The Future of ATM

[Gillianren]

I see your point. However, I think it ought to take several long-term participants in the thread requesting that it stay open to keep it open, not just one or two people. Still, if it's more work than it's worth, that's the choice of the mods, too. I, being neither a proponent nor much of a mainstream info-provider, have no particular axe to grind here.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Excal

Reading the new policy in ATM, I was wondering if this thread is now closed? If not, I would like to continue with it. Is anyone else out there interested in learning more of the RST?

I believe that I am finally ready to comment on this website's ATM process and the ridiculously oppressive rule changes that occurred here recently.

IMO this board represents everything that is wrong with modern astronomy today.

The answer to your question Excal, is "Maybe, but none of the people that might still be interested in your ideas are allowed to discuss it any further." The mainstreamers here are not interested in discussing anything new, nor are they going to allow any dissent of any sort. That is why your thread is now closed.

You did everything right. You articulated your points very well. You kept things focused on science. You did all the right things that are supposed to occur in any "discussion" of any sort of scientific topic.

Unfortunately Excal, the powers that control this forum do not want you to succeed, and this is not a forum for friendly discussions about astronomical topics. Rather this forum is all about conducting "witch hunts", followed by a forceful end of all dissenting views. In other words, forget any hope now of ever discussing anything here in an open and honest manner. That can't happen here with this rule system. That is the whole point of these rule system changes in fact.

IMO this board has become hopeless. "Bad Astronomy" indeed. Open minds are not allowed to discuss anything here openly or honestly, and older topics are now "taboo", including yours. Welcome to science hell Excal.

I suggest that you think about taking your ideas to a real science forum, where open and friendly discussions are "allowed" and others can enjoy your ideas without all the hostility of this place. As you can clearly see now Excal, the rules here are simply not conducive to honest discourse.

http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewforum.php?f=8

[Fazor]

Rather a harsh assesment. I'm not familiar with the thread in question, but it was clearly stated that the new rule was not meant to stifle good discussion and ideas, but was a result of the majority of the threads, which were rubbish. It's as the saying goes "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch". Problem was, they were almost all bad apples.

ATM and CT (similar areas in this regard) tended to post a completely unsupported idea. Then when thier claim was refuted, they'd either ignore the questions/contradictory facts, or they'd change thier statement to another unsupported claim (often they'd do both). All they would do is post unsupported claim after claim, generally straight from boards like Loose Change, until someone answered in a way they didn't like. Then the'd nitpick on something stupid for a while before moving on to yet another unsupported claim.

It is sad that good discussions will get caught in the crossfire. But if you are honest with yourself and look at the mod's patterns I think it's clear that they're not spitefully striking down all that goes against thier current ideas. And i think if a discussion is actually benefitial and going somewhere, that a mod will allow it to continue to be discussed.

[nutant gene 71]

Here is something I believe Jerry had been talking about, that cosmic rays may be from 'undetermined' sources outside our galaxy. According to this Physics Review article, Turning Starlight into Gamma Rays , there seems to be a 'booster' effect on photons generated within dense stellar formation, where the light thrown out from relativistic velocity neutrons gets boosted to higher cosmic energy frequencies, as descrived here in brief:

Weiler and his colleagues turned instead to a gamma-ray production mechanism first described over a decade ago, but until now not applied to a specific astrophysical environment. The mechanism begins with a nucleus absorbing a photon and being excited into a so-called giant dipole resonance, in which "the protons in the nucleus slosh back and forth with respect to the neutrons," Weiler explains. The nucleus then decays and shoots out a photon.
Both the incoming and the outgoing photons have energies of a few mega-electron-volts (MeV) if the nucleus is at rest. But if the nucleus is moving close to the speed of light, these two energies can differ drastically. For a nucleus with sufficient speed, the researchers note, an oncoming ultraviolet photon--having intrinsic energy of a few electron volts--will appear boosted to an effective energy of a few MeV. That's enough to excite the giant dipole resonance. When the resonance decays, moreover, the photon thrown out by the speeding nucleus will get boosted again by the same factor of a million, from MeV to TeV energies.
…
The model suggests that "regions of intense star formation and dense stellar radiation are also the sites of cosmic ray acceleration," says Floyd Stecker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. That's because the same wind-swept nuclei that power the gamma-ray emission would also stream away into the galaxy at large, and some would eventually bombard Earth as cosmic rays. Determining the origin of these galactic cosmic rays "is one of the most important questions in high energy astrophysics," he adds.

I don't know if this can account for some of the 'cosmic radiation' received on Earth, but it may be one reason why we get more cosmic rays than astrophysical sources would account for.

[I leave this here as a continuation of the now locked thread Jerry Jensen's ATM idea, FYI, if that's okay within the new ATM board rules.]

[Frog march]

I'm sure they would love you over at GLP ManInTheMirror, you can post all you want.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I believe that I am finally ready to comment on this website's ATM process and the ridiculously oppressive rule changes that occurred here recently.

Sounds more appropriate for About BAUT. Or, am I missing some ATM space or astronomy theory in this article?

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Sounds more appropriate for About BAUT. Or, am I missing some ATM space or astronomy theory in this article?

I think it's in response to a closed thread in the ATM section, which is why he posted it here. Which, I believe, is a violation of the new rule about starting another thread to replace the closed one. <Z. Branagin's Voice> Yes, a post in violation of the very rule the post is criticizing, how ironic.</Voice>

Sorry, he's one of my fav Futurama characters.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Rather a harsh assesment. I'm not familiar with the thread in question, but it was clearly stated that the new rule was not meant to stifle good discussion and ideas, but was a result of the majority of the threads, which were rubbish. It's as the saying goes "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch". Problem was, they were almost all bad apples.

How was Excal a "bad apple"?

[Fazor]

I didnt say he/she was. Like i said, I am not familiar with the post you're referencing. But go pick any other thread in the ATM section and see how "good" they are. There are plenty of bad apples. I never implied he/she was one.

[captain swoop]

It just looks like a general whine to me!

If MITM has a well thought out and supported ATM idea, and he is prepared to answer any questions about it. Then he is free to post it.

As far as I can see, he didn't do it before the rule change so I don't think he is going to do it now he has an excuse not to.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

It just looks like a general whine to me!

...and a very mean spirited one, too.

You should be careful of that, MITM...one of the rules of this board is "be nice", and your OP was anything but nice.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

It just looks like a general whine to me!

Is it also against the rules to whine at blatant unprofessionalism?

How was Excal a bad apple? Why was that thread closed?

If MITM has a well thought out and supported ATM idea, and he is prepared to answer any questions about it. Then he is free to post it.

I thought I was pretty clear about the nature of my new "ATM" idea. Was I vague in some way?

As far as I can see, he didn't do it before the rule change so I don't think he is going to do it now he has an excuse not to.

Huh?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

...and a very mean spirited one, too.

And it's not "mean spirited" to close perfectly good threads arbitrarily only because they are "against the mainstream"? How is that less mean spirited?

You should be careful of that, MITM...one of the rules of this board is "be nice", and your OP was anything but nice.

I have a fine line to walk, that is certain. Then again, if I believe these rule changes to be harmful (and I do) I am obligated to be truthful about what I observe here. I don't want to be mean spirited, nor do I want this injustice to continue. How does one change a system that doesn't work and be "nice" about it? You tell me. I'll try to do it your way.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Fazor

I didnt say he/she was. Like i said, I am not familiar with the post you're referencing. But go pick any other thread in the ATM section and see how "good" they are. There are plenty of bad apples. I never implied he/she was one.

But the rules make no distinction between "good" ATM presentations and bad ones. The discussion is ordered to cease and desist and no further discussion is allowed. How is that a "scientific" way of discussing any topic?

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

But the rules make no distinction between "good" ATM presentations and bad ones. The discussion is ordered to cease and desist and no further discussion is allowed. How is that a "scientific" way of discussing any topic?

You Sir, have apparently missed the meaning of "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch" saying. Let me try to put it into a different context for you:

Ever been in grade-school and have one or two kids act up so bad that the teacher made the whole class stay inside and skip recess? Or do you have a brother or sister that ever did anything and you were both grounded as a result? Does that make your teacher or parent an overbearing zealot that wants to squash all forms of activity by the children? No. Just makes you a "casualty of war".

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

I believe that I am finally ready to comment on this website's ATM process and the ridiculously oppressive rule changes that occurred here recently. IMO this board represents everything that is wrong with modern astronomy today.

The answer to your question Excal, is "Maybe, but none of the people that might still be interested in your ideas are allowed to discuss it any further." The mainstreamers here are not interested in discussing anything new, nor are they going to allow any dissent of any sort. That is why your thread is now closed. [Snip!]

Speaking as a mainstreamer let me say that I am interested in discussing new things. I do want dissent. It would be wonderful if some radically new idea would come along that could be absorbed into the mainstream and expand the reach of our physical theories even farther. Unfortunately this doesn't happen very often. Special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics are among the few radical ideas in physics that have made it into the mainstream; MOND and string theory may ultimately achieve mainstream status or they may not.

Most of the ATM theories floated here are nowhere near "ready for prime-time". Most of them are denials of recent mainstream developments (relativity and quantum mechanics), one of them (POAMS) even denies Newtonian mechanics in favor of Aristotle! Some have absolutely no math at all (Moshe Thezion and his drawings); some have very little math with mainly a "look at the drawing/picture/video/animation" approach (plasma/electrical universe and "iron Sun" theories); some have mathematics used very badly (Zanket's "fix" for the Schwarzschild metric, Uclock's so-called "True Relativity", POAMS); some have mostly philosophy used badly (POAMS, Richard J. Hanak's "absolutivity").

I enjoy this dissent and I in turn dissent. In doing so sometimes my double-checking leads me to learning new things or to new insights into mainstream theories. (For example, "There is nothing wrong with your clock.") I will still be able to write the dialogues as I have done, but the time limit will cramp my style as I try to get everything said within the 30 day limit. A page limit would be a lot better than a time limit.

As for ExCal's thread, I am aware of Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System; I have read his book and I have contemplated a set of dialogues about it. I haven't arrived at the correct treatment. Maybe the next time this comes up I'll try again.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Fazor

You Sir, have apparently missed the meaning of "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch" saying. Let me try to put it into a different context for you:

Ever been in grade-school and have one or two kids act up so bad that the teacher made the whole class stay inside and skip recess? Or do you have a brother or sister that ever did anything and you were both grounded as a result? Does that make your teacher or parent an overbearing zealot that wants to squash all forms of activity by the children? No. Just makes you a "casualty of war".

The accuracy of your analogy was never in dispute, but that doesn't justify the behaviors in question.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

How does one change a system that doesn't work and be "nice" about it? You tell me.

3 things...

1) It is your opinion that it "doesn't work". Instead of ranting, you need to provide a convincing argument that the system doesn't work.

2) You must also have the power to change the system...which you don't have without a convincing argument.

3) You have no choice but to be nice, or you will provide reason to be banned.

I'll try to do it your way.

One thing is certain. Developing an "attitude" will in no way help you accomplish anything.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

Speaking as a mainstreamer let me say that I am interested in discussing new things. I do want dissent. It would be wonderful if some radically new idea would come along that could be absorbed into the mainstream and expand the reach of our physical theories even farther. Unfortunately this doesn't happen very often.

It never happens in 30 days!

If you want some dissent around here, I suggest you consider switching sides and joining my cause. Several good threads have already been closed based on a purely arbitrary basis. That should bother you as much as it bothers me, and I suspect it does bother you too.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

3 things...

1) It is your opinion that it "doesn't work". Instead of ranting, you need to provide a convincing argument that the system doesn't work.

I selected Excal's thread as a perfectly good example of where it doesn't work. I was careful to leave myself and my own ideas out of the discussion since this is about a principal, it is not about an individual, or an individual idea.

2) You must also have the power to change the system...which you don't have without a convincing argument.

I'm pretty sure I can make a convincing argument or I would not have put myself on "trial" again around here. It's not a fun experience I assure you, and this is not an easy subject to deal with.

3) You have no choice but to be nice, or you will provide reason to be banned.

I agree. Even if I am nice, I'd have to say the odds are pretty good that this topic is going to get me banned. Dissent doesn't go down easy around here.

One thing is certain. Developing an "attitude" will in no way help you accomplish anything.

Well, I do have a "mission", but my mission is ultimately to make this place a "better" place to discuss topics of astronomy. My goals are not in any way unethical, nor am I anyone's enemy. Let's start there.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

[snip]

Why was that thread closed?

[snip]

If by "that thread" you mean The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory, then how about New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section (my bold): "We'll start this new policy a week from today - March 6, 2007. We'll close up every ATM thread older than 30-days, no exceptions."?

That particular thread was most certainly "older than 30-days" (the OP is dated 07 September 2005)!

Did a mod or three go through all 194 pages of the ATM section, and close all threads not already closed? No.

Does that allow a BAUT member to bump a thread that's older than 30 days, but not yet closed? Yes.

As I am the moderator who did most of the ATM thread closing, and closed that thread, perhaps this part of BAUT's rules is appropriate: "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."

Did you PM a moderator, or an administrator, ManInTheMirror? No need to answer here; you may do so via PM, to me, or any mod or admin.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

[snip]

I suggest that you think about taking your ideas to a real science forum, where open and friendly discussions are "allowed" and others can enjoy your ideas without all the hostility of this place. As you can clearly see now Excal, the rules here are simply not conducive to honest discourse.

http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewforum.php?f=8

For those who have not had a chance to check out Night Sky Live's Asterisk Cafe (which is where you end up if you click on the link above), it was re-opened in October 2006, when a new administrator started work (on a completely voluntary basis).

Perhaps because it's buried on page 2, the rules for the Cafe aren't well known. No matter; the key one, wrt science, is at the top of the Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) section, here: "This is a scientific forum".

I somehow doubt that carousels of the kind the new BAUT ATM policy seems aimed at, at least in part, will be permitted in the Asterisk Cafe either ...

[Kelfazin]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

<snip>
I agree. Even if I am nice, I'd have to say the odds are pretty good that this topic is going to get me banned. Dissent doesn't go down easy around here.

If "all dissent" gets people banned or shut down, how are you still here? A quick search of your public profile, which only lists the last 500 posts, shows you have been dissenting since AT LEAST December of last year.

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

From a skeptics point of view, that sounds like wishful thinking and faith rather than science. It's ultimately a "DarkEnergyOfTheGaps" argument. In science, the onus of responsibility is on the individual making the claim. To date, no human being has brought forth tangible physical evidence to support the belief that DE exists. Rather than providing any physical evidence from earth sciences to demonstrate that DE exists and can affect the movement of matter, you simply resorted to one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Yet you're still here...

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Nereid

If by "that thread" you mean The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory, then how about New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section (my bold): "We'll start this new policy a week from today - March 6, 2007. We'll close up every ATM thread older than 30-days, no exceptions."?

That particular thread was most certainly "older than 30-days" (the OP is dated 07 September 2005)!

So every subject ever discussed around here is now "taboo", and bringing up the subject again gets one banned or threatened?

Excal made it clear he/she was willing to discuss this idea further. Is no one now allowed to discuss any previously discussed topic that's over 30 days old? What exactly is there that is left to discuss Nereid? What theory of astronomy was ever accepted by the mainstream in less than 30 days?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

If "all dissent" gets people banned or shut down, how are you still here? A quick search of your public profile, which only lists the last 500 posts, shows you have been dissenting since AT LEAST December of last year.



Yet you're still here...

Lets wait and see if I'm still around in 30 days, shall we?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

So every subject ever discussed around here is now "taboo", and bringing up the subject again gets one banned or threatened?

Excal made it clear he/she was willing to discuss this idea further. Is no one now allowed to discuss any previously discussed topic that's over 30 days old? What exactly is there that is left to discuss Nereid? What theory of astronomy was ever accepted by the mainstream in less than 30 days?

As 01101001 earlier in this thread noted, there are two perfectly good threads*, in the About BAUT section, where such questions are welcome ... AND which were started by Fraser, co-owner of BAUT (so you'll likely get an answer 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak).

Why not raise such questions there? After all, moderators merely implement policy set by others ...

*New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section
The Future of ATM

[Kelfazin]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

Lets wait and see if I'm still around in 30 days, shall we?

If you don't break the rules why would you think otherwise? Obviously your dissent hasen't gotten you banned in the past, and your (civil) dissent won't get you banned in the future either. You have built this giant strawman argument for what's going on around here and it's just not true.

Taking a cue from Neried, I'll stop posting in this thread as it's the wrong forum. I'll see you in the appropriate forum should you choose to change venue.

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Nereid

As 01101001 earlier in this thread noted, there are two perfectly good threads*, in the About BAUT section, where such questions are welcome ... AND which were started by Fraser, co-owner of BAUT (so you'll likely get an answer 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak).

Why not raise such questions there? After all, moderators merely implement policy set by others ...

*New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section
The Future of ATM

You are willing to enforce the rules and moderate, but you won't answer a single question I asked you about? Is everything that has been previously discussed in the past now a "banned" topic? Shall we start burning Alfven's books next?

[ManInTheMirror]

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

If you don't break the rules why would you think otherwise? Obviously your dissent hasen't gotten you banned in the past, and your (civil) dissent won't get you banned in the future either.

On the contrary. I got banned for two days for noting that constantly resorting to the use of ad hominems was "intellectually dishonest" behavior.

You have built this giant strawman argument for what's going on around here and it's just not true.

Do you mean those locks on all the older threads aren't really there, or that this new "policy" has been applied equally to all forums?

Taking a cue from Neried, I'll stop posting in this thread as it's the wrong forum. I'll see you in the appropriate forum should you choose to change venue.

It seems to me that this is the "venue" that is most directly affected by these changes, and this is the forum where all the oppression is taking place.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror

You are willing to enforce the rules and moderate, but you won't answer a single question I asked you about? Is everything that has been previously discussed in the past now a "banned" topic? Shall we start burning Alfven's books next?

I could repeat the words in the threads Fraser started, in the About BAUT section, or I could point you to those, as a place to get a clean, clear answer.

One thing I cannot do is make up new policy, on behalf of Fraser and the BA.

So, not "won't", but "can't", as in "do not have the authority to".