The Future of ATM

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Surely Nereid is in breach of the rules here.

Yeah...you go with that idea, Lyndon, and see how well it serves you.

[papageno]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Actually Papgeno, you have this wrong. This quote supports my argument.
If you remember, when Newton published his work, Hooke said of it, that
"What is original is wrong and what is correct is stolen from me"
Newton replied that what he had done was by "standing on the shoulders of giants" ... and not stealing work from a bent and twisted individual such as you.

[snip!]

The fact that Newton and other physicists were not always nice to each other does not give an excuse to newcomer ATM proponents tp ignore previous discussions and repeat the same old arguments.
If researchers did so, physics would never advance.

Why are you so against newcomers learning from past experience?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Yeah...you go with that idea, Lyndon, and see how well it serves you.

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Yeah...you go with that idea, Lyndon, and see how well it serves you.

So are you saying that I am Wrong?
Are you saying that Nereid has not been discussing topics that are not related to the original Op?
This thread is a discussion about rules and the mods are breaking them.
I believe that this board is fair. I believe that the people on them are fair.
I believe that the people on this board will realise their mistake.
Are you RAF saying that the mods etc are biased?
Cheers,
lyndon

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by papageno

The fact that Newton and other physicists were not always nice to each other does not give an excuse to newcomer ATM proponents tp ignore previous discussions and repeat the same old arguments.
If researchers did so, physics would never advance.

Why are you so against newcomers learning from past experience?

Ah! you for once agree that I am correct.
Physicist have never once been 'nice' to each other.
So why should ATM'ers?
To quote Niels Bohr, " Scientists never change their minds. You have to wait until they die!"
Perhaps we are expecting too much from the ATM.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Ah! you for once agree that I am correct.
Physicist have never once been 'nice' to each other.
So why should ATM'ers?
To quote Niels Bohr, " Scientists never change their minds. You have to wait until they die!"
Perhaps we are expecting too much from the ATM.
Cheers,
Lyndon

From my perspective, it's not even the "nice" part that is important. It's the freedom of expression that is important. I can just see Einstein's GR thread being closed here and poor ol' Albert trying to figure out what point there is in even visiting this place in the future.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

So are you saying that I am Wrong?

All I'm saying is that it probably not your wisest idea to start accusing a mod of violating board rules...duh...

I believe that the people on this board will realise their mistake.

It is your opinion that a mistake has been made, I do not share that opinion...ignoring the reasons why the rules had to be changed is not going to help your "cause".

Are you RAF saying that the mods etc are biased?

WOW!! Talk about putting words in people's mouths...where in the hell did you get that idea??

Talk about lousy reasoning skills...sheesh...

[Serenitude]

I wish someone could give me the last 15 minutes of my life back

[lyndonashmore]

Remember that Einstein told Freidman that his maths was rubbish - then had to publicly retract it. Thats ATM.
Nope, Alfven is definitely OT.
Lets report it and see.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[selden]

Unfortunately, the lack of an ATM forum would mean that the people who normally would post there are "forced" to post their ideas in other forums. I think that having extremely rigid rules about postings to a new ATM forum will be equivalent, and I fear more expensive in the amount of moderator effort required to police the other forums than would be spent in policing an ATM forum that has more relaxed rules.

As an example, please take a look at the forum topic Galactic Geologic Interval Theory
It may simply be that I am immediately off-put by Unnecessary Capitalization, but that posting does look to me like one that should be in the ATM forum and not in the "Life In Space" forum.

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I wish someone could give me the last 15 minutes of my life back

Last 15 minutes? you haven't lived yet!

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

The fact that none of you bothered to offer me any distinction between the two also says volumes.

Can we stick to the topic? What's Einstein supposed to do around here after 30 days?

I think there was a point made that new threads could be opened if substantially new information on a concept became available.

[papageno]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Ah! you for once agree that I am correct.

You utterly miss my points.

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Physicist have never once been 'nice' to each other.
So why should ATM'ers?

Because when they sign up for this board, they agree to follow the rules.

So, ATM proponents, be nice and read previous discussions before opening a thread.

EDIT to add:
And it is not true that physicists have never once been nice to each other. You are just demonstrating that you no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

To quote Niels Bohr, " Scientists never change their minds. You have to wait until they die!"
Perhaps we are expecting too much from the ATM.

Be nice and answer my question:
Why are you so against newcomers learning from past experience?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I think there was a point made that new threads could be opened if substantially new information on a concept became available.

So if Einstein could come up with nothing substantially new to add to his theory in 30 days, all discussion of GR must stop?

[Grand_Lunar]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

So if Einstein could come up with nothing substantially new to add to his theory in 30 days, all discussion of GR must stop?

Einstein wasn't part of BAUT. The rules applies here, not the real world.
Stop acting childish.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Grand_Lunar

Einstein wasn't part of BAUT. The rules applies here, not the real world.
Stop acting childish.

I fail to understand how you came to that conclusion. How is my pointing out the fact that BAUT has created an illogical set of rules, that is virtually guaranteed to alienate the likes of Einstein, somehow 'childish' in your book?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Last 15 minutes? you haven't lived yet!

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

So if Einstein could come up with nothing substantially new to add to his theory in 30 days, all discussion of GR must stop?

First, there was both SR and GR. And since there was a great deal added (in terms of confirmation, implications, and so forth) by Einstein and others, that wouldn't have been a problem.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

First, there was both SR and GR. And since there was a great deal added (in terms of confirmation, implications, and so forth) by Einstein and others, that wouldn't have been a problem.

It would have been a significant problem 31 days after presenting SR, and 31 days after presenting GR Van. You can't arbitrarily put deadlines on how fast any particular idea might be accepted by the mainstream.

[Grand_Lunar]

Because you're making too large a deal about the new rule.

Also, you're equating the actions on this forum to the real world.

The rule only effects this forum. You could still take your ideas to the scientific community (which this is not) and have them peer reviewed.

It's illogical, then, to complain about the rules.

[Xbalanque]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I fail to understand how you came to that conclusion. How is my pointing out the fact that BAUT has created an illogical set of rules, that is virtually guaranteed to alienate the likes of Einstein, somehow 'childish' in your book?

For starters, you haven't demonstrated that Einstein, were he alive today and a member of BAUT, wouldn't be able to present his ideas adequately within 30 days. You're just begging the question by automatically assuming he wouldn't be able to do so.

However, this entire Einstein argument is nothing but a red herring that does succeed in showing once again just why the new rules are so necessary for ATM. What Einstein could or could not be able to do is entirely irrelevant. Even if Einstein couldn't get his ideas across in 30 days, so what? BAUT ATM is not the ruler of the physics universe. If Einstein was serious about his research and his research was valid, he would attempt to publish his research in respectable journals. Oh wait, he did. So much for that argument.

However, if all Einstein wanted to do was peddle his theories around on message boards without ever modifying them as people pointed out his errors, and refused to enter into reasonable dialogue about those errors, then it would seem that BAUT ATM would not be the best place for him.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Grand_Lunar

Because you're making too large a deal about the new rule.

Suppose that new rule was extended to *every* conversation on this board. Would you object? If I disagree with the concepts behind the rule changes, should I not attempt to discuss it?

Also, you're equating the actions on this forum to the real world.

People from the real world do visit this forum do they not?

The rule only effects this forum. You could still take your ideas to the scientific community (which this is not) and have them peer reviewed.

It's illogical, then, to complain about the rules.

I can't even present peer reviewed material because it's against the rules! It's not illogical to complain about that!

[JimTKirk]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I fail to understand how you came to that conclusion. How is my pointing out the fact that BAUT has created an illogical set of rules, that is virtually guaranteed to alienate the likes of Einstein, somehow 'childish' in your book?

Ultimately, it comes down not to what you may want for rules, but what the owners (since they pay the bills) decide. What may seem illogical to you, make perfect sense to them. And as has been said, there may be ways for threads to be re-opened if new information becomes available. Although you may enjoy rehashing the same information in hopes of converting someone to what you feel, the owners feel this is not productive and ultimately eats into their bandwidth and storage. I'll leave the rules to the owners to decide, not the mob at the doors.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Xbalanque

For starters, you haven't demonstrated that Einstein, were he alive today and a member of BAUT, wouldn't be able to present his ideas adequately within 30 days. You're just begging the question by automatically assuming he wouldn't be able to do so.

I've seen perfectly valid mathematical presentations closed for no special reason. How do you know that none of these ideas has merit? What thread would you point me to where everyone agreed the majority was wrong in less than 30 days?

However, this entire Einstein argument is nothing but a red herring that does succeed in showing once again just why the new rules are so necessary for ATM.

No, it's not a red herring. It's a perfect example of why the new rules won't work. No radically new idea is accepted by the mainstream in less than thirty days.

What Einstein could or could not be able to do is entirely irrelevant.

How could it possibly be irrelevant?

Even if Einstein couldn't get his ideas across in 30 days, so what? BAUT ATM is not the ruler of the physics universe. If Einstein was serious about his research and his research was valid, he would attempt to publish his research in respectable journals. Oh wait, he did. So much for that argument.

Ah, so if we look at the series of events, Einstein presents his ideas here, is criticized for 30 days, and his thread is closed. The idea is eventually accepted into the "mainstream", and BAUT ends up looking foolish and ignorant for closing the thread. That's fine by you?

However, if all Einstein wanted to do was peddle his theories around on message boards without ever modifying them as people pointed out his errors, and refused to enter into reasonable dialogue about those errors, then it would seem that BAUT ATM would not be the best place for him.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that this website should not stifle free speech to the point that nothing new can be learned here. That's exactly what's happened with these rule changes IMO.

[Grand_Lunar]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

Suppose that new rule was extended to *every* conversation on this board. Would you object? If I disagree with the concepts behind the rule changes, should I not attempt to discuss it?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. After all, its not my forum. It's Phil and Fraser's.

People from the real world do visit this forum do they not?

Yes.
But what happens here doesn't reflect how things are done in reality.

I can't even present peer reviewed material because it's against the rules! It's not illogical to complain about that!

You're presenting it to the forum, not the scientific community. That's the point I'm trying to make about your illogical assumptions.

You're once again making a big deal; the threads have a 30 day limit. So, use that 30 days. Wisely.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

The fact that none of you bothered to offer me any distinction between the two also says volumes. Can we stick to the topic? What's Einstein supposed to do around here after 30 days?

Come up with a new and different theory to discuss. Because he did such a great job preparing and presenting his relativity discussion, mainstream scientists are taking his suggestions seriously.

If Einstein wants to present his ATM theories here, he's got 30 days and then we shut him down. Galileo too.

This is the part of the scientific food chain that I think BAUT ATM can serve. It can never replicate a peer-reviewed journal.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

It would have been a significant problem 31 days after presenting SR, and 31 days after presenting GR Van. You can't arbitrarily put deadlines on how fast any particular idea might be accepted by the mainstream.

As usual, you're missing the point. As I noted in my previous two posts, it has been stated that new threads could be started or threads reopened if substantially new material becomes available, and in the case of SR and GR, that wouldn't have been a problem.

I suspect, too, that exceptions would be made for a thread where the poster actually could answer questions posed to them.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by JimTKirk

Ultimately, it comes down not to what you may want for rules, but what the owners (since they pay the bills) decide. What may seem illogical to you, make perfect sense to them. And as has been said, there may be ways for threads to be re-opened if new information becomes available.

Yes, but then my question to Fraser about the magnetic fields in space is relevant. Such information adds further evidence to support plasma cosmology. Does that new information also become stale at 30 days? When does plasma cosmology become an acceptable topic of conversation?

Although you may enjoy rehashing the same information in hopes of converting someone to what you feel, the owners feel this is not productive and ultimately eats into their bandwidth and storage. I'll leave the rules to the owners to decide, not the mob at the doors.

I'm simply putting in my two cents worth as a "participating citizen".

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

As usual, you're missing the point. As I noted in my previous two posts, it has been stated that new threads could be started or threads reopened if substantially new material becomes available, and in the case of SR and GR, that wouldn't have been a problem.

I suspect, too, that exceptions would be made for a thread where the poster actually could answer questions posed to them.

Show me which threads were given that exception. What about those magnetic fields in space? Does that information breath only 30 days more life into plasma cosmology and then we have to ignore it and not talk about it anymore?

[Gillianren]

First, let me say how delighted I am to note that "not always" became "never." That's the kind of miscommunication I have seen as endemic to the ATM threads.

Second . . . yeah, let's talk Einstein for a minute, here.

Einstein published within the peer review system, which BAUT is, as has been mentioned over and over, not. It's a place to start, but it's hardly the entirety of the system. Einstein spent many years developing his ideas before presenting them. He listened to the advice and suggestions of those he used as soundingboards for his ideas. (He may not have always agreed, but I believe the evidence shows that he used some of their suggestions, especially if you include his wife among those soundingboards.) He learned all of the relevant pre-existing physics. He did not merely throw them out the window; he studied how they applied. He learned from the work of those who went before.

And, yes, he was wrong sometimes; show me someone who hasn't been. But he worked to be less and less wrong. He didn't merely try to shout his detractors down. He tried to learn from them. (And he was better at that than Lord Kelvin, anyway.)

Yes. When the next Einstein comes along, he/she will start as ATM. Indeed. It's always been the case, and I think most of us acknowledge that, even if the ATM crowd likes to take it as some kind of victory when they get us to say it. However, I don't think the next Einstein would be one of the threads closed down as the rules are developing. (Fraser has said that productive threads may be prolonged.) I think the next Einstein would be able to point to specific peer-reviewed papers. I think the next Einstein would have a complete, detailed idea to present (with math!) before coming here, and I think this board would only be one brief stopping-place before trying to get wider publication of the idea--and that would, inevitably, involve peer review as an eventual step.

I think the ATM crowd likes to cite Einstein as part of their martyrdom, on the assumption that their behaviour parallels his, their treatment of their own ideas parallels his, and--most importantly--their eventual historical vindication will parallel his. Very seldom are any of these three the case, whether the person is presenting the idea here or elsewhere.