Should we re-organize the BAUT forum?

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by sabianq

The ATM section needs to be split into two groups or categorys.

theorys and models

Since I have yet to see an ATM idea that even remotely fits the definition of the word "theory," I oppose this.

[Arneb]

Well, we can open the "theory" branch when we find something to put in there.

[sabianq]

why is it called the "Standard Model"?

I am starting to think that the term "theory" is out dated.

in today's world, we model theories with math.
a theory is just a theory with out a mathematical architecture to back it up
i am just pointing out that a model is a theory with a mathematical architecture.

like i suggested before,

it is unreasonable for people to to ask a poster to back up his theory by mathematical equations, because then you would have a model and models take years to develop.

not 30 days which is the time limit on the posts in ATM

ATM should be the most liberal category with no time limit or cut off date.

a new category called models should be added to allow people with math supported theories called Models to post and that category should follow the current rules in ATM with a time frame to make a point.

how can anyone with an idea that is new be expected to provide a mathematical architecture to their ATM idea in only 30 days?

anyone?

[sabianq]

here is an example

Alexander F. Mayer posts complete Manuscript of "Geometry of Time"

this thread more closely represents a model
there is math to back up the claims.

expansion of the universe is cause from a strong gravitational pull.

this is not a model
(sorry Tommac)
there is no math to back this claim.

I have a serious question,

did Einstein model special relativity?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by sabianq

how can anyone with an idea that is new be expected to provide a mathematical architecture to their ATM idea in only 30 days?

anyone?

You really don't. The intent is for you to do your homework and have your mathematical architecture complete, tested and ready before you open the thread. It's clear from Fraser's many earlier comments on the subject that the ATM forum isn't intended for collaboration or development or promotion. It's a non-peer-review proving ground.

[tommac]

Based on my other thread.
It is clear that QA + ATM needs to be broken down into 3 forums OR the definiteion of ATM needs to be relaxed.

I would like to propose:
ATM - reserved for proposed ideas/thories that go against mainstream ideas. These ideas should be complete and meant as serious proposals to be debated as a complete idea/theory.

Discussions/Debates-questions that dont have an obvious answer OR are not straightforward enough for QA

QA- straight forward questions with straight forward mainstream answers.

[Ara Pacis]

Can't discussion and debates be conducted in Astronomy and/or General Science?

[tommac]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

Can't discussion and debates be conducted in Astronomy and/or General Science?

Well really I would think something like :

ATM:
Proposals

Astronomy:
QA
Discussion and Debate

General Science:
QA
Discussion and Debate

if you are going down that route.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

Can't discussion and debates be conducted in Astronomy and/or General Science?

There have been. But sometimes the OP takes it into ATM so the thread gets moved.

Originally Posted by sabianq

I have a serious question,

did Einstein model special relativity?

Here is a link to his first published special relativity paper (translated, of course). He had discussed it previously to submitting it for publication with friends and family.

[sabianq]

so moose is saying that the ATM forum is for an idea that is already tested with a mathematical structure to support it....

that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

is a Model

the essay that describes the mathematical structure of a therom that is already published belongs in a completely different category than say..

I was thinki9ng in my car drivn' to work at the local landfill the other day.....

or is this a silly argument?

i would bet that there are more people like me who failed academically and have jobs where professor or PhD or physicist is not attached to their name than people who actually have thus jobs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
this BTW is my idea that is ATM. we can simply test the above hypothesis we make a poll and find out the distribution of academic achievement to put some numbers on this and build a model that either disproves or supports the hypothesis.

[sabianq]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Here is a link to his first published special relativity paper (translated, of course). He had discussed it previously to submitting it for publication with friends and family.

Very cool!
thank you for the link to the paper.

[Van Rijn]

From what I've seen in ATM, it is a very rare case where the proponent of an idea has prepared at all for questions, or done basic reality checks on their idea, which often requires math. I would hope that an ATM proponent would do some preparation for their ATM thread. If not, an ATM thread often gives them an idea of some of the things they do need to research, if they're willing.

I will say this - It seems to me that the (rather old) subtitle for the ATM section is probably not consistent with the current rules of the ATM section:

Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

It is not, currently, for general discussion of ATM theories, but for people to present an ATM argument that they are ready to support. The rules spell this out, but not everyone is going to read the details in the rules.

[sabianq]

i doubt there would be many threads on atm if the rules were strictly adhered to.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Which is precisely the point. Only those threads with support should be considered.

[Gillianren]

Based on what you've said, sabianq, I really think you need to go look up the definition of "theory." The scientific one.

[Moose]

Yeah, I'd agree.

Sabianq, the Cliff's Notes version: the terms "theory" and "model" aren't quite interchangeable, but there's a huge amount of overlap involved.

A theory, in science, is essentially a model (or an interconnecting network of models) with predictive value. A theory embodies many tested hypotheses. It makes useful predictions based on the surviving hypotheses, tests its predictions through (much) more experimentation, and survives as a theory only so long as its predictions are better and more accurate than anything else around it.

"Theory" never means "conjecture" or "speculation" in Science.

[sabianq]

Yea,im confusing term theory or conjecture with theory (the scientific one)

but in the scientific world, data is collected to support a theory.
it is easier to disprove a theory than it is to prove one as theories are not proven rather continually supported.

[sabianq]

and apparently i am confusing MODEL

sorry bout that,
my wife informed me that:

a model is designed to test a theory, either mathematically or mechanically.

[Moose]

Well, sort of. The model is the part of the theory that makes predictions. You test the predictions by designing experiments (or, in the case where experiments aren't feasible, by making observations on existing phenomena).

Let me 'splain. (No, too long. Let me sum up...)

Planetary motion, for a grossly oversimplified example. An early theory was Geocentricism. Everything moves in relation to the Earth, and there were a number of mathematical models used to predict the motion of the planets (and sun) around the Earth.

Galileo pointed out that the models work so much better if they are plotted around the notion that the sun is fixed and everything else, including the Earth, move in relation to it. That theory was, of course, Heliocentricism.

Others improved on that theory (and the corresponding models) by noting our solar system moves in relation to the galactic center, and that our galaxy moves as well.

Einstein went further, and his Theory of General Relativity points out that everything moves in relation to each other, and that each of the preceding theories (all correct as far as they go) only differ in their fundamentals in that they use differing frames of reference. And there were newer, better, more predictive models created, and tested, etc.

Theories explain the observations. Models are the parts of a theory that make predictions about future observations. Experiments (and their results) are the parts of a theory that stress-test the models.

And when you put observations, models, testing, successful predictions, repeatability, and other forms of extensive confirmation together; the whole of that is the theory.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Moose

Galileo pointed out that the models work so much better if they are plotted around the notion that the sun is fixed and everything else, including the Earth, move in relation to it.

Copernicus

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Yikes. Mixed Latin and Greek roots!
A quadrumvirate or a tetrarchy, please.

Grant Hutchison

So instead of television you call it what, teleopticon?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Copernicus

... er... Copernicus.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

So instead of television you call it what, teleopticon?

No, I just die a little inside.

Grant Hutchison

[Arneb]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

So instead of television you call it what, teleopticon?

Telorama would be the most correct form, I think. The inflections for the Greek word for to see (horan) is weird: the Future is opsomai, from which optics etc. derive, and a form of simple past is eidon - leading to idea, ideal, etc. I don't know why the future became the model for so many words we use, but I don't think there is a reason, when creating new words, not to use the present.

[mahesh]

Re BAUT re-org:............

Barry White's goose-bumpy song Don't Go Changing...JUST THE WAY YOU ARE... comes to mind!

I think, I'll go 'youtube' it!

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

From what I've seen in ATM, it is a very rare case where the proponent of an idea has prepared at all for questions, or done basic reality checks on their idea, which often requires math. I would hope that an ATM proponent would do some preparation for their ATM thread. If not, an ATM thread often gives them an idea of some of the things they do need to research, if they're willing.

I will say this - It seems to me that the (rather old) subtitle for the ATM section is probably not consistent with the current rules of the ATM section.

It is not, currently, for general discussion of ATM theories, but for people to present an ATM argument that they are ready to support. The rules spell this out, but not everyone is going to read the details in the rules.

Well said, and an excellent input - thanks!

Are you of a similar opinion as some others that there ought to be two sections in which new ideas can/should be discussed, perhaps one for those ready with papers ripe for peer-review (less than 1% of everything I've seen in ATM), and another for the rest?

How about proposals in ATM being nominated for Peer-Review status? If so nominated, then a thread can be opened, by the mods, to support discussion concerning the nominated subject?

At first, I thought doing so might pull us away from the board's original intent, but in retrospect, that may be more along the lines of what the board was looking for in the ATM section, and that the prolifieration of unsupported ideas was unexpected, and required the addition of a 30-day rule. Perhaps what's needed is a second level into which nominated articles could be elevated for serious discussion.

I imagine the possibility of a "review panel," a smaller group, perhaps 20 to 50, of those on this board who've demonstrated the ability to apply some serious (and seriously well-grounded) skull sweat into examining such efforts. Yes, it smacks of elitism, but only from one perspective. From another it's right in line with current controls on research and academic thought. The trick is to ensure the productive controls for detail, accuracy, and science are in place while eliminating the non-productive controls of egoism, politics, and favoritism.

In the past, I've established two such decision-making groups, using ideas garnered from college, in particular from a professor of operations research who had a knack for using the right process to tackle whatever job was at hand. If there were a king of heuristics, he was it.

I don't hold much hope that something like this would be incorporated into a revision of BAUT, but it's worth exploring, if for no other reason than the fact that it would help separate the chaff from the wheat in the ATM section.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

<snip>
I imagine the possibility of a "review panel," a smaller group, perhaps 20 to 50, of those on this board who've demonstrated the ability to apply some serious (and seriously well-grounded) skull sweat into examining such efforts. Yes, it smacks of elitism, but only from one perspective.

IIRC, the idea of such panels has been discussed before. For example, the complaint from some advocates of ATMs or CTs is that they have to deal with many people asking them questions and it becomes too much.

But the problem becomes first, how does one select who is on the panel and who isn't (and deal with the hurt feelings of those not selected), and second, the idea of a discussion board is that everyone has the right to participate in a discussion.

[ToSeek]

My tentative conclusion from this poll is that the membership has no strong feelings about reorganization one way or the other, so I am inclined to go ahead with it. My original thought was to discuss possible modifications on a piecemeal basis with everyone, but I think that would take forever. So I'm going to use the outcome from this thread as a starting point but confine the discussion to moderators and admins. But don't be surprised if on some Sunday morning soon you see a new organization.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum Administrator

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Well said, and an excellent input - thanks!

You're welcome.

Are you of a similar opinion as some others that there ought to be two sections in which new ideas can/should be discussed, perhaps one for those ready with papers ripe for peer-review (less than 1% of everything I've seen in ATM), and another for the rest?

Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see how that would be practical. If there was a nomination process, I think there would always be arguments about who did the nomination and who was nominated. And, that's leaving out the issue of how the ATM ideas are supposed to be discussed in the different sections.

At first, I thought doing so might pull us away from the board's original intent, but in retrospect, that may be more along the lines of what the board was looking for in the ATM section, and that the prolifieration of unsupported ideas was unexpected, and required the addition of a 30-day rule.

My impression of the 30 day rule was that it was set up to stop "infinite loop" discussions without requiring moderator judgment calls which sometimes led to bad feelings and required a lot of work to review. I think a nomination system would have similar issues.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by sabianq

can anybody do a regression model?

To do that, we'd need both an x and a y. With these types of polls, there's only an x.