ATM Rules Discussion

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

HenrikOlsen,

I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.

I'm sure this has been said before - many times - and will be said again - also many times - in future: however intense the heat an ATM proponent may sometimes feel they are getting in an ATM thread where they are presenting (and addressing challenges to) an ATM idea, it is but a gentle spring day compared to the blast furnace, real world of science.

To give just one example: if it is discovered that you are using a key term in a non-standard way, and have not acknowledged that (and provided a clear definition), then you don't get to even continue ... the process of examination stops right there (and you are told - in no uncertain terms - to go away to re-do your submission, and come back only when you have addressed this gross fault, and any others like it). However, here in BAUT's ATM section, not only are you allowed to continue, but you are not even required to re-present the ATM idea, no matter how messed up and inconsistent it is now revealed to be.

Perhaps an example might help: in a recent thread, an ATM proponent defined "current" (as in electrical current) in a radically different, utterly non-standard way; this made almost every post (by him, on the ATM idea; "current" is central to this ATM idea) at best vague (and at worst completely meaningless) ... yet instead of locking the thread immediately, the mods allowed several more pages of nonsense*.

* to be clear: I do not doubt that the thread - post the discovery of this incredible non-standard definition - was highly educational to many readers ... and that is, perhaps, a very good thing in and of itself.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Gillianren,

my quotation:

I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced. Maybe some may even be proven.

My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.

Follow the logic: even if something which is, today, ATM were "proven" in future, it would then be merely a matter of time before that new "theory" were "proven" to be wrong.

IOW, followed to its logical conclusion, everything in science is always wrong.

But haven't we just provided a perfect example of exactly what the mods came down purple on us for? Don't we now have a mini-discussion on your ATM ideas on the nature of science, thinly disguised as a meta-discussion of the nature of the ATM rule? And would it be appropriate for someone to now write comments about strategies, unwanted and deceitful tactics, sole purpose, etc?

[Nereid]

The ATM thread fn is referring to was also educational for me, in terms of how the rules might be amended, or guidelines amplified.

For example, I realise - now - that not everyone works from the same convention that I (and a great many others, including all scientists I hope) do; namely, that if you quote something, you need to provide the source. Perhaps not always in the same post which contains the quote, but certainly always ASAP if asked for it.

Then there's the nature of the evidence presented in support of the ATM idea presented, as presented. I continue to be surprised at how often the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is used ("renowned astronomer X", for example; why not "patent clerk Zhang"?), ditto the false dichotomy ("X is wrong, therefore Y is right").

One aspect that I think is in need of attention: the use of press releases (PRs) as evidence.

In the thread in question, a PR was cited as evidence in support of a particular ATM idea. Yet the PR itself contained factual errors, and the paper on which it was based had a far more restricted scope than the hype in the PR*.

Nothing wrong with citing PRs as evidence, of course, but what happens when they are challenged - successfully - is important ... I think we need a way of making it crystal clear that continuing to rely upon such evidence is exactly the kind of thing the following para in the ATM rule is intended for (esp the bold part): "If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned."

* it also turned out that this particular paper - and its v1 preprint - was the topic of an older BAUT thread too, not in the ATM section

[pipedream]

I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.

The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them. There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would delibrately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve. FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.

My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.

The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them. There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would delibrately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve. FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.

My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.

Very interesting perspective, PD, thanks for taking the time to write it.

Out of curiousity, what percentage of the questions asked of fn do you think meet the four criteria I gave in an earlier post*? To what extent is there a difference in this percentage when questions are broken down by questioner?

Finally, what do you consider the root cause of "question flooding" - in general, not just in that thread - to be?

Also, by PM (NOT in this thread!) I'd be curious to hear from you whether a) I am "[t]he main proponent", and if so, I'm even more curious to know b) how you formed the "ruthless, vicious" opinion (for the record, I am proud to wear a "relentless" badge).

* "direct, pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented" is my nutshell summary

[pipedream]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

Of course I wasn't referring to you, Nereid, I had no idea you were even involved in that thread!

Re: your questions - let me have a ponder and I'll get back to you.

[slang]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I just finished a very long ATM thread

If you provide no evidence except pointing to the thread in question, you should include a link to the thread. Right now everything is fresh in the minds of everyone who read or participated, but to someone reading this months later, it won't be. It would be nice if you would edit the below [URL="x"]x[/URL] code into that post (or ask a moderator to, if you don't know how).

Forrest Noble ATM ideas

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations,
[...]
I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question.

There is no way to make you happy, is there? You ask for clarification. As a courtesy to you (and other readers) the entire context that lead up to the question is provided, so you (and other readers) won't have to go back hundreds of postings. Yet, when you receive such a courtesy, you complain about "thread flooding". reference (and single post #127 link for those who can't follow full thread links)

[forrest noble]

Swift,

........... Have you ever submitted a paper to a refereed journal and had two or three reviewers tear it apart?

I understand your point. I've submitted some papers to refereed journals. Those refused were done so politely. Answers like "too theoretical," "too broad in scope," "We do not publish papers concerning alternative cosmologies."

I believe I am dealing with one now which will accept my paper concerning an alternative formulation for the Hubble distance formula. They are requiring changes in the paper that I think I can abide by, but negotiations have all been civil.

I understand there can be a grilling from a committee but I'm sure there's no personal insults and hopefully little sarcasm involved unlike my experience and observations on BAUT.

[forrest noble]

Tensor,

Then I suggest you do some research in the ATM forum. Look up quite a few of those ATM proposals and see exactly where the snarky comments started. Did they start right off the bat? Did they start after repeated requests for answers were ignored? Did they start after the ATM poster continued to claim their idea correct, even after it had been shown to be wrong? Did it start after the ATM poster decided to use standard terms in non-standard ways, only to criticized those who were using it in the standard ways? Did they start after the ATM poster started making snarky comments? While it may be your opinion, (based possibly on your experience here) as long as I've been around here (and based on my experience here), it's more the ATM posters who provoke it. Now, there can be individuals (on both sides) who can skew the experience here.

You are one of the exceptions concerning knowledge and behavior. Everything you say, that I recall, concerning an ATM proposal has relevance, is insightful, and you generally respond with a respectful demeanor. If everybody had your knowledge and social skills the ATM forum would be a far better, and more productive forum, in my opinion.

Regarding the rules: That being said, I disagree with your opinion concerning snarky, rude, insulting comments. I certainly have not been a part of BAUT as long as you have but for the 1 1/2 years that I have it appears to me that almost all of the abuses concerning the rules, in the present day, come from the ATM opponents.

I understand that there are different perspectives involved but as a primary example, it seems to me that few are ever polite to the OP which is rule #1. On the other hand, politeness from the OP is commonplace.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I understand that there are different perspectives involved but as a primary example, it seems to me that few are ever polite to the OP which is rule #1. On the other hand, politeness from the OP is commonplace.

I think the issue is, indeed, your perspective. Not to be rude, but I think you're seeing what you want to see. I can point you to a ton of examples of a rude OP. Yes, I can point to examples of a rude responder, too, and I can point to a ton of responses from mods that they should knock it off.

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

As you know by my comments above valid questions are great, but too many at one time by one person is an abuse of the system.

The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

Concerning your comments above: On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge. In prior threads there have been such questions. This was a thread concerning what's wrong/ problems with the standard models in Physics (mostly the standard model of cosmology) and is something that anybody can research if they are interested. I did not think that this was even a valid ATM proposal, but Nereid (you) did since it was her (your) idea to post it, right or wrong.

Concerning the Rules: The definition of a valid ATM proposal might be addressed in the rules also to eliminate the most foolish ones or the ones that are not really Alternative Proposals to the mainstream in the first place -- which this one was certainly not. The words "Alternative Proposal" might be at least one of several definitions of an ATM idea.
That the mainstream is asserted to be wrong, for example, is not an alternative proposal unless details are also initially proposed (based upon the definition of alternative in my opinion).

I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

I don't think that any of those questions you gave as an example above are valid questions or that they are polite. I don't even think they should be answered since they do not concern the OP. I consider them an attempt at intimidation if they are repeated. It should be presumed that everybody who themselves propose an ATM idea, thinks they are prepared to answer questions. And to ask these questions, I think, are redundant or worse.

ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.

IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:
* is it direct?
* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?
* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.

Concerning the rules:

A direct question must have a question mark otherwise it may be considered rhetorical requiring no answer.

does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?

I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea. If an answer is unclear because it involves other ATM ideas say simply that you do not understand the answer, and ask that the question by answered in a different way or ask for a clarification of meaning, etc.

Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".

I agree that this is part of the rules and should be.

One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').

This point I think should also be clarified by the rules. Often ATM ideas cannot be explained without the use of other ATM concepts. The only point should be whether the answer has consistency of logic. If not then those questioning could point out that logic may be missing or some other statement that does not insult the ATMer personally. The thread should then move on without belaboring peripheral ideas. If not, as I said above, many ATM ideas could never be properly presented, or good questions even answered.

Re: Thread Flooding

As has already been noted, it is extremely hard to unambiguously determine intent; have you considered the possibility that what you discern to be strategy X may not, in fact, exist (at least in the mind of the relevant BAUT member)?

On this we agree. Intent is impossible to know, but moderators, I think, should be aware of the possible abuse here.

Re. Repeated Questions

Also, again as has already been noted several times, perhaps a repeated question indicates a failure to communicate? Perhaps your readers did not understand your answer? Perhaps you did not understand the question? Perhaps you answered a question quite different from the one asked?

I agree that often it is a failure to communicate but in other cases I feel that it is a dishonest strategy to frustrate and stop the ATMer, especially on very long threads which it takes a great deal of time to look back through the thread and find the previous answers.

I agree that it an almost impossible task for moderators to control -- repeating previously answered questions -- when OP complaints come in unless the previous posting is pointed out which takes a great deal of the ATMer's time to find. But moderators should be aware of the potential abuse.

Since you are - presumably - trying to make a strong case for the ATM presented, why not take the opportunity to dig deeper and try to find out why communication seems to have failed?

I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. My editors read through it and for the most part there were few misunderstandings of meaning based upon their questions. They all have the necessary education to understand what I am saying. When they have problems concerning my meanings they ask relevant questions and clarification of the text by wording or expansion often results. My primary editor, 25 years old, has never asked a meaningless or non-relevant question. On BAUT as much as 1/3 the questions are either not relevant, meaningless or trivial. On my last thread maybe only 20% of all the postings contained good questions partly because there were so many repeats of the same questions by the same person of by others.

As above ... and also: how did you determine - objectively and verifiably - that "the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody"? In my own experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do.

In many cases I think you are right. Even though an ATMer thinks his answer is clear and simple, others may not understand what he is saying, often for good reason.

In other cases on my own thread and on others, It's hard to believe that someone could not understand the answer given based upon the question asked. These are the cases I'm referring to. It's my opinion that sometimes there is no real effort to try to understand a simple, valid answer. It is difficult to get moderators involved with what's a valid answer. In some cases I resort to saying that I've tried my best to explain your question, if you cannot understand my answer, which I've now explained in several different ways, I do know what else I can do.

Repeating questions that the questioner knows have been answered

Nothing new here ... except that if you don't go back and check your earlier answers, and if you do answer in a different way, and if the challenger does their own homework and discovers the inconsistency, haven't you just made a rod for your own back?

You seem to be saying that BAUT members who challenge ATM ideas, as presented, should not take those ideas seriously ... and/or not challenge them seriously.

I'm only questioning the dishonest ethics of some opponents which I hope some moderators might become aware of from time to time, as I have.

Re: False Accusations

Again, as has been pointed out several times, there is a process for reporting rule violations ... the moment you see one, you should report it.

Good in principle but moderators rarely or ever respond to such complaints, at least by me. Maybe only once did a moderator ever respond to my complaints concerning personal insults. And never for my complaints of Question Flooding by one person and thread Flooding. That's why I'm here in the rules section

Lack of understanding:

As above, this seems more like a case of communication failure ... which I suggest you might like to consider as an opportunity rather than a burden ...

This was discussed above.

Non-related questions

If you answer "I don't know", then as night follows day the next question will be something like "well, if you don't know, why did you mention it in support of the ATM idea?"

The methods somebody used are often not relevant. Instead of asking questions concerning methods, questionable methods should be explained by the questioner so that the OP can understand the possible relevance of the "methods" question.

It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented.

Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!).

I have some agreement with you on this matter. But I think if the comment adds clarification, which it often does, then it should be acceptable. Often peripheral ideas are added which I think should be ignored by commentators.
Moderators may not be so generous. The real problem is when commentators respond to non-related ATM ideas by other commentators, not the fact that these other ideas were mentioned. I think that rules could clarify the extent that commentators could help defend the OP which could help make the ATM section a better place and not a simple duck shoot, which is what it is thought of by most opponents, in my opinion.

In concrete, practical terms, how would you suggest a mod could go about determining if there were "unwanted/ deceitful tactics" in play?

In most cases it's not possible as you imply. But to keep their eyes open to these possibilities I think is all that they can do, or should be expected to do.
Quote:

As to favoritism

To what extent do you think "favoritism" resembles beauty (existing in the eye of the beholder)?

Ah philosophy. Moderators themselves might become more introspective on this matter and judge themselves individually or collectively. But not as a matter of Rule.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology.

Really?... and might you tell us the name of that book so we could read it?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Nereid,

As you know by my comments above valid questions are great, but too many at one time by one person is an abuse of the system.

In terms of making for a better - more efficient, more effective - ATM section, what practical suggestions do you have wrt deciding how many valid questions are too many?

You say potato, I say potato ... you say an abuse of the system, I say that's precisely what the system encourages. Impasse? If so, how to proceed?

Concerning your comments above: On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge.

Without wishing to re-open the content of that thread, there is an abundance of objective, verifiable evidence that questions challenging your understanding or knowledge exist, in that thread, in great numbers. Impasse? If so, how to proceed?

In prior threads there have been such questions. This was a thread concerning what's wrong/ problems with the standard models in Physics (mostly the standard model of cosmology) and is something that anybody can research if they are interested. I did not think that this was even a valid ATM proposal, but Nereid (you) did since it was her (your) idea to post it, right or wrong.

Concerning the Rules: The definition of a valid ATM proposal might be addressed in the rules also to eliminate the most foolish ones or the ones that are not really Alternative Proposals to the mainstream in the first place -- which this one was certainly not. The words "Alternative Proposal" might be at least one of several definitions of an ATM idea.
That the mainstream is asserted to be wrong, for example, is not an alternative proposal unless details are also initially proposed (based upon the definition of alternative in my opinion).

[...]

The devil, surely, is in the details?

For example, who gets to make decisions regarding what proposals are "most foolish"?

A concrete case: spiral galaxies get their shape because the nucleus is disgorging matter and spinning, creating a catherine wheel-line shape (or, if you prefer, a garden hose). Now this has got to be one of most foolish ATM ideas ... because it is utterly inconsistent with the observed "rotation curves". However, if the level of understanding of basic astronomy (of the BAUT member seriously proposing this nonsense) is so low that they have no clue about rotation curves, it doesn't seem like foolish nonsense. Yet these sorts of ideas - in one form or another - infest the ATM section at least once a month.

And regardless of who would make such decisions, surely you'd want their decisions to be based on objective, verifiable criteria, wouldn't you? I mean, if someone were to decide - 'judges decision is final' - that your own, cherished ATM idea is one of the "most foolish", you'd be incensed, wouldn't you?

Oh, and "the big bang never happened", or "dark matter doesn't exist" (and similar) are ATM proposals, pure and simple; you propose any such, you will surely be asked to address challenges to them.

(to be continued)

[forrest noble]

Pipedream, nice to talk to you again and thanks for you comments.

I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.

The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of,

There were many good questions asked, but more trivial ones and repeated ones. The level of science knowledge presented was nothing above ordinary. Essentially it was a reverse position where they were the ones having to defend the mainstream position. The arguments were generally the standard ones, sometimes well presented but often not.

but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.
FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods.

Ruthlessness and Viciousness could have been addressed by the moderators in answer to my many complaints. This was generally not done. There were two warnings given. Maybe one was in response to my complaint. Relentless is just fine by me as long as there is no question flooding, and other abuses described above in other postings.

I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

You must realize I cannot prove the mainstream is wrong. I only said the I assert that it is wrong for those theories involved. This is a difficult proposition to defend but that does not mean it is not true. If the mainstream were proven wrong it wouldn't be the mainstream. My assertions concerning mainstream cosmology were summed up by Michael Disney which I think is the best short argument against the mainstream model. I don't think all my efforts improved upon his original summation. Remember, I did not even think this was a valid ATM proposal, Nereid did.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them.

There are few papers published concerning what's wrong with the standard models. One of the main reasons is they cannot get published unless they at least offer an alternative. So for the most part there are many websites but few if any relevant papers. My alternative theories is a book 350 pages long, whereby anyone who has not read it could not possibly ask many insightful questions concerning its content or theory. This would be also true of any textbook concerning an unknown subject.

There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would deliberately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve.

FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.
[/QUOTE]

You are wrong on this matter. I am entirely blameless and those were just completely false accusations. I do not have to invent falsehoods or use deceitfulness tactics that I have accused others of doing. I'm 66 years old. Like Michael Disney I'm just trying to point of the flaws of theory so that better ones can take their place, not necessarily my own theories. These accusation were either dishonest or simply wrong

My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.

(bold mine)

I think you are wrong on the matter of answering questions. In a thread of hundreds of postings the moderator cannot know which questions have been answered before or not. Only the OP can know, or anyone who understands what is being said and has read every posting. Every question was answered on that thread to my knowledge. I asked questioners to list any unanswered questions, in several instances most listings of question were all, or nearly all, previously answered questions -- some which had been answered two or more times.

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

For example, who gets to make decisions regarding what proposals are "most foolish"?

Now the moderators make such decisions based upon common sense. A simple statement in the rules such as defining an ATM proposal might help: -- such as an alternative hypothesis/ theory to explain reality or a conundrum or similar type wording of a definition might help in such a decision.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge.

Really? As a (for the most part) lurker to that thread, I thought a great many questions challenged your understanding and knowledge.

ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.

How does that work? If you make additional ATM claims, you should expect additional questions. Answering questions with more ATM claims will likely result in more questions and repeated questions.

At some point, you need to show you can properly support your claims with evidence. If you're just going to make a series of ATM claims, there isn't much point in starting a thread in the first place.

I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea.

What do you mean by "peripheral ATM idea"? The OP shouldn't need to answer questions about ATM ideas they aren't supporting, or unrelated ATM ideas they presented in another ATM thread, but if an ATM proponent makes additional ATM claims in their current thread, why should they not be expected to answer questions about them? After all, if they don't want the questions, it is easy enough to avoid them by not making the claims.

If others weren't allowed to ask questions about additional ATM claims, an OP could respond to questions about their initial ATM claim with more ATM claims, and refuse to answer questions about their additional claims. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...]

I don't think that any of those questions you gave as an example above are valid questions or that they are polite. I don't even think they should be answered since they do not concern the OP. I consider them an attempt at intimidation if they are repeated. It should be presumed that everybody who themselves propose an ATM idea, thinks they are prepared to answer questions. And to ask these questions, I think, are redundant or worse.

Here, then, we have a concrete case of diametrically opposed interpretations of "intent".

My intent - which of course is not independently verifiable (at least, not easily) - was, and always is, to give the BAUT member proposing a new ATM idea the opportunity to re-consider, to think of the enormous number of valid questions that will surely follow (if they do not retract the claims), to check whether they have the time and energy to do justice to a defence of these ATM ideas, etc, etc, etc. Why? Because I am fully aware of how extraordinarily difficult it is to adequately respond to challenges (in the ATM section), if one is not fully prepared.

You perceived - and still perceive - my intent quite differently; so be it.

BTW, one consequence of not asking these sorts of questions - out of politeness and concern for the ATM proponent - is that there is no excuse for not answering - promptly and adequately - the wall of questions which will surely follow.

ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.

[...]

This proposed approach is well worth exploring further ... up till now it has certainly been the case that any, and every, ATM idea presented is open to questioning and challenge (whether in the OP or not) ... to me this suggestion, if adopted, would make the ATM section a kind of 'ATM idea developers' forum', which has been proposed many times before (in one form or another), and rejected just as many times.

(to be continued)

[forrest noble]

Slang,

If you provide no evidence except pointing to the thread in question, you should include a link to the thread. Right now everything is fresh in the minds of everyone who read or participated, but to someone reading this months later, it won't be. It would be nice if you would edit the below x code into that post (or ask a moderator to, if you don't know how).

Sorry, I try my best to be considerate but wished to talk in generalities which I thought would be best for the rules section.

There is no way to make you happy, is there? You ask for clarification. As a courtesy to you (and other readers) the entire context that lead up to the question is provided, so you (and other readers) won't have to go back hundreds of postings. Yet, when you receive such a courtesy, you complain about "thread flooding". reference (and single post #127 link for those who can't follow full thread links)

Others have suggested, on this thread, that I'm paranoid on this matter. The postings preceding my comments that you listed are a good example, postings #123-126. Four postings that could have been trimmed down to one or two concerning their content, in my opinion. If I am wrong in this particular case I apologize but I have presented my suspicions here because I have seen it before and wish moderators to be aware of the possibility of this mischievous behavior by intent.

[captain swoop]

As Van Rijn and Nereid point out, if you answer a question on an ATM idea with another ATM idea then you will certainly get questioned on it. How could you expect anything else? If the 'peripheroal' as you term in ATM idea is not allowed to be challenged then that's the end of the thread isn't it? You might as well just answer questions with 'Because I say so'

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...]

Concerning the rules:

A direct question must have a question mark otherwise it may be considered rhetorical requiring no answer.

You know, in all my time here at BAUT, and my involvement in the ATM section, I've not come across this suggestion before.

Frankly, I think it's silly. Why? Because a) if you're not sure if a question is rhetorical or not, then you can ask for clarification; and b) if you pay so little attention to others' posts (in a thread focussed exclusively on an ATM idea, or ideas, you yourself proposed) that you miss a valid question simply because it's phrased without a question mark, then why bother to propose the ATM idea in the first place?

I mean, what's the difference, in terms of content, between:

-> Please explain how {X, from ATM idea presented, as presented} is consistent with {Y, from ATM idea presented, as presented}.

-> how is {X, from ATM idea presented, as presented} consistent with {Y, from ATM idea presented, as presented}?

I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea. If an answer is unclear because it involves other ATM ideas say simply that you do not understand the answer, and ask that the question by answered in a different way or ask for a clarification of meaning, etc.

This is, indeed, a fundamentally new proposal ... at least wrt what constitutes "ATM" in a particular thread in that section.

The current situation (status quo) is that all ATM idea presented, as presented, in a thread in the ATM section are open to be questioned and challenged ... and that if the BAUT member presenting any such wishes to not answer questions on it (or address challenges to it), then they must explicitly retract it.

Part of my own view on this suggestion is that it is inherently a-scientific, if not downright anti-science. Why? Because a core aspect of science is its overall consistency ...

I agree that this is part of the rules and should be.

[...]

Good. This is the status quo (it has always been thus, AFAIK).

(to be continued)

[slang]

Thank you, forrest,

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Sorry, I try my best to be considerate but wished to talk in generalities which I thought would be best for the rules section.

A good idea I'm sure, but you make many claims of unwanted behaviour, without giving evidence. You definitely lost your prerogative to talk in generalities when you said "The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself." without providing a link to the thread.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Others have suggested, on this thread, that I'm paranoid on this matter. The postings preceding my comments that you listed are a good example, postings #123-126. Four postings that could have been trimmed down to one or two concerning their content, in my opinion.

But the thread before those posts made it very clear that simple, short, concise, to the point posts with questions seemed to lead to miscommunications (ignoring the possibility of maliciously feigning misunderstanding). If a concise posting style leads to misunderstanding, and a request for clarification is made, what is the incentive to "trim posts down" to the bare minimum needed? IMHO most, if not all, questions were clear the first time they were asked. How can a challenger decide how much context or explanation is necessary to add, so the ATM proponent has enough to understand the question? I don't see how such a choice can be made, and thus an explanation that is as complete as possible seems best. How can more explanation or quoting then be a bad thing?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If I am wrong in this particular case I apologize but I have presented my suspicions here because I have seen it before and wish moderators to be aware of the possibility of this mischievous behavior by intent.

You know, the moderators here are no dummies. I've even caught them being smarter than me(!!!), by not acting on Reports from me, that later turned out not to need any action. They are, after many years of BAUT, well aware of many, many different types of abuse. But hiding OP's comments by employing walls of quote seems, to me, to be one of the silliest arguments ever raised against ATM challengers.

Several reasons: anyone following the thread closely will recognize the quotes, and skip over that part of the post (unless of course the post was directed at them). Anyone specifically interested in the ideas of the OP will likely pay less attention to challengers, and instead specifically look out more for responses and come-backs from OP. (No, I have no idea how I can support this claim with numbers or facts.)

The reader chooses which replies to read with which amount of attention. To think that those really interested in the OP's ideas will be intimidated by some large posts seems just... wrong. And then there's the possibility that someone posting large amounts of challenges might end up on some ignore lists (not advisable when presenting an ATM thread, of course!).

Finally, and this, of course, is a very subjective argument, some posters asking lots of questions, with proper background quoting, have over the years here shown to be genuinely interested in getting the most useful answers possible, rather then using "tactics" to kill a conversation. This, BAUT, is after all a forum, not some gamezone to get someone evicted as quick as possible.

[forrest noble]

Van Rign

Really? As a (for the most part) lurker to that thread, I thought a great many questions challenged your understanding and knowledge.

This is the rules discussion area so I will be brief in my answers to anything else.

Remember this was completely different from a normal ATM thread. I proposed nothing. My task was to present what was wrong with the standard models that I discussed. As far as the standard model of cosmology was concerned I quoted the summation of Michael Disney, concerning what's wrong with the standard model, which was far better than anything that I presented. But I pointed out many of the details that such a short summary could not address.

Every question asked me were simple ones, most of which required no research except to provide a link for what I was saying. Other questions involving my own theory were only courtesy answers since they did not involve the OP. How to express yourself in such a way that your answers are clear and unambiguous, always takes effort.

How does that work? If you make additional ATM claims, you should expect additional questions. Answering questions with more ATM claims will likely result in more questions and repeated questions.

At some point, you need to show you can properly support your claims with evidence. If you're just going to make a series of ATM claims, there isn't much point in starting a thread in the first place.

No claims were made concerning any detail other than "some mainstream theories are probably wrong for the most part." When I was answering a question out of courtesy, which I did not have to answer since it was unrelated to the OP, in this case concerning my own theories -- then repeated questions concerning the ATM answers are also unrelated to the OP. This is all they wanted to talk about since most questions did not involve the OP directly.

What do you mean by "peripheral ATM idea"? The OP shouldn't need to answer questions about ATM ideas they aren't supporting, or unrelated ATM ideas they presented in another ATM thread, but if an ATM proponent makes additional ATM claims in their current thread, why should they not be expected to answer questions about them? After all, if they don't want the questions, it is easy enough to avoid them by not making the claims.

If others weren't allowed to ask questions about additional ATM claims, an OP could respond to questions about their initial ATM claim with more ATM claims, and refuse to answer questions about their additional claims. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

All of your comments have been good ones. But this was a very different ATM proposal. I don't think it was an ATM proposal at all, at least by my definition, and should not have been in the ATM section in the first place if proper definitions of what an ATM proposal is, according to the rules. That being said, peripheral questions in this case involved my own theories which were not part of the OP and which I did not volunteer except by direct questions and therefore should not be an avenue of unending questions -- whereby my book is 350 pages long, entirely my own theory. Questions could be asked without repetition for years.

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...]

This point I think should also be clarified by the rules. Often ATM ideas cannot be explained without the use of other ATM concepts. The only point should be whether the answer has consistency of logic. If not then those questioning could point out that logic may be missing or some other statement that does not insult the ATMer personally. The thread should then move on without belaboring peripheral ideas. If not, as I said above, many ATM ideas could never be properly presented, or good questions even answered.

To repeat: this suggestion is well worth exploring in more detail, IMHO.

To expand a bit on my own view: if each and every piece in the logic and evidence chains upon which an ATM idea being proposed depends is not well-founded, then what's the point of considering the ATM idea any further?

For example, if you include an assumption (today an ATM, a century or so ago not) that the speed of light is observer dependent in your ATM claim (that the age of the universe is 100 billion years, say), what's the point of challenging the conclusion ('100 billion years')? I mean, if the assumption can be shown to be critical to the conclusion, the focus of the thread should shift - immediately - to the anti-relativity assumption, shouldn't it?

There are, of course, ways of side-stepping examination of such a vital, new ATM idea, but they need to be very carefully crafted. A good example: MOND, in its original, non-relativistic form.

Re: Thread Flooding

On this we agree. Intent is impossible to know, but moderators, I think, should be aware of the possible abuse here.

No doubt they are ... but, just to be clear, you're not making any suggestions re rule (or guideline) changes, are you?

Re. Repeated Questions

I agree that often it is a failure to communicate but in other cases I feel that it is a dishonest strategy to frustrate and stop the ATMer, especially on very long threads which it takes a great deal of time to look back through the thread and find the previous answers.

Consider a standard textbook on a major part of contemporary astrophysics, spiral galaxies say.

It is unlikely to be less than many hundred pages long.

If understood in its entirety, one needs to have an excellent grasp of how the thousands of parts come together to form a more-or-less complete whole ... and this involves an acceptance of a need to spend a great deal of time looking back through the book, to find where a particular concept has been employed earlier (to take just one example).

Consider, next, that a great many ATM ideas have scopes which vastly exceed that of a contemporary astrophysics textbook on spiral galaxies (say) ... surely with such a mind-blowing scope, it is inevitable that a) the thread will be extremely long, and b) a great deal of time will need to be spent looking back through it (to find some particular specific)?

Consider one alternative: that the BAUT member proposing the staggeringly broad ATM idea has no clue of how enormous the time (and effort) commitment they have signed up for, by proposing it in a thread in BAUT's ATM section.

In short, why should any ATM proponent expect to spend anything other than a great deal of time answering questions and addressing challenges?

I agree that it an almost impossible task for moderators to control -- repeating previously answered questions -- when OP complaints come in unless the previous posting is pointed out which takes a great deal of the ATMer's time to find. But moderators should be aware of the potential abuse.

Aside from the 'the only direct questions are ones with question marks', my guess is that there's nothing new in this recent ATM thread ... mods have seen, and successfully dealt with, every one of your points, dozens of times over (and I should know, as my own record as a mod who was very active in the ATM section can objectively attest).

I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. My editors read through it and for the most part there were few misunderstandings of meaning based upon their questions. They all have the necessary education to understand what I am saying. When they have problems concerning my meanings they ask relevant questions and clarification of the text by wording or expansion often results. My primary editor, 25 years old, has never asked a meaningless or non-relevant question. On BAUT as much as 1/3 the questions are either not relevant, meaningless or trivial. On my last thread maybe only 20% of all the postings contained good questions partly because there were so many repeats of the same questions by the same person of by others.

[...]

There's a critical difference ... the editors have a multi-hundred page manuscript to consult; BAUT members reading that ATM thread in question had (and still have) a mere dozen or paragraphs.

Remember the four criteria I mentioned? The one about "as presented" in particular!

If you a) choose to not reference much material beyond the thread itself, b) not cite sources of the quotes you do give, and c) have clearly not understood (and perhaps not even read) the few sources you do cite, how can any BAUT member read your mind wrt what you - subjectively - consider to be "not relevant, meaningless or trivial"?

It gets worse.

Consider the example I gave earlier, about a wildly idiosyncratic, non-standard definition of "current" (as in electrical current).

It was by exactly such a "not relevant, meaningless or trivial" question that this hidden gem (shall we say) was brought to light ... and once out in the open, rendered almost the entire thread meaningless.

Surely the burden is on you - the proponent of some pretty extreme ATM ideas - to provide evidence, in as much detail as required, that the questions are, in fact, "not relevant, meaningless or trivial"?

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...]

In many cases I think you are right. Even though an ATMer thinks his answer is clear and simple, others may not understand what he is saying, often for good reason.

In other cases on my own thread and on others, It's hard to believe that someone could not understand the answer given based upon the question asked.

Try this: consider things from the point of view of the BAUT member asking the repeat questions (as they seem to you).

It takes but a few minutes to find other posts by this member, in other ATM threads (if any), and but a few more minutes to learn if the behaviour you've experienced - yourself, directly - has occurred before. Perhaps this simple exercise will confirm your belief (that your questioner is being obtuse, or worse), perhaps you will discover something surprising (and disturbing) ... that you truly have failed at successfully communicating your thoughts (and that you should try again, and harder)?

These are the cases I'm referring to. It's my opinion that sometimes there is no real effort to try to understand a simple, valid answer. It is difficult to get moderators involved with what's a valid answer. In some cases I resort to saying that I've tried my best to explain your question, if you cannot understand my answer, which I've now explained in several different ways, I do know what else I can do.

Try this: you believe your ATM idea is revolutionary, and will dramatically change a large part of contemporary astrophysics. Yet you cannot answer what seem like simple questions, about what you feel are quite straight-forward parts of that idea, to BAUT members who you have established - objectively, and verifiably - are extremely knowledgeable (wrt astrophysics), honest, and sincere.

What's wrong with this picture?

Repeating questions that the questioner knows have been answered

I'm only questioning the dishonest ethics of some opponents which I hope some moderators might become aware of from time to time, as I have.

[...]

And how, pray tell, did you determine that these opponents' ethics were (and still are?) "dishonest"?

And - more important - how do you suggest that mods should go about making such determinations?

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

(continued, and concluded)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[...]

The methods somebody used are often not relevant. Instead of asking questions concerning methods, questionable methods should be explained by the questioner so that the OP can understand the possible relevance of the "methods" question.

Two things:

Perhaps it's worth considering why the questioner feels it is relevant (when you do not)?

Rather than answer "I don't know", why not ask for clarification?

I have some agreement with you on this matter. But I think if the comment adds clarification, which it often does, then it should be acceptable.

Again, only the ATM proponent truly knows if it "adds clarification" ... and no one questioning (and challenging) the ATM idea can assume it does (or does not), until the ATM proponent weighs in.

Often peripheral ideas are added which I think should be ignored by commentators.

But who decides if it's peripheral or not?

And how can BAUT members - who are supposed to attack the ATM idea with glee and fervour, remember - work out what should be ignored?

Worse, if the "peripheral ideas" are themselves (new) ATM ideas, don't all BAUT members reading the post have an obligation to report it, as a case of thread-jacking?

Moderators may not be so generous. The real problem is when commentators respond to non-related ATM ideas by other commentators, not the fact that these other ideas were mentioned. I think that rules could clarify the extent that commentators could help defend the OP which could help make the ATM section a better place and not a simple duck shoot, which is what it is thought of by most opponents, in my opinion.

[...]

Assume - for now - that this is a good idea; how could it be implemented, practically?

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

Try this: consider things from the point of view of the BAUT member asking the repeat questions (as they seem to you).

....... ... that you truly have failed at successfully communicating your thoughts (and that you should try again, and harder)?

As I said before that the Chief Editor of my book, who is well versed in the mainstream model, can paraphrase anything that I write indicating he understands nearly everything I write. Some editors have had more problems but all are unpaid editors because they relate to the theories and generally have no problem understanding any part of it upon study. For this reason I don't think that my writing skills or theory are the main problem.

One problem, I think, is that many of those who reply are not knowledgeable about many things that they are discussing based upon their short-term research. Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be. I believe I have observed this to be a big stumbling block for some questioners. Those asking for links obviously don't understand a logical proposal, which is often simple.

Although the mainstream keeps changing I usually know the latest since I have read many mainstream papers, articles, and news reports concerning the latest interpretations. Not tooting my horn here but this may be another problem of discussion -- a difference in knowledge level. When somebody is talking at high levels nobody asks for confirmation of background info since everyone knows what your talking about. I make no such assumptions in the ATM section but expect that the simplest explanations should be readily understood.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

<snip>
Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be.

This is an aside from a discussion of the rules of this forum, but maybe some of the problem you have with ATM is right in that sentence.

I might be wrong, but I suspect you think it is sufficient that your theory be logical. It is not, at least not in the real world of science (as opposed to a debate on BAUT). A new theory has to do a better job of explaining the physical evidence, the actual data, then the old theory. There is no other test that really counts.

[forrest noble]

Thanks Slang, posting #699

All of your comments are well thought out and in some cases valid counter arguments. Question Flooding limits by one person, based upon my experience is the biggest problem that I can think of which could be improved by a new rule for the ATM section. A limit in the number and extent of the questions should be generally determined. When a limit to the number of questions is given, the questioner then asks questions that are multi-faceted and can take as much time as 20 shorter questions. So both the quantity and type of questions must be addressed. For those interested, PM me for posting examples of what I am saying concerning abuses.

[forrest noble]

On an ongoing basis strict enforcement of rule #1 should be upheld by the moderators, in my opinion. Any allegations by anyone about the OP or anyone else should be a complaint to a moderator and kept off the thread otherwise warning or suspension should immediately follow. Any allegations, involving personal attack, must be stopped. In my case it involved completely false allegations and personal attacks of many types. If it can be done to me it can be done to anyone and everyone in the ATM section. Is this the kind of ATM forum BAUT wants?

[forrest noble]

Swift,

This is an aside from a discussion of the rules of this forum, but maybe some of the problem you have with ATM is right in that sentence.

I might be wrong, but I suspect you think it is sufficient that your theory be logical. It is not, at least not in the real world of science (as opposed to a debate on BAUT). A new theory has to do a better job of explaining the physical evidence, the actual data, then the old theory. There is no other test that really counts.

I completely agree with your comments.

The process of theory creation, I believe, should involve as much logic as possible. If this is the case, then the resulting theory may not only better explain reality, it may also be more logical than its predecessor.