The Future of ATM

[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.

First let me explain my (and Phil's reasons) for the 30-day closure rule in the ATM section:

• It was being used as a marketing tool by ATM theorists. Unlike a science journal, anyone could post whatever they liked, and as long as it wasn't obcene or illegal, we were happy to host it. Sadly, this generousity was abused.
• There was no discipline. It wasn't about the best theories, it was just a free for all. Whoever could post the most, could dominate the conversations. That's why we tried to enforce the "You must answer direction questions" rules, but it was still overwhelming.
• By hosting the ATM theories, people might assume that we endorse them, when really we just haven't had time to properly debunk them. If there were enough resources to stay on top of all the ATM theories, and give them the investigation it requires, we probably wouldn't have taken this measure yet.
• It was often a hostile and unfriendly place. Almost all of our bans in the forum came from people in the ATM section.
• It was burning out moderators and community members. As I mentioned in #3, we have a duty to make a stand for the scientific method. I've had too many emails by frustrated and valued members who were burned out, and just didn't want to stick around any more.

Okay, so why did we choose the solution to shut down ATM threads that had gone longer than 30 days?

• We wanted to keep the threads available, so that we can have a historical record of the theories presented.
• We closed down every thread to show that we were being even handed in our treatment with everyone. Obviously someone's always going to scream conspiracy or censorship, but I like to think we're even handed here.
• We wanted something quick and effective that would address most of our issues without having to burn our volunteers out further.
• We still wanted a place for people to present their ATM theories. I know many of you think that we're part of an organized conspiracy to prop up science and shut down questioning mainstream science. We could have gone a lot further, and I think most forum members would appreciate it. But I would never remove ATM, it just needs to be tamed.

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?

Let me give you some ideas that have been knocking around my head, and we can all use that as a starting point.

My dream ATM section would have the following characteristics:

• Different treatment depending on the amount of homework ATMers are willing to do. For example, if you're just going to jump in and post a crazy idea without any evidence, that's great, but it's going to get debunked, closed and allowed to drift down into the archive. But if you're really willing to do your homework, and present your ideas in a cohesive manner, I'd like to repay that kindness and make sure the idea gets a fair shake.
• Some framework in which ideas can be judged equally and objectively. Perhaps through a form that people fill out.
• A way to replicate the peer review process in science as much as possible. The hope is that reasonable theories will be greatly improved.
• It would provide a bridge between ATM and mainstream science, maybe even bringing together a council of scientists who would review promising ideas. Sort of like American Idol, but for science.
• It would be transparant, so people can't claim that there's some kind of conspiracy going on.
• Any casual visitor to the section would be able to follow the threads and watch how bad theories are debunked, and good theories are strengthened. I want this to be a positive learning experience for anyone watching.
• I want it to be nice.

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.

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm surprised nobody else has responded to this one yet.

FWIW, my impression is that these are all good ideas. I'd like to see an emphasis on a theory's merit, however that might be judged. It is possible to say, "I think your theory is wrong, but I'm not sure why," or, "It goes against everything I believe in, but I can't dismiss it just for those reasons," in which case it deserves to continue to run.

(I'm thinking of Robert Tulip's piece in the second instance.)

I would also like to suggest a new punishable offence. This offence is assuming victimhood without justification. Let's have no more "Burn the heretic!" and "This is how Galileo must have felt." Round here, it's generally the messages that get shot, not the messangers.

[Tog_]

Although I’m almost exclusively a lurker in the ATM section, I have a thought on this, but it depends a lot on the forum software.

Basically, it would be that all new ATM threads get moved to a “Poll Thread” where the voters can select multiple options. The poll would have the same questions for each thread:

Has the proper research been done?
Is it internally sound? (Not really what I want, but basically something that asks if the theory is capable of holding itself together, as opposed to having some parts that run contradictory to the rest)
Can it be tested?
Is it possible?
Should this thread be reopened after the 30 day limit has expired?

If it is renewed after 30 days, then a clean poll would be set up to reflect the changes made to the theory, with possibly a new set of questions that reflect the acceptance of the first.

In this way, viewing the poll can show how valid the members think the theory may be.

The problem I can see right off though is a person changing their mind after voting, and people voting who are not active participants. There is also the possibility that the polls will be like sweet, sweet candy to the sock puppets, with several new members logging on one time to vote YES in all of the above.

[Kelfazin]

For peer review, my idea would be that a poster presents his/her theory on a peer review thread. There are certain chosen peer reviewers for that subject, and for a period of, say, 5 days only the OP and the peers can post on that particular thread. Once the idea is selected as valid or open for discussion by the peers then thread becomes public.

I don't know that this is any less cumbersome, but I think it might help alleviate a problem that the ATM presenters run into, namely having 15 different mainstreamers shotgunning questions at them and demanding answers all at the same time.

Just a thought

[DJ Barney]

Hello,

I must admit I am new to BAUT and don't know the mechanics of the ATM forum...BUT....I do have experience of talking to LOTS of "Against the Mainstream People" for want of a better word.

PM me if you want the whole story, but suffice to say I have dropped a lot of "stuff".

Anyway, I disagree with Kelfazin. I think Frazer has it better...if a theory is really interesting then get a panel of actual practising Scientists to look at it! To turn the ATM forum into another "Peer review" system would seem to defeat the point of it. It is a forum, not a technical scientific admissions process (although there's no harm in introducing some of those concepts as I think they are widely misunderstood).

Originally Posted by Fraser

• It was burning out moderators and community members. As I mentioned in #3, we have a duty to make a stand for the scientific method. I've had too many emails by frustrated and valued members who were burned out, and just didn't want to stick around any more.

Exactly! That sounds serious.

I was on a forum where I was questioning someone and they were berating me because they thought "that I was just trying to make myself sleep better at night", by annulling their theory (it was a "Chemtrail" theory). How laden was that with accusations and counter accusations, not to mention some kind of emotional blackmail ?

This discussion reminds me of this...

http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2003/08...ation_and.html

Wiki collaborative software that has been used to stop a conflict happening in Asia!

And here is my point...

I think many Scientists underestimate the pure hostility there is against mainstream professionals from some ( SOME ) people.

I have been on the forums where some people regularly talk about and honestly believe, that NASA scientists are "airbrushing aliens out of Mars images" or whatever.

So it's an infinite regress. When they come up against the perceived hostility of...Scientists, it only confirms their beliefs that there is some wall of conspiracy "keeping them down".

I wonder if you looked at the techniques used by the Wiki software (see link) you could build some of that into the forum..or even use their software ?

Goodluck! Because as you say, there are some fascinating theories and ideas in that "against".

DJBarney

[Kelfazin]

Originally Posted by DJ Barney

<snip>
Anyway, I disagree with Kelfazin. I think Frazer has it better...if a theory is really interesting then get a panel of actual practising Scientists to look at it! To turn the ATM forum into another "Peer review" system would seem to defeat the point of it. It is a forum, not a technical scientific admissions process (although there's no harm in introducing some of those concepts as I think they are widely misunderstood).

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

Originally Posted by Fraser

My dream ATM section would have the following characteristics:

• Different treatment depending on the amount of homework ATMers are willing to do. For example, if you're just going to jump in and post a crazy idea without any evidence, that's great, but it's going to get debunked, closed and allowed to drift down into the archive. But if you're really willing to do your homework, and present your ideas in a cohesive manner, I'd like to repay that kindness and make sure the idea gets a fair shake.
• Some framework in which ideas can be judged equally and objectively. Perhaps through a form that people fill out.
• A way to replicate the peer review process in science as much as possible. The hope is that reasonable theories will be greatly improved.
• It would provide a bridge between ATM and mainstream science, maybe even bringing together a council of scientists who would review promising ideas. Sort of like American Idol, but for science.
• It would be transparant, so people can't claim that there's some kind of conspiracy going on.
• Any casual visitor to the section would be able to follow the threads and watch how bad theories are debunked, and good theories are strengthened. I want this to be a positive learning experience for anyone watching.
• I want it to be nice.

(bold mine)

My thinking in this area is that we could have people that have some form of credentials (whether formal or practical, I'm not sure. A lot of us know who the local experts are regarding different subjects for example) in whatever area the ATM theory is relating to. These "peers" would review a theory to see if has merit, then release it to the ATM section for public "attack."

Just thinking aloud here for a minute, there could be a new Peer Review forum where an ATM'er would post their theory. Maybe the reviewers have moderator permission on that forum, and they lock the new forum to moderator input only...not sure. Then if the theory has merit it is moved by the peers to the general ATM forum where the regulars can attack the theory with glee and fervor. Depending on the forum software, maybe the ATM forum can be locked so only mods can create a new topic. That would make it so only reviewed theories pass into general discussion.

[Kelfazin]

Further thoughts, would the peer review process negate the need for the 30 day limit? It seems that theories that make it into the ATM forum using something like the process I outlined would be able to withstand longer discussion because the poster likely did their homework and knows their stuff.

Hm

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by DJ Barney

Hello,

I must admit I am new to BAUT and don't know the mechanics of the ATM forum...BUT....I do have experience of talking to LOTS of "Against the Mainstream People" for want of a better word.

PM me if you want the whole story, but suffice to say I have dropped a lot of "stuff".

Anyway, I disagree with Kelfazin. I think Frazer has it better...if a theory is really interesting then get a panel of actual practising Scientists to look at it! To turn the ATM forum into another "Peer review" system would seem to defeat the point of it. It is a forum, not a technical scientific admissions process (although there's no harm in introducing some of those concepts as I think they are widely misunderstood).



Exactly! That sounds serious.

I was on a forum where I was questioning someone and they were berating me because they thought "that I was just trying to make myself sleep better at night", by annulling their theory (it was a "Chemtrail" theory). How laden was that with accusations and counter accusations, not to mention some kind of emotional blackmail ?

This discussion reminds me of this...

http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2003/08...ation_and.html

Wiki collaborative software that has been used to stop a conflict happening in Asia!

And here is my point...

I think many Scientists underestimate the pure hostility there is against mainstream professionals from some ( SOME ) people.

I have been on the forums where some people regularly talk about and honestly believe, that NASA scientists are "airbrushing aliens out of Mars images" or whatever.

So it's an infinite regress. When they come up against the perceived hostility of...Scientists, it only confirms their beliefs that there is some wall of conspiracy "keeping them down".

I wonder if you looked at the techniques used by the Wiki software (see link) you could build some of that into the forum..or even use their software ?

Goodluck! Because as you say, there are some fascinating theories and ideas in that "against".

DJBarney

I'm puzzled ... how would any ATM section of BAUT - no matter what its rules - address any of this hostility?

And from the worlds where you see this hostility, do you see it directed at the PCs in their homes? the internet they use to post their hostility? Are they hostile to the point of refusing to undergo a life-saving operation?

Please note that I don't doubt what you say about hostility; I'm just genuinely puzzled that what seems to me to be a mind-boggling inconsistency hasn't occurred to those who are so hostile ... or do you think these folk are also (consciously, unabashedly) hypocritical?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by DJ Barney

[snip]

Exactly! That sounds serious.

I was on a forum where I was questioning someone and they were berating me because they thought "that I was just trying to make myself sleep better at night", by annulling their theory (it was a "Chemtrail" theory). How laden was that with accusations and counter accusations, not to mention some kind of emotional blackmail ?

[snip]

I think Fraser is referring to professional astronomers (or other scientists) who once posted in BAUT, in the ATM section, but who are no longer active.

I too have received emails of this nature - it would seem that it gets very wearying to try, for the umpteenth time, to explain something that should have been learned in high school, to someone whose posts display not the slightest doubt about veracity of the claims they make ... especially when there are so many excellent resources available, starting with BAUT's own Q&A section.

[korjik]

Fraser is right about the abuse of the ATM section, but I dont know if there is a good way to fix it. I hate to say it, but most of the ATM posting I have seen has been of the type that Nereid referenced, where the poster is convinced he is right, no matter how many errors in basic physics they have pointed out to them. I dont think there is an easy way to filter out these posters without just closong the whole section down.

[01101001]

Just fantasizing. Is there anyway the more reputable ATM posters can help?

I didn't spend much time in ATM, but the threads I did read seemed to feature a fairly standard set of pro-science attackers, a set that seemed bereft of ATM proponents. I often wondered why that was. And, I concluded, jokingly, maybe it was some sort of professional courtesy that ATM proponents extended each other: I won't criticize your idea if you don't criticize mine.

I still wonder why ATMers, who enjoy creating ATM ideas, don't seem to spend much time demolishing their weaker competitors' poorer ideas -- or even if my haphazard sampling yields results reflecting reality.

If it is true, how can their participation be harnessed? Would they want to be harnessed? Would it actually be useful?

[Frog march]

why can't burnout threads just be closed by mod democracy? Is it the worry that the ATMer will run around shouting "censorship"?

They would probably do that however reasonably BAUT treated them, at the end of the day.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Frog march

why can't burnout threads just be closed by mod democracy? Is it the worry that the ATMer will run around shouting "censorship"?

I thought Frazer covered it in the OP. Besides other reasons for the 30-day rule presented:

We closed down every thread to show that we were being even handed in our treatment with everyone. Obviously someone's always going to scream conspiracy or censorship, but I like to think we're even handed here.

[gannon]

I don't think you can have what you want it to be. The only way to do all the work in the 30 day requirement is to already have published data and then you could just post it in a different forum section.
People seem to want a forum to bounce ideas off of and if you don't want that here you should redirect them somewhere else (several skeptical forums come to mind) not give them a forum to be laughed at.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by Frog march

why can't burnout threads just be closed by mod democracy? Is it the worry that the ATMer will run around shouting "censorship"?

They would probably do that however reasonably BAUT treated them, at the end of the day.

BAUT would just be accused of tyranny of the masses (mainstreamers) there. It's another no-win situation with arguements by the "oppressed" eventually resulting in comparisons with Nazis and Galileo

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Just fantasizing. Is there anyway the more reputable ATM posters can help?

I didn't spend much time in ATM, but the threads I did read seemed to feature a fairly standard set of pro-science attackers, a set that seemed bereft of ATM proponents. I often wondered why that was. And, I concluded, jokingly, maybe it was some sort of professional courtesy that ATM proponents extended each other: I won't criticize your idea if you don't criticize mine.

Perhaps in some cases that happens. For my part, I really don't read that many threads, so I don't know what is being said. I will tell you that I spent considerable effort trying to get Mychael Cyrek to understand that he was wrong in claiming that the conservations laws disprove the Big Bang - but to no avail.

However, I would point out that I see the same thing you describe among mainstream attackers. Mainstreamers will sometimes make blatant errors and it is rare in the threads I've participtated in that another mainstreamer corrects the mistake. It usually falls to the ATMer to do it.

I still wonder why ATMers, who enjoy creating ATM ideas, don't seem to spend much time demolishing their weaker competitors' poorer ideas -- or even if my haphazard sampling yields results reflecting reality.

If it is true, how can their participation be harnessed? Would they want to be harnessed? Would it actually be useful?

According to what most are saying here, the typical ATMer doesn't know enough physics to know their own theory is wrong. How could they be expected to expertly critique someone else's ATM idea?

BTW, I think this labelling of people as "Mainstream" or "ATM" is a flawed dichotomy. I have some interests that are ATM, but I consider myself mainstream in regards to most of the prevailing scientific theory.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Perhaps in some cases that happens. For my pa rt, I really don't read that many threads, so I don't know what is being said. I will tell you that I spent considerable effort trying to get Mychael Cyrek to understand that he was wrong in claiming that the conservations laws disprove the Big Bang - but to no avail.

But, again, how many ATM posters (however, see my last section) actually do that. Very, very few.(which is why I included you and Pete among the ATM posters I respect).

Originally Posted by dgruss23

However, I would point out that I see the same thing you describe among mainstream attackers. Mainstreamers will sometimes make blatant errors and it is rare in the threads I've participtated in that another mainstreamer corrects the mistake. It usually falls to the ATMer to do it.

And that may be the nature of the threads you post in. From the threads I've seen you post in, you are probably the most knowledgable poster on the specifics of what the thread is talking about. I know in my case, I generally don't post in the threads you are active in, simply because I simply don't know enough to reply intelligently. If I see a mistake, on either side, I tend to mention it and I welcome any corrections to mistakes I make.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

According to what most are saying here, the typical ATMer doesn't know enough physics to know their own theory is wrong.

This is the biggest problem I see. A lot of the theories presented here rely on the analogies you see on popular sites, not the actually math and physics. It is very difficult to make someone understand why the analogy doesn't work when they don't know the limits of the analogy or the actual physics and math involved. They simply don't understand and you end up with "do so" "do not" threads.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

How could they be expected to expertly critique someone else's ATM idea?

I've thought about this also. I think the part of the problem is what you have brought up. Again, though, there are a lot of times where even in plain language, one ATM theory directly contradicts another. Even in that case, the supporter of the second theory continues to support the proponent of the first. To me it looks like some posters support each other just because they are both fighting the "mainstream". I will concede that there may be posters on the mainstream side that post because the idea is ATM.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

BTW, I think this labelling of people as "Mainstream" or "ATM" is a flawed dichotomy. I have some interests that are ATM, but I consider myself mainstream in regards to most of the prevailing scientific theory.

This is a great point. As has been pointed out in other threads, there are several posters that most would consider mainstreamers that have ideas that would be considered ATM. The reason most of them don't post those ideas it they realize the ideas are not fully worked out or the ideas don't have a level of support needed to defend their ideas. As I've said before, I object more to the misunderstandings of physics and math not to mention the lack of rigor in most ATM "theories".

[Gillianren]

I think the big problem of a lot of the people coming up with ATM ideas is that they feel that it's others' jobs to educate them about what the mainstream says. I mean, how many times have you heard "Look at the picture," as if that's what the mainstream does? How many times have I had the requisite knowledge to disprove an ATM theory?

Don't get me wrong--I've learned a lot in ATM, even in the interminable threads like solid solar surface. It's just that they're really amazingly obviously wrong, and you can't fit that fact into some people's heads with a crowbar.

[sirius0]

Originally Posted by 01101001

And, I concluded, jokingly, maybe it was some sort of professional courtesy that ATM proponents extended each other: I won't criticize your idea if you don't criticize mine.

I still wonder why ATMers, who enjoy creating ATM ideas, don't seem to spend much time demolishing their weaker competitors' poorer ideas -- or even if my haphazard sampling yields results reflecting reality.

I don't agree with your theory but I am not going to say so!

Actually I do agree; I think there is an awful lot of ego in that section. I think that the new rules give plenty of time to get the point posted. I think we all have egos but some of us choose to get our lollies by making or (in my case) desiring to make a real contribution to mainstream.

By the way I love the forum (whole forum) i am a bored engineer doing a lot of admin at work and the dicussions here give me a lot of value. i at least feel like i am getting to be a physicist (my dream) and I like all the learning too.

Thankyou thankyou everyone I love you all!

[Serenitude]

I would have to agree with Gillian. As someone trained in Anthro and Nursing, with exactly 1 single formal ed class in Astronomy - Astonomy 101 - a very poor knowledge of maths, and amatuer, to be generous, knowledge of cosmology, if I can disprove an ATM theory (which I have), there is something wrong with the theory or forum, not the mainstream.

Another hearty round of applause for the direction the forum is taking. I look forward to learning and being mentally stimulated, and not mentally euthanized, by the discussion there.

[Nereid]

If we were a little more consistent in keeping the ATM threads to the stated scope of BAUT (space and astronomy), then the section would be more focussed.

For example, an ATM idea that seeks to replace special relativity (SR), or claims that SR is inconsistent with good experimental results, would be beyond scope (and so immediately locked) ... unless the critical test of this alternative (or claimed experimental inconsistency) was one that could only be done in space or by astronomers.

More generally, if an ATM idea involves 'new physics', then the proponent first needs to establish the viability of that new physics, by experiments in Earth-bound labs, and then come to BAUT's ATM section to start a thread about the space and astronomy aspects of that. Again, unless the critical test of this new physics can only be done in space, or by astronomers ... and so the OP of any ATM thread presenting this would need to include details of why that is so.

[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.

[lyndonashmore]

I must say that I agree with Fraser’s proposals for a thirty day limit on ATM postings. I have had the privilege of having my theory posted on the BAUT forum and I thank those who contributed and made it even better.
In answering the questions posed, the theory went on to be better still and ended up accepted by a peer reviewed journal and as a published book. There were other boards that helped, as well, but BAUT was up there with the rest.
The problem with the ATM section is that there are too many “pseudo scientists” who will not accept that the “expanding universe idea” is totally wrong and thus they go on and on posting one misconceived idea after another until the thread goes on forever. It is these people who prolong the threads not the ATM’ers. It tends to be the rule on BAUT, that every idea that is posted on ATM is wrong and must be ‘debunked’ regardless of the fact that the Physics is spot on and the theory is more than likely correct.
It is these people, the ones who defend the defenseless, who should open their eyes and realize that science is telling them that the universe is not expanding, and then threads would be much shorter.
Lets have a new rule – that if any thread is posted on ATM that is scientifically correct, then everyone says “good show, you are correct. The Universe is not expanding”.
Then the threads would be over and finished in 24 hours.

[HenrikOlsen]

Isn't promoting your pet ATM theory outside ATM a very big nono?

[lyndonashmore]

What evidence have you got? Where have I promoted my 'pet theory?" Please support your post with evidence.
Nowhere have I mentioned anything about me.
Thanks for verifying my post - that is that it is the non ATM'ers that prolong posts.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

I must say that I agree with Fraser’s proposals for a thirty day limit on ATM postings. I have had the privilege of having my theory posted on the BAUT forum and I thank those who contributed and made it even better.
In answering the questions posed, the theory went on to be better still and ended up accepted by a peer reviewed journal and as a published book. There were other boards that helped, as well, but BAUT was up there with the rest.
The problem with the ATM section is that there are too many “pseudo scientists” who will not accept that the “expanding universe idea” is totally wrong and thus they go on and on posting one misconceived idea after another until the thread goes on forever. It is these people who prolong the threads not the ATM’ers. It tends to be the rule on BAUT, that every idea that is posted on ATM is wrong and must be ‘debunked’ regardless of the fact that the Physics is spot on and the theory is more than likely correct.
It is these people, the ones who defend the defenseless, who should open their eyes and realize that science is telling them that the universe is not expanding, and then threads would be much shorter.
Lets have a new rule – that if any thread is posted on ATM that is scientifically correct, then everyone says “good show, you are correct. The Universe is not expanding”.
Then the threads would be over and finished in 24 hours.

I'm not sure if English is your native language, lyndonashmore, but there's a rather simple error of logic in this post of yours ...

"ATM" is short of "Against the Mainstream".

"Mainstream" is, by definition, the consensus, commonly accepted, mainstream theories (etc) of the community of professional astronomers and space scientists*.

Within that community, the concordance model - a.k.a. the Big Bang Theory - is almost universally accepted; it is the mainstream. Also, by definition, these professional astronomers and space scientists are scientists (not “pseudo scientists”).

Thus, unless you are using the words highly idiosyncratically, the “expanding universe idea” is what you will find in almost all relevant papers, in the relevant peer-reviewed publications.

So, a statement like this: "science is telling [us] that the universe is not expanding" is, by definition, an ATM claim (and a rather blatant one at that). And so it is a clear-cut case of promotion of an ATM idea, outside the ATM section. Such promotion is a violation of BAUT rules.

This is a warning; please do not promote ATM ideas outside the ATM threads which are specifically focussed on those ideas. If you continue to violate BAUT rules, your account will be suspended.

*BAUT is about space and astronomy.

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by lyndonashmore

It tends to be the rule on BAUT, that every idea that is posted on ATM is wrong and must be ‘debunked’ regardless of the fact that the Physics is spot on and the theory is more than likely correct.

Can you give an example of one of those?

[added after edit]
Actually, please take this as a rhetorical question, as I have just realised that an answer might provoke an ATM discussion outside of ATM.

What you could answer is why do you think that?

[/added after edit]

[Disinfo Agent]

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.

I agree. If the first post in a thread asks no questions and makes no directly challengeable statements, it should be simply ignored by the regular posters, which does not always happen. People should wait until the author makes a more substantive claim, or a moderator asks the author something substantive, or the thread is locked for lack of subject to discuss. This would discourage the use of the forum to advertise ATM theories and publications.

Perhaps the moderators could lock such threads provisionally, until such time as the author comes up with something worth discussing.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Tensor

[snip]

This is a great point. As has been pointed out in other threads, there are several posters that most would consider mainstreamers that have ideas that would be considered ATM. The reason most of them don't post those ideas it they realize the ideas are not fully worked out or the ideas don't have a level of support needed to defend their ideas. As I've said before, I object more to the misunderstandings of physics and math not to mention the lack of rigor in most ATM "theories".

In addition to dgruss23, there are at least four others who have stated they are either preparing "ATM" material, or have already written "ATM" papers (or both), and who are quite active, across many ATM threads, in questioning, challenging, etc the ATM ideas presented there.

[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?

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?