Why do we have ATM here?

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by aurora

Didn't someone once upon a time go through all the main ATM threads and classify them by outcome? I seem to remember someone doing that, maybe it would turn up in a search. That would at least give a historical overview, although that by itself is neither justification for or against.

Someone recently proposed something like that, with a rating system being attached to each idea. I've never seen it actually done, but I'm still realatively new. I kinda think that would be counterproductive, as it would further foster the idea of "us versus them" (scoreboard). Not really the spirit of the board, at least not in my opinion.

[Gillianren]

Okay, let's say I had a breakthrough scientific idea.

[pauses for laughter]

Yeah, okay. Let's say someone else had a breakthrough scientific idea. Someone actually, you know, good at science. Not even something that overturns everything we know; those are extremely unlikely to be valid; in most cases, the big developments in science are those which build on what we already know. But, oh, I don't know--something minor that no one's ever thought of before.

If it were me, I would want to bring it here first. I'd say somewhere like here, but to the best of my knowledge, there really isn't anywhere like here. I would want to bring my idea to a small community that can tell me all the obvious places I've gone wrong and can check my math. This is an advantage Einstein did not have; he was stuck talking to people he knew, with no way of knowing if they weren't picking on his idea because they didn't want to hurt his feelings. (Newton wouldn't have cared!) We know Darwin bounced his idea off people for literally decades before writing On Origin of the Species.

Do I think anyone currently posting is actually an Einstein, a Newton, a Darwin? No. However, just because we haven't had one doesn't mean we won't. As has been said, very few new ideas actually turn out to be right regardless. The fact that we haven't had one yet isn't terribly surprising for just that reason.

I, too, get frustrated at the level of willful ignorance in ATM sometimes. Ye Gods, it can be like pulling teeth. My personal rule is that, when I know more about science than you do, you are not ready to revolutionize science; you need to learn it first. But I have nothing but gratitude to people like Tusenfem and Nereid, who have educated me on subjects I was ignorant of before. (I still am, of course; I'm just less ignorant, and that's worth something.)

[nauthiz]

I agree wholeheartedly with what NEOWatcher and Fazor said - I've learned a lot from reading ATM discussions. Oftentimes I may have already known what the mainstream theory was, but didn't learn the "how we know what we know" part until I encountered it in a debunking of an untenable ATM idea.

Or maybe an ATM idea that I was at least partially entertaining gets debunked, and I learn something. You can convince a whole lot of ATMers without convincing the person who started the thread - and you might never even know about it because the people you convince are all lurking.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Noclevername

So long as the Mods are on top of it, that shouldn't be a major problem. I've seen a few such ATMers in other subs get bounced right back to the ATM section if they brought up their "pet" hypotheses.

Except that then they get told they can't post there, either, since they've already brought up the idea. So really, they simply end up being told that they can no longer discuss their idea here, rather than having a subforum dedicated to such discussions. I agree that there needs to be a way to cut off discussion of completely wacky ideas where the proponent doesn't seem to be listening to any counterarguments; I'm just not sure that the time limit is the best option.

I'm a big fan of Fraser's second point, that other people reading an AtM thread can often learn quite a bit from those showing why the claim must be false. Heck, I've often learned something new about a subject while explaining to an AtM proponent why their idea won't work. So, although I'm not one to espouse AtM ideas myself, I very much like having the discussions of them here.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

This is an advantage Einstein did not have; he was stuck talking to people he knew, with no way of knowing if they weren't picking on his idea because they didn't want to hurt his feelings. (Newton wouldn't have cared!) We know Darwin bounced his idea off people for literally decades before writing On Origin of the Species.

Bohr talked a lot to Feynman during the Manhattan project for just that reason, as Feynman wasn't one to politely refrain from questioning flaws in theories just because they where made by someone very respected.

[captain swoop]

At the end of the day id you don't like the ATM section then don't read it.

[sirius0]

There are elements of psych science here.
namely projection.

Those things that seem to be annoying you most about ATMers is exactly how you are behaving in this thread. Being effectively Your theory about ATMers.

In fact given that your opinion is at odds with the policy of this board you are effectively ATM!

Of course you have every right to your opinion (and you do have some observed evidence) and I think this thread deserves the honour/promotion of being moved to the ATM.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Grey

Except that then they get told they can't post there, either, since they've already brought up the idea. So really, they simply end up being told that they can no longer discuss their idea here, rather than having a subforum dedicated to such discussions. I agree that there needs to be a way to cut off discussion of completely wacky ideas where the proponent doesn't seem to be listening to any counterarguments; I'm just not sure that the time limit is the best option.

This has already been pretty thouroughly discussed. The time limit was implemented to prevent repititious, circular discussions of the same material. If the discussion is not repititious or circular, then the discussion can be continued (though, as I understand, the software will require opening a new thread). If someone has something new to bring to the discussion after the 30 days have run, they are free to open a new thread to discuss that new information.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jim

If the discussion is not repititious or circular, then the discussion can be continued (though, as I understand, the software will require opening a new thread).

You mean, because the thread is closed, and no one can post to it? I'm pretty sure that I've seen mods re-open a closed thread, right?

[Jim]

I'm not sure they can reopen a thread that the software has closed; it would just close it again. As I understand it (and I can check), the software counts 30 days from the date of the first post, and closes the thread.

I think.

[EDG_]

All I can say is that I am overjoyed that this place has an Ignore List (which I just discovered!)... that might keep my blood pressure down .

[hhEb09'1]

The next time they force you into clicking on the ATM forum, just type the safety code word BEESWAX and we'll send over a response team to save you.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Jim

This has already been pretty thouroughly discussed. The time limit was implemented to prevent repititious, circular discussions of the same material. If the discussion is not repititious or circular, then the discussion can be continued (though, as I understand, the software will require opening a new thread). If someone has something new to bring to the discussion after the 30 days have run, they are free to open a new thread to discuss that new information.

Yup, I know. I mentioned at the time that I didn't really think it was a great idea. Now, of course I don't expect Phil and Fraser to be particularly concerned with just my opinion, but I always try to tell people what I think, even if I know that they will ultimately choose something different. I've often enjoyed trying to show, in an AtM thread, why the idea proposed won't work, and why the mainstream position on the issue at hand is what it is. But since I sometimes can't post more often than every few days, a one month time limit reduces the conversation to relatively few exchanges.

Originally Posted by Jim

I'm not sure they can reopen a thread that the software has closed; it would just close it again. As I understand it (and I can check), the software counts 30 days from the date of the first post, and closes the thread.

Wow. I didn't realize that someone had set it up in the board software to automatically close AtM threads. I like that even less. It really seems to me that it might make sense for a human to decide when an AtM thread is becoming circular and repetitious. Well, I'm not really expecting it to change, and I only mentioned here since the general subject had been brought up.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Originally Posted by Grey

Wow. I didn't realize that someone had set it up in the board software to automatically close AtM threads. I like that even less. It really seems to me that it might make sense for a human to decide when an AtM thread is becoming circular and repetitious. Well, I'm not really expecting it to change, and I only mentioned here since the general subject had been brought up.

That's how the forum was set up to begin with. It didn't work. Threads would go on forever, and new threads would be opened as soon as the old ones were closed.

[davidlpf]

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

That's how the forum was set up to begin with. It didn't work. Threads would go on forever, and new threads would be opened as soon as the old ones were closed.

One thread went on for months, it took 3 months for the poster to realize he/she might have a problem with the the sun being being a hollow sphere of iron.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by davidlpf

One thread went on for months, it took 3 months for the poster to realize he/she might have a problem with the the sun being being a hollow sphere of iron.

Oh, that's not true. He never figured it out!

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Oh, that's not true. He never figured it out!

Correct. Old Mike just moved to other BBs where the rules re evidence are lax, and kept reciting by rote the same metal mantras.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

That's how the forum was set up to begin with. It didn't work. Threads would go on forever, and new threads would be opened as soon as the old ones were closed.

Hey, I was around for that, remember! I know that some of those threads probably went on too long. At the same time, I also recall that it inspired some creative thinking to try to explain (in a way that Michael would understand) just what was wrong with the idea that the Sun was a hollow ball of iron, for example. There were some nice references to the early work by Eddington showing how we determined the Sun is a big ball of gas in the first place. And if anyone came looking to the forum to find out whether to take his idea seriously, they'll see a series of excellent refutations to all of his points. And as I recall, although he never admitted he was wrong, he did end up admitting that he wasn't able to answer a number of important questions that had been raised. If you do a Google search for "Michael Mozina", this forum actually comes up on the top of the list, before his own site, so it's nice to have that series of solid refutations as a reference fro anyone who might come looking. Maybe we all knew his idea wasn't going anywhere from the beginning, but my own opinion is that it made more sense to give him enough rope to hang himself, as it were, than to simply sut off the discussion.

Hmm, I still owe you the rest of a half finished game of chess. I'll track down the thread tomorrow.

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by EDG_

And it's one thing to entertain honest speculation (the genuine speculation and curiosity seems to occur on the Q&A board more than anywhere else, IMO), but most of the time it seems people come onto ATM with entrenched ideas that they already believe are right, and ignore all the science that's thrown at them showing them that they're plainly wrong. It just gives them a soapbox to preach from, and perversely only seems to strengthen their beliefs. It amazes me that those who choose to be the "scientific jury" there can put up with it, they must have the patience of saints.

I much less qualified than the typical ATMer but one none the less. I had an idea, posted it in a long winded post and built it up through ATM area. On the way I started to read and learn about science. I believe it is an excellent idea to write when you are depressed, frustrated and plain good old angry. There is still a level of decorum that can be maintained even by an ATMer.

I am pig headed and stubborn, sometimes one needs to be and I eventually built a fairly complete alternate theory (to my likings) a generalisation if you like. If it was to be an actuality it would be very destructive due to the nature of human thinking. I prefer the current physics because humanity would not have the capacity to appreciate or respect a reality it could actually control.

Why would one post to a science and astronomy forum with an idea? Maybe to point out an idea that they had that they think might benefit humanity or perhaps because science is the area that is looking for answers. Even so the open minded area of science is a pretty hard nut to crack. So why not go elsewhere, well I ask you what earthly good is it approaching institutions that specialise in already knowing the answers.

Case in point ID, if ID is the answer it is an Edsel and I wish to complain about it to the designer. Humanity is totally comparable to a bunch of angry chimpanzees all armed with shotguns and frankly I don't see the ID in that. Separation into sheep and goats is a great analogy but clearly misses the point entirely of how utterly de-evolved humanity still is.

Yes I recant my stupid ideas and apologize to those dedicated ATMers that fear I have followed them around messing up their genuine attempts to promote something truly worthwhile and if the ID camp wish to advance their idea then they should be obliged to show proof not of intelligence in the design but whether there will be any sign of intelligence coming from it any time in the next fifty years.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by aurora

Didn't someone once upon a time go through all the main ATM threads and classify them by outcome? I seem to remember someone doing that, maybe it would turn up in a search. That would at least give a historical overview, although that by itself is neither justification for or against.

You may have been thinking of this thread.

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Tucson_Tim

Yes! I find that I learn many things from the folks who are "arguing against" the ATM idea.

Yes, ATM is an education. And an opportunity to introduce the scientific method and rational discussion to a broad range of posters - not all of whom will listen, but all of whom are exposed to careful methodology via this board.

And it's fun. Where else can you expose your highest flying ideas, knowing they'll be shot down in flames, and not feel threatened? Plus you get to shoot down a few others, yourself.

[Tucson_Tim]

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

Yes, ATM is an education. And an opportunity to introduce the scientific method and rational discussion to a broad range of posters - not all of whom will listen, but all of whom are exposed to careful methodology via this board.

And it's fun. Where else can you expose your highest flying ideas, knowing they'll be shot down in flames, and not feel threatened? Plus you get to shoot down a few others, yourself.

I'm also amazed at the patience that most of the folks here have when they're in an ATM thread discussion.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by EDG_

Where's the generalisation?
Can you show me an ATM that is testable and predictive?

I specifically predicted that gravitational assists via planets and moons at greater solar orbital distances from the earth should yield greater-than-expected acceleration. To the best of my knowledge, the BAUT forum is the only place that such a prediction has ever been published.

Within months, a paper was submitted that supports this hypothesis:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0608087v2.pdf

The energy transfer process in planetary flybys

So you never know. (I am still waiting for confirmation on whether or not the two Venus fly-bys netted LOWER gravitational braking energy than expected.)

As others have said, the orginal purpose of the ATM page was/is to provide a forum for debunking ATM concepts; and with the 30 day turkey-timer now on the ATM forum, it is pretty much limited to that. (What good is placing a prediction on the ATM forum about an event 6 months in the future, if you can't even say 'I told you so').

As far as the next Newton or Einstein or Darwin. Uh, those are actually rather normal humans, who published a number of ideas that turned out to be false.

The big question I keep asking is: If only mainstream ideas are accepable, how will we ever know if a well established theory is wrong?

[EDG_]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I specifically predicted that gravitational assists via planets and moons at greater solar orbital distances from the earth should yield greater-than-expected acceleration. To the best of my knowledge, the BAUT forum is the only place that such a prediction has ever been published.

Within months, a paper was submitted that supports this hypothesis:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0608087v2.pdf

I couldn't really see much in the paper that supported the hypothesis that assists via planets and m oons at greater solar obrital distances than Earth should yield greater-than-expected accelerations. Heck, some of the Earth flybys themselves apparently produced anomalous accelerations.

Care to point out some specific predictions that you made that are supported by the work in that paper?

The big question I keep asking is: If only mainstream ideas are accepable, how will we ever know if a well established theory is wrong?

That's the wrong question to ask really. If an alternative hypothesis is proposed that can be directly tested and/or has some predictive qualities then it doesn't matter whether it's "mainstream" or not. What's important is that it's testable. Unfortunately most of the ideas on ATM aren't, or aren't supported by observations.

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I specifically predicted that gravitational assists via planets and moons at greater solar orbital distances from the earth should yield greater-than-expected acceleration. To the best of my knowledge, the BAUT forum is the only place that such a prediction has ever been published.

Within months, a paper was submitted that supports this hypothesis:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0608087v2.pdf

Good link, thanks, Jerry

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I specifically predicted... BAUT forum is the only place that such a prediction has ever been published.

Within months, a paper was submitted that supports this hypothesis:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0608087v2.pdf

Well, good for BAUT and you, Jerry.

Originally Posted by Jerry

... (What good is placing a prediction on the ATM forum about an event 6 months in the future, if you can't even say 'I told you so').

One of the justifications for reopening/opening a new thread on a "timed out" topic is new information. A successful prediction would seem to be just that.

Originally Posted by Jerry

As far as the next Newton or Einstein or Darwin. Uh, those are actually rather normal humans, who published a number of ideas that turned out to be false.

Something worth remembering.

Originally Posted by Jerry

The big question I keep asking is: If only mainstream ideas are accepable, how will we ever know if a well established theory is wrong?

Mainstream theories are accepted because they predict and test well. If an ATM idea can challenge them successfully, then the mainstream theory will have to be revised or replaced.

And the ATM idea will become mainstream.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by Anderson et al

Instead, for Earth flybys by the Galileo, NEAR, and Rosetta spacecraft, the geocentric orbital energies after the closest approach to Earth were noticeably greater than the orbital energies before closest approach. Further, the changes were much too large for any conventional time-explicit cause, specifically from the Earth’s longitudinal harmonics or the motions of the Moon and Sun. So far, no mechanism, either external or internal to the spacecraft, that could produce these observed net changes in orbital energy has been identified...

[This] second result is even more surprising, that during Earth flybys at least three craft have exhibited a small velocity increase so that the outbound hyperbolic orbits in the Earth system have different energies than the inbound orbits.

This is exactly consisted with the hypothesis that there is an unanticipated field strength that is a function of the distance of a body from a very massive object with a spring-like function: Moving closer to the sun requires energy, moving away from the sun returns energy to the object from the field. (The hypothesis that this field exists directly leads to the prediction that gravitational assists to out-bound probes provide greater-than-expected increases in velocity.)

It remains to be seen if the New Horizon's probe experienced an anomalous increase in the Jupiter flyby (the initial data suggests no), and on messengers two gravity braking maneuvers near Venus.

Care to point out some specific predictions that you made that are supported by the work in that paper?

Many, many threads ago, but I will find them...eventually.

[nauthiz]

Originally Posted by Jim

If an ATM idea can challenge them successfully, then the mainstream theory will have to be revised or replaced.

And the ATM idea will become mainstream.

Ooh, ooh let me guess - and then the thread will have to be locked 'cuz it's now in off topic and therefore in violation of the rules, right?

[EDG_]

Originally Posted by Jerry

(The hypothesis that this field exists directly leads to the prediction that gravitational assists to out-bound probes provide greater-than-expected increases in velocity.)

That's a non-sequitur.

If there's an anomalous velocity increase then it could mean the existing theory is not accounting for some specific factor that is affecting the situation, *or* our existing theory is flawed in some way, *or* that some other force is at work. The fact that you hypothesise a field to explain it doesn't mean that your hypothesis HAS to be the explanation behind the discrepancy and it doesn't really prove anything on its own - you've got to provide the exact physics behind your hypothesis and crunch some numbers according to that physics and say "the discrepancy should be X if my hypothesis is correct". And then you compare that to the actual discrepancy, and if they're similar then you might be on to something. More to the point, if your hypothesis predicts something and that's not supported by the observations then your hypothesis needs more work.

Did your hypothesis provide this sort of exact prediction at all?

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by Tucson_Tim

I'm also amazed at the patience that most of the folks here have when they're in an ATM thread discussion.

Like talk.origins on Usenet. day after day patiently explaining and correcting the same debunked ideas and misconceptions.