The Future of ATM

[Kaptain K]

Unless any more helpful and positive contributions come in, I'm going to close this thread, and consider the situation resolved.

[Uclock]

Proposal

Any new ATM idea is first posted and locked then a critique of the proposal is made up by moderators and/or other ATM’ers which is then presented immediately below the ATM idea within one week. Anyone with any comments on the idea could PM the moderator who then could include it in the critique. Then after one week the critique is posted and the tread opened up. Then it is up to the proposer to defend the criticisms within the allotted thirty days, including any new arguments that may turn up.
I think I would prefer to see two ATM sections, one that includes math and one that is none mathematical otherwise one of the main arguments will always be that the proposer must use math which unfortunately some are unable to do and this will not exclude any ideas they may have.

It is just a thought.

Tony

[Grand_Lunar]

I second that motion.
As of now, the discussion is going nowhere. In fact, it only resolves the new rulings.

[Grand_Lunar]

Originally Posted by Uclock

Proposal

Any new ATM idea is first posted and locked then a critique of the proposal is made up by moderators and/or other ATM’ers which is then presented immediately below the ATM idea within one week. Anyone with any comments on the idea could PM the moderator who then could include it in the critique. Then after one week the critique is posted and the tread opened up. Then it is up to the proposer to defend the criticisms within the allotted thirty days, including any new arguments that may turn up.
I think I would prefer to see two ATM sections, one that includes math and one that is none mathematical otherwise one of the main arguments will always be that the proposer must use math which unfortunately some are unable to do and this will not exclude any ideas they may have.

It is just a thought.

Tony

I don't see how one can present a new ATM idea without mathmatics.
Without it, then the idea is practically meaningless.

[Uclock]

I am not going to disagree with you there but if we want an inclusive and fair ATM site then having a section for non-mathematical ideas will not exclude those who have an idea but no formal math education to allow them to express that idea in the language of math.

Tony

[Fraser]

But ATM is a place for non-mathematical ideas. We just cut the threads off after 30 days to prevent promotion.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Uclock

Proposal

Any new ATM idea is first posted and locked then a critique of the proposal is made up by moderators and/or other ATM’ers ... the critique is posted and the tread opened up. Then it is up to the proposer to defend the criticisms within the allotted thirty days, including any new arguments that may turn up.
I think I would prefer to see two ATM sections, one that includes math and one that is none mathematical ...

I think there's some merit here, but I also think it could take more of the Mods' time.

Certainly, if the proposal were presented and immediately locked to comment for a few days, it allows - forces - folks to review it before responding. If the initial comments are reviewed prior to posting, the tone can be controlled (but that takes Mod time).

I'm not sure we need two forums, though. Math is always good to have when presenting an idea, but I don't mind the proposer who says, "I don't have the math. That's not my strong suit," or some such, as opposed to the one who claims math isn't necessary because "the truth is self-evident."

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Eta C

I do not expect every PC advocate to complete every item there in 30 days. However, I do expected them to understand that for a new theoretical structrure to supplant an old one it must account for everything the old one did.

FYI Eta, I think the best thing about participating in this particular thread was getting a chance to finally chat with you just a bit. I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't look like I'll be posting here much anymore, and I'm glad we had the opportunity to at least exchange a few posts back and forth.

I'm not convinced that any "new" idea will immediately account for *everything* that the old theories account for. For instance Birkeland's theories about the exchange of energy between the sun and the Earth did not negate the usefulness of Chapman's math, which might explain why Chapman's theories were hung onto for so long. I think that requirement that new ideas account for everything the old one did, may be an unfair burden on new ideas. I do however fully understand your position, and you're probably right. In order to be "accepted", a new idea will need to mature and it will need a lot of long term help before they become "accepted" by the mainstream. That is all the more reason to foster promising ATM ideas whenever possible IMO.

It may be that new ideas explain just one thing or only a few things that the old methods do not, and perhaps the new ideas may work congruently with the old methods. I'm open to a lot of possibilities as it relates to the introduction of new ideas, and I don't have a lot of preconceived ideas about what form they might take, particularly at first.

All I know is that almost all the important ideas that have changed astronomy over the years, began their lives as "ATM" theories. It seems likely that the next big change in astronomy will begin that way as well. I therefore believe that there is a strong need to foster ATM discussions, and this obviously isn't the place for that. That's much has become very clear over the past month.

I also expect them to acknowledge that their idea will contain holes and assumptions just as the original theory did. All too often ATM advocates poke at the holes and assumptions in the mainstream theories (look! extra dimensions), and do not recognize the similar holes and assumptions that exist in their idea, and act as if it is perfect in that respect.

I agree with that 100%.

As a final comment, and one that is relevent to this thread on the future of the ATM section, I feel that particle physics is entirely germane to cosmological discussions. Many aspects of early cosmology such as baryogenesis, the prevelance of matter over anti-matter, and the unification of the forces are particle physics problems as well as cosmological ones. Therefore I would submit, Fraser and Phil, that ATM ideas involving particle physics, such as alternatives to string theory as a unification mechanism, are relevant to this board insomuch as they will have an impact on astronomy.

I guess my fear Eta is that all ATM ideas, regardless of their merit are now being treated equally, and all of them are being treated radically differently than 'accepted' theory is treated. That is not a useful approach to physics or GR, or astronomy IMO. I agree that particle physics alternatives to string theory would be *very* desirable, but I'm not sure such a theory could ever evolve to maturity on this forum as it now stands.

Ultimately I personally just can't put any faith at all in string theory or "dark" things or metaphysical inflaton fields, or mythical magnetic monopoles because no one can identify and demonstrate how such things tie back into particle physics. To me that's a very important issue, and I suspect with your background that it's an important issue to you as well.

It's rather clear to me at this point that I'm not going to have a positive affect on the outcome of this conversation here, so as I promised RAF, I'm about ready to move along now. It looks like the fat lady has sung around here, and the fate of this "Bad Astronomy" forum has been sealed. It looks like I'll be shopping for a new place to discuss astronomy that doesn't wince from a little criticism, and allows for mature conversations to flourish, even if the topic isn't to the moderators liking. This place has become to wee too much like the Stepford Wives for my tastes.

Anyway Eta, it was very nice talking with you. I'm sorry we didn't get the opportunity to duke it out in the ATM section. I would have enjoyed your input, and I think you'd have given me a good run for my money. I'm grateful we at least had this discussion. Live long and prosper Eta.

[captain swoop]

I guess my fear Eta is that all ATM ideas, regardless of their merit are now being treated equally, and all of them are being treated radically differently than 'accepted' theory is treated.

Why should a vague ATM idea be treated the same as 'accepted' theory?

The whole idea of the ATM forum is to convince us that the new idea should be treated like accepted theory/

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Why should a vague ATM idea be treated the same as 'accepted' theory?

"Free lunch" inflaton fields and dark energy aren't "vague"? Define "vague". Many of the presentations that were closed had a mathematical presentation side to them so I'm unclear what you mean by that term.

The whole idea of the ATM forum is to convince us that the new idea should be treated like accepted theory/

But that is impossible in 30 days! As I pointed out, regardless of the topic, or the individual, nobody, and I mean nobody is ever going to convince the mainstream that their theory is correct in only 30 days. It's never going to happen.

Fraser didn't just systematically shut down the threads that had no mathematical presentation to them, he shut down every single dissenting thread on the entire board. Here on this board he can play king with ideas, and indeed he chose to do exactly that. Anything and everything that he personally disagreed with is now closed, and that topic can not longer be discussed openly here without the king's consent.

I am not happy with the king's choices, and his clothes appear to be invisible (dark) to me. I refuse to become a Stepford Wife only because of peer pressure and one man's beliefs about the nature of the universe. If you wish to participate in a pseudo-scientific king-cult that has faith in metaphysical entities like "free lunch" theories, magnetic monopoles, inflaton fields, dark energy and dark matter, that is certainly your prerogative. Unfortunately from my perspective, that's like asking me to stick around and discuss the scientific merits of creationism and to promise to never again discuss Darwin or evolutionary theory. I'm totally bored at this point, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not even convinced that your king's faith in the metaphysical has any scientific merit whatsoever. There is not much left for me to do here. All I can do now is accept the king's decision, leave you to your faith in peace, and move along.

[Fraser]

I've got a cool idea. We should put together an award for the best idea of the year. The funds would hire a university grad student to help write up a paper based on the concept and submit it to Arxiv.

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by Fraser

I've got a cool idea. We should put together an award for the best idea of the year. The funds would hire a university grad student to help write up a paper based on the concept and submit it to Arxiv.

If a grad student dared to write up any theory that went against the Big Bang, it would be the end of his career!
Cheers,
lyndon

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Fraser

I've got a cool idea. We should put together an award for the best idea of the year. The funds would hire a university grad student to help write up a paper based on the concept and submit it to Arxiv.

I like the idea, but it doesn't solve the problem from my perspective.

[Serenitude]

Ugh.

[lyndonashmore]

FYI Eta, I think the best thing about participating in this particular thread was getting a chance to finally chat with you just a bit. I appreciate your feedback. It doesn't look like I'll be posting here much anymore, and I'm glad we had the opportunity to at least exchange a few posts back and forth.

I thought you weren't posting here anymore?
Cheers,
Lyndon

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

If a grad student dared to write up any theory that went against the Big Bang, it would be the end of his career!
Cheers,
lyndon

Hmm ... last time I looked, Milgrom, Bekenstein, McGaugh, Sanders, Magueijo, Motl, Amelino-Camelia, Vishwakarma, Lieu, and (no doubt) dozens of others are all still employed, still doing research (in cosmology or related fields), ....

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Hmm ... last time I looked, Milgrom, Bekenstein, McGaugh, Sanders, Magueijo, Motl, Amelino-Camelia, Vishwakarma, Lieu, and (no doubt) dozens of others are all still employed, still doing research (in cosmology or related fields), ....

Yes, but how much do they earn?
Cheers,
lyndon

[papageno]

Since lyndonashmore is back, I would like an answer to my question: why do you not want newcomers to learn from past experiences?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

Yes, but how much do they earn?
Cheers,
lyndon

Who knows? Who cares?

I doubt there are very many professional cosmologists who judge their career primarily on their direct earnings from being a cosmologist ... AFAIK, most professional scientists are driven to their careers by their love of the subject, or of science (though perhaps not above all else ...).

In that regard, all the people I named, and the dozens of others I didn't, can still publish papers, apply for research grants, use their university's resources to analyse data (or run models), attend conferences, ....

[lyndonashmore]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Who knows? Who cares?

I doubt there are very many professional cosmologists who judge their career primarily on their direct earnings from being a cosmologist ... AFAIK, most professional scientists are driven to their careers by their love of the subject, or of science (though perhaps not above all else ...).

In that regard, all the people I named, and the dozens of others I didn't, can still publish papers, apply for research grants, use their university's resources to analyse data (or run models), attend conferences, ....

These?
Cheers,
Lyndon

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

These?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Don't bother them with facts. Dissent is not allowed, even if it's relatively popular dissent.

[papageno]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

Don't bother them with facts. Dissent is not allowed, even if it's relatively popular dissent.

Why do you bother to come here and post, if you do not like the rules?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

These?
Cheers,
Lyndon

I think we already have at least one thread devoted to that statement, in the ATM section. Do you have anything new to present on that? Such that that ATM thread should be re-opened?

If not, then can we get back to the topic of "The Future of ATM" please?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by papageno

Why do you bother to come here and post, if you do not like the rules?

I was naively hoping to change the rules for the better. I have intentionally resisted posting to the ATM forum since the recent rule changes because I simply see no point in discussing ATM ideas under the "new", even more oppressive rule system.

My hope was that Fraser and some in this group would listen to reason, but alas, that doesn't seem to be where things are headed. Instead this place seems to be headed down a dead end path to complete stagnation as far as I can tell. It will become a nice, "comfortable" little good ol' boys (and girls) club under the new ATM rule system, but it won't be a real science forum anymore IMO.

Maybe there really is something to a name when it comes to naming a science forum. I think I'll try the "LiveScience" forums next. "Bad Astronomy" has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I was naively hoping to change the rules for the better. I have intentionally resisted posting to the ATM forum since the recent rule changes because I simply see no point in discussing ATM ideas under the "new", even more oppressive rule system.

My hope was that Fraser and some in this group would listen to reason, but alas, that doesn't seem to be where things are headed. Instead this place seems to be headed down a dead end path to complete stagnation as far as I can tell. It will become a nice, "comfortable" little good ol' boys (and girls) club under the new ATM rule system, but it won't be a real science forum anymore IMO.

Maybe there really is something to a name when it comes to naming a science forum. I think I'll try the "LiveScience" forums next. "Bad Astronomy" has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

When you find a more suitable forum*, which has rules at least as strict as BAUT's re adherence to the scientific method (and which includes space and astronomy in its scope), would you mind dropping us here a note?

I for one would be very interested to learn of any such forum ....

*Other than The Asterisk*, of course.

[Arneb]

I tried to follow this thread, I really did. Now I find myself skipping pages again...

Don't our ATM supporters ever get tired of themselves - the endless "you are suppressing free thought", "Galileo wouldn't ever have a chance of presenting his theories because you would just have cut him off!!". "So why is everyone afraid of lively discussion?" And they are asking those questions in a thread that is now 416 posts long?

Someone said it somewhere (or in the other thread): Sticky this thread, close it (no, don't! The example it gives will be all the better), and title it "Why ATM threads are limited to 30 days". People will understand.

We have this exppression, zerreden, in German: To destroy something by talking and talking and talking about it... (maybe the correct English translationw would be "to destalk"

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Nereid

When you find a more suitable forum*, which has rules at least as strict as BAUT's re adherence to the scientific method (and which includes space and astronomy in its scope), would you mind dropping us here a note?

What "scientific method" might that be Nereid? In the standard scientific method that I cited in my thread, metaphysics and invisible entities are not acceptable.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Arneb

I tried to follow this thread, I really did. Now I find myself skipping pages again...

Don't our ATM supporters ever get tired of themselves - the endless "you are suppressing free thought", "Galileo wouldn't ever have a chance of presenting his theories because you would just have cut him off!!". "So why is everyone afraid of lively discussion?" And they are asking those questions in a thread that is now 416 posts long?

Someone said it somewhere (or in the other thread): Sticky this thread, close it (no, don't! The example it gives will be all the better), and title it "Why ATM threads are limited to 30 days". People will understand.

We have this exppression, zerreden, in German: To destroy something by talking and talking and talking about it... (maybe the correct English translationw would be "to destalk"

The (American) English vernacular is "Whipping a dead horse".

[Jim]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I was naively hoping to change the rules for the better. ... I simply see no point in discussing ATM ideas under the "new", even more oppressive rule system.

I added the emphasis because it caught my eye.

So, you found the old rules to be oppressive? In what way(s)?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

These?
Cheers,
Lyndon

I'm confused.

Are these the "professional cosmologists who judge their career primarily on their direct earnings" or the ones who "are driven ... by their love of the subject, or of science"?

Can any of them "still publish papers, apply for research grants, use their university's resources to analyse data (or run models), attend conferences" or are they prohibited from those activities?

What exactly were you trying to prove?