The Future of ATM

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by gannon

How does one question current mainstream in the current rules? It seems you already have to have a theory to even post there. Where do posts trying to poke holes in mainstream go?

To poke holes in mainstream ideas, you need a well-developed and supported idea. Otherwise, you're just making noise. There's nothing wrong with presenting a reasonable and researched attempt to poke holes in the mainstream, but if you're just rattling your sword, don't waste our time with it.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by gannon

Also what do you think of the current ATM board? it seems there is a topic on climate and nothing else is very active. If it gets to one or two posts a day would you just get rid of it?

The sections about Phil's site and book often go much longer than a day or two without any posts, and they're still there.

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Okay, while the dust is still settling in the ATM section, I'd like to talk to you all about some future directions for the ATM section.
{snip)
First let me explain my (and Phil's reasons) for the 30-day closure rule in the ATM section:
{snip)
So what's next? In my mind, this is just the first step for a reformed ATM section. I'd like to open this up to the community and especially the ATM theorists to talk about what the future might hold for ATM. How can we work together to make a section that allows people to present theories that run against mainstream science. But instead of it all being a series of frustrating and circular arguments, how can we actually get some real work done?
(Snip)
Anyway, those are just my ideas. It's my hope to give the ATMers a chance to pitch their ideas as well, as well as the whole community. Keep in mind that I'm mostly speaking for me. Phil and the mods will have ideas of their own.

Viv Pope replies

May I suggest that for the purposes of a true and profitable ATM forum the current classifications of the science sections, such as 'Physics', 'Cosmology', etc, should not be too narrowly delineated. After all, some thesis or other may prove to be so highly revolutionary as to overstep all the current classificatory 'chalk lines'.

By that same token, too much narrowed-down emphasis on presenting 'formulae' and 'experimental results' can be counter-productive, as well as highly confusing. For instance, the main difference between the Copernican sun-centred thesis of planetary motion and that of Copernicus' Ptolemaic predecessors was an issue neither of mathematics nor experiment. In fact, mathematically and experimentally, the Ptolemaic system was far more 'elegant' and exact than the system of Copernicus and Galileo, yet it was the latter, for its purely conceptual value, that won out in the end. Moreover, that was a prime case of overstepping the chalk line between 'Astronomy' and the nascent 'Physics' of Galileo, Newton, et al.

What I am saying is that for the sake of a truly adventurous ATM project the main tool of science advance has to be neither mathematics nor experiment (which of course, cannot be entirely ignored) but conceptual analysis – in short, common understanding. For example, what stopped the POAMS thread dead in its tracks toward that goal, was an insistence on providing mathematical and experimental evidence for the seminal choice of interpreting c as a dimensional constant instead of a 'velocity'. In vain does one explain that there are no relevant mathematical/experimental reasons for this choice. The only reason for choosing it is the purely logical one that the choice involves no logical contradiction, hence was, like mountains, just there to be freely explored.

But exploration along the thread in question soon hit a veritable 'brick wall' of negative criticism, based on that irrational demand for producing mathematical formulae and experimental justification for the choice. In vain, also, was it pointed out that the different interpretation of c as a constant not a 'velocity' does not in any way affect either its numerical value or its dimensions. So c remains c in all the existing relativistic and other formulae for which all the 'evidence' can be taken as read. To be bullied into reproducing all the formulae and backup evidence, therefore, for what is already known and accepted could never have been anything but an exercise in tautology.

However, it was that very insistence that dragged everything down to the level of what, in the end, defined itsef as 'Umbala', and which led, eventually, to the shutting down of the thread. In other words, what is needed, as I see it, is to dig the ATM out of its constraining FTM 'mathematical- and experimental-physics' rut. This would be to consider other well-tried tools of science, such as Philosophy of Science, Logical/Linguistic Analysis, and the like. But, instead, the very mention of 'philosophy' has put so many forum contributors into such a blind panic that they virtually 'Umbala-ed' themselves. In all my years of teaching and attending science conferences I can honestly say I have experienced nothing quite the like of that!

One thing it did for me, though, was to provide a prime example of the sorts of people one would not want to have aboard in a venture towards what, in the thread, was entitled a 'New World Synthesis'. (What hope of a 'synthesis' could there be in such a chaos of conflicting concerns?) It is for that reason that I and some other BAUT members have created a new forum to be announced here soon. There have been some BAUT forum members – they will know who they are –who have signalled their wish to be a part of the new forum, whose emphasis is on breadth of both education and intellectual vision. In its 'Rules and Regulations' for that new forum, the main 'rule', if such it can be called, is: 'He who governs least governs best'. This should prevent too much 'scientific rigour' becoming conceptual rigour-mortis.

However, I hope to remain a member of the BAUT forum but, if so, then I will have to ignore any more nonsense from the Umbala Group, who will certainly not be welcome on the new NRIG (Normal Realist Interest Group) forum.
Best wishes for your efforts to create a new, cleaned-up BAUT forum.

[R.A.F.]

NIce try, Viv...but we're not going to re-argue POAMS here...

Fact is that it "might" be a rules violation for you to even attempt it...

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by VivPope

By that same token, too much narrowed-down emphasis on presenting 'formulae' and 'experimental results' can be counter-productive, as well as highly confusing. For instance, the main difference between the Copernican sun-centred thesis of planetary motion and that of Copernicus' Ptolemaic predecessors was an issue neither of mathematics nor experiment. In fact, mathematically and experimentally, the Ptolemaic system was far more 'elegant' and exact than the system of Copernicus and Galileo, yet it was the latter, for its purely conceptual value, that won out in the end. Moreover, that was a prime case of overstepping the chalk line between 'Astronomy' and the nascent 'Physics' of Galileo, Newton, et al. [Snip!]

(I apologize for arguing in this thread, but the above is so wrong I have to correct it.) Why did the heliocentric conception win out in the end? First the observations of Brahe were used by Kepler to deduce his three laws. Then Newton could take his laws based on his experiments and those of Galileo to derive Kepler's laws as a necessary consequence of Newton's laws and the law of universal gravitation. "Conceptual values" had nothing to with it. Neither did Philosophy of Science, or Logical/Linguistic Analysis, for that matter.

I also wasn't aware that there were any "chalk lines" between astronomy and physics (or anything else) in those halcyon days of yore when everything was lumped together as "Natural Philosophy".

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by VivPope

Viv Pope replies
.... from the Umbala Group, who will certainly not be welcome on the new NRIG (Normal Realist Interest Group) forum.

Translation: If you don't agree with us, I don't like your questions, or you ask for some evidence outside of what I want to present, you will be banned.

That's good Viv. It keeps you from answering all those messy questions you can't answer.

[Fraser]

Feel free to drop me any questions as you're starting up your new forum. I'm happy to help out, answer any questions, help you with software selection, etc.

If you can tame ATM, you're a better admin than me. Good luck!

[north]

Nereid and other moderators

this is my proposal for ATM.

first have certain points thoughout the thread , where the thread MUST be summerized. by either the author of the thread or the respondence to the thread.

second have two ATMs .

1) has a very heavy mathematical and theoretical bases to any theory put forth ( but all members still have access, at least to view, if not respond)

2) has more leaning towards conceptual theory and some math to it. a place to spout off ideas. for the person who has an idea(s) about the Universe, there is no better site in my opinion. so please lets not shut out that quality.

for the 2nd there is no obligation for any moderator to respond. and nor is it expected , by us members. but you would apply a comment if you found the topic worth commenting on.

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by north

Nereid and other moderators

this is my proposal for ATM.

first have certain points thoughout the thread , where the thread MUST be summerized. by either the author of the thread or the respondence to the thread.

second have two ATMs .

1) has a very heavy mathematical and theoretical bases to any theory put forth ( but all members still have access, at least to view, if not respond)

2) has more leaning towards conceptual theory and some math to it. a place to spout off ideas. for the person who has an idea(s) about the Universe, there is no better site in my opinion. so please lets not shut out that quality.

for the 2nd there is no obligation for any moderator to respond. and nor is it expected , by us members. but you would apply a comment if you found the topic worth commenting on.

Viv Pope replies
I agree with most of this. My only reservation (see my last posting) is that nature may not observe our arbitrary delineations of threads of interest.

However, as a point of information for BAUT members, here is an invitation to join a (hopefully congenial) new splinter-group:

‘If you never made enemies, it’s a sure sign that nature forgot you.’
(Anon.)

The first reply to my last posting has made it abundantly clear that there was never the hope of a rational discussion of the subject of the invited POAMS forum thread – which is why some of us have formed a breakaway forum. The address of that forum will be announced as soon as it is up and running. It will present, first, the Neo-Machian philosophy of Normal Realism which is the philosophical foundation of POAMS. Next is the mathematical derivation of Special Relativity developed on that foundation, in the way that was agreed between myself and Herman Bondi in the early 1960s. This is directly from the Theorem of Pythagoras applied to four dimensions

Then there is the mathematical demonstration that this Neo-Machian version of SR is fundamentally quantised in the way that was first formalised by Balmer and extended by Rydberg, Lyman, et. al. Following that is another mathematical derivation of a Neo-Machian version of General Relativity. This replaces ‘gravity’ with angular momentum as explanation of orbital motion, weight, etc., which is where the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis (POAMS). truly begins.

These mathematical formulae have already been presented on the POAMS thread of BAUT, but have evidently gone unnoticed by those who complained of ‘lack of mathematics’ and so on. Undoubtedly, this is due to the extreme simplicity of those equations as compared with the yards and yards of equations that typify the mainstream Relativity that is based on the ‘velocity’ interpretation of c. However, this extreme simplification is the proffered ‘selling point’ of POAMS for those who have long seen the dire need for such conceptual and mathematical economising (pace Ockham).

This will be followed by discussions of the Neo-Machian ‘take’ on Dark Matter, Galactic Recession (Hubble), Black Holes, and so on, all in logical succession as those matters arise. It is anticipated that those members of BAUT who were interested in the POAMS discussion thread will follow the lead of some of their fellow BAUT members in continuing that discussion in the new NRIG (Normal Realism Interest Group) forum.

‘Seek till you find and you won’t lose you labour.’
(Anon.)
Best wishes,
Viv Pope.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by VivPope

The first reply to my last posting has made it abundantly clear that there was never the hope of a rational discussion of the subject of the invited POAMS forum thread...

So pointing out to you that POAMS would not be re-argued on this thread is somehow irrational????

Why do you continue to argue POAMS on this thread???

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the POAMS discussion is over here??

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by north

Nereid and other moderators

this is my proposal for ATM.

first have certain points thoughout the thread , where the thread MUST be summerized. by either the author of the thread or the respondence to the thread.

second have two ATMs .

1) has a very heavy mathematical and theoretical bases to any theory put forth ( but all members still have access, at least to view, if not respond)

2) has more leaning towards conceptual theory and some math to it. a place to spout off ideas. for the person who has an idea(s) about the Universe, there is no better site in my opinion. so please lets not shut out that quality.

for the 2nd there is no obligation for any moderator to respond. and nor is it expected , by us members. but you would apply a comment if you found the topic worth commenting on.

Viv Pope adds:
There is something I forgot to mention in my last posting, with regard to the health of the proposed new BAUT forum (the new NRIG forum, also.) It is this:

Suppose I make a logical statement like ‘A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, so A is bigger than C’. There is bound to some Burk out there who will say something like:

‘I disagree with that’;
‘What is your experimental evidence for that?’
‘What is your mathematical justification for that?’
‘What is your source-reference for that?
‘There’s a bad smell about that statement.’
etc., etc., etc.

Incredible though it may seem, these are the sorts of responses there have actually been in the BAUT forum so far against a perfectly logical thesis, like POAMS, which is advanced in the interests of a truly adventurous ATM proposal. Anyone who cannot see this as a problem is someone I would have to just doff my hat to and pass on.

So how is this problem to be solved/averted? There are, quite obviously joiners of these forums who have no ideas of their own and who like nothing more than to mess-up the ideas of true thinkers. Some, whom I have labelled the Educational Un-dead, have nothing to do but follow, in a zombie-like way, in the historical tracks of the Great Thinkers who, often at the risk of their own lives, have forged the conventions that these others slavishly follow. I am talking here, of course, about those who make out like Moguls of Mainstream science. Any attempt at forming a forum with people like that aboard might as well be infected with a dose of pox. Democracy is fine for normally intelligent people. But, as Plato warned, democracy among the not-so-intelligent is a formula for ruinous anarchy.

We in the new NRIG forum intend to exclude those who may manifest that they cannot follow a proper logical argument, those who, when they feel they are being ‘railroaded’ into accepting something they don’t like, simply ‘jump the tracks’ and go into ‘logic override mode’. As my grandmother used to say: ‘A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.’

So, there, as I see it, is the main problem that has to be faced by any ‘democratic’ forum like BAUT which is aimed at maintaining real progress in science. I will be very interested to see how you Moderators propose to deal with it.

By the way, I was not trying to argue again for POAMS on this thread, as some of the Umbala Group would like the Moderators to think. What I was doing, as should have been plain, was to inform those who had been interested in discussing POAMS in BAUT just where to look for the continuation of that discussion on a newq forum. Anyone who can't understand that, surely can't understand English!

[jamini]

Originally Posted by VivPope

Viv Pope replies
The first reply to my last posting has made it abundantly clear that there was never the hope of a rational discussion of the subject of the invited POAMS forum thread – which is why some of us have formed a breakaway forum.

Your topic digressed to that point after weeks of refusing to answer even the most basic questions to support your claims. Instead, you posted self-serving “email” replies complete with ad hom remarks. What did you expect?

[jamini]

Originally Posted by VivPope

Viv Pope adds:
There is something I forgot to mention in my last posting, with regard to the health of the proposed new BAUT forum (the new NRIG forum, also.) It is this:

Suppose I make a logical statement like ‘A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, so A is bigger than C’. There is bound to some Burk out there who will say something like:

‘I disagree with that’;
‘What is your experimental evidence for that?’
‘What is your mathematical justification for that?’
‘What is your source-reference for that?
‘There’s a bad smell about that statement.’
etc., etc., etc.

Incredible though it may seem, these are the sorts of responses there have actually been in the BAUT forum so far against a perfectly logical thesis, like POAMS, which is advanced in the interests of a truly adventurous ATM proposal. Anyone who cannot see this as a problem is someone I would have to just doff my hat to and pass on.

The problem is, you expected us to accept “A” and “B” as absolutes, without providing a single photon of evidence to support either. Anyone who pointed that out to you was dismissed by you as delusional.

Originally Posted by VivPope

We in the new NRIG forum intend to exclude those who may manifest that they cannot follow a proper logical argument, those who, when they feel they are being ‘railroaded’ into accepting something they don’t like, simply ‘jump the tracks’ and go into ‘logic override mode’.

So you first came to promote your book; now you are here to promote your new forum? No Thanks, on both counts. The former for reasons I already described; the latter because I would surely be banned as Umbula for my outright refusal to drink your Kool-Aid.

[Moose]

Viv Pope, could you please refrain from hijacking multiple threads outside of ATM in order to promote your ATM idea and/or website?

(Speaking of justification for the current state of ATM's ruleset...)

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by VivPope

...I was not trying to argue again for POAMS on this thread, as some of the Umbala Group would like the Moderators to think.

You're weren't "trying" to argue POAMS again, you were arguing POAMS again. Calling people names will not change that.

What I was doing, as should have been plain, was to inform those who had been interested in discussing POAMS in BAUT just where to look for the continuation of that discussion on a newq forum.

Well then get on with it. Get your new discussion board operating and then you won't have to be bothered to post here ever again.

Anyone who can't understand that, surely can't understand English!

The one thing I really don't understand about you, Viv, is just why do you think people should listen to you when you continually insult and denegrate anyone who disagrees with you.

Personally, I'm surprised you haven't been disiplined by the mods for your continued bad manners.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by jamini

[Snip!] So you first came to promote your book; now you are here to promote your new forum? [Snip!]

For the record, this is not correct. The work of Vivian Pope was mentioned in the "Light Speed; Is it Infinite?" thread and those wishing to explain POAMS were invited to come here. Initially several people tried to sign up under the pseudonym of "Neville" which was a violation of board rules, consequently Neville was banned. VivPope and (possibly) Len Moran then showed up in their own right.

[jamini]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

For the record, this is not correct. The work of Vivian Pope was mentioned in the "Light Speed; Is it Infinite?" thread and those wishing to explain POAMS were invited to come here. Initially several people tried to sign up under the pseudonym of "Neville" which was a violation of board rules, consequently Neville was banned. VivPope and (possibly) Len Moran then showed up in their own right.

Thank you CM – I stand humbly corrected.

[jamini]

Originally Posted by gannon

How does one question current mainstream in the current rules? It seems you already have to have a theory to even post there. Where do posts trying to poke holes in mainstream go?

I think it depends on what you mean by “poke holes”. Most amateurs seem to attempt to debunk mainstream theories based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the very theory they seek to debunk. I would start by creating a topic and asking a few simple questions about whatever aspect(s) of mainstream theory you are unable to reconcile. Then after you read the replies, do the research, read the reference material, evaluate the observational/test data, etc. - if you find any inconsistencies, then you could ask more advanced and educated questions and progress from there.

Originally Posted by gannon

Also what do you think of the current ATM board? it seems there is a topic on climate and nothing else is very active. If it gets to one or two posts a day would you just get rid of it?

The moderators probably see it as a vacation. They must grow weary of teaching physics 1.a repeatedly to people who seem incapable of understanding it, let alone appreciating all the time that goes into maintaining the integrity of information made available on this esteemed forum.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

You're weren't "trying" to argue POAMS again, you were arguing POAMS again. Calling people names will not change that. [Snip!]

Just think of the post you were responding to as their way of saying "Mission accomplished!".

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Feel free to drop me any questions as you're starting up your new forum. I'm happy to help out, answer any questions, help you with software selection, etc.

If you can tame ATM, you're a better admin than me. Good luck!

Originally Posted by Fraser

Feel free to drop me any questions as you're starting up your new forum. I'm happy to help out, answer any questions, help you with software selection, etc.

If you can tame ATM, you're a better admin than me. Good luck!

Viv Pope replies:
Thanks, Fraser. I assume that you are referring to the new NRIG forum. Yes, we will need all the help we can get. As I say, a progressive democracy demands an intelligent community of people with more or less the same overall objectives and mindset. As I see it, any science forum should, ideally, be of this democratic sort. A 'democracy' among a mere rabble of presenters, dissenters, resenters and so on can never be such a coordinated, democratic institution. To me, this defines the central problem with the organising and running of these forums. It is that problem which we are currently trying to solve before launching our new NRIG & POAMS forum (which is the only thing delaying us here). Without that coordination, any such forum is bound to turn into the sort of anarchy we have all witnessed recently in the dedicated POAMS thread of BAUT. As anyone can see, this chaos is already happening again, right now, threatening your new admirable proposals right at the start.

But, of course, even among dedicated scientists, discussion and forthright criticism is the very soul of scientific endeavour. The trouble, if I may be forgiven, is that there are far too many R-souls crowding in who, rightly, should be on some other planet. What to do with them will be the subject of a symposium to be held soon among those of us who were sickened by the Umbala they dispense.

Anyway, we'll see how we go. Thanks for your offer of advice and help. Undoubtedly we will need it! The most recent suggestion is for members to be chosen by invitation only, but not everyone agrees with that. I sincerely hope you will sign up when we get it into action, so that at least you may witness how we succeed or fail.

As for the existing new forward-looking ATM BAUT thread, I will be watching that with interest, also. But I beg leave not to answer some of the dafter, more repetitive questions that I have already answered over and over. And as for the malicious, mean-minded attacks on myself and POAMS that are now, again, piling up, I will respond to them sparingly, if at all.

Best wishes,
Viv Pope.

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Feel free to drop me any questions as you're starting up your new forum. I'm happy to help out, answer any questions, help you with software selection, etc.

If you can tame ATM, you're a better admin than me. Good luck!

Viv Pope's Suggestion for the Future of ATM

Thanks again, Fraser.Thinking hard on what you said about reforming the BAUT threads, I reckon that the main problem with these forums has now defined itself. It is the problem of sorting the sheep from the goats – the truly free souls of the ATM movement, as one might say, from the complete R-souls *. Without that, any kind of forum-reform is surely doomed to failure.

It is interesting to note that this problem is the same as that which Socrates and Plato tried to solve. For them, the ‘sheep’ were the true philosophers, the lovers of wisdom, and the ‘goats’ were the evil ones, the Sophists, followers of Protagoras whose mantra was: Such as appears for you IS for you, and such as appears for me IS for me. So, whereas science took its cue from Socrates, those who took their cue from Protagoras became the politicians As I see it, the current analog of that ancient sorting is to identify the ‘sheep’ as the Umbalophobes and the ‘goats’ as the Umbalophiles – remembering, of course, what ‘Umbala’ means, that is, what in the modern vernacular is called ‘crap’).

So the problem I would say, comes down (changing the simile) to that of separating the precious metal of truly objective scientific endeavour from the slag of mere self-serving political chicanery. These Umbalophiles have no objective interest whatsoever in advancing science. Their only interest is an egotistical attachment to their own ‘theories’. A truly objective ATM thesis builds up, over many years of detached and unprejudiced effort, by the long process of logical elimination of error. As a true researcher might say, ‘I’ve no idea what “The Truth” is, but by the proper use of commonsense logic I sure as hell know what isn’t!’

Then, having matured in that way, the thesis has to be presented for evaluation to as many honest and qualified critics as possible. The unprecedented opportunity afforded for this is, of course, the Internet, which was, at first, hailed as the greatest opportunity ever for advancing researches into nature on all fronts, scientific and humanitarian. It was the modernised version of the stoa in Athens and the soap-box in Hyde Park. But, unfortunately, it has opened the floodgates for all sorts of abusers of the system, for them to pervert it for all sorts of nefarious, self-serving purposes. What has happened recently, leading to the shut-down of what someone said was ‘potentially the best discussion thread so far’, is no more than what is happening to the Internet all over – all part of the Gadarene descent, as one might say.

Seen in that light, what can be the answer to our problem? In the old days, one could simply shut the door on these infiltrators – or give them the ‘bum’s rush’. The trouble is that these infiltrators. who would normally be howled down in the democratic stoa or soap-box situation, can operate covertly, under all sorts of pseudonyms, posing as whatever they like, without check. If made to produce their credentials and CVs, the situation might be different, but of course, that would be called ‘undemocratic’.

In short, then, my solution to the problem we are talking about would be quite unashamedly to forget about ‘democracy’ and ‘political correctness’ and demand some sort of 'CV' (academic or non-academic) as a condition for membership of the forum. That way we would eliminate the sort of person I once met who wanted to join our POAMS seminars. ‘What’s your particular interest in science?' I asked him. ‘I became interested in science,’ he replied, ‘after reading those fascinating books by Eric Von Daniken.’ (!!!!!)

How’s this, then, as a suggestion for refurbishing the forum? Get the applicant for posting permission to provide a short description of his or her experiences in science and of their particular leanings in the ATM direction. This should alert us to danger of inadvertently inviting hijackers into the forum. Whatever other alterations might be made, without something like that separatist solution, I feel that all our efforts will be doomed.

This, at any rate will be my suggestion to put before colleagues in our meeting on March 27th in preparation for opening the new forum.
--------------------------------------
*‘R’ here, stand for ‘Recalcitrant’.
--------------------------------------

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by VivPope

[Snip!] So the problem I would say, comes down (changing the simile) to that of separating the precious metal of truly objective scientific endeavour from the slag of mere self-serving political chicanery. These Umbalophiles have no objective interest whatsoever in advancing science. Their only interest is an egotistical attachment to their own ‘theories’.

This is characteristic of most ATM theorists; POAMS is no exception.

Originally Posted by VivPope

A truly objective ATM thesis builds up, over many years of detached and unprejudiced effort, by the long process of logical elimination of error.

POAMS cannot be called "a truly objective thesis" by any stretch of the imagination. It has been built up by a long process of accumulating errors, not eliminating them. It is mainstream science that has been built up "by the long process of logical elimination of error". Some of the errors that mainstream science have eliminated include:

• Phlogiston;
• Mercury rotating once each period of revolution (it is actually in 3:2 resonance);
• "Inert gases" do not form compounds (oh yes they do, now they are called "noble gases"); and
• Aristotelian uniform circular motion of heavenly bodies (the motion is actually along perturbed conic sections)

Originally Posted by VivPope

[Snip!] In short, then, my solution to the problem we are talking about would be quite unashamedly to forget about ‘democracy’ and ‘political correctness’ and demand some sort of 'CV' (academic or non-academic) as a condition for membership of the forum. That way we would eliminate the sort of person I once met who wanted to join our POAMS seminars. ‘What’s your particular interest in science?' I asked him. ‘I became interested in science,’ he replied, ‘after reading those fascinating books by Eric Von Daniken.’ (!!!!!)

And what exactly is a "non-academic" curriculum vitae (CV)? Would you accept mine? (Probably not.) It is doubtful that most ATM theorists could even muster a non-academic CV, whatever that is. At any rate, the complaint of most ATM theorists is that they are shut out of the "ivory tower" and cannot get a fair hearing for their ideas because of such requirements. And I note that even with your "academic" CV POAMS does not get published in any of the real physics journals of record.

Originally Posted by VivPope

How’s this, then, as a suggestion for refurbishing the forum? Get the applicant for posting permission to provide a short description of his or her experiences in science and of their particular leanings in the ATM direction.

Do you really think that the administrators and moderators will have the time to check these descriptions and decide on the worthiness of the poster and his/her theory? What of the inevitable appeals when poster X's theory of Y is rejected on these grounds? This is no solution at all.

[jamini]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

[snip]This is no solution at all.

I agree CM - Certainly not any kind of viable solution but rather another clear example of POEMS obscure logic, whereby they propose extrapolating subjective data in forming absolute conclusions (A>B and B>C so A>C although we have not tested or defined anything to prove conclusively that A is indeed greater than B). It further exemplifies their generous use of other peoples’ time.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by VivPope

In short, then, my solution to the problem we are talking about would be quite unashamedly to forget about ‘democracy’ and ‘political correctness’ and demand some sort of 'CV' (academic or non-academic) as a condition for membership of the forum.

This is the last thing I'd want to do. The whole purpose of ATM is to allow someone without scientific credentials to air interesting ideas. As I keep saying, great ideas can come from anywhere.

With the 30-day rule, we shut down the marketing and promotion people.

[Fortis]

One thing that would help ATMers get their message out in the 30 days would be if they were willing to answer "I don't know" to questions that they do not know the answer to. I have seen a lot of discussions become very circular when the OP tries to avoid what appears to be a question that they can't answer. It just leads to frustration for all, and there is nothing wrong in admitting that you do not know something.

[captain swoop]

I have never seen an ATMer say 'I don't know'

An ATMer can't say 'I don't know' it seems to me they think it's admittin that their ideas are wrong.

[DJ Barney]

Kelfrazin...

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

Fraser actually suggested the peer review idea as a hope for the new ATM function

True! Now I read that again his definition seems more specific. But it's big step from a simple 30 day rule to a full peer review process.

~~~

Oh! It happened on the 1st of March...I just looked at the sticky on the ATM forum...anyway.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...tration_report

Wikipedia have a defined arbitration process.

I think if ATM were to have a documented process to ease arguments then you would'nt get people screaming "The C word" (LOL!).

I know from experience on other boards that there's nothing more aggravating than having a single moderator "locking" your thread, or whatever, because (as it often seems to the thread author) "they felt like it". If there is a defined process then ATM authors won't feel "victimised".

DJBarney

[01101001]

Originally Posted by DJ Barney

I know from experience on other boards that there's nothing more aggravating than having a single moderator "locking" your thread, or whatever, because (as it often seems to the thread author) "they felt like it". If there is a defined process then ATM authors won't feel "victimised".

Why don't you like the BAUT process?

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by Fraser

This is the last thing I'd want to do. The whole purpose of ATM is to allow someone without scientific credentials to air interesting ideas. As I keep saying, great ideas can come from anywhere.

With the 30-day rule, we shut down the marketing and promotion people.

Viv Pope replies:

Sure, Fraser, It would aso be the very last thing I would want to do. But when you have so many people aboard who are there only to frustrate your intention of providing the best opportunies for the free expression of ideas, you have to do something

I would never have made the suggestion I did, other than in response to my experience with BAUT in trying to do just what you say, 'to air interesting ideas ' At first I thought it was going so well; and then this 'Umbala' thing raised its ugly head. As a result, I have been made more angry than I think I have ever been before in Physics conferences and seminars. As someone near to me has said: 'They seem to have brought out the worst in you!' Well, if so, then that was never my intention in presenting my proposed Angular Momentum Sythesis for rational consideration among those I thought of, at first as my peers. But as it is, I have ended up altogether disenchanted and fearful of this happening again in all our efforts to fulfil the original promise of these forums. This is why I wrote this next piece, which is a positive suggestion.

In my earlier post I suggested that some sort of ‘C.V.’ should be a condition for joining these forums. I suppose, then, that I should provide a few illustrations of what I mean. Here are a few examples of what, as Moderator, I would accept or reject.

1.a: I would like to find out what happened prior to the Big Bang. (reject).
1.b: I would like to examine the justification for the Big Bang hypothesis. (accept)

2.a: I aim to attack the POAM Synthesis and prove to the science community that it is Umbala. (reject)
2.b: I aim to study the POAM Synthesis in depth and, having understood it sufficiently, decide whether or not it is Umbala. (accept)

3.a: I would like to know more about black holes. (reject)
3.b: I would like to know more about the justification for the ‘back hole’ hypothesis (accept)

4.a: I have heard about Normal Realism, the subject of this forum, and want to show the world what I suspect, that it is Umbala. (reject)
4.a: I have heard about Normal Realism, the subject of this forum and would like to find out, in critical discussion, whether or not it is Umbala. (accept). etc., etc., etc.

It can surely be seen here that the criterion for accepting or rejecting applicants for the forum is that of whether or not the applicant comes to it with fixed precepts regarding the subjects for critical discussion. People who talk in terms of ‘THE’ Big Bang, THE Black Hole, THE Expanding Universe, THE Recession of Galaxies, THE Force of Gravity, THE Neutron Stars THE photon … and so on would thereby suggest uncritical fixed mindedness. If that recalcitrance revealed itself in other items in the ‘C.V,’, then that should set the forum’s crap-detector bleeping. With the experience I have now had with the R-souls that invaded and wrecked the invited POAMS thread, I reckon that my own crap-detector is now as well-tuned as it will ever be. And at least, with the new forum about to begin, I thank those worthies for that. Unfortunately, those sorts of people seem to be already ensconced in the BAUT forum. Apart from bringing in Rentokill or the Hygiene Inspectors, I can’t see what can be done about that. As far as I am concerned, since I can’t get any sense out of these people whose opinions are non-negotiable, if I continue with the existing forum then it will have to be just for fun, not for edification. (As it is said: ‘Have the name, enjoy the game’.)

Yet I am still concerned about restoring the integrity of the original BAUT intention, and whatever I am able to do towards restoring it I will continue to do. Anyway, for whatever it is worth, that is my diagnosis of the Problem. As far as any prospect of a cure is concerned, I feel that nothing but a completely Draconian catharsis would do the job. That would mean switching from trying to reason with these people toward just cauterising them – they leave themselves wide open to that, anyway, so ‘be it on their own heads’.

What I am proposing, then, in short, is that in order to get the forum going again, there aught to be some way of washing out those whose only relation with science is to be just grit in the gears of progress, who have nothing to offer as a positive contribution to advancing science but are there only to ruin any real ATM suggestion. Who needs them!

I trust it is realised that my remarks here are levelled, not at the quiet minority of rational members but at the strident majority of irrational ones.

P.S. By a 'CV' I don't necessarily mean the usual mainline academic CV, Indeed some who may have the most impessive CVs of that academic kind might be the first to be rejected if they didn't meaure up to the sort of 'CV' I am suggesting.

[Moose]

Looks to me, VivPope, that your questionnaire is designed to surround yourself with people who already agree with you. Hearing exactly what you want to hear from "yes men" types does nothing to improve the quality of your work.

That approach is sort of similar to the way Nancy Leider operates.

That is most expressly not the purpose of BAUT, nor is it even remotely the purpose of BAUT's rendering of the ATM forum.

[Edit:]On further reflection, it also looks more than a little like an excuse to sneak in yet another promotion of your ATM ideas outside of the ATM forum.