because I think they are right in their alternative propositions, usually their approach is equally ideological, but because the probabilities to get some new insights about the actual are greater than if I conform to the authority of the mainstream. At the same time I listen to mainstreamers who respect direct observation, even if they give an interpretation I do not agree with.

It is a common practice for mainstreamers, indicative of this ideological approach, whenever the observed values do not fit the expected values according to a model, to be replaced by calculated values, and then these calculated values are presented as indisputable facts. On the other hand dissenters tend to avoid to present quantifiable models. The following example is a typical case of presenting model biased data. According to Hofmeister & Criss (2005) - (A.M. Hofmeister & R.E. Criss, "Earth's heat flux revised and linked to chemistry" Tectonophysics 395: 159-17, 2005) - the half-space cooling (HSC) model that presumes the contraption of infinite heat flux at zero time, and ignores the strong effect of decrease in thermal conductivity as temperature increases, substantially overestimates the heat flux measured from oceanic crust younger than 37 million years compared to the measurements. For example, the calculated Quaternary flux exceeds the measurements by 500 %! Thus the model is overall high compared to the data, leading to 101 mW/m^2 as the mean oceanic value (Pollack et al., 1993) - (H.N. Pollack, S.J. Hurter & J.J. Johnson, "Heat flow from the Earth's interior: Analysis of the global data set" Reviews of Geophysics 31: 267-280, 1993) - which is almost double the median observed flux of 64.9 mW/m^2.

Based on these calculated values, global heat flow maps are constructed. These maps give the false impression that heat flux is higher along mid-ocean ridges, and lower along trenches-subduction zones, but they are in direct contradiction with maps that depict the observed values, whereby values as low as 20 mW/m^2 are common in mid-ocean ridges, and values as high as 200 mW/m^2 are equally common in trenches, arc and back-arc as well as in continental areas, such as the Japan and Fiji-Tonga trenches and the north-western continental USA. This direct observation is in complete agreement with the global distribution of active volcanoes and hot spots the great majority of which concentrates outside mid-ocean ridges, in the so-called convergent margins. The contradiction is obvious. Heat released along mid-ocean ridges, where the motion of plates is fuelled, falls short many times the heat released as a by-product of subduction. Miraculously we have a heat engine the efficiency of which is well over 100%!


This infringement of direct observation is done in an effort to support the conveyor belt – subduction model of plate tectonics, whereby hot material rises along mid-ocean ridges, then moves laterally and away from the ridges, gradually cools, becomes heavier, and finally sinks along trenches-subduction zones and returns to its starting point. In the half space cooling contraption the argument goes: all heat is released instantly at zero time along mid-ocean ridges, and that is why it is not observed in the measured values. Putting aside the insurmountable mechanical problems of subduction (a solid driven by the force of gravity penetrating into another solid), this is a gross violation of the obvious and of direct observation. Heat cannot be released instantly, because it is known from petrology that the cooling rate of rocks is about 50 degrees Kelvin per billion years! If there was heat and molten material it should be there for billions of years. Such a thermally controlled convective process could happen, if and only if the materials of the Earth’s interior are ideal fluids, not real solids, as they actually are, with viscosities above 10^20 Pa.s and creep rates as slow as 10^-15 s^-1; an insuperable scale problem. Therefore the thermally controlled conveyor belt - subduction model, as well as any variants or hybrid models, should be discarded because they are in fundamental contradiction with direct observation and deny the obvious.

What I make from the observed heat flow values is “that the mean heat flow value is about 60-80 mW/m^2 in oceanic or continental sites, independent of, and despite idealised plate tectonics expectations" and “regional high heat flow must be a shallow near-surface phenomenon, and the mechanism of heat production must be common, locally controlled, and cannot be sourced, nor supplied by global scale convective transfer” (S. T. Tassos & D. J. Ford, "An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound", JSE 19(1): 43-89, 2005).

Stavros TASSOS

I can only give my total suppot for what Tim Thompson has said. Also Anton, like blueshift, i have often followed up your posts!

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Take care to distinguish between conservatism and conservationism and that each can have meaning other than that applicable to the conservation of forces, momenta, and mass/energy.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Welcome to UT, s.tassos!

While part of your post seems to relate directly to the topic of this thread, most of it seems to be you pushing your own particular paper/theory/view. That view seems to relate to a wider debate which readers here in AT have not been exposed to, nor which are likely to be within the purview of UT.

Would you be so kind as to clarify for us - to what extent are you trying to use UT as a vehicle to promote your pet theory (apparently, an alternative to plate tectonics)?

Kind Regards
Nereid

Dear Tim Thompson,
Re: Your post @ May 13,'05,01:01AM
The argument between EU/BBT has awesome reality for the referee, metaphysically speaking. Is an honest doubt in the mind of an adversary proof of one's own certainty? Is an honest doubt a human flaw or a crossroad at the learning curve? Could an honest doubt occur because one accepts a non-truth? Before it gets more... well, I remain yr obt srvt, Hyginus

Dear Doctor Tim

I have been following this thread with interest as it touches on many similar discussions I've had with Anton, Nereid and others.

Whilst I agree with all you say and understand your frustration I have a couple of comments I'd like to make.

When applied to certain ongoing threads posted by Alternative thinkers, where there a real intent to overthrow current scientific thinking - I totally agree with you.

If you are a serious scientist and have legitimate contradictions, contributions to make to science then surely there are better ways to express these than arguing back and forth on a forum?

I have never understood why certain theories are argued over so vehemently when the proponents clearly don't listen to what is being said - or at least are selective in what they read.

It's comes across as a three wise monkeys approach.

So for "serious" alternate theories I agree.

But what about the interested layman surfing by with (what he/she perceives as) an interesting idea?

Nereid's approach - they should read the current science - arm themselves with knowledge and make a rock solid case before wasting mod's time. (Perhaps I have overstated this a little)

But come on - how many armchair scientists are up to this?

I'm not - though I read everything I can - that I can understand (if only a little)

As I've often stated, popular science books throw up more questions than they answer. The interested reader is bound to wonder - what if...? Or how about if you?

Great questions to ask in the pub if anyone is listening (and sober)

Or the school kid with an aptitude for science and a quizzical brain (Starlab for instance) - I, and I suspect he, know(s) that most of his posts could be either answered with a Google search or by.. (see Nereid approach above) - he also asks questions on things that have been asked/answered in many ways - hundreds of times.

(Please Starlab I am not having a go - only using you as an example of one of the better and more prolific posters in AT)

Yet he continues to post and is active and always interesting to read - he is a great contributor to the site.

Or myself (of which I suspect there are many similar readers) - I started out badly - literally falling across the site and knowing nothing about real science - with no math's to speak of - but brim full of ideas and enthusiasm - looking for an outlet - or just a place to hang out and bounce around ideas - so I posted in AT because this to me was a part of the forum for bouncing ideas. That's how it came across. I seriously misjudged the level of response I would get and "went and ate worms" for a while! But I got over myself and have gleaned enormous enjoyment over the months from studying the replies from the Mod's - and yes Anton, Tim, Nereid, Blueshift, damienpaul, Gourdhead, Starlab, Ferg c etc I have often referred to your excellent answers and printed them out as I'm sure many others have too. They (and your patience) are always appreciated.

That's worth repeating. "They (and your patience) are always appreciated."

Really what you are saying is that AT isn't as casual as its name implies. It's a place where serious scientific discussion is to be held.

Hell that cuts me out. That's why I started Crackpot Corner - not because I consider myself a crackpot (though I am sometimes!) but as a lighter avenue for people (like me) to come play and chat - throw out their latest brainstorming idea - I have been pleased with the response - even Fraser dropped by!

My suggestions?

Have a better question summary - there are only so many common questions - Gravity, light (speed of, etc), expansion of the universe, Gravity (again!!!), contraction of the universe - infinity (infinitely.)

I'd say if the Mod's are (understandably) getting tired of running through the motions on these common questions it would be best to group the common answers into sections with links and simply refer these in answer in the first instance. Or have a clearly marked section to access through a search field. (Most people won't trawl through archives)

Use AT for serious discussion of Alternate Ideas (like the Electric Universe model) - but make it clear it's not a place to ask if Gravity is a force if you don't want to talk about that (again!)

Encourage casual Alternate ideas (not theories) with a different thread - they don't have to be crackpots!

Have an occasional workshop on the site where people can let it all hang out as they would in the pub - blow away the cobwebs and not clutter up the site with ongoing threads hardly anyone reads.

Can you do real time on the site?

I'll stop now - I'm not in anyway being critical - this is a wonderful site and even once getting a response from some one of Tim's caliber is a real treat - honestly that kind of access to experts is gold.

I suppose I'm saying that we need to differentiate between naysayers of mainstream science - arguing a cause - who need to be referred to Nereid! (For an ear bashing!!) and what I suspect is your average reader with an idea to chew over

Mild

PS: I used to be a member of a writers group and we had similar problems - Mod's (or our versions) got tired of telling people to correct their punctuation (please don't look at mine!) - that's not why they were there and there are easy ways to learn this. What they enjoyed was the "content" discussions - so we agreed on different levels of critique. We had occasional workshops for those who wished to improve punctuation and spelling and a discussion general workshop for works in progress to get feed back on potentially stimulating ideas.

This was a lot of fun - much freer without the constant you said and twice in that last sentence and you don't need to say I, myself as that's a tautology - etc.

The result was a more buoyant (and interesting) group that I miss (I have moved areas) that allowed expression of lots of great ideas - amongst the common place and oft repeated.

PSS: Nereid - I think you are wrong (just my opinion) about the 2% not being worth it. If 1% encourages people to hit the site and come back then that's worth it to Fraser. It depends on what you are trying to get back. He's creating a varied and interesting community - and it takes all sorts as they say - and variety is good for the soul.

Such a person can expect a mulling over of the idea, and probably get some pointers to some obvious contradictions that would need to be resolved.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak