New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section

[RussT]

"IF" the FLRW model were falsified TODAY, which of the ATM's would be considered 'worthy of pursuit' by the owners and the scientists on this forum???

That would certainly leave open SR, GR and any kind of 'steady state' model that could be put forward.

What if BAUT was the place where something significant were to actually come to something?

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Hold it right there, there used to be several Arp-redshift related topics that became one thread, which then became a focussed discussion on bridges between object with different redshifts, and while the thread is very long, as indicated a few posts back by Dgruss23, much of the length is due to the "mainstreamers" failing to understand certain concepts, you included.

Actually, I think it is provocative posts like yours that add to the length of threads. False or stereotyping claims like yours above beg to be corrected to set the record straight. Side arguments ensue. Such arguments are generally off-topic and unnecessary.

Originally Posted by VanderL

The fact that the mainstreamers either walked away from the discussion (after being asked specific questions), or rehashed invalid criticisms, or just don't "get it", is a clear indication that ATM is not allowed to progress beyond a certain point.... Anyway, your qualification of the Arp thread just doesn't cut it.

See what I mean? This sort of mischaracterization is a provocation. And unless someone has a lot of self-discipline and maturity, this type of language and gross assertion is bound to provoke an angry response. The Arp thread may have contained a lot of exchanges that were exemplary for the type of discussion desired, but I'm not so sure your contributions could be put into that category.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by RussT

"IF" the FLRW model were falsified TODAY, which of the ATM's would be considered 'worthy of pursuit' by the owners and the scientists on this forum???

That would certainly leave open SR, GR and any kind of 'steady state' model that could be put forward.

What if BAUT was the place where something significant were to actually come to something?

Surely that would depend, very heavily, on the details of any such falsification, wouldn't it?

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Cougar

Actually, I think it is provocative posts like yours that add to the length of threads. False or stereotyping claims like yours above beg to be corrected to set the record straight. Side arguments ensue. Such arguments are generally off-topic and unnecessary.

See what I mean? This sort of mischaracterization is a provocation. And unless someone has a lot of self-discipline and maturity, this type of language and gross assertion is bound to provoke an angry response. The Arp thread may have contained a lot of exchanges that were exemplary for the type of discussion desired, but I'm not so sure your contributions could be put into that category.

While I see what you mean, coming from you this is rich. I was responding to the way you (and others) incorrectly summarized the Arp thread (or are you denying what I said above happened?).

Anyway, (mis)characterisations aside, what is important is what will happen to the ATM section, I made some suggestions, maybe you want to respond to those?

And I want to make this point again (lifted from the Arp et al. thread):

Originally Posted by antoniseb

It's not clear what will happen with the Arp thread. Because *this* thread has a fairly steady supply of new information AND people working real numbers on both sides, it might be a special case... or it might be that the Arp general topic will break down into much narrower discussions. In any case, I don't think discussion of Arp's model will end here.

I was hoping some of the moderators or Fraser want to respond.

Cheers.

[RussT]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Surely that would depend, very heavily, on the details of any such falsification, wouldn't it?

Sure it would. Want me to pick the most generic one possible?

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Continuing:

Thanatos January 11 Post#2701

I am still stuck on this [post 2628]
What do you mean by 'no redshift distances are needed' to calculate the PV72 value'? The 'V' in Vvir is, according to LEDA:

" . . . The heliocentric cz, v is computed from the data in the compilation of redshifts by rejecting outliers and measurements marked for their bad quality and computing a weighted average of the remaining measurements.
The heliocentric cz, v is used to compute the redshift in other reference frames: Namely in the Local Group referential, vlg, the Galactic referential, vgsr, the Virgo cluster referential, vvir, and the CMB referential, v3k."

Dgruss23 January 11 post#2702

There is a difference between a "redshift" and a "redshift distance". The redshift is specifically a shift of the observed spectral lines to longer wavelengths. The relative shift is typically expressed as "z" where:
Code:
z = Wavelength observed - wavelength actual Wavelength actual
This is the direct measurement of the amount of spectral shift. It is a redshift when the observed wavelength is longer than the actual wavelength.

Under the assumption that the observed wavelength shifts may be treated as velocities the spectral shift (z) may be multiplied by the speed of light (c) to get a velocity redshift:

Velocity = cz

In the conversation we're having here redshift may mean the spectral shift (z) or it may mean the velocity (cz). The "redshift" is not a distance.

In order to derive a "redshift distance" you must have a "redshift velocity" and a value for the Hubble constant (H0).

Then the redshift distance becomes:

Redshift Distance = cz/H0

But as I've previously explained, you don't need to calculate redshift distance to get a value for PV72. If you have a redshift independent distance (such as Cepheid's, TFR ...) you can still get a PV72 value by the following:

PV72 = Vvir - (Distance x H0)

where distance in the above equation may be derived from Cepheids, the TFR or any of the other secondary distance indicators.

For example, NGC 4535 has a Cepheid distance of 15.8 Mpc and a redshift velocity corrected to the Virgocentric reference frame of 2029 km s-1.

So plugging those numbers and a Hubble constant of 72 gives PV72 = +891 km s-1.



Thanatos January 12 post#2703

Would you agree that redshift is a measured value and redshift velocity is a derivation based on that measurement? I have no problem considering there may be discrepancies between the TF distance and redshift distances, just your resistance to making comparisons.

Dgruss23 January 12 post#2704

Of course. Mainstream astronomers use redshift velocity all the time. Are you suggesting multiplying the spectral shift by "c" introduces a problem? If so, then that's a mainstream problem too.

Thanatos, you're illustratingagain that you don't know what you're talking about. I have no "resistance" to calculating redshift distances. There simply is no need to calculate redshift distances because you get the exact same numbers if you calculate PV72 the way I did, that you would get if you first calculate a redshift distance a TF distance and then calculate the redshift discrepancy from the difference between the two.

If you want to calculate redshift distances, then this is how you will calculate the redshift discrepancy.

Redshift velocity difference = (Hubble distance - TFR distance) x H0

For NGC 4535 used in my last post the Vvir redshift velocity is 2029 km s-1. Divide this by a Hubble constant of 72 km s-1 Mpc-1 and you get a redshift distance of 28.18 Mpc. So then the redshift velocity difference (RVD) is:

RVD = (28.18 Mpc - 15.8 Mpc) x 72 km s-1 Mpc-1 = 891 km s-1

That may be compared with the PV72 value of 891 km s-1 calculated in the previous post.

Do you understand now?

Thanatos January 13 post#2705

I appreciate you taking the time to point out how I missed the boat with my naive questions.


Dgruss23 January 13 post#2706

Not "naive questions", but certainly too not questions asked without a bit of infused accusation. You say I'm resistant to calculating redshift distances when you never asked "Why don't you calculate redshift distances?" If that is what you wanted to know, just ask it instead of accusing me of resisting it, cherry picking ...

Thanatos February 1 post#2780

I admittedly did not understand that comment. I fail to see how any discrepancy between the TF distance and redshift distance of galaxies can be asserted without independently comparing the two.

TomT Feb 2 post #2781

Russell doesn't calculate redshift distances in his paper because he is working with the velocities to show that the results for Peculiar velocity lead to the conclusion that something more is needed to account for the results.
So he isn't asserting or emphasizing distance discrepencies, he is asserting discrepencies in what the velocities are telling us vs the mainstream interpretation.

Thanatos Feb3 post #2782

Tom, How do you derive a peculiar velocity without defining the difference between the 'z' and H0 components? The equations you cite are too inbred to make this distinction.

TomT Feb3 post#2783

I had thought that this had been discussed so many times, that it wasn't necessary to repeat it again. You have to have an independent, accurate measure of distance to the galaxy. That is what all the discussion and effort regarding Cepheid distances and Type Dependent - Tully Fisher equations was about.
Once you have your best independent measure of distance, D , it is converted to redshiftby z = (H0/c)*D. Call this zD. This is by mainstream definition, the part of the galaxy redshift due to cosmological expansion.
You have to have a value of the Hubble Constant to calculate this. The current best mainstream number for this is 72 + or - about 5. Note that LEDA uses 70 in the calculation of mucin.
Next, the value zD is subtracted from the total redshift. This remainder is thought by mainstream to be due only to the galaxy peculiar velocity. Russell takes a detailed look at this, and concludes that there is more to it than just peculiar velocity.
This is what the discussion the last 3 months has been about.

Thanatos March 4 post#2875

If it's any consolation, matt, I think I understand what you are saying. I'm otherwise a bit annoyed. I made provacative arguments about peculiar motions and nobody appears willing to admit their ATM notions might be flawed.

TomT March 4 post#2876

Could you expand a bit more on this so we know what you are referring to?

Thanatos March 5 post#2879

Deriving peculiar motion without invoking a redshift distance would be a good place to start.


This is an example of some of the mainstreamer absurdity that occurs in ATM when one presents an ATM case worthy of discussing. Note in this instance the fact that this specific issue is still being discussed is because a mainstreamer keeps bringing it up - and its not as if it was sufficiently explained in the first post.

We also have instances in Arp et al of mainstreamers simply ignoring rebuttals provided to the points they've made. Then later on someone brings up the supposed "problem" as if it was never responded to.

This sort of behavior is the reason I've had to keep taking breaks from BAUT. I invest too much effort into the posts I make to keep putting up with this kind of bad behavior by mainstreamers. I've observed enough instances during the last year of mainstreamers not being held to the same standard of discourse as ATMers. This is related to the points I made in the rules discussion thread a while back.

But after this latest rules change I've simply concluded that the forum is no longer what it used to be when I signed up. I'm not saying there are not valid reasons for changing, but the fact is that I'm quite tired of hearing "If ATMers ..." when my experience is that mainstreamers are guilty of all the bad behaviors ATMers are criticized for.

The reason most people don't see this is that very few ATM ideas have legs ... but when it comes to one that might it suddenly becomes apparent that mainstreamers are just as susceptible to flaws in dialogue as ATMers.

An alternative explanation is you substitute ten pages of bold faced excuses in lieu of straight answers to my questions. If raising observational evidence that is inconsistent with your 'theories' is 'bad behavior', I plead guilty.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Thanatos

If raising observational evidence that is inconsistent with your 'theories' is 'bad behavior', I plead guilty.

And still you keep turning your own mistakes into accusations towards other people. You didn't raise any "observational evidence inconsistent with Dgruss23's 'theories' ", maybe you should reread the entire exchange and try to find the things you don't understand and ask about them in a non-accusatory tone.

Cheers.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by VanderL

And still you keep turning your own mistakes into accusations towards other people. You didn't raise any "observational evidence inconsistent with Dgruss23's 'theories' ", maybe you should reread the entire exchange and try to find the things you don't understand and ask about them in a non-accusatory tone.

Cheers.

Maybe this is the wrong forum and thread to promote your ideas and keep them going

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Maybe this is the wrong forum and thread to promote your ideas and keep them going

Huh, what ideas? My comment was about Thanatos' accusations.

Cheers.

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by VanderL

And still you keep turning your own mistakes into accusations towards other people.

What mistakes? Details requested.

Originally Posted by VanderL

You didn't raise any "observational evidence inconsistent with Dgruss23's 'theories' ",

Good point. I probably should have derived a list of candidate galaxies that was inconsistent with his list - oh, wait, I already did that.

Originally Posted by VanderL

Maybe you should reread the entire exchange and try to find the things you don't understand and ask about them in a non-accusatory tone.

Cheers.

I already asked about the things I didn't understand. Dgruss23 ranted, raved and railed at me for asking irrelevant questions, but neglected to answer them. I am, however, curious. What exactly do you think I was 'accusing' him of, aside from evasiveness?

[Coldcreation]

Has anyone seen the ATM section lately?

Before, there were discussions about the SNe Type Ia data, lambda, CDM, DE, light element formation, primordial nucleosynthesis, stellar nucleosynthesis, metallicity at high-z, structure formation, CMBR origin and evolution, and other fundamental subjects at the forfront of cosmology.

Now,...


CC

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Has anyone seen the ATM section lately?

Before, there were discussions about the SNe Type Ia data, lambda, CDM, DE, light element formation, primordial nucleosynthesis, stellar nucleosynthesis, metallicity at high-z, structure formation, CMBR origin and evolution, and other fundamental subjects at the forfront of cosmology.

Now,...

CC

Just the sound of crickets chirping.

[captain swoop]

so what does that say about the nature of the 'deas' put forward by the originators of the ATM threads?

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

so what does that say about the nature of the 'deas' put forward by the originators of the ATM threads?

Nothing,


Cheers.

[gannon]

so what does that say about the nature of the 'deas' put forward by the originators of the ATM threads?

Well it doesn't say much as all the older threads have been locked and any new ones would also be locked unless it is a new idea. (well researched new ideas don't come along enought to deserve a forum, and the good ideas wouldn't come because they would get locked with the bad ideas) I learned alot from reading the atm boards but the way they are now they should just be gotten rid of so the BAUT can just focus on science.

What I don't understand is why the CC thread is still open and in the ATM forum.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Thanatos

What mistakes? Details requested.Good point. I probably should have derived a list of candidate galaxies that was inconsistent with his list - oh, wait, I already did that.I already asked about the things I didn't understand. Dgruss23 ranted, raved and railed at me for asking irrelevant questions, but neglected to answer them. I am, however, curious. What exactly do you think I was 'accusing' him of, aside from evasiveness?

I'll PM you, as this ideed isn't the place to rehash the Arp thread.

Cheers.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by gannon

(well researched new ideas don't come along enought to deserve a forum[...]

Well researched? Did lack of good research ever stop anyone before the 30-day rule?

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Well researched? Did lack of good research ever stop anyone before the 30-day rule?

Probably; I'm sure we just haven't heard from those people, because they realized their ideas were untenable.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Thanatos

An alternative explanation is you substitute ten pages of bold faced excuses in lieu of straight answers to my questions. If raising observational evidence that is inconsistent with your 'theories' is 'bad behavior', I plead guilty.

The summary in post#'s 61 and 62 illustrates quite well the sort of "observational evidence" that you claim is inconsistent with my points (I never advocated any "theory" BTW). Then there was your sample of 92 galaxies that supposedly demonstrated a flaw in my sample selection criteria. I provided explanations as to what was wrong with your sample - things such as including galaxies with redshifts well in excess of what the mainstream considers acceptable for Virgo Cluster galaxies (eg 7000 km s-1).

Anybody who wishes can read the Arp et al thread and see that you were given straight answers. Just look to post #61 and 62 of this thread for a typical example. It is absurd for you to suggest I was avoiding answering questions.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Dgruss23 ranted, raved and railed at me for asking irrelevant questions, but neglected to answer them. I am, however, curious. What exactly do you think I was 'accusing' him of, aside from evasiveness?

Anyone who wants can look at posts # 61 and 62 of this thread for an example of what Thanatos thinks is "evasive". I find it amazing that after the time and care I invest in trying to explain to him why it is possible to calculate a peculiar velocity without having a redshift distance that he tells me I am "evasive". This is exactly the type of behavior I'm talking about.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Probably; I'm sure we just haven't heard from those people, because they realized their ideas were untenable.

Oh, right. There may have been some. Wrong question.

gannon, will lack of good research stop ATM proponents from asserting their new ideas more now, than before the 30-day rule?

(And if you feel it's true, is it a bad thing to have poorly researched ideas throttled?)

[gannon]

I think the new rules will stop nearly all ATM ideas good or bad. If that was the goal then fine. Even if someone gets a good idea they can't talk about it here looking for good input because that would often take longer than 30 days to research some of the more in depth ideas. No other section of the board needs this. If a mainstream thread has a hard question people are given as long as needed and can even wait for new data.
I just don't like how it looks like you have a token board for your critics. That sounds something like a much poorer board would do. (well at least you are not banning them)
I do agree that the way it was before wasn't working but locking threads after 30 days kills any serious discussion.

[captain swoop]

But the ATM section isn't for critics. If you haven't done the research why would you want to post?

If your idea is so badly formed and vague that you would need more than 30 days to answer a question about your idea then I would suggest you haven't thought it through.

[gannon]

then why not have all the boards have the 30 rule and the no discussing what was discussed before?
There are many threads in other boards that would get killed under this rule even ones that did valid research.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by gannon

then why not have all the boards have the 30 rule and the no discussing what was discussed before?

Because:

1) Our other forums only rarely have treadmill discussions that require close supervision on the part of the mods, rather than what seems to be the majority of topics in ATM and CT.

[Edit: The notable exception, the 1=0.9999~ thread, wasn't really a treadmill although it certainly felt that way. The folks with the misconceptions about this equality and/or infinity were continually replaced and replenished, educated, and more would come. The problem wasn't so much the circular nature of the discussion, but rather that the newcomers seemed unable/unwilling to take the time to read the thread first, requiring the pyrric choice of either a great deal of repetition or letting math ignorance go. An unpleasant choice either way.]

2) Threads that are promotional in nature and haven't been explicitly cleared by the admin are terminated on sight (with bannings) in our other forums. They're never around long enough to get bumped. Again, which is very much unlike ATM which is alone in that promotional threads have been tolerated.

Surely you're not asking to have the standards tightened further to match the other fora?

3) It is highly uncommon practice for threads to be repeatedly bumped to keep them near the top of the page in other forums. It only seems to be a problem in ATM.

4) Because attempting such a thing on all the other forums would overload the mods/admin past the breaking point. The idea is to reduce their workload, not increase it exponentially.

[gannon]

well I still feel that closing the atm would be the best thing to do please don't keep it as the joke it is now. People don't seem to want it and now with the new rules no one likes it so it would be better just to get rid of it to make the mods lives easier.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by gannon

well I still feel that closing the atm would be the best thing to do please don't keep it as the joke it is now. People don't seem to want it and now with the new rules no one likes it so it would be better just to get rid of it to make the mods lives easier.

I don't understand. Why close it entirely?

The 30-day format has reduced the impact on the mods, and given us a place where new and interesting ideas can be posted without being overwhelmed by ATM marketing. I like it.

And as I mentioned in my other thread, I'm eager to talk about what future versions of ATM could look like. But so far, this thread has been met with mostly silence from ATM proponents. This tells me that they didn't want a place that they could discuss their theories, they just wanted another marketing channel. We turn off the marketing channel, and their interest in BAUT evaporates overnight.

[gannon]

its not just the 30 day thing that’s doing it it is the no discussing what was already discussed. That makes it so they can't talk about there theories because they already talked about them once.

The only thing I can see it used for now is for new people to put a couple vague ideas. People with real firm ideas would go somewhere without the time limit and all the other rules because it would take time to explain all the details and if someone asks a hard question they would like the time to answer it. With those things happening I don't really see the purpose of keeping it open.

You can't put new and interesting ideas there because as many have expressed you have to already have done all the research before you can even think of posting if you want to be taken seriously. As I said before you are tring to make the atm forum two things at once a new and interesting ideas forum and a well fleshed out and researched ideas forum. The new and interesting ideas stage comes before the researched stage but you are asking for both at the same time.

As for a solution I don't see any and thats why I sudgested you close it down and not just leave it a place for new peoples' ideas to get torn apart because they don't understand the rules (older posters have already most likely made there thread and passed the 30 day limit so they can't talk anymore about there ideas).

[Serenitude]

Gannon - apply Occam's Razor to your own conspiracy theory of suppression of ATM theories.

If it was truly Phil and Fraser's attempt to stifle ATM ideas, etc... as you imply, wouldn't it not only be simpler but make much more sense to simply delete the ATM forum?

Leaving the threads archived for the world to view at their leisure, leaving you free to open a thread with a well thought out proposal, and giving you 30 free days to air your views and answer questions doesn't exactly seem the simplest explanation for your accusations

[gannon]

um I think you misunderstand. I don't think he wants to stifle atm but is being forced to due to advertising and limited mod time.
I am in favor of getting rid of the atm section due to right now it seems to be something akin to the "science" forums on some homeopathy forums and I don't like that on a great board such as this.