With the posting of the Rules For Posting To This Forum, especially those pertaining to Alternative Concepts (#13), I would like to begin to bring discussion in this ATM section into line with those rules.

I would like to do this in two stages:
1. consolidate threads that are essentially about just one ATM idea
2. guide discussion within each active ATM thread towards adherence to the new rules.

Although the BA said* the (new) rules will be strictly enforced from 1 October, I expect the tidying up here in ATM may take a little longer (of course, for new ATM threads, the new rules will be strictly enforced).

Of the threads active in the last week, there are several in which discussion of essentially just one ATM idea is on-going; the ATM ideas being discussed across multiple threads are^
a ) Michael Mozina's 'sun has a solid surface' and
b ) the Plasma Universe/Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe/Electric Sun.

Let's start with a.

Here are the (most recent) threads:
A Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, the main thread
B Big Bang or Big Slam?, which combines an excellent question about modern cosmology with a lot of discussion of Michael's idea
C Mass and/or Density of the Sun?, which addresses a particular aspect of Michael's idea
D Magnetic flux tubes or electrical arcs?, which really belongs in the Questions and Answers section
In addition, there is some discussion of Michael's idea in some other ATM threads.

What I propose to do is:
- move B and D to the Q&A section, after I've added a post explaining what's going on, providing a link back to A, and requesting that further discussion be limited to answering the specific questions raised, within the framework of mainstream astrophysics.
- add a post to A and C, explaining what's going on, requesting that further discussion be in accord with the new rules (and, for C, providing a link back to A)

I will also address a common cause of confusion (much heat, little light), the role of images in modern astronomy, especially their essential 'data' aspects. I may do this via an additional post to the Advice for ATM theory supporters. thread.

For avoidance of doubt, no moderator or administrator will be deleting anything; all threads, posts, and the contents of all posts - up to the end of this week at least - will remain exactly as they are today.

*In case you missed it, there is a thread for discussing the new rules; suggestions and comments are most welcome.

^If you see other ATM ideas which are currently being actively discussed across multiple threads, please write a post to this thread about it/them (except for Mosheh Thezion's cosmology; all discussion of these ideas is to be limited to the thread of the same name).

Per the above plan, two of the four threads discussing Michael Mozina's idea have been moved to Questions and Answers, and a post explaining what's going on added to each.

Next, the Plasma Universe/Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe/Electric Sun ideas and threads (stay tuned).

Over the BA and UT years, there have been a number of threads devoted (mostly) to discussion of one or other aspect of the plasma universe/plasma cosmology/electric universe/electric sun/electric comet/etc ideas.

Here is a sample, in approx (reverse) chronological order, of the last post to the thread:
1. Z-pinch stellar formation theory ...
2. Electric Universe, No math, no progress?
3. Electric Universe Model
4. Massive solar flare supports Electric Universe
5. OK, I'm dumb, but help me out!!!
6. Neolithic artwork and auroral phenomena in antiquity
7. The Electric Sun; a new view

There is also some discussion of these ideas in the Mass Exodus from Big Bang Begins, the Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, and possibly several other threads.

In BA, this topic had a history of locked threads, usually (always?) when a proponent was challenged to provide something more substantial to defend their claims than mere handwaving, and not only failed to do so, but also continued to argue via handwaving (#7 above is an example).

Of the seven threads listed above, only three are - I believe - still active, the first three.

Here's what I propose:
A. focus discussion in #1 (Z-pinches, powering the Sun, and stellar evolution) on Z-pinches, 'surface fusion' as the source of solar power, and z-pinches as a mechanism for the formation of stars.
B. continue to use #3 (Electric Universe model) as the main thread for general discussion of any PC/PU/EU/ES/EC/etc ideas
C. if there are further, specific, discussions of neolithic art as observations supporting an EU/ES/etc idea, let's have them in #6
D. If any PU/PC/EU proponent wishes to start a thread on discussion of Peratt's (spiral) galaxy simulations, I will move the relevant posts from the 'Big Bang Exodus' thread to such a new thread.
E. If any PU/PC/EU proponent would like to open a discussion about one specific aspect of this general class of ideas, please start a new thread.
F. As we already have several threads* devoted to ancilliary aspects of the PU/PC/EU idea, let's keep those for discussion of just those specific topics.

I don't know what to do about #2; the OP was good, and offered the opportunity for a discussion on an important aspect of modern astrophysics (namely, the extent to which it's possible to do anything significant without quantitative analyses, theories, and models). However, it has rambled all over the place, and I doubt that there's much value in keeping it going.

But let's hear your views!

Finally, for the context of this post, please read the OP carefully.

*A partial list:
a Quasar intrinsic redshift
b Wolf Effect as a valid cause of redshift
c More from Arp et al.
d CREIL
e The parametric frequency shifts in astrophysics (CREIL) - (I may merge this with d)
f Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen

Thanks for the clerification Nereid.

Could you add some explanation as to why the consolidation is necessary? Is it only for ATM threads?

Let me give an example of why I'm asking. We have a lot of threads on global warming vs. Sun-climate connections. But each of those threads has a different flavor. And threads naturally change course. Sometimes a person starts a new thread on a topic because they want to look at a narrower issue within the topic. I think that is beneficial. If it is insisted that only one thread exist on a topic then in some cases you'll have multiple conversations going on at once on the same thread - each about a different subtopic.

Also, some threads are frequently referenced in the newer threads, but no longer being actively discussed. Those older inactive threads should be preserved as is without merging them with new threads. They are valuable resources.

If someone exhumes one of the older threads, will it be merged into the newer conversation on the same topic?

I just want to have an idea exactly how much of this merging is going to happen. Threads are the intellectual property of all of the participants. Certainly Phil And Fraser are the ultimate owners of these threads, but I think out of respect for the participants tinkering with and merging threads ought only be done when it will actually improve the quality of the discussion. If I know I made comment X in thread Y, I don't want to go looking for it and not be able to find it because it was consolidated into thread Z in a place and in a context that I didn't originally put that comment in.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons for doing some consolidation, I'm just sharing my thoughts that there are reasons for making sure all consolidation is carefully measured.

__________________
"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

IMHO, for the 'sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' and 'PU/PC/EU/ES/EC/etc' ideas, yes. Why? Becuase with the merger, and the sole 'be nice' rule, (very similar) active discussion of these ideas was/is happening in many different threads. This is confusing and frustrating, as evidenced by comments within the various threads, and by PMs I have received. That is the full limit of my current intention (and why I posted this in the ATM section). If others have similar concerns, re other parts of BAUT, let's hear those concerns!This is an excellent example of where, and why, multiple threads on the one topic can sometimes be very sensible.

In fact, wrt the two topics I've mentioned so far - Michael Mozina's and the PU/PC/etc - I concluded that at least two of the existing threads should continue (albeit with a better recognition of their scope), precisely because different aspects are being discussed in existing threads.Oui.

It is partly for these reasons that I have no intention of merging any threads (with one possible exception - there are two CREIL threads, one of which contains just one post, and - AFAIK - is referenced by no other thread).

My apologies that I didn't make this clearer beforeNo. At least, not by me, under the plan I'm working from.I hope I've allayed your concerns here; if not, please say so.And I thank you for your comments, and for sharing your concerns.

Speaking personally, I value highly your contributions to BAUT dgruss23/DGR; I hope you will continue the fine track record you established in both BA and UT.

I for one am glad to see them consolidated as I had the same experience. You'll have to bear with me as I switch gears a bit been ATM and mainstream topics and moderate my own bahavior accordingly in each location, but I understand what you are trying to do, and personally I don't have a problem with anything you've done with my threads so far.

Yes, thank you very much for clarifying that!

Thanks Nereid!

Unfortunately, in a month or so I may need to "disappear" from BAUT for an extended period of time. Not for any bad reasons, but what I'm starting very soon will probably make it impossible for me to have time for heavy involvement in any discussions here. But we'll see, I might only have to disappear on weekdays.

__________________
"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

Only on weekdays?! You've got a job!?

Some people think its a job - others think its half a job.

__________________
"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

Per TomT's request, I have split out some recent posts in the Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins thread.

The new thread is Spiral Galaxies Without Dark Matter (though it should have 'Perrat' in the title somewhere, IMHO).