[how to defend a new idea against "peer review"]

[dapifo]

I have been reading this thread...and I see a very well prepared and structured theory (with pdf, video,...), possible with some lacks, but well based.

But I didnīt see from the reviewers any positive and encouraging argument ... in contrast, I see very agrsive questions and manners.

I donīt think that it will be the way of obtainig good resuls !!!

It is very difficult that one person could defend a theory against (instead of jointly) so many people just looking to the lacks and faults.

I think that is better to try to give ideas, ways, sugestions, ...in other words ..to be more possitive and build rather than destroy and "stone"...and suspend and banned the member.

But OK, that is only my humble opinion.

EDIT: For clarity, as it is being referred to in the replies, this post was removed from this ATM thread: Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Matter Disproof and Faster-Than-Light Speed.

[amazeofdeath]

I have been reading this thread...and I see a very well prepared and structured theory (with pdf, video,...), possible with some lacks, but well based.

But I didnīt see from the reviewers any positive and encouraging argument ... in contrast, I see very agrsive questions and manners.

I donīt think that it will be the way of obtainig good resuls !!!

It is very difficult that one person could defend a theory against (instead of jointly) so many people just looking to the lacks and faults.

I think that is better to try to give ideas, ways, sugestions, ...in other words ..to be more possitive and build rather than destroy and "stone"...and suspend and banned the member.

But OK, that is only my humble opinion.

Any new hypothesis will be subjected to rigorous examination and questioning. This is exactly what happened with Einstein's SR and GR, and both stood firm against the questions. In fact, they've held up against a hundred years of rigorous attacks. It is the way science works.

FT here is looking to show one of our current fundamental theories wrong, therefore it needs to be subjected to a thorough peer review. For someone without a scientific background it may seem like people are piling on the one proponent of the new hypothesis, but the reality is that the bolder the claim, the stronger the opposition. If you are going to engage in a scientific debate, do your homework beforehand, know the other possible theories concerning the same phenomena, and actually answer the questions you are asked. The OP here has done neither of those; instead, he has shown a lack of understanding of the current theories and evaded fundamental questions of his proposition.

[dapifo]

Any new hypothesis will be subjected to rigorous examination and questioning. This is exactly what happened with Einstein's SR and GR, and both stood firm against the questions. In fact, they've held up against a hundred years of rigorous attacks. It is the way science works.

FT here is looking to show one of our current fundamental theories wrong, therefore it needs to be subjected to a thorough peer review. For someone without a scientific background it may seem like people are piling on the one proponent of the new hypothesis, but the reality is that the bolder the claim, the stronger the opposition. If you are going to engage in a scientific debate, do your homework beforehand, know the other possible theories concerning the same phenomena, and actually answer the questions you are asked. The OP here has done neither of those; instead, he has shown a lack of understanding of the current theories and evaded fundamental questions of his proposition.

OK ... but in this way also is possibņe that good ideas and new theories could be rejected and forgoten...only because the OP was not enough smart, skilled and hard on his defense.

Some times you donīt have the oportunity of discussing an idea within your nearest friends and colleagues...and a forum could be a good way to discuss and interchange new ideas...and possible also to know is something existing there is discussing or accepted or rejected in the current state of the art or mainstream....

I see that you say that this theory is "one of our current fundamental theories wrong" (?)...do you mean that it had been allready (by mainstream) previously rejected?

[tusenfem]

Moved this side discussion to its own thread. It was not an appropriate discussion in philippeb8's thread.

[primummobile]

He said that for FT to be correct that relativity, both special and general, would have to be wrong. Phil was asked multiple times what it was that he thought was wrong about relativity, and he would not answer. We have Einstein's theories that have held up against all attacks, explained observations, and made predictions that have been confirmed in incredible detail. If you want to overthrow that, you need to have an understanding of the theories you wish to overthrow. If you can't say what is wrong about them then you really don't have the knowledge to try to overthrow them.

I can prepare a well structured theory that dogs are descended from cats and present it to you complete with pdf and video. That doesn't make it correct. In fact, if I don't understand evolution I would have no business in the world even presenting a theory that tries to dispute evolution.

[Strange]

I have been reading this thread...and I see a very well prepared and structured theory (with pdf, video,...), possible with some lacks, but well based.

It's terribly presented, by someone with no understanding of the theory he is challenging, with ad-hoc data and no model behind it.

But I didnīt see from the reviewers any positive and encouraging argument

Peter Watts wrote a blog post pointing out that science doesn't work despite scientists being [unpleasant] but because scientists are [unpleasant]. In one key paragraph, he said:

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the [stuffing] out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.

(I won't post a link as it is full of fairly strong language)

The reason that this works is that it gets rid of the ideas that cannot be supported as quickly as possible.

Yes, there are occasional instances where good ideas are rejected at first. But that is a small price to pay. Science is too important to allow bad theories to be accepted easily. It is far better to delay the acceptance of a few good ones.

[pzkpfw]

... But OK, that is only my humble opinion.

Is that the same opinion you've already expressed (and been replied to) here: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...from-the-forum ?

[dapifo]

OK..OK... It was just a comment....

I am not able to understand the foundaments of the theory and idea...I was only stating the way that it was criticized and attacked ...
but if this is the best way to do it...then nothing...go on with it !!!

In the video..seams that there is also edited a book about this theory (??)

[Swift]

I've moved this thread from ATM to Feedback

[Tensor]

OK..OK... It was just a comment....

I am not able to understand the foundaments of the theory and idea...

How do you reconcile the above statement, with what you posted in the first post:

I have been reading this thread...and I see a very well prepared and structured theory (with pdf, video,...), possible with some lacks, but well based.

If you are not able to understand the foundaments(?) of a theory, then how did you determine it was well prepared and/or structured? How exactly did you then determine there was some lacks, but it was well based. It would seem that to make those determinations, you would have to understand the foundaments(?).

[Reality Check]

I am not able to understand the foundaments of the theory and idea...I was only stating the way that it was criticized and attacked ...
but if this is the best way to do it...then nothing...go on with it !!!

In the video..seams that there is also edited a book about this theory (??)

You seem to be confusing volume with validity!

There are plently of invalid theories from physics cranks and they can produce a lot of things (PDFs, videos, books, web sites, blogs, forum postings, pod casts, emails, etc.), trying to convince people that these theories are correct. Phil Bouchard and his FT idea is a good example. FT is obviously invalid (gravitational time dilation is a GR effect which does not exist in classical mechanics and so it is invalid to include it in classical mechanics). Phil Bouchard has produced a lot of things trying to support FT but none of them address this fundamental error.

[dapifo]

How do you reconcile the above statement, with what you posted in the first post:

If you are not able to understand the foundaments(?) of a theory, then how did you determine it was well prepared and/or structured? How exactly did you then determine there was some lacks, but it was well based. It would seem that to make those determinations, you would have to understand the foundaments(?).

No..only because it was very well presented...PDF from university and signed, video very well made, edited book,...after one year of work....

And I said that "possible" with some lacks....

I was stating more your forms and manners than the foundaments... although they were not good...you could say the same but with better manners... But it is only my opinion...possibly in the science word it works usually in this way (??)

[utesfan100]

OK..OK... It was just a comment....

I am not able to understand the foundaments of the theory and idea...I was only stating the way that it was criticized and attacked ...
but if this is the best way to do it...then nothing...go on with it !!!

In the video..seams that there is also edited a book about this theory (??)

Whether this is the best way to do it is debatable. It is the rules of ATM, based on years of experience allowing non standard theories to be presented.

I first came here because I had a theory I wanted to have pummeled. This achieved three goals that have helped me to develop my theory further.

1) By answering questions based on standard models I learned how to express my ideas in a more mainstream vernacular.
2) I accepted that key components of my theory needed further work before I could say that it was established.
3) Questions on how my theory deals with observations I was not aware of showed where I needed further research.

ATM is an opportunity to have your theory vetted by people who are familiar with mainstream science. Whether or not a person chooses to see critiques of a theory as opportunities for further development of the theory is up to them.

The author of the original thread that started this discussion, instead, has insisted on standing on ideas that have been challenged, without addressing the challenges. It would have been better for him to admit holes in his knowledge than add fuel to the fire by presenting ill formed defenses of tangential issues, each of which adds a new critique of his presentation.

[Reality Check]

No..only because it was very well presented...PDF from university...

The PDF's I have seen from Phil Bouchard are from him, not a university.
For example, he has a PDF that mentions the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2012 (schedule) that was held at the University of Maryland Alumini Center. Phil Bouchard had a 30 minute presentation there described as a "video presentation of narrated slideshow" so he probably was not even there in person! What is even stranger his presentation was in a "Symposium on Astrosociology" (the social, cultural, and behavioral patterns related to outer space).

ETA: Conferences are not peer-reviewed.

Physics cranks can produce very well presented material. That should not impress you. Analyzing the science in the material is what is important.

[dapifo]

OK...utesfan100...your eperience seams to be good...and succefull...That must be the good way.

But then ATM only is valid for people that have a very well developed theory (tested, contrasted,...)... it could be one of the last steps beffore publishing.

We could say that BAUT ATM whants to be a reputed place for "peer review" (!!?)

But donīt you think that could be usefull a sub-forum more flexible with more collaboration with the OP, giving ideas, state of the art knowledge, pointing out errors and lacks, ... (?)... more positive and creative...where also a theory could be denied after giving reasons....(?)

But...well these things were allready discussed in other thread...

[slang]

But I didnīt see from the reviewers any positive and encouraging argument ...

Why should there be? Those posts would just distract the author from answering questions, for which he has only 30 days!

It is very difficult that one person could defend a theory against (instead of jointly) so many people just looking to the lacks and faults.

Huh? If you want to find out if your idea has any merit, wouldn't you want to have as many people as possible to check your idea?

I think that is better to try to give ideas, ways, sugestions, ...in other words ..to be more possitive and build rather than destroy and "stone"...and suspend and banned the member.

What? Who did ever get suspended and/or banned here because of his ATM theory? The only reason people get banned or suspended here is because they break the rules. And often that is for not answering questions. Perhaps replying to, but not answering. Dodging. Ignoring. Handwaving. It's so common. Even if there are many people asking questions, and the ATM defender makes a good effort at answering questions but he's unable to answer all, it is unlikely that he'll be infracted for that reason. Or arguing in the thread about moderator actions, even after being warned.. don't you agree that that's just a silly thing to do? Or bringing up their ATM idea again and again in parts of the forum where it's not allowed..

No..only because it was very well presented...PDF from university

What pdf would that be? All I saw in the OP was a pdf that claimed it was published by Elsevier, yet searching on the linked site for the author's name yields no results associated with the pdf. What's up with that?

[slang]

We could say that BAUT ATM whants to be a reputed place for "peer review" (!!?)

No, we could not say that. First, because BAUT is now CosmoQuest, as I'm sure you've noticed. Aside from that, BAUT (now CosmoQuest) has always been a forum to discuss an learn about mainstream science. The ATM forum is only there to have a place to put those things that are not mainstream science, instead of just deleting them (which wouldn't be very nice to the member who posted it). The purpose of the forum is not, and has never been, to have as many as possible flocking in here with whatever weird or old idea anyone might have.

[Moose]

We could say that BAUT ATM whants to be a reputed place for "peer review" (!!?)

Nope. Obviously, I can't speak for BAUT now, (certainly not in any official capacity), but that's never been the case. While ATM operates in a mock peer-review format, more or less, at no point has ATM ever been intended to be equivalent to actual peer-review. BAUT has never attempted to verify credentials, for starters.

[utesfan100]

OK...utesfan100...your eperience seams to be good...and succefull...That must be the good way.

But then ATM only is valid for people that have a very well developed theory (tested, contrasted,...)... it could be one of the last steps beffore publishing.

We could say that BAUT ATM whants to be a reputed place for "peer review" (!!?)

But donīt you think that could be usefull a sub-forum more flexible with more collaboration with the OP, giving ideas, state of the art knowledge, pointing out errors and lacks, ... (?)... more positive and creative...where also a theory could be denied after giving reasons....(?)

But...well these things were all ready discussed in other thread...

ATM is designed for amateur scientists who have done due diligence to develop a theory as far as they can go by themselves, and have no network available to explore their ideas. There is a significant gap between the communication level of people who have not been formally trained in science and those who review articles for reputable journals.

I had no connections to anyone who could review my work. My original presentation of my theory was returned from journals without review. ATM provided an outlet to get feedback on my theory that has directed my focus on low hanging fruit in my presentation. I am now a month or two away from making a second run at publishing my theory.

The history of this site, and Physics Forum, attest to the difficulty of trying to provide such an open forum. The proportion of people desiring to push their theories without regard for any input can easily drown out legitimate inquiry.

Q&A provides a forum for people wishing to ask questions to further their knowledge. Using a similar forum at Physics Forum, I learned a lot by finding ways to phrase a question about my theory in the context of an existing mainstream theory.

A far more interesting idea I have had would be a place for posters to express stray pet theories they themselves have ruled out (or for ATM threads where the original author comes to realize that their theory is flawed). It is almost impossible to publish a failed theory, but having a collection of failed theories could help people appreciate the level of evidence we have against alternate explanations.

Not to mention it would help discussion of new ATM ideas by expediting questions like "Your theory looks like it has a lot in common with LinkToXyzzyTheory. How do you address the issues encountered by that theory?"

[tusenfem]

But then ATM only is valid for people that have a very well developed theory (tested, contrasted,...)... it could be one of the last steps beffore publishing.

You can only do ATM if you have actually a good understanding of TM, and there it usually lacks with the people posting in ATM here, including philippeb8.

[HenrikOlsen]

OK..OK... It was just a comment....

I am not able to understand the foundaments of the theory and idea... <snip>

How can you then claim to know it was well-presented? (Hint, it wasn't)

[Shaula]

Also - mostly the feedback starts off as fairly mild checking of the idea. Generally it is when the poster starts to show that they have not done the background reading, or are not willing to accept criticism, that the teeth are sharpened.

One way to look at it - in order for most people on there to give feedback they will have spent years formally or informally educating themselves in the field. They will have studied, they will have researched. When their feedback is dismissed by someone with a clear gap in their background reading the results tend to be not fun for the original poster. They are usually dismissing something they have no background in (or worse they have their own view of it flavoured by the certain knowledge that it must be wrong, with evidence extracted from a couple of popular science articles taken out of context) and in effect denigrating the hard work others have put in to learning something. Are you surprised the intensity of the feedback shifts at this point?

[John Mendenhall]

You can only do ATM if you have actually a good understanding of TM, and there it usually lacks with the people posting in ATM here, including philippeb8.

Oh, yes! And then come the word salads in response . . . which we could call . . . TMI.

[Strange]

Are you surprised the intensity of the feedback shifts at this point?

And then, to increase the levels of antagonsim and frustration even further, the usual response is to say that this shows that people are "scared of new knowledge".

[Swift]

<snip>
But then ATM only is valid for people that have a very well developed theory (tested, contrasted,...)... it could be one of the last steps beffore publishing.

We could say that BAUT ATM whants to be a reputed place for "peer review" (!!?)

As Moose said, it is sort of a mock peer review. The "reviewers" are not vetted for their qualifications, as would happen in a real peer review. But, as utesfan100 said, it can be a useful tool to develop one's idea.

But donīt you think that could be usefull a sub-forum more flexible with more collaboration with the OP, giving ideas, state of the art knowledge, pointing out errors and lacks, ... (?)... more positive and creative...where also a theory could be denied after giving reasons....(?)

But...well these things were allready discussed in other thread...

As you say, this idea has been discussed many, many times; search around Feedback for many examples. The problems are that (1) it is not the purpose of CQ to help people develop alternative ideas to mainstream science; it is primarily to promote the understanding of mainstream science; and (2) we have never come up with a way where such a sub-forum would not be abused by those who would like to advocate their ideas without the rigor and restrictions we impose in the ATM forum.

[dapifo]

How can you then claim to know it was well-presented? (Hint, it wasn't)

Read this post...http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...60#post2056760

[dapifo]

As you say, this idea has been discussed many, many times; search around Feedback for many examples. The problems are that (1) it is not the purpose of CQ to help people develop alternative ideas to mainstream science; it is primarily to promote the understanding of mainstream science; and (2) we have never come up with a way where such a sub-forum would not be abused by those who would like to advocate their ideas without the rigor and restrictions we impose in the ATM forum.

While I understand that a peer review required of rules, also need to be addressed, and should offer some resistance to approve an idea or theory ..... I am also a strong advocate of self management ... And I believe that in another sub forum with more flexibility, that people could participate freely, without strict rules and in a more positive and creative way, .. could give many possibilities and alternatives.

Clearly, if in the ATM ... only 1 (?) Of 10 proposals can be interesting and even accepted, in that other sub forum (TWM: Testing With Mainstream...) can only 1 in 100 could provide something interesting this ... but this is a lot! ...because more proposals will be there.

Q&A provides a forum for people wishing to ask questions to further their knowledge. Using a similar forum at Physics Forum, I learned a lot by finding ways to phrase a question about my theory in the context of an existing mainstream theory.

[...] Or bringing up their ATM idea again and again in parts of the forum where it's not allowed?..[...]

I think it is very sad to have to use the Q&A or other sub forums to start testing, checking and discussing aspects from one idea or theory ... in a camouflaged and disguised way so that the moderators will not suspend, banned or punish to you.(???)

[Shaula]

And I believe that in another sub forum with more flexibility, that people could participate freely, without strict rules and in a more positive and creative way, .. could give many possibilities and alternatives.

Other boards are available. They cater to this approach. I don't really see the point in having a "Wild speculations with no rules" forum. The other danger is that by having such a forum it would appear that Cosmoquest were supporting these ideas and this approach to science. Can't see that that is a good thing.

I think it is very sad to have to use the Q&A or other sub forums to start testing, checking and discussing aspects from one idea or theory ... in a camouflaged and disguised way so that the moderators will not suspend, banned or punish to you.(???)

Then don't. Keep the speculative stuff for other boards. They are out there.

[dapifo]

Could you tell to me how many ATM proposals (ideas, theories,...) have been succefull ?....and which % about the total proposals?

Could you give to me the LINK of the most interesting and the last ones?

[utesfan100]

First, I never camouflaged or disguised anything. I found ways to express difficulties I was having in the mathematical development of my own theory as legitimate questions phrased in either GR or elector-magnetism.

This also helped me to learn the mainstream theories.

Other boards are available. They cater to this approach. I don't really see the point in having a "Wild speculations with no rules" forum. The other danger is that by having such a forum it would appear that Cosmoquest were supporting these ideas and this approach to science. Can't see that that is a good thing.

Then don't. Keep the speculative stuff for other boards. They are out there.

I agree that there are forums where people with alternative theories hold each others hands and fail to objectively critique any theory. I believe that dapifo's suggests would move ATM towards one of these, and significantly diminishing its value.

You (and others before you) claim that there are other forums where people can present alternative theories to the mainstream to receive critique from people familiar with mainstream science. I ask for evidence of such a site. Can you provide a link?