The Future of ATM

[R.A.F.]

Am I the only one who is having trouble with Viv's use of the term "R-soul's"??

IMO, it's a transparent attempt to circumvent the "no profanity/name calling" rules of this board. (just sound it out)

[jamini]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Am I the only one who is having trouble with Viv's use of the term "R-soul's"??

IMO, it's a transparent attempt to circumvent the "no profanity/name calling" rules of this board. (just sound it out)

Yep, especially considering the English pronunciation of “arse”. And it’s not all that transparent if you consider all the other terms he’s used to describe anyone who happens to question or disagree with his somewhat sporadic and idiosyncratic logic.

[R.A.F.]

Good to know I'm not the "only one".

...and before anyone says, "why don't you report this to a mod", I did...yesterday...

[VivPope]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

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

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)

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.

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.

[FONT="Times New Roman"]POAMS answers

Re.: QUESTIONS (This is to all and sundry)

One of my neighbours once said to me: ‘You know all about electricity, don’t you?’
‘Well, …’I replied. What do you want to know?’
‘I have a question.’ he said.
‘So, what’s your question. I asked.
‘Well,’, he said, ‘The electricity comes from the power station on the ‘live’ and goes back on the neutral. Right?
‘Right enough,’ I answered. ‘So, what’s the question?’
‘What I want to know is: what do they do with all that electricity when it gets back to the station?’

Disconcerted, I tried to form an answer that made sense to him. So I started to say, ‘It’s not quite that. You have to know something about electricity …’

‘No,’ he said, ‘I just want a straight answer to my question. When it gets back what do they do with it? Does it all end up in a great heap, or what? That’s all I want to know.’

I was nonplussed. ‘I can’t answer that question if you put it like that!’

‘Some electrical expert you must be then if you can’t answer a plain and straightforward question!’ So saying, he walked off in a huff.

And now, this is the sort of situation I have encountered once again in trying to answer those on this POAMS forum thread, who insist that my answers to their questions about POAMS be delivered in terms of their own lack of the necessary knowledge of the components of POAMS, that is, natural philosophy, scientific logic and true scientific method. As P.G. Wodehouse put it, 'Explanations would be tedious' – as, indeed, they have been in trying to repeat and repeat answers questions that are so utterly naïve.

So please don’t anyone tell me that just because a question is asked it has to be answered in the time allotted … or else! [/FONT]

[jamini]

POAMS revisited, Vol. II?

[Tinaa]

Originally Posted by VivPope

Viv Pope replies:
snip

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.

my bold

VivPope this is an official warning. Do not call people names. Next time you break a rule you will be suspended. When you post ATM ideas they will be attacked with glee. You must answer the questions in a timely manner. Nereid does an excellent job in the ATM section.

[gannon]

I hope this doesn't doesn't become the next new thing. ATM people posting outside ATM because they can't post there ideas in ATM.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by VivPope

{ A quote box containing Celestial Mechanic's observations along with some questions concerning CV's (curriculum vitae). }

POAMS answers

Re.: QUESTIONS (This is to all and sundry)

One of my neighbours once said to me: ‘You know all about electricity, don’t you?’

[Remainder of pointless anecdote snipped]

So please don’t anyone tell me that just because a question is asked it has to be answered in the time allotted … or else!

In what way was any of the above an answer to any of my questions about CV's?

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Len Moran

It shouldn't be forgotten that what keeps ATM ideas afloat (apart from deliberate bumping by the ATM presenter) is participation from members. If members so wished it, any topic could disappear from the screen in a matter of days. One thread I remember had giant earth worms and goodness knows what else as its theme, written in almost unintelligible English. This went on for week after week, but the only thing that kept it there was member participation.

Yes, but it was entertaining. In one of the early posts on the thread, re the K-T impact, I said I was going to open a can of worms. Little did I expect to find actual serious posts about giant worms!

I think that 'enjoyable' is a must for ATM. I just re-read Fraser's initial post on this thread, and if you keep asking yourself 'Will this make ATM more enjoyable?', then the changes make sense. Pages and pages of raving by assorted 'true believers' who won't listen to reason, or who are trying to sell some product, or both, is not enjoyable. Luckily, this is a posting board, and they can't solicit you on the phone at dinnertime.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by VivPope

I was nonplussed. ‘I can’t answer that question if you put it like that!’

Then you probably don't understand electricity

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by VivPope

[FONT="Times New Roman"]POAMS answers

Re.: QUESTIONS (This is to all and sundry)

One of my neighbours once said to me: ‘You know all about electricity, don’t you?’
‘Well, …’I replied. What do you want to know?’
‘I have a question.’ he said.
‘So, what’s your question. I asked.
‘Well,’, he said, ‘The electricity comes from the power station on the ‘live’ and goes back on the neutral. Right?
‘Right enough,’ I answered. ‘So, what’s the question?’
‘What I want to know is: what do they do with all that electricity when it gets back to the station?’

Disconcerted, I tried to form an answer that made sense to him. So I started to say, ‘It’s not quite that. You have to know something about electricity …’

‘No,’ he said, ‘I just want a straight answer to my question. When it gets back what do they do with it? Does it all end up in a great heap, or what? That’s all I want to know.’

I was nonplussed. ‘I can’t answer that question if you put it like that!’

‘Some electrical expert you must be then if you can’t answer a plain and straightforward question!’ So saying, he walked off in a huff. [/FONT]

The answer is, 'They never take it out of the wires, they just send it back through the generator, the generator pumps it up, and then they send it out live again!'

Ya gotta put yourself in the questioner's world view. And the answer doesn't do too much damage to the actual physics.

[antoniseb]

VivPope has been suspended for a week for 'language'. Please do not pose new questions to him/her until the suspension is over.

[Jim]

I hate to drag this thread (kicking and screaming, I'm sure) back on topic... or close anyway, but I do have a suggestion or two for ATM.

As a thread approaches the 30 day limit - say, at 25 days - could a Mod ask the participants if they see any value in an extension? Alternatively, could one or more participants other than the OP request an extension? This way, if some value is seen in continuing the thread, it could be.

Along similar lines, if a thread remains inactive for, oh, 5 days, should it be locked before the 30 day limit?

If the OP is asked a question that may take time to research and answer, could the OP request that the thread be locked temporarily until an answer can be supplied? The clock could start ticking again at that time.

If after the 30 day lockdown the OP has something new to add, could this be PMed to a Mod and perhaps the old thread reopened or a new thread started?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jim

Along similar lines, if a thread remains inactive for, oh, 5 days, should it be locked before the 30 day limit?

I don't really see the point to locking a thread that no one is posting to

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Jim

I hate to drag this thread (kicking and screaming, I'm sure) back on topic... or close anyway, but I do have a suggestion or two for ATM.

As a thread approaches the 30 day limit - say, at 25 days - could a Mod ask the participants if they see any value in an extension? Alternatively, could one or more participants other than the OP request an extension? This way, if some value is seen in continuing the thread, it could be.

Along similar lines, if a thread remains inactive for, oh, 5 days, should it be locked before the 30 day limit?

If the OP is asked a question that may take time to research and answer, could the OP request that the thread be locked temporarily until an answer can be supplied? The clock could start ticking again at that time.

If after the 30 day lockdown the OP has something new to add, could this be PMed to a Mod and perhaps the old thread reopened or a new thread started?

And how would all this make the mod's task easier?

Cheers.

[Len Moran]

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.

Just for the record, I have only ever posted to this forum under my own name. I do not require a combined pseudonym in order to argue for or against POAMS.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Len Moran

Just for the record, I have only ever posted to this forum under my own name. I do not require a combined pseudonym in order to argue for or against POAMS.

Acknowledged.

I wonder who the other persons of "Neville" were?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by VanderL

And how would all this make the mod's task easier?

Cheers.

Who said it would? It should, but really these suggestions are aimed at some of the objections to the Thirty Day Lockdown Rule.

As a thread approaches the 30 day limit ... could a Mod ask ... could one or more participants ( ask for an extension)?

If the thread is of sufficient interest and is making some progress, why should it not be allowed to continue? Keep the extension finite... 10 days? This suggestion still allows the Mod to lock it if no one wants to continue. (Note it's also a request to extend.)

... if a thread remains inactive ... should it be locked before the 30 day limit?

To follow up on Grape's comment, if no one's posting, the thread may as well be locked early; this keeps someone from bumping it "one last time" and gives the Mods one less thread to watch.

...could the OP request that the thread be locked temporarily until an answer can be supplied? The clock could start ticking again at that time.

If an OP is trying to give an answer to the questions, why should s/he be penalized because it takes time to find it? Why should playing by the rules be used against you?

If after the 30 day lockdown the OP has something new to add, could this be PMed to a Mod and perhaps the old thread reopened or a new thread started?

Ditto. Say the OP finds some new and illuminating information that would stregthen the original case. Should that information be forbidden simply because it is found after the 30 days have expired? (I'd vote new thread, btw, and keep it on the new information; no rehashing.)

All of these suggestions save the second reward the OP who plays by the rules. And that should make things easier for the Mods.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jim

To follow up on Grape's comment, if no one's posting, the thread may as well be locked early; this keeps someone from bumping it "one last time" and gives the Mods one less thread to watch.

My original comment was sorta humorous, but in general I disagree with this approach. I mean, I disagree with a time limit, period, but if you're going to have one, keep it--instead of shortening it further.

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think that you are correct, but of course it doesn't necessarily mean that. After all, the mainstream view is that the Big Bang happened, but if you ask someone what caused the it, the only honest answer at the moment is "I don't know."

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Fortis

I think that you are correct, but of course it doesn't necessarily mean that. After all, the mainstream view is that the Big Bang happened, but if you ask someone what caused the it, the only honest answer at the moment is "I don't know."

Of course not. But a mainstream scientist will have no problem saying it, whereas...

[VanderL]

Some suggestions on the future of ATM.

Here are north's suggestions.

I posted this one elsewhere:

I think the best policy to "quench" the flow (apart from the draconian measures taken now, and apart from closing the ATM section altogether) is to subdivide the ATM section ( for example: 1. ATM peer-reviewed papers and theories, 2. Original theories/ideas presented by the author, 3. "Wild" ideas) and make sure everyone behaves. As I have said numerous times, if you think an idea is wrong and the presenter is not listening, just stop responding, the thread will stop (just make sure the presenter is not allowed to "bump" the thread).

And there was a discussion earlier on rules for ATM threads where I also argued that subdivisions with different rules could overcome a lot of the animosity and "policing".

Maybe also important is the question what to do with discussion of anomalies or findings that contradict current theories. In my opinion, much can be learned from these areas, to anyone interested in astronomy.

Maybe others have suggestions?

Cheers.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by VanderL

Maybe also important is the question what to do with discussion of anomalies or findings that contradict current theories. In my opinion, much can be learned from these areas, to anyone interested in astronomy.

There is certainly value to discussing anomalies and contradictions. I think the pitfall is someone with an ATM idea who uses such As&Cs to promote his idea.

A thread that says, "Current theory doesn't explain this; let's discuss" has value.

One that says, "Current theory doesn't explain this so my theory must be just as good" does not.

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by Moose

Of course not. But a mainstream scientist will have no problem saying it, whereas...

And hence some of the "round in circles" discussions on ATM.

[Kelfazin]

For those that think ATM is going to be dead under the new rules, here are some numbers. Between 8am and 5pm PST there were 35 new posts and 3 new threads started, bringing a total of 9 still-active threads in the ATM section. Yes, it's not the same as it used to be, but then again that's the point. However, I would hardly classify that as "dead" considering my numbers only cover a standard work day for the west coast of the USA. If you were to track the number of new posts/threads in a 24 hour period I think you would find that the ATM forum is still very much "alive."

[Nereid]

From 1 March, when the new ATM policy was announced, until today: 14 new ATM threads (though one is only new in the ATM section because it was moved from another section). Nine of these are new threads since 6 March, when the new policy went into effect.

[Gillianren]

I'd like to hear moderator feedback, but I think Jim's idea about other participants in the ATM discussion requesting extensions has merit. After all, if the other participants see it as a healthy, valuable discussion and the ATM poster is answering questions in a timely fashion--or admitting when they don't have the answers, which is a method of answering questions, after all--it has a decent-ish chance of being an idea genuinely worth exploring. It would also assure a limit to the carousel threads.

I also agree that some kind of reward for admitting they need more time is a good idea. It won't stop those inclined toward the carousel from complaining they've been censored, but it may make those not so inclined more likely to share what might be the next great innovation in physics.

[gannon]

have any of those thread brought evidence? The 30 day limit doesn't seem to be encouraging those threads it seems to be encouraging threads with less thought put into them than the old ones. Why put a lot of detail is going to be locked anyway.
With the old system at least people could bring up threads that they had questions about but now we can't even do that. (this is the main reason that I oppose the new rules, why as a person that doesn't look here much be forbidden to post on a thread that I missed with a question)

[Kelfazin]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I'd like to hear moderator feedback, but I think Jim's idea about other participants in the ATM discussion requesting extensions has merit. After all, if the other participants see it as a healthy, valuable discussion and the ATM poster is answering questions in a timely fashion--or admitting when they don't have the answers, which is a method of answering questions, after all--it has a decent-ish chance of being an idea genuinely worth exploring. It would also assure a limit to the carousel threads.

I also agree that some kind of reward for admitting they need more time is a good idea. It won't stop those inclined toward the carousel from complaining they've been censored, but it may make those not so inclined more likely to share what might be the next great innovation in physics.

I 2nd (3rd?) the motion. Might need some tweaking but seems like a possible compromise.

[Moose]

It's an interesting idea, but it's abusable. Off the top of my head:

1) Via PMs: You "sponsor" mine, I'll "sponsor" yours. Or else start discriminating between mainstreamers and ATMers in terms of who can vote. I don't know about others, but while I can be unhappy with the behavior of some ATMers, I don't want to see them turned into 2nd-class citizens either.

2) Sock puppetry: we'd have to watch for sock puppetry, either in the first person or third.

3) I can easily see censorship complaints, a lot of complaints, pretty much any time some random person fails to garner enough support for an ATM extension. Basically, imagine this very thread suddenly in permanent treadmill mode. What sort of effect would that have on mod/volunteer morale?

The (new) rule as it stands, while I grant it's not especially popular among the ATMers, does have the virtue of being even-handed, utterly objective, and not obviously abusable. (Edit: I'd really hate to think that's why they dislike it so much, but it's unfortunately not a very long stretch in my mind. I have seen niche populations on the net who would respond in that way for those reasons.)