New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section

[RussT]

Fraser;

BAUT is undoubtedly the best forums on the planet! I have been to numerous others and have no doubt about this! You and Phil and all the Mods have made it so and it is my contention that the ATM section is one of the main reasons for this.

It was suggested that a seperate section in the astronomy section should be started so there could be 'collabrative' type discussions that weren't so attack with 'glee' and 'fervor' orientated. IF that cannot be implemented so that alernative concepts can be discussed correctly, then I would implore you to reconsider your stance!

I put my first paper on BAUT 10/5/05 and the last post on that thread was 3/5/06. Through very valuable discussions and further investigations, I have done 2 additional ones, and started numerous side threads talking about individual concepts contained therein, that it seems would also not be allowed under the proposed ruling. These have all been invaluable in learning more about how 'the current paradigm says things are working' as well as being able to possibly see and consider different alternatives.

With all due respect, and not being flipant in any way, ALL the mainstream scientists on the planet were completely and absolutely WRONG for 30+ years
saying, with all due consideration of Nereids famous numbers, equations and "STUFF", that GRB's HAD to be "IN" our galaxy! Well, in my personal opinion, they have been wrong for the last 10 also (since 1997 when the first afterglow was found), which could defintely make some huge differences in the way things are seen. The point is, that that is definitely NOT a 30 day or even 6 month investigation and I have recently developed some additional arguements that are well worthwhile exploring with everyone who might have an interest in that line of pursuit. And if not, they can just choose NOT to participate.

Thanks for your consideration

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

Mr. Inbetween, AKA, the ATM promoter ad infinitum, will not be pleased.

*cough*

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Moose

30 days is more than enough to present and defend a solid idea if you do your homework first like you're supposed to.

If you have a solid enough idea, a single well-written paper is enough to present it, so no need to even come here. How can you assert that 30 days is enough to discuss the idea in this forum? You seem to forget that long ATM threads are long for different reasons.

Some of them are long because many people want to contribute and a lot of explaining is necessary (sometimes repeatedly, and not always challengers "educating" an ATM-er). Other threads are long because there are many different aspects to the ATM idea. Still other threads carry a lot of animosity and need sorting out bcause of it. Then you have the example that Fraser mentioned, bumping without anything new added. And some threads are long because of an earlier rule: to keep discussions of a certain type of ATM idea (for example intrinsic redshift) to a single thread, instead of different threads for each aspect. And, yes, if you are in the process of trying to convince someone of your arguments it can sometimes take a lot of posts, whether as ATM-er trying to explain his or her position, or as challenger explaining theirs.

Cheers.

[galacsi]

Frazer has every right to do what he want with his site. He founded it and own it.

And I think it is a very good think , a logical step preparing next and final progress ; the complete interdiction of ATM.

So people rejoice , because it is the end of hypocrisy . Because you know there is no discussion possible with scientists ,period. Science know it all .
Science rule OK ?

IMO ATM proponents must build their own sites and impose their own rules. Just doing it , Doing their own searching. Moving their bottom part.
And more agressively ,why t finance with our taxes all this new clerical classe ? Why not put all these people on the dole ? Why french taxpayers and others must finance ITER and parts of ISS and all these BBT and BH space telescopes , we dont care at all ?

So i said "Frazer thanks for booting our asses "

Probably my last post on the BAUT.

[Serenitude]

This thread is becoming a perfect example of exactly what I was alluding too...

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by galacsi

IMO ATM proponents must build their own sites and impose their own rules. Just doing it , Doing their own searching. Moving their bottom part.

Certainly. If you feel strongly about a theory, and believe the evidence is flowing in, make your own website. Nobody will ever be able to shut you down, and you can say what you like.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by VanderL

How can you assert that 30 days is enough to discuss the idea in this forum?

Pretty much like this: Thirty days is plenty of time to present a solid theory if you've bothered to take the time to actually do the work you're supposed to have done before you present it.

If you can't do it in thirty days, your theory isn't ready to be presented and thus doesn't belong here yet. Note the key word "yet".

You seem to forget that long ATM threads are long for different reasons.

"Seem to forget"? Hardly. ATM threads are longer than thirty days mostly because of rampant obstinancy and heel-dragging/obfuscation on the part of certain ATM proponents. The very same proponents for which this rule change is targetted. And the very same reasons I tend to avoid ATM and CT.

Now, if you're claiming that you specifically are going to be directly affected by this, then I have to say that I'm finding it difficult to drag up much sympathy. And I think I might just be okay with that.

I can only suggest you do your homework thoroughly before you present here.

Or, you can start your own website. It's a perfectly valid option.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I think it will help in the long run. I haven't been active in the CT forum as of late because of the 40+ page long, absurd argument threads that have been running in circles for 39 pages. I think this is a positive step that will bring in more like-minded people.

You are lumping all long threads together, and since I haven't seen you active in any ATM threads, your opinion on the CT threads is noted, but not exactly relevant.

Originally Posted by Serenitude

This thread is becoming a perfect example of exactly what I was alluding too...

You mean absurd arguments?

Cheers.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by VanderL

You are lumping all long threads together, and since I haven't seen you active in any ATM threads, your opinion on the CT threads is noted, but not exactly relevant.

So those who lurk have irrelevant opinions??

I wish you "luck" with that argument.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Moose

Pretty much like this: Thirty days is plenty of time to present a solid theory if you've bothered to take the time to actually do the work you're supposed to have done before you present it.

If you can't do it in thirty days, your theory isn't ready to be presented and thus doesn't belong here yet. Note the key word "yet".

1. You can change "yet" to "ever"
2. You can't propose the same theory a second time, as per the rules.
3. There is more to ATM then fully developed theories, there is also a number of ATM papers from respected researchers interesting enough to discuss here.
4. I'm curious what you think an ATM theory presented in 30 days should achieve. What are the characteristics of a good ATM "theory"?

Originally Posted by Moose

"Seem to forget"? Hardly. ATM threads are longer than thirty days mostly because of rampant obstinancy and heel-dragging/obfuscation on the part of certain ATM proponents. The very same proponents for which this rule change is targetted.

That's not true, if people don't want to listen to your arguments, stop posting, it's quite simple and it keeps threads much shorter.

Originally Posted by Moose

And the very same reasons I tend to avoid ATM and CT.

Wise decision, so why are you so active in this thread then?

Originally Posted by Moose

Now, if you're claiming that you specifically are going to be directly affected by this, then I have to say that I'm finding it difficult to drag up much sympathy. And I think I might just be okay with that.

I'm not claiming I am going to be affected, my "claim" (expectation) is that the ATM section will effectively shut down, and why not say so out right.

Originally Posted by Moose

I can only suggest you do your homework thoroughly before you present here.

What makes you think I don't do my "homework"?

Originally Posted by Moose

Or, you can start your own website. It's a perfectly valid option.

It is, and most ATM proponents already did. That doesn't mean there can't be anything to learn from ATM discussions.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

So those who lurk have irrelevant opinions??

I wish you "luck" with that argument.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to "lurkers" (I don't know if Serenitude is an ATM "lurker"), but CT is not the same as ATM. As an aside it would be nice to see "lurkers" become more active, after all, without expressing an opinion, you can't expect others to take them into account.

cheers.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by VanderL

You can't propose the same theory a second time, as per the rules.

If an ATM proponent were to uncover new evidence in defense of their ATM idea, then I am most certain that the folks here would be interested in hearing that evidence.

Why would you think that the rules forbid that?

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

If an ATM proponent were to uncover new evidence in defense of their ATM idea, then I am most certain that the folks here would be interested in hearing that evidence.

Why would you think that the rules forbid that?

Maybe I didn't understand Fraser opening post here (my bold), but I think the meaning is clear.

Originally Posted by Fraser

New ATM theories will remain open for 30 days, and then they'll be closed by the moderation staff. In other words, if you've got an interesting new theory about the Universe, you've got 30 days to deal with objections, and then we'll seal it up - preserved for all eternity. Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted.

Cheers.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by VanderL

1. You can change "yet" to "ever"

No.

1) You're not my editor. Don't edit my words.
2) Fraser has already clearly said otherwise, so there's no need to play the martyr.

2. You can't propose the same theory a second time, as per the rules.

Right. So make your one proposal count. Do your homework beforehand.

4. I'm curious what you think an ATM theory presented in 30 days should achieve. What are the characteristics of a good ATM "theory"?

A good theory, ATM or otherwise, fits the evidence better than existing theories do. Otherwise, the theory should be rejected. That's what it means to do good science.

That's not true, if people don't want to listen to your arguments, stop posting, it's quite simple and it keeps threads much shorter.

Non-sequitor. Nobody here suggested you should STHU, and you have no call to be suggesting such a thing to me. No call at all.

(Geez, if that's anywhere near typical of how you folks handle simple disagreement in your ATM threads, no wonder the rules are changing.)

Wise decision, so why are you so active in this thread then?

Because I have an interest, as all BAUTers should, in how this board is run. Because maybe, just maybe, I'd be a participant in ATM or CT threads (as I used to be, especially Apollo-related CTs on the old BABB) if there wasn't so much obstinancy and junk claims to wade through.

I'm not claiming I am going to be affected, my "claim" (expectation) is that the ATM section will effectively shut down, and why not say so out right.

Heh, you say so, mano. You say so.

What makes you think I don't do my "homework"?

It's pretty clear from your complaints in this thread, and I recall you were particularly (and identically) vocal in the last thread where an ATM-related policy change has been announced. It's clear from the tone of your comments that you're taking this rule change personally, that you feel you yourself is going to be personally restricted in a way you consider unfair.

Advocacy on behalf of a third party sound/reads differently.

If it were the case, it's unlikely you would be throwing out that rather obvious strawman (your "expectations") that Fraser intends to end ATM. It's patently clear (or it should be to anyone without a direct personal stake in this decision) that if he and Phil wanted to end ATM on BABB, they'd end ATM. They own the board. They don't need to slippery-slope their way into doing so. They could have done so at any point up to, and including, the moment they decided what forums to create on this board.

It is, and most ATM proponents already did. That doesn't mean there can't be anything to learn from ATM discussions.

Nobody's saying there's not, least of all Fraser. He said quite clearly there's value to be had in the ATM forum, especially if they can reduce the junk floating around.

In any case, I'm getting bored with your obstinancy in this thread. I have no problem whatsoever with the decision. It's been made, so there's no real point to offering my input after the fact. I'm content to live with the allegedly diiiiire consequences.

And there are far more worthwhile things I can be doing with my weekend. Like shovelling the porches. Or procrastinating by posting in BABBling. (...Or watching paint dry...)

[Fraser]

We've been having a discussion about what kinds of new evidence would open up a closed ATM for discussion. One idea would be a new relevant paper on Arxiv, or something published in a journal. However, I'm concerned that people will just spin unrelated stories together.

As I mentioned in the beginning, our objective with this new policy is to shut down the marketing and promotion, while allowing geniunely new ideas to get through and have an opportunity to shine.

I'd love to go even further, potentially bringing in partners from the scientific community to help evaluate theories. And my greatest hope would be that a member of the community could propose a new idea, scientists would be able to help look for evidence, and the whole process could contribute to science.

But the way the ATM section stands currently, it'll never serve that purpose. We've given it years and years to try, and it's just a snake chasing its tail. So, it's time to try something radically new.

It's my hope that VanderL and other ATM proponents will try to look at it from that perspective. It's like you're trying to sell a house. Clean it up first, and you might stand a good chance of making the sale. You didn't want to clean it up, so I'm going to do it for you.

Let's see where we stand in a few months. If the ATM section completely withers on the vine, then I guess it wasn't meant to happen. But if it's still vibrant, and a place that is interesting and welcoming for mainstream scientists, then I'll be glad we made the change.

Either way is an acceptable alternative for what we've got right now.

But as people have said. If Phil and I wanted ATM shut down, we'd just shut it down. Delete the section, and put the mods on search and destroy mode. That's not what we're doing, so don't insinuate that we are.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by VanderL

You are lumping all long threads together, and since I haven't seen you active in any ATM threads, your opinion on the CT threads is noted, but not exactly relevant.

I'm not lumping all threads together. I have very specific threads and styles in mind. Don't put meanings into my posts I didn't specify to help your martyrdom.

On activity, I was very, very active once upon a time. The very things that Frazer is trying to avoid now are the very reason that myself, and many others, haven't been active lately. Also, just because you haven't seen me active in your crusade threads doesn't mean I'm not active in general, and it's not your job to interpret the relevancy of my opinion. Near ad-hom noted.

Originally Posted by VanderL

You mean absurd arguments?

Cheers.

Frankly, I mean obstinate posters like yourself who refuse to listen to informed information in informed opinions, think any criticism of a hypothesis is a personal attack, and keep presenting the same old, tired arguments in post after post without regard for the responses and evidence from the community. Some people would rather die as a martyr than live as a scientist actively searching truth. I merely presented a garment. You claimed it was cut to your fit.

Cheers

[Coldcreation]

Actually, I was under the impression that the ATM section was flourishing over the last month or so. It's a pitty to make that come to a halt. That is exactly what will happen. Why?

Let's take the example of redshift. There are only a couple of viable alternatives. There are not 20 viable alternatives. The one that are potentially operational in the manifold are the interpretations that need to be discussed, argued, and re-discussed. Moderators are going to have to deal with all kinds of wacked out ideas.

Better it is to stay focused long-term on the good ideas, and let the others slid down the list. One arguably good example is the POAMS thread. Something had only just begun.

Perhaps it is not too late to reverse the regretable 30 day limit descision. Or, at least ot double it to 60 days.

CC

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Moose

No.
1) You're not my editor. Don't edit my words.
2) Fraser has already clearly said otherwise, so there's no need to play the martyr.

Right. So make your one proposal count. Do your homework beforehand.

A good theory, ATM or otherwise, fits the evidence better than existing theories do. Otherwise, the theory should be rejected. That's what it means to do good science.

Non-sequitor. Nobody here suggested you should STHU, and you have no call to be suggesting such a thing to me. No call at all.

(Geez, if that's anywhere near typical of how you folks handle simple disagreement in your ATM threads, no wonder the rules are changing.)

Because I have an interest, as all BAUTers should, in how this board is run. Because maybe, just maybe, I'd be a participant in ATM or CT threads (as I used to be, especially Apollo-related CTs on the old BABB) if there wasn't so much obstinancy and junk claims to wade through.

Heh, you say so, mano. You say so.

It's pretty clear from your complaints in this thread, and I recall you were particularly (and identically) vocal in the last thread where an ATM-related policy change has been announced. It's clear from the tone of your comments that you're taking this rule change personally, that you feel you yourself is going to be personally restricted in a way you consider unfair.

Advocacy on behalf of a third party sound/reads differently.

If it were the case, it's unlikely you would be throwing out that rather obvious strawman (your "expectations") that Fraser intends to end ATM. It's patently clear (or it should be to anyone without a direct personal stake in this decision) that if he and Phil wanted to end ATM on BABB, they'd end ATM. They own the board. They don't need to slippery-slope their way into doing so. They could have done so at any point up to, and including, the moment they decided what forums to create on this board.

Nobody's saying there's not, least of all Fraser. He said quite clearly there's value to be had in the ATM forum, especially if they can reduce the junk floating around.

In any case, I'm getting bored with your obstinancy in this thread. I have no problem whatsoever with the decision. It's been made, so there's no real point to offering my input after the fact. I'm content to live with the allegedly diiiiire consequences.

And there are far more worthwhile things I can be doing with my weekend. Like shovelling the porches. Or procrastinating by posting in BABBling. (...Or watching paint dry...)

Wow, I must have really stepped on your toes here, you read too much in what I have written. You recall correctly that I was vocal on this subject before, but I was trying to come up with other ways to get a better ATM section. But about the new rule, as you say the decision has been made and we'll just wait and see what will happen.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I'm not lumping all threads together. I have very specific threads and styles in mind. Don't put meanings into my posts I didn't specify to help your martyrdom.

What martyrdom, you must mistake me with someone else, if I read anything in your post that wasn't intended, could it be that your post was maybe a little unclear?

Originally Posted by Serenitude

On activity, I was very, very active once upon a time. The very things that Frazer is trying to avoid now are the very reason that myself, and many others, haven't been active lately. Also, just because you haven't seen me active in your crusade threads doesn't mean I'm not active in general, and it's not your job to interpret the relevancy of my opinion. Near ad-hom noted.

You think CT and ATM are identical? You only talked about CT in your post, while the rule was made for the ATM section, and you admitted yourself you were not very active. And what "crusade threads", what in heavens are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Frankly, I mean obstinate posters like yourself who refuse to listen to informed information in informed opinions, think any criticism of a hypothesis is a personal attack, and keep presenting the same old, tired arguments in post after post without regard for the responses and evidence from the community. Some people would rather die as a martyr than live as a scientist actively searching truth.

That is a serious mischaracterisation.

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I merely presented a garment. You claimed it was cut to your fit.

Cheers

??

Cheers.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by VanderL

You think CT and ATM are identical? You only talked about CT in your post, while the rule was made for the ATM section.

That much, at least, is true. I mistakenly stated CT instead of ATM. I meant ATM. I apologize if that muddied the waters and made it hard to make sense of my position. Otherwise, my points stand as written.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Moose

*cough*

Try some Smith Bros. cough drops. The ones made by Trade are usually better than those made by Mark.

Yeah, I should have said I was being explicit about something that was implicit in the previous post.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by VanderL

What do you mean "complain bitterly", I predict the new rule is in effect the end of ATM, and of course some people are happier without ATM.

Cheers.

This is what I mean:

Originally Posted by VanderL

As I said, people will not post their fully baked ideas in BAUT, it's quite simple, the rule will be a barrier, just wait and see....

This "30 days rule" won't work, or rather, it will work, to stop any ATM discussions....

A barrier to learning about new concepts, to critically investigating mainstream theories and thinking outside the box....

Yup, no complaints there.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

Yeah, I should have said I was being explicit about something that was implicit in the previous post.

Actually, I was quoting for truth. It wasn't a message to you, just echoing your sentiment as it became particularly relevant just then.

[peteshimmon]

Well I was planning a little extra maths on my
hobby horse and was planning to bump my old
thread to post it. And I do not like to be
rushed. So what if I have to put it in a new
post? Will it be squashed? Seems it will become
very quiet around here.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

This is what I mean:

Yup, no complaints there.

Sorry, I'm not good at catching implications from comments like the one above. What do you mean with the "no complaints" and the wink?

What you seem to perceive as bitterness is merely my prediction (opinion) that the rule will in effect end the ATM section. A development I don't like to see, it's like chucking both the baby and the bathwater away (or maybe throwing the fishbowl water away and try to keep the fish).

Anyway, we just wait a few months and then see what has happened to the ATM section.

Cheers.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by VanderL

...Anyway, we just wait a few months and then see what has happened to the ATM section.

Cheers.

Eventually, in the not too distant future, the ATM section will consist of a bunch of mainstreamer's arguing about whether there's 24 or 25 % primordial helium in the universe, whether there is 71 or 72 % dark matter, whether there is 23 or 24 % non-baryonic dark matter, WIMPs, about whether DE is lambda in drag or something else entirely, about whether inflation should be included in the lambda-CDM model.

In short, since the ATMers are against 30 days, and the mainstreamers all for it, the only folks left there will be the mainstreamers quibling about qauntities of bunk that fill the standard model...

CC

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

In short, since the ATMers are against 30 days, and the mainstreamers all for it, the only folks left there will be the mainstreamers quibling about qauntities of bunk that fill the standard model...

Unless the ATMers clean up their act and bring in actual science and evidence.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Unless the ATMers clean up their act and bring in actual science and evidence.

Exactly. ATM is pretty much what the ATMers make of it.

Right now, ATM in its current form is pretty much nothing more than a rotating advertisement for incomplete or outright bad science-like claims. I find it telling that the rule change ending this practice is supposed to "end" the ATM forum outright.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Fraser

I'd love to go even further, potentially bringing in partners from the scientific community to help evaluate theories. And my greatest hope would be that a member of the community could propose a new idea, scientists would be able to help look for evidence, and the whole process could contribute to science.

I'm with you there, if only hubristically

But the way the ATM section stands currently, it'll never serve that purpose. We've given it years and years to try, and it's just a snake chasing its tail. So, it's time to try something radically new.

As near as I can remember, the ATM section served to isolate the odd ATM response to mainstream questions, and to quarantine the fervent ATM defenders. Sometimes, they didn't self-identify, and people who wanted to ignore them were at a disadvantage. Some are here just for the astronomy, after all

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Eventually, in the not too distant future, the ATM section will consist of a bunch of mainstreamer's arguing about whether there's 24 or 25 % primordial helium in the universe, whether there is 71 or 72 % dark matter, whether there is 23 or 24 % non-baryonic dark matter, WIMPs, about whether DE is lambda in drag or something else entirely, about whether inflation should be included in the lambda-CDM model.

In short, since the ATMers are against 30 days, and the mainstreamers all for it, the only folks left there will be the mainstreamers quibling about qauntities of bunk that fill the standard model...

But, but...

Mainstreamers wouldn't quibble over the mainstream, in ATM.

Right?

[Bogie]

Originally Posted by Fraser

...
We'll start this new policy a week from today - March 6, 2007. We'll close up every ATM thread older than 30-days, no exceptions. They'll all still be accessible by the search engine, and if you want to put in a hard link.

The end of the ISU is coming . On 3/6/07 the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) thread will be shut down with all the other somewhat aged ATM threads. There will be many cheers I know.

So I ask all of the professionals to humor me and suffer out the last day or two.

I already know that my speculations are not science, but I also know that the liberty I have taken in putting together the ISU cosmology is not akin to claiming there are blue unicorns on the far side of the moon.

I have used a bottom up process to suggest simple causes for what we observe.

I have developed the ISU as if there was a Grand Unification Theory and as if the EEP was the unifying particle.

My last request of you as fellow sincere science lovers is that just out of sheer joy that threads like mine will no longer be a thorn in your side, please give me constructive criticism. And think about what you say and stay within the BAUT rules of order and try to actually show me how smart the professionals here are.

I recommend that you look at the last post and the first post, and then work backward from the last post and read the last five or six posts before you start to write.

Just do it.