Petition to re-open "johnmartin2009's discussion of modern physics" thread

[MicVR]

I'd be surprised if I didn't speak for quite a few when I petition to re-open that highly entertaining thread.

You could move it to OTB, since that's what it is for the most part anyways.

Yes, he's a religious fanatic and yes the "discussion" is probably not going anywhere, except into entertainment land.
But hey, that's something, isn't it?

Besides, I do believe that it also serves educational purposes...

[pzkpfw]

Ironically, calling him a "religious fanatic" kind of partly shows why it was closed.

No more of that, please.

[astromark]

I being the mug I am and just a tad curious ( read as nosey ), did search out the closed thread... and read it all.... yes all...

Yawn... It is unwarranted to rekindle such unqualified nonsense...

Far from informative and not presented as a question to answer..

I must admit a little confusion as to what we were being asked to believe..

I can not see reopening as a logical step. WE have moved on.. and i do not see ... 'Johnmartin ' dropping in any time soon... if ever.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....cs-quot-thread .....

[PaulLogan]

I can not see reopening as a logical step.

logic's got nothing to do with it. there was hardly any logic in the geocentric's "argumentation" but it was very entertaining.

WE have moved on..

speak for yourself, please.


i guess it takes a certain kind of humor to see the entertainment value in the thread in question.
a kind of humor similar to the one that can enjoy certain bad movies.

i would agree with MicVR that there is educational value as well in keeping the thread open a little while longer. there were others in the thread who have expressed that opinion as well.

i would second that petition.
besides, i am really curious how the geocentric will answer Tog's excellent question as to how the universe was geocentric before good old geo was even there?

[astromark]

@ Paul... If you want for a descusion regarding this or any topic.. Just post it in 'Off Topic Babling'.. OTB

It could get interesting... but I do not think Johnmartin is sitting on the fence watching... So you do it..

I will watch with interest...

[PaulLogan]

MicVR suggested otb. makes sense to me.

i am not a proponent of geocentrism; i couldn't start a thread on it.
but maybe the mods could pm johnmartin2009 and offer it as a possibility if they see it fit?
the way i see him arguing i am sure he'd welcome the opportunity. and i wouldn't be surprises if there were others here who would be interested as well. i know i am.

[HenrikOlsen]

MicVR suggested otb. makes sense to me.

It makes absolutely no sense to allow an ATM proponent to post his ideas anywhere but ATM.

[tusenfem]

I don't see any use in having this geocentric discussion in OTB. johnmartin2009 came here to discuss his ideas, and blatanty failed to even start up a real discussion. As there are "no rules" in OTB I can see loads and loads of tapistry posts, no answers to questions, etc. etc. Utterly pointless, even if for some it may have an entertainment factor. But the rules clearly state, you get one chance to present your ATM, and he got it, and screwed it up. He is not going to be rewarded for his behaviour through putting this into OTB.

[Nereid]

There are plenty of reasons why moving the thread to OTBB - or starting a new one with similar content - would be A Very Bad Idea, and few (good ones anyway) why it might be A Good Idea; some of these have been stated - and expanded upon - by others in this thread already.

I would like the thread re-opened for the following reasons:

-> johnmartin2009 (JM) has presented a great many ATM ideas, not just one; he needs to have the opportunity to answer questions on each and every one of them [1]

-> in that ATM thread, rather a lot of questions were asked, by other BAUTians, questions which are not yet answered. Almost all these are direct questions, pertinent to the ATM claims JM presented, as presented; JM should have the opportunity to answer them

-> JM's ATM claims (well, some of them at least) highlight deep misunderstandings of the nature of physics, misunderstandings which I suspect are rather common (though not, perhaps, among BAUT members). To the extent that the thread has the potential to explore these fundamental misunderstandings in a meaningful way, it has great value; of course, this would require that JM be required - upon pain of infraction etc - to actually *answer* the questions ...

[1] well, the ones that aren't beyond the scope of BAUT; his ATM ideas and claims that are explicitly about religion, for example, are out of bounds

[Garrison]

He never at any point engaged and he was for reasons of his personal beliefs unwilling to even consider the possibility that his view was wrong and where he did answer questions the answer were either faith based or simple refusals to accept mistakes. If the thread is reopened I can't see anything being gained except infraction points.

[Strange]

I see little point reopening the thread. JM clearly has no interest in a rational discussion, providing sensible answers to questions or accepting any corrections of his countless errors.

Sometimes ATM or CT threads are useful learning resources (I learnt a few things from this one) but in this case any genuine information is just buried in reams and reams of false claims about what relativity says, what science is, and bad logic.

I agree with Nereid, it would be useful to understand, and show the flaws in, JM's understanding of the nature of physics and the scientific method. But that would require JM to engage in a meaningful way.

[Gillianren]

As I recall, the last time someone's thread got reopened "because it was fun," the person in question also had a ban rescinded. And then he followed the same behaviour and got banned again. "Because it's fun" is not always a good reason.

[EigenState]

Greetings,

johnmartin2009 (JM) has presented a great many ATM ideas, not just one; he needs to have the opportunity to answer questions on each and every one of them

Emphasis added. He already had the opportunity to address the questions posed. In my view, he did not even attempt to address those questions--not one of them--within the framework of science. I fail to see how that historical record warrants another opportunity.

While I agree with Nereid, Strange, and others regarding the potential educational value of such a discussion, that potential requires a good faith effort on the part of all participants, and johnmartin2009 in particular, to engage in those discussions in a manner consistent with the scientific objectives and the rules of this forum. The available evidence indicates the probability of that happening is vanishingly small.

Best regards,
EigenState

[Nereid]

Perhaps there's a broader issue too.

I recently had the experience of being suspended from participation in an internet discussion forum, for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with me breaking or violating any of the posted rules, guidelines, etc for that forum. Of course, the owners of such sites are under no obligation to adhere to their posted rules - they are the perfect dictators, in this sense - but equally I am under no obligation to continue participation in such a forum (and I haven't, and won't).

So, I suggest that one of the reasons for BAUT's popularity is its strict - some might even say obsessive - adherence to its published rules (etc).

In the case of the thread in question, if JM has not, in fact, answered direct, pertinent (etc) questions, then there is a published procedure (rule) on what should happen ... especially as he explicitly requested that the thread be re-opened to permit him to answer such questions.

To close the thread without JM having that opportunity doesn't do BAUT's excellent reputation any good.

Of course, as others have correctly pointed out, JM has, in that thread, a long history of not, in fact, answering direct (etc) questions. Fair enough. What should then happen - per BAUT's rules - is mod action to implement the rules. If they result in JM being permabanned, then so be it; that would be an outcome he brought upon himself. OTOH, if such action results in a marked change of behaviour - i.e. JM actually answering questions[1] - then so much the better.

[1] Keeping in mind that 'I unreservedly retract my claim', 'I don't know', 'I cannot answer just now, but will do so in {time}', etc are acceptable

[Strange]

I recently had the experience of being suspended from participation in an internet discussion forum, for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with me breaking or violating any of the posted rules, guidelines, etc for that forum.

Of course, you would say that. An awful lot of people on BAUT who get infractions or suspensions complain that it wasn't them, it was the eevil mods. (It just happened again.) That is one reason I am always worried about threads like this being closed or people being banned; you just have this feeling that they will take this as a victory: "they couldn't refute my arguments and they couldn't handle the truth".

[EigenState]

Greetings,

... To close the thread without JM having that opportunity doesn't do BAUT's excellent reputation any good.

Going from memory only, that thread was closed and re-opened twice, and johnmartin2009 was suspended twice (3 and 7 days) within a very short time frame.

Following a full 7 day suspension, his return yielded nothing but the identical kinds of responses--responses utterly devoid of scientific content. Not once did he even accept that the equations he posted were incorrect as was shown repeatedly.

Had he returned after 7 days with some scientifically substantive responses that could have launched a serious, open-minded exchange, then I would agree with Nereid. But how many opportunities does he deserve? Should the moderators opt to include a summary statement as to the specifics of why that thread was closed, fine.

I also fail to see why the reputation of BAUT would suffer more from a thread closure than by a member being banned. Anyone sifting through that thread can evaluate the evidence. The rules were applied as intended and were ignored.

Best regards,
EigenState

[Nereid]

Of course, you would say that.

Indeed.

Which I why I was, from Day One, scrupulous about keeping a record; an objective, independently verifiable record.

An awful lot of people on BAUT who get infractions or suspensions complain that it wasn't them, it was the eevil mods. (It just happened again.)

People can complain in any way, as as much (or little), as they want.

One thing that BAUT does extremely well, perhaps uniquely so, is make the evidence available, so it may be assessed (dare I say, in an objective ...).

That is one reason I am always worried about threads like this being closed or people being banned; you just have this feeling that they will take this as a victory: "they couldn't refute my arguments and they couldn't handle the truth".

Myself, I have no such worries (at least wrt the ATM section, and posts/threads which end up there; I have no idea about the CT one).

IM(NS)HO, in this regard BAUT's obligation is to:
a) clearly state its rules (etc),
b) ensure they are unambiguous and actionable,
c) implement them in an unbiased manner, and
d) permit open discussion of both the rules and their implementation.

It does so, on all counts.

[Nereid]

Just quickly ...

But how many opportunities does he deserve?

As many as permitted.

If continued, unambiguous violation of rules clearly stated (and which JM is clearly fully aware of and understands) results in him being permabanned, well, so be it.

[EigenState]

Greetings,

But how many opportunities does he deserve?

Just quickly ...
As many as permitted.

If continued, unambiguous violation of rules clearly stated (and which JM is clearly fully aware of and understands) results in him being permabanned, well, so be it.

Within approximately 13 hours of his return from suspension, johnmartin2009 was warned by the moderators on four separate occasions prior to closure of the thread: twice by Jim, and twice by tusenfem. Each of those four warnings was explicit as to what was required of him, and each warning was ignored in the eight subsequent posts by johnmartin2009.

By comparison, an off-topic discussion involving Nereid, Strange, caveman1917, and myself received one moderator warning that it was off-topic and should be stopped. Indeed it did stop immediately without further comment.

I cannot possibly rationalize reopening that thread yet again. However I certainly can agree that a summary post by the moderators as to exactly what rules were violated and why the thread was closed might be appropriate.

Best regards,
EigenState

[macaw]

Just quickly ...
As many as permitted.

If continued, unambiguous violation of rules clearly stated (and which JM is clearly fully aware of and understands) results in him being permabanned, well, so be it.

Sorry, he should have been already permabanned. Long ago. He is not interested in a discussion, he is interested in preaching. I know you brought him over, please don't bring him back. Thank you.

[Nereid]

Sorry, he should have been already permabanned.

I'm sure you are not alone in so thinking.

However, such decisions are - per BAUT's clearly stated rules - not the perogative of members (unless they happen to be mods or admins). Given the fact that he was not, I am suggesting that the best course of action, now, would be to re-open the thread and allow JM the opportunity to answer the many dozen direct (etc) questions that he has not, so far, answered.

IOW, we should stick to the rules, as published.

Long ago. He is not interested in a discussion, he is interested in preaching. I know you brought him over, please don't bring him back. Thank you.

Personally, I think that this topic has great potential to enhance the reputation of BAUT, not least because that particular thread may - over the next several years - be read by many thousands more people than there are (current) BAUT members.

To me, BAUT must deal with ATM threads like this in a transparently fair way, and in full accord with our rules, guidelines, etc. The only alternative that I see is to not have an ATM section at all (a great many discussion fora in the same space as us, in one sense or another, do not have such a section).

[macaw]

I'm sure you are not alone in so thinking.

However, such decisions are - per BAUT's clearly stated rules - not the perogative of members (unless they happen to be mods or admins). Given the fact that he was not, I am suggesting that the best course of action, now, would be to re-open the thread and allow JM the opportunity to answer the many dozen direct (etc) questions that he has not, so far, answered.

He never answered any question while he had the opportunity, he was only interested in preaching. He will not answer any questions, he'll just continue preaching his "religion". Does not deserve any other opportunity to go back and preach some more.

Personally, I think that this topic has great potential to enhance the reputation of BAUT, not least because that particular thread may - over the next several years - be read by many thousands more people than there are (current) BAUT members.

How so? You have more chances of getting an answer from a simplex modem than out of John Martin.

To me, BAUT must deal with ATM threads like this in a transparently fair way, and in full accord with our rules, guidelines, etc. The only alternative that I see is to not have an ATM section at all (a great many discussion fora in the same space as us, in one sense or another, do not have such a section).

John Martin had ample opportunity to answer, he never did. I very much doubt he ever will give an answer. BAUT is not a pulpit and should not become one.

[chrlzs]

I see that in the stickies, there is a 'Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here' thread. If there are issues that were raised by JM that are very commonly misunderstood or misused, there is perhaps a need to create a similar thread - 'Read this first, re posting "Geocentricity/Einstein was wrong/(whatever)" ideas here'.

[HenrikOlsen]

To me, BAUT must deal with ATM threads like this in a transparently fair way, and in full accord with our rules, guidelines, etc. The only alternative that I see is to not have an ATM section at all (a great many discussion fora in the same space as us, in one sense or another, do not have such a section).

Note rule 0.

One of the things that the moderators have stated here repeatedly is that they don't like to ban people and if the choice is between closing a thread or allowing it to continue in a direction which is obviously going to result in a ban they ill chose to close the thread,
It was very clear after several suspensions that JM wasn't going to change his argument, indeed couldn't change his argument, and that subsequent discussion would have resulted in nothing new, no clarifications about his ideas and a ban at the end. I consider the moderators to have treated him very leniently and very fair.

[Garrison]

It was very clear after several suspensions that JM wasn't going to change his argument, indeed couldn't change his argument, and that subsequent discussion would have resulted in nothing new, no clarifications about his ideas and a ban at the end. I consider the moderators to have treated him very leniently and very fair.

Yes I would see that thread as a refutation of all those claims about biased/overzealous moderators. Johnmartin2009 was given every chance to engage and chose not to do so. The thread still exists so anyone who wishes to can read the explanations of the myriad flaws in JM's arguments and he is still free to participate in other threads. Had it continued I think he would have attracted further infractions and if as I suspect the annoyance level started to crank up he might not have been the only one.

[Garrison]

I see that in the stickies, there is a 'Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here' thread. If there are issues that were raised by JM that are very commonly misunderstood or misused, there is perhaps a need to create a similar thread - 'Read this first, re posting "Geocentricity/Einstein was wrong/(whatever)" ideas here'.

Given how many threads there have been lately attacking relativity, often starting from the same flawed understanding based on some analogy maybe there is a case for a sticky.

[Strange]

Given how many threads there have been lately attacking relativity, often starting from the same flawed understanding based on some analogy maybe there is a case for a sticky.

But when those same basic misunderstandings are either driven by dogma or "no one else has spotted this simple flaw", I'm not sure it would help. If they haven't learnt enough of the basics yet, is the light going to dawn from reading a sticky? On the other hand, it can't do any harm...

[Nereid]

Note rule 0.

And a very good rule it is!

One of the things that the moderators have stated here repeatedly is that they don't like to ban people and if the choice is between closing a thread or allowing it to continue in a direction which is obviously going to result in a ban they ill chose to close the thread,

It would seem that I had forgotten this.

It was very clear after several suspensions that JM wasn't going to change his argument, indeed couldn't change his argument, and that subsequent discussion would have resulted in nothing new, no clarifications about his ideas and a ban at the end.

The point I have been making - well, the main one - concerns answering direct (etc) questions.

Myself, I learned quite a bit from JM's answers to several of my questions (and I would have liked answers to many others); of course, I had to work very hard to frame questions in such a way that they made sufficient sense to JM that he could answer them, and so on.

As to whether "subsequent discussion would have resulted in nothing new, no clarifications about his ideas and a ban at the end", well, we'll never know, will we?

I consider the moderators to have treated him very leniently and very fair.

I concur.

It would be, I think, very difficult to make an evidence-based case to the contrary.

[Nereid]

I see that in the stickies, there is a 'Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here' thread. If there are issues that were raised by JM that are very commonly misunderstood or misused, there is perhaps a need to create a similar thread - 'Read this first, re posting "Geocentricity/Einstein was wrong/(whatever)" ideas here'.

I think there've been quite a few ATM threads in which the OP demonstrates misunderstandings of relativity (whether common or not). We have not, AFAIK, had someone presenting that kind of Geocentric/-ism idea before.

However, as I think became clear fairly early, JM approached the topic in a way that is radically different from the starting point of any other ATM thread, possibly in our entire history. What I was - and still am - interested in is the extent to which it is possible to reach a clear, mutually agreed basis on which to start a meaningful discussion (of the sorts of ideas JM presented). One that is within BAUT's avowed science-based scope.

In other words, if the brand of Geocentrism JM was presenting is founded on a rejection of (or less than full acceptance of) the "objective, independently verifiable" package, or the "internally consistent" one, or ..., then it cannot be discussed in BAUT, period. And JM would have had no choice but to agree (usual caveats apply).

[Strange]

What I was - and still am - interested in is the extent to which it is possible to reach a clear, mutually agreed basis on which to start a meaningful discussion (of the sorts of ideas JM presented).

You asked some very interesting questions along those lines, it is just a shame that more weren't answered and that that part of the discussion was largely lost in the noise. I would probably agree to the thread being reopened if it was restricted to the line of questioning you wanted to pursue. That probably means it would have to be limited to a debate between you and JM (and I don't know if the BAUT rules would allow such a thing).