Unlucky? (to have someone put your ATM idea through the wringer)

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Of course it has nothing to do with the validity of the proposal itself. Only verifiable observational support and logic determines the possible validity of a proposal.

But if the only serious answer offered to a question of observational support is something that turns out to have nothing to do with the proposal, doesn't this bear on the validity of the proposal?

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid

But if the only serious answer offered to a question of observational support is something that turns out to have nothing to do with the proposal, doesn't this bear on the validity of the proposal?

No.

An evasive answer of that sort reflects on the proposer, but not the actual proposal.

However, one can reach a point at which the proposer has demonstrated such a lack of credibility that there is no point in further discussion with that person. But that is an individual value judgment and not an element of logic.

One can also reach a logical conclusion regarding the validity of the argument being put forth in support of the proposal. The argument may well be invalid. But the invalidity of the argument does not invalidate the proposal itself. This has an analogy in mathematics. A false proof of a conjecture does not make the conjecture itself false.

As a purely logical proposition, to dismiss the proposal due to shortcomings with the proposer is basically an ad hominem decision (NOT an ad hominem argument, unless verbalized). It is not an unreasonable conclusion, but neither is it defensible on purely logical grounds. It is theoretically possible, for instance, for a nut to come up with a good idea. It is just very very rare.

On the other hand, as a matter of empirical observation, by the time that this circumstance is realized, there are sufficiently many logical holes in the original proposal for one to have reached a conclusion on more solid logical grounds.

[NickW]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I've written two books

This is the second time you have said that you have written books. You were also asked repeatedly what books they were. You have yet to state those. If you wrote books about a certain subject, maybe you would be willing to tell us what the titles are.

Of course this is slightly off topic, but he did bring it up in this thread, and has brought it up in many threads. I have yet to see an answer this question. If there is a post stating the books in questions, could someone please cite them?

[mugaliens]

Nothing on Amazon under "Forest Noble".

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Nereid

[...]

As to "scientific debate": in such discourse, participants have unspoken mutual understandings that rarely, if ever, exist in ATM section threads. Some such are^:

* use of language (some BAUTians have, IMHO, misunderstood this, and call it "semantics"; I intend to start a new thread soon, to further discuss this)

[...]

(bold added)

Done: "Semantics", and ATM presentations

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

An evasive answer of that sort reflects on the proposer, but not the actual proposal.

However, one can reach a point at which the proposer has demonstrated such a lack of credibility that there is no point in further discussion with that person. But that is an individual value judgment and not an element of logic.

You are absolutely correct, I should not have used "validity". (After years of haranging students on this point, I made this mistake mysefl!)

[Gillianren]

"Stability"? If one pillar is known to be compromised, the rest of the structure is less stable--and there's no reason to assume every other pillar is sound.

[forrest noble]

NickW,

This is the second time you have said that you have written books. You were also asked repeatedly what books they were. You have yet to state those. If you wrote books about a certain subject, maybe you would be willing to tell us what the titles are.

Of course this is slightly off topic, but he did bring it up in this thread, and has brought it up in many threads. I have yet to see an answer this question. If there is a post stating the books in questions, could someone please cite them?

The first book is entitled "A Wholly Unified Model of Cosmology and Physics" --
The Pan Theory. The second book is entitled "Living Symbiotically" or a similar title, it is still unfinished as I mentioned before. To see an online version of the first book Google "Pan Theory."

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

BAUT's ATM section was never intended to be a level playing field, and despite many suggestions that it should become one, the mods (and owners) have repeatedly stated their intention to keep it that way.

Would you, BobA, like the ATM section to become more like scientific debate?

BAUT can do whatever they want with ATM. It isn't scientific debate now and I object to the pretense that it is. The quality of the ATM section here reflects poorly on ATMers everywhere and complaints about quality serve witness to the efficacy of a long term, pervasive attempt to drive away any and all dissenting opinions.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Certainly VP (and BobA?) doesn't like CM's skits! But skits - good, bad, or indifferent - were not part of the BobA claim (which concerns only questions).

Well, excuse me for failing to list them in my litany of complaints. I was trying to keep my list short and not write a book. I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. Are you prepared to defend them as anything other? Worst of all, he is still at it. Here is a complaint from Nov 4 by FHtheory in “Thoughts on Gravity” 25.
“ The great storyteller is back :-) If you had bothered reading the introduction to THIS thread, you would have noticed that we did away with the 3D time discussion, which formed part of the last thread. This was thanks to you and other valuable feedbacks. Also, your various comments on SPECULATIVE thoughts are just that. That’s why we named it purely SPECULATIVE and these do not form part of the "Theory" to be discussed here. So please – no more ironic mocking but advice on what’s good and what’s bad. We are here to learn and try to make sense of all we read.”-FHtheory.

Originally Posted by Nereid

VP seems to be admitting - openly, honestly - that he does not intend to follow the BAUT ATM rule. And this is curious (and unusual): why start an ATM thread if you have no intention of following the rules?

I asked you one direct question in the Forrest Noble thread and you didn't answer. I repeated the question in case you missed it but you still never answered. In my book, you are in no position to complain when someone refuses to answer another uninformed question about some same old issue that has already been covered.

Originally Posted by Nereid

So far, this seems to be a description of a thread unfolding pretty much the way it should - lots of valid questions about a radically new idea (and, considering the vast amount of experimental and observational results potentially relevant to the idea, exactly what you'd expect).

None of the above is true with the exception of “lots of questions”. I made no complaint about the questions and said they were “good” but POAMS is primarily a theory of light and the thread grew out of a discussion about the speed of light but the questions were mostly about gravity and the questions were not relevant to the material in the OP so one could say they were not “pertinent” but that is not the issue. Whenever you have people asking questions about a topic they know little about, you can expect that most of the questions will not be pertinent to the topic but that goes with the territory. This is one of the problems with the “every pertinent question”rule because only those familiar with the topic are in a position to judge what is pertinent.
POAMS has a fifty plus year old history and it is essentially identical to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory except that it follows the Machian practice of not including anything in a theory that can not be supported by either logic or observation so out goes the W-F absolute space and waves moving forward and backwards in time. The mathematical bones of the theory can be found in a 1926 paper by Tetrode so it is not a “new” theory and it is less radical than the W-F Absorber theory. All three of these theories were strictly philosophical at their inception and there was no experimental support prior to that of Bell and Aspect in the 1960's. None of the experimental or observational results discussed during the first week were directly relevant to POAMS so the questions served to distract from what the theory was about. I would not say things unfolded the way they should unless rudely driving away an alternative point of view by question flooding is the way things should go. But that was the way it went and, judging from BAUT history, exactly what one would expect.

Btw, Viv Pope was invited to present the POAMS theory by two BAUT members.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

I asked you one direct question in the Forrest Noble thread and you didn't answer. I repeated the question in case you missed it but you still never answered.

So how are you coping with "the pain of rejection"? Do you feel it's time for you to get off your computer?

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley

So how are you coping with "the pain of rejection"? Do you feel it's time for you to get off your computer?

Thank you for your concern but I am getting over it. I let it pass rather than follow up with a bunch of childish " you didn't answer my question" posts except for this one where I was trying to make a point the Nereid sets a poor example for what she preaches.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

I asked you one direct question in the Forrest Noble thread and you didn't answer. I repeated the question in case you missed it but you still never answered. In my book, you are in no position to complain when someone refuses to answer another uninformed question about some same old issue that has already been covered.

[...]

That would be in post #467, right? If so, the answer is almost every material (element, compound; solid, gas; pure, composite; ...).

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Well, excuse me for failing to list them in my litany of complaints. I was trying to keep my list short and not write a book. [...]

I don't get it BobA, I just don't.

You make a specific point ("Forrest Noble and a number of others, including myself, have made the claim that the rule about answering questions is used in the BAUT ATM forum to stifle debate when other methods, either good bad or otherwise, have failed. Ask a lot of questions- question the answers- and then question the answers to questions about answers in a chain reaction until a critical mass is achieved and the presenter caves under an impossible load of questions"), ...

someone (PB) asks you, directly, for an example ("You'd have to provide an example, because it's my belief that this doesn't happen"), ...

you respond ("Here is my example"), ...

I analyse your response and find it is not what you claim it to be ("But skits - good, bad, or indifferent - were not part of the BobA claim (which concerns only questions)"), ...

and you complain! ("Well, excuse me for failing to list them in my litany of complaints").

I'm totally cool with the fact that you have complaints other than questions allegedly being used to stifle debate, but I'm not the least bit cool with you providing a non-example that you claim supports your one and only explicit complaint!

If I may say so, this sort of shifting of the goalposts is exactly what one sees all too often in ATM threads ...

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

BAUT can do whatever they want with ATM. It isn't scientific debate now and I object to the pretense that it is.

Here's another thing I just don't get ...

What happens in the ATM section is not scientific debate (we both agree on that).

Nor is there any pretense that it is (we disagree on that).

Where, may I ask, did you get the idea that anyone claimed the ATM section contains scientific debate?

The quality of the ATM section here reflects poorly on ATMers everywhere and complaints about quality serve witness to the efficacy of a long term, pervasive attempt to drive away any and all dissenting opinions.

I can make neither head nor tail of this; would you mind elaborating please?

Specifically, how does complaining about the abysmal quality of the content of ATM ideas presented in the ATM section "serve witness to the efficacy of a long term, pervasive attempt to drive away any and all dissenting opinions"?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

[...]

None of the above is true with the exception of “lots of questions”. I made no complaint about the questions and said they were “good” but POAMS is primarily a theory of light and the thread grew out of a discussion about the speed of light but the questions were mostly about gravity and the questions were not relevant to the material in the OP so one could say they were not “pertinent” but that is not the issue. Whenever you have people asking questions about a topic they know little about, you can expect that most of the questions will not be pertinent to the topic but that goes with the territory. This is one of the problems with the “every pertinent question”rule because only those familiar with the topic are in a position to judge what is pertinent.
POAMS has a fifty plus year old history and it is essentially identical to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory except that it follows the Machian practice of not including anything in a theory that can not be supported by either logic or observation so out goes the W-F absolute space and waves moving forward and backwards in time. The mathematical bones of the theory can be found in a 1926 paper by Tetrode so it is not a “new” theory and it is less radical than the W-F Absorber theory. All three of these theories were strictly philosophical at their inception and there was no experimental support prior to that of Bell and Aspect in the 1960's. None of the experimental or observational results discussed during the first week were directly relevant to POAMS so the questions served to distract from what the theory was about. I would not say things unfolded the way they should unless rudely driving away an alternative point of view by question flooding is the way things should go. But that was the way it went and, judging from BAUT history, exactly what one would expect.

[...]

You might like to re-read post #99, by BobA ... and reflect on the extent to which it presents an analysis showing - with great clarity - "rudely driving away an alternative point of view by question flooding".

Now it may well be that the first week of that thread does, indeed, provide good examples of exactly that ... but the content of post #99 makes essentially no case for such a thing.

Here's something I am truly puzzled about: "This is one of the problems with the “every pertinent question”rule because only those familiar with the topic are in a position to judge what is pertinent." Indeed it is a huge problem ... and surely the most certain path to becoming familiar (with the topic) is to ask lots (and lots and lots) of questions?

Yet asking lots of question is precisely what you have alleged is a (cynical?), pre-planned method to stifle debate!

When presented with a radically new (ATM) idea, what effective methods do you suggest anyone interested in first understanding it (and then challenging it) employ?

This is even more puzzling (bold added): "but POAMS is primarily a theory of light and the thread grew out of a discussion about the speed of light but the questions were mostly about gravity and the questions were not relevant to the material in the OP so one could say they were not “pertinent”"

Now "the OP" is actually four posts (the first four in the thread), all by VP himself ... and they contain numerous sentences linking POAMS to gravitation (and much more, than light, besides). How, then, can you claim that "the questions about gravitation were not relevant to the material in the OP"?

Especially given that POAMS was almost certainly completely new to almost every BAUT member.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

I let it pass rather than follow up with a bunch of childish " you didn't answer my question" posts

Think what you want. This is beneath debate.

[captain swoop]

Don't let this become a discussion of POAMS whatever that is, this isn't the place

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

To see an online version of the first book Google "Pan Theory."

Ok, folks - we now have his Technical Paper, which contains details, explanations, mathematics, evidence, and references.

It's 41 pages.

Let's start a new thread and review that.

[StevoR]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Ditto here. I had two posts in the previous thread deleted because they were promoting an ATM idea outside the ATM forum. Can you point to anything in either post that could be considered promotional of an ATM idea?

Why deleted and not simply moved?

Seems to me if a thread belongs in the Against The Mainstream area then that's where it goes. If a post or two is Off Topic a moderator could just point that out & suggest creating a separate discussion thread in the appropriate sub-forum thingy. It all sounds a bit harsh to me.

Of course, I'm not a moderator & have limited experience here - I have had one or two threads moved which I've had no trouble with & am quite happy about. I've also had tangents come up in one discussion and then used those tangents to create separate topics / questions on a separate area. I'm often uncertain as towhere a given queston should be anyhow.

Arguing logically and well can be fun in an odd kind of way. Intellectual excercise and debating practice doesn't hurt and can be quite interesting and informative. Its when things get emotional and personal that we get problems and when people's feelings get hurt as people generally get upset and angry and aren't having fun no more. I think the goal here should be to keep things in the first situation and not end up in the latter.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by StevoR

Why deleted and not simply moved?

ATM proposals get one kick at the can. Just one. Once the 30 days are up, that's it. Outstanding questions are not a compelling reason for an extension. Time management is the proponent's responsibility.

Continuing the ATM discussion in ineligible ATM threads is an actionable thread hijack. Continuing it in Q&A is a major infraction.

In general, and I'm not speculating about Bob's motives here, but the doctrine is that we avoid "rewarding" actionable behavior, particularly when promotion (or the appearance of promotion) might be an issue. If the idea is eligible for 30 days (or part of 30 days), we'll move it. If it's not eligible, and not eligible for Q&A, it gets moved to a forum that is hidden and unsearchable. Either way, beyond what the board owners are willing to tolerate, additional promotion of the idea is prevented.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please use the Report Post feature, or PM either myself, another mod, or an admin.

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Ok, folks - we now have his Technical Paper, which contains details, explanations, mathematics, evidence, and references.

It's 41 pages.

Let's start a new thread and review that.

It would be for Forrest Noble to start a thread in the ATM forum on his paper, not down to anyone else to start a thread to discuss it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Well, excuse me for failing to list them in my litany of complaints. I was trying to keep my list short and not write a book. I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. Are you prepared to defend them as anything other? Worst of all, he is still at it. Here is a complaint from Nov 4 by FHtheory in “Thoughts on Gravity” 25.

{Snip!}

{Emphasis mine}
If my dialogues (not skits!) are as "smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT", then why are they (among other inputs) listed as "valuable feedbacks"? This hardly makes your case.

I had a dialogue all written summarizing the POAMS dialogues that I wrote. I saw Captain Swoop's warning and will refrain from sending it. But there is one thing about Bob Angstrom's portrayal of my dialogues in the POAMS thread that I cannot let stand without comment. In the dialogue BH remarked:

Originally Posted by BH

One thing I've noticed is that most of the amateur physics wannabes we run across are convinced that relativity is wrong and fall back to Newtonian mechanics. POAMS seems to be unique because it even rejects Newtonian mechanics and seems to fall back to some weird Aristotelian cosmos of circular motions.

Bob Angstrom denied this in post #99 of the 'Unlucky' thread."

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

This statement is totally false. POAMS was working with curved Riemann space and Pope mentioned something about this being similar to Aristotelian circular motions. CM insisted throughout the thread that POAMS was trying to replace relativity and Newton with Aristotle and this became the central issue in his attack despite many denials and explanations from Pope. How can anyone be prepared for an attack like that? It was a total fiction and implausible.

Well, I'm sorry, but that is totally false. VivPope explicitly denies Newtonian mechanics in Stage 7 as follows:"

Originally Posted by VivPope

Equally unempirical is Einstein's ad hoc notion of free-moving bodies following the grain of a warped 'space-time continuum'. In opposition to both of these un-empirical postulates of Newton and Einstein POAMS avails itself of an altogether more empirical and logical argument from Aristotle. A straight line force-free motion, Aristotle argued, is impossible. this is because such a line has to be either infinitely long, which is impossible, or else it is limited by the action of an external foce, which is a contradiction of force-free motion. Logically, then, Aristotle concluded the only force-free motion that is continuous has to be cyclic motion of the sort that is observed in the orbits of the free-moving planets and satellites.

Ipse dixit, as they say. Let the record show that I accurately pegged POAMS for the pseudo-scientific claptrap that it is. I will now say no more about POAMS unless a moderator gives me permission to post my dialogue about it.

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

Well, I'm sorry, but that is totally false. VivPope explicitly denies Newtonian mechanics in Stage 7 as follows:"

Ipse dixit, as they say. Let the record show that I accurately pegged POAMS for the pseudo-scientific claptrap that it is. I will now say no more about POAMS unless a moderator gives me permission to post my dialogue about it.

Yes, POAMS denies the flat Euclidean space of Newton but so did Einstein and everybody else. POAMS follows the Machian practice of eschewing any explanations that can not be observed so they also drop Einstein's wording of “curved spacetime” in favor of the observation that all objects in motion follow curved paths. This is consistent with Riemann geometry and the idea was first proposed by Aristotle. There is a philosophical difference in wording between “curved motion” and “curved spacetime” (we can observe the former but not the latter) but there is no new physics here or anything mathematically different from GR. So ipso dipso. That's Latin for read it again.

[captain swoop]

If I see one more post about POAMS I wll seriously consider suspending someone. This is not an ATM thread

[Moose]

And if Captain Swoop doesn't, I surely will.

Just sayin'.