New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section

[dgruss23]

Some people are expressing belief that the new rule will improve ATM because of the endless repetition by some ATM proponents. Certainly some threads cycle on way beyond their use because of an unwillingness by the ATM proponent to concede that they have been shown to be wrong.

However, my experience is that mainstreamers can be equally guilty of this same flaw. Here's an example of a single thread of discussion that has been intermixed in the Arp et al thread for the last 3 months. It is a simple enough concept to grasp and well enough explained in post #2628, but the thing keeps getting brought up.

Note that the quotes selected are only the portions of the posts relevant to this subtopic that keeps coming up. Many of the posts contain additional discussion on other subtopics.

Thanatos Dec 15th post #2625

NGC 4192 and 4569 have negative vvir values, according to LEDA. What algorithm did you apply in assigning them a redshift distance modulus?

Dgruss23 Dec 15th post #2628:

I didn't calculate a single redshift distance for Virgo Cluster Galaxies. The paper utilizes the Tully-Fisher Relation. The Tully-Fisher relation is a tight relationship between the absolute magnitude and the rotational velocity of a galaxy. No redshift distances are needed. So the negative redshifts are irrelevant to the distance calculation. The redshifts are used to calculate the PV72 value:

PV72 = Vvir - DistancexH0

where Vvir is the redshift corrected for Virgo infall; the distance is the TFR distance, and H0 is a Hubble constant of 72 km s-1 Mpc-1.

In that paper NGC 4192 was found to have a TFR distance of 15.1 Mpc and Vvir = -46 km s-1. So PV72 is found by:

PV72 = -46 -(15.1 x 72) = -1133 km s-1

Thanatos Dec 16th post #2635

I have no defense to that argument. I thought your paper was asserting a correlation between the redshift and TF distance modulus based on morphology. If not, I concede I do not know what I am talking about.

Thanatos Dec 17th post#2637

The question remains on the table . . . how do you derive a redshift distance from galaxies that exhibit negative vvir velocities? It appears your PV72 values require both a redshift and TF distance modulus.

TomT Dec 17th post#2638

Thanatos,
The reply by dgruss23 below, was given in his post #2628. It completely answered your objection. Look at the PV72 equation. Where is a redshift distance modulus calculated or needed? The negative Vvir velocity is used directly in the equation.

"I didn't calculate a single redshift distance for Virgo Cluster Galaxies. The paper utilizes the Tully-Fisher Relation. The Tully-Fisher relation is a tight relationship between the absolute magnitude and the rotational velocity of a galaxy. No redshift distances are needed. So the negative redshifts are irrelevant to the distance calculation. The redshifts are used to calculate the PV72 value:

PV72 = Vvir - DistancexH0

where Vvir is the redshift corrected for Virgo infall; the distance is the TFR distance, and H0 is a Hubble constant of 72 km s-1 Mpc-1.

In that paper NGC 4192 was found to have a TFR distance of 15.1 Mpc and Vvir = -46 km s-1. So PV72 is found by:

PV72 = -46 -(15.1 x 72) = -1133 km s-1"


Dgruss23 Dec 17th post #2639

You don't ... you can't calculate a redshift distance for a galaxy with a negative velocity. I explained this already. I did not calculate a single redshift distance for Virgo galaxies. You would never do that with Virgo galaxies because the mainstream view is that peculiar motions are too large at that distance for reliable redshift distances. The negative redshifts are a great example as to why.

Only a TFR distance modulus is required. The TFR distance modulus is converted to an actual distance in Mpc units and then PV72 is calculated using the following:

PV72 = Vvir - (Mpc x 72 km s-1 Mpc-1)

You don't need a redshift distance to calculate a PV72 value. It is simple the difference between the observed redshift and the cosmological redshift expected at the TFR distance.

Thanatos Dec 18th post#2643

I know the difference between redshift and TF distance. If that is in dispute, I offer my version vs yours on this forum - and let the chips fall where they may.

Dgruss23 Dec 18th post# 2644

I'm sure you do know the difference between the redshift and TFR as distance methods. What you seem not to understand is that you don't need to have a redshift distance to calculate a PV72 value. You only need a TFR distance and a measured redshift

Thanatos Dec19th post #2645

Your argument is not easily refuted: "you don't need to have a redshift distance to calculate a PV72 value. You only need a TFR distance and a measured redshift." Please explain and quantify the difference between a 'redshift distance' and 'measured redshift". The logic escapes me. I will not go away that easily.

Dgruss23 Dec19th post#2651

Logic has nothing to do with it Thanatos. I've already shown you the difference in prior posts. You can pick up any introductory astronomy textbook and read about it.

However, I'll try again. If you go to NED and look up the redshift of the Virgo ScI NGC 4254, you'll find it gives you a redshift of z=0.008029. This is the shift of the 21cm HI spectral lines relative to the expected value. Multiply z by the speed of light that becomes a redshift of 2407 km s-1. That is a heliocentric redshift which must be corrected to some proper reference frame such as Vvir which is corrected for Virgo cluster infall of the local group. The Vvir value for NGC 4254 in Table III is 2508 km s-1.

That is what I mean when I say "measured redshift". It is simply a velocity derived by multiplying the observed spectral shift of spectral lines by the speed of light.

A redshift distance is simply found by dividing the measured redshift by the value of the Hubble constant - in the case of the paper I used H0=72 km s-1 Mpc-1.

So for NGC 4254, the redshift distance is found as follows:

Redshift distance = 2508 km s-1/72 km s-1 Mpc-1

Redshift distance = 34.8 Mpc

The Tully-Fisher distance = 18.8 Mpc (Table III)

Of course it would be absurd to calculate a redshift distance for a galaxy in a large cluster because of the possibility for large peculiar motions. The value PV72 was calculated as shown in earlier posts assuming the TFR distance is correct.


Thanatos Dec24 post#2672

My apologies. I thought you were claiming an inexplicable difference between redshift and TFR distances, and assumed you meant 'peculiar velocity' was the difference between the two. I concede I missed your point.


So on December 24th the matter seems resolved ... right? Read on into the next post (too many words for the single post limit).

[dgruss23]

Continuing:

Thanatos January 11 Post#2701

I am still stuck on this [post 2628]
What do you mean by 'no redshift distances are needed' to calculate the PV72 value'? The 'V' in Vvir is, according to LEDA:

" . . . The heliocentric cz, v is computed from the data in the compilation of redshifts by rejecting outliers and measurements marked for their bad quality and computing a weighted average of the remaining measurements.
The heliocentric cz, v is used to compute the redshift in other reference frames: Namely in the Local Group referential, vlg, the Galactic referential, vgsr, the Virgo cluster referential, vvir, and the CMB referential, v3k."

Dgruss23 January 11 post#2702

There is a difference between a "redshift" and a "redshift distance". The redshift is specifically a shift of the observed spectral lines to longer wavelengths. The relative shift is typically expressed as "z" where:
Code:
z = Wavelength observed - wavelength actual Wavelength actual
This is the direct measurement of the amount of spectral shift. It is a redshift when the observed wavelength is longer than the actual wavelength.

Under the assumption that the observed wavelength shifts may be treated as velocities the spectral shift (z) may be multiplied by the speed of light (c) to get a velocity redshift:

Velocity = cz

In the conversation we're having here redshift may mean the spectral shift (z) or it may mean the velocity (cz). The "redshift" is not a distance.

In order to derive a "redshift distance" you must have a "redshift velocity" and a value for the Hubble constant (H0).

Then the redshift distance becomes:

Redshift Distance = cz/H0

But as I've previously explained, you don't need to calculate redshift distance to get a value for PV72. If you have a redshift independent distance (such as Cepheid's, TFR ...) you can still get a PV72 value by the following:

PV72 = Vvir - (Distance x H0)

where distance in the above equation may be derived from Cepheids, the TFR or any of the other secondary distance indicators.

For example, NGC 4535 has a Cepheid distance of 15.8 Mpc and a redshift velocity corrected to the Virgocentric reference frame of 2029 km s-1.

So plugging those numbers and a Hubble constant of 72 gives PV72 = +891 km s-1.



Thanatos January 12 post#2703

Would you agree that redshift is a measured value and redshift velocity is a derivation based on that measurement? I have no problem considering there may be discrepancies between the TF distance and redshift distances, just your resistance to making comparisons.

Dgruss23 January 12 post#2704

Of course. Mainstream astronomers use redshift velocity all the time. Are you suggesting multiplying the spectral shift by "c" introduces a problem? If so, then that's a mainstream problem too.

Thanatos, you're illustratingagain that you don't know what you're talking about. I have no "resistance" to calculating redshift distances. There simply is no need to calculate redshift distances because you get the exact same numbers if you calculate PV72 the way I did, that you would get if you first calculate a redshift distance a TF distance and then calculate the redshift discrepancy from the difference between the two.

If you want to calculate redshift distances, then this is how you will calculate the redshift discrepancy.

Redshift velocity difference = (Hubble distance - TFR distance) x H0

For NGC 4535 used in my last post the Vvir redshift velocity is 2029 km s-1. Divide this by a Hubble constant of 72 km s-1 Mpc-1 and you get a redshift distance of 28.18 Mpc. So then the redshift velocity difference (RVD) is:

RVD = (28.18 Mpc - 15.8 Mpc) x 72 km s-1 Mpc-1 = 891 km s-1

That may be compared with the PV72 value of 891 km s-1 calculated in the previous post.

Do you understand now?

Thanatos January 13 post#2705

I appreciate you taking the time to point out how I missed the boat with my naive questions.


Dgruss23 January 13 post#2706

Not "naive questions", but certainly too not questions asked without a bit of infused accusation. You say I'm resistant to calculating redshift distances when you never asked "Why don't you calculate redshift distances?" If that is what you wanted to know, just ask it instead of accusing me of resisting it, cherry picking ...

Thanatos February 1 post#2780

I admittedly did not understand that comment. I fail to see how any discrepancy between the TF distance and redshift distance of galaxies can be asserted without independently comparing the two.

TomT Feb 2 post #2781

Russell doesn't calculate redshift distances in his paper because he is working with the velocities to show that the results for Peculiar velocity lead to the conclusion that something more is needed to account for the results.
So he isn't asserting or emphasizing distance discrepencies, he is asserting discrepencies in what the velocities are telling us vs the mainstream interpretation.

Thanatos Feb3 post #2782

Tom, How do you derive a peculiar velocity without defining the difference between the 'z' and H0 components? The equations you cite are too inbred to make this distinction.

TomT Feb3 post#2783

I had thought that this had been discussed so many times, that it wasn't necessary to repeat it again. You have to have an independent, accurate measure of distance to the galaxy. That is what all the discussion and effort regarding Cepheid distances and Type Dependent - Tully Fisher equations was about.
Once you have your best independent measure of distance, D , it is converted to redshiftby z = (H0/c)*D. Call this zD. This is by mainstream definition, the part of the galaxy redshift due to cosmological expansion.
You have to have a value of the Hubble Constant to calculate this. The current best mainstream number for this is 72 + or - about 5. Note that LEDA uses 70 in the calculation of mucin.
Next, the value zD is subtracted from the total redshift. This remainder is thought by mainstream to be due only to the galaxy peculiar velocity. Russell takes a detailed look at this, and concludes that there is more to it than just peculiar velocity.
This is what the discussion the last 3 months has been about.

Thanatos March 4 post#2875

If it's any consolation, matt, I think I understand what you are saying. I'm otherwise a bit annoyed. I made provacative arguments about peculiar motions and nobody appears willing to admit their ATM notions might be flawed.

TomT March 4 post#2876

Could you expand a bit more on this so we know what you are referring to?

Thanatos March 5 post#2879

Deriving peculiar motion without invoking a redshift distance would be a good place to start.


This is an example of some of the mainstreamer absurdity that occurs in ATM when one presents an ATM case worthy of discussing. Note in this instance the fact that this specific issue is still being discussed is because a mainstreamer keeps bringing it up - and its not as if it was sufficiently explained in the first post.

We also have instances in Arp et al of mainstreamers simply ignoring rebuttals provided to the points they've made. Then later on someone brings up the supposed "problem" as if it was never responded to.

This sort of behavior is the reason I've had to keep taking breaks from BAUT. I invest too much effort into the posts I make to keep putting up with this kind of bad behavior by mainstreamers. I've observed enough instances during the last year of mainstreamers not being held to the same standard of discourse as ATMers. This is related to the points I made in the rules discussion thread a while back.

But after this latest rules change I've simply concluded that the forum is no longer what it used to be when I signed up. I'm not saying there are not valid reasons for changing, but the fact is that I'm quite tired of hearing "If ATMers ..." when my experience is that mainstreamers are guilty of all the bad behaviors ATMers are criticized for.

The reason most people don't see this is that very few ATM ideas have legs ... but when it comes to one that might it suddenly becomes apparent that mainstreamers are just as susceptible to flaws in dialogue as ATMers.

[dgruss23]

I understand that my experience might be very different than that of most of what goes on in the ATM forum. And Fraser and Phil are running their board as they want. Obviously we can either accept their rules or go elsewhere. So my point is not to be critical of their decision.

But as I said, there is this perception about ATM that it is a bunch of wackos stressing out good intentioned mainstreamers trying to engage them in reasonable discourse. There may be a lot of wacko stuff in ATM - but mainstreamers are sometimes guilty of their own wacko reactions.

[Nereid]

There is one respect in which most of the Arp et al ATM thread differs from every other ATM thread*, namely that it claims to present an ATM "empirical" case ... every other ATM thread is explicitly tied to one or more theories (be they ATM ideas, which are clearly intended to become theories, or mainstream theories, to be assailed)**.

In this sense, dgruss23's experience may be unique.

*If I have overlooked any, please set the record straight.
**the only exception is the Arp-Narlikar VMH; however, no BAUT member has indicated a willingness to defend that, so far.

[Doodler]

Very sad. Some of the threads are chronicles:

Most of them are treadmills. Lots of interesting information, very little progress, and a ridiculous amount of retreading of the same information from some ATM proponents.

[SolusLupus]

Most of them are treadmills. Lots of interesting information, very little progress, and a ridiculous amount of retreading of the same information from some ATM proponents.

Treadmills help your cardiovascular system, though. A lot of these ATM threads don't have any benefit to them whatsoever.

[Ari Jokimaki]

**the only exception is the Arp-Narlikar VMH; however, no BAUT member has indicated a willingness to defend that, so far.

Not true. I said I defend it, and it even was in a direct response to you.

Btw, here is a post where you note yourself that I'm prepared to defend the VMH (which is the "F").

[Nereid]

Not true. I said I defend it, and it even was in a direct response to you.

Btw, here is a post where you note yourself that I'm prepared to defend the VMH (which is the "F").

Yes, you're right, my footnote is in error. Sorry.

As I understand it, a new ATM thread on the VMH would be allowed under the new policy, because it has not been put on the table before. So if you, or another BAUT member, would like to start such a thread ...

[bigsplit]

Say for instance, I wanted to discuss my idea again. It hasn't been discussed for probable a year now. Under what circumstances or time limits could one reexplore their idea?

I am sure there are many new member who may or may not (most likely not) wish to here "rji" (nereid coined acronym). Perhaps these new member would have the insight to expand on such ideas. Or, say there is a new observation or theory that supports the theory that was proposed, would this allow the thread to be revisited?

How will these issues be handled? It seems that this new rule may in fact increase the work load of the Mods.

Thanks

[Doodler]

Treadmills help your cardiovascular system, though. A lot of these ATM threads don't have any benefit to them whatsoever.

In defense of some of those, I do happen to learn a lot, mostly from the counter by mainstream defenders. That said, on or about the third lap around the same arguement 20 pages later, the ratrace gets REAL old.

[closetgeek]

It never dawned on me that new posts get bumped to the top of the list. I cringe to think of all the mindless babbling that takes the top. To actually add to the discussion though, if another member reads a closed post and wants to add something, they could always PM the OP. I hope that helps

We're trying to come up with a solution that stops the forum being used as a marketing tool by ATM proponents. They can just keep bump bump bumping a thread to keep it going at the top of the list. This isn't a popularity contest.

The problem is that the true believers have stamina but not answers. They're willing to go and go, bringing up the same points over and over again. This has overwhelmed the patience of many valuable members of the forum.

I'm sure you can think of some forum members who we don't see any more because the ATM section is out of hand. That mades me sad.

We still value the ATM section. It's my hope that people with genuinely original ideas will have a place they can post their ideas. People with knowledge about the field of science will be able to spot the weakenesses in the theory. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll recognize the genuinely original theory and help get it promoted to working scientists who can take the idea further. That's my hope for the ATM section.

But the days of BAUT being a promotion tool for ATM theorists are over.

[John Mendenhall]

What do you mean "complain bitterly", I predict the new rule is in effect the end of ATM, and of course some people are happier without ATM.

Cheers.

This is becoming a pretty good example of a carousel thread, all on its own.

Keep in mind that Frazer does not want to shut down ATM, he just wants to stop devoting resources, which are not free, to ideas which have been beaten to death. In a month most of the important arguments pro and con will have come out; if something new crops up, the thread can be re-opened. Some of the posters are notorious for putting the same demonstrably incorrect ideas up again and again, and for introducing them into threads where they do not belong; why spend time and money going over the same stuff interminably?

[RussT]

Here, IMHO, is the problem with all of this.

Correct science is obviously about correct correlations.

If the initial conditions of applying the current paradigm(s) SR, GR, QFT starting with the FLRW initial conditions are NOT correct correlations, (Which is HIGHLY likely), THEN different parts of different theories are bound to be 'on the right track'! Figuring out which of those puzzle pieces fit together correctly is certainly no 30 days to anylize task, just look how long the Arp thread and the
'SN 1a rules out all cosmologies' thread have been going.

IF anyone is capable of doing the OOM or the rigorous maths, they would be submitting papers to be pier reviewed, those would come back with suggestions (NO discussion) and recommendations and rejection stamps.

This is a discussion Forum!!! Are MOST of the ATM threads probably off the mark...SURE, the universe can only work in a self consistent manner, BUT...

When mainstream looks at any theory, as soon as they see one thing different that doesn't work according to 'observation' they 'can' the whole thing!!! Cahill's background Gravity Field is one such animal...most everything else he is saying is wrong. There are others.

If the FLRW intitial conditions are wrong, there are certainly more things wrong than mainstream can even know.

Einstein switched our view from Newtonian to GR, which really means he switched us from 'instantaneous' light and gravity, to the speed of "c" and curved space, and even though SR and GR hold up under most 'local' measurements, 'something' is still wrong on the cosmological level.

The ONLY way to get to the bottom of all of this is OPEN discussion and everyone has the choice of choosing their battles and interests accordingly.

IMHO, putting this 30 day marker on this is declaring that Mainstream must be right, and we don't want to be 'bothered' (The only one that has seemed 'bothered' to me, is Nereid) by taking more than 30 days to convince you of the truth. BUT, again, 99% of the ATM's are probably wrong, BUT what is not being understood is that 'all cosmologies are ruled out' is at 95% CORRECT!!!

[Tensor]

I have mixed feelings on this. I remember the old BABB where ATM posters put their idea or alluded to their ideas into any thread (see the post above this one for an example). As one of the former very active mainsteam participants in ATM, I've seen, and grown quite tired, of the round and round discussions, the misuse or non-standard definitions, the lack of rigor, the lack of math, the aversion to answer questions (when I don't know would have been acceptable), etc.... The thirty day limit will help curb these types of issues. On the other hand, I've come to really respect several of the posters with ATM ideas(dgruss and trinitree come imediately to mind). While I may not agree with all their ideas, their presentation, professionalism, and general demeanor has help shape the ideal, IMO, for an ATM presenter. The thirty day limit, in these case (the Arp thread comes to mind) will hurt. Not surprisingly, those two know what it takes to get an idea through the mill. Unfortunately, the majority of ATM posters don't have that experience, don't fully understand the theory they are trying to replace or simply don't have the knowledge to know where they are wrong. As a result, we end up with one of those neverending round and round threads.

I do understand, and appreciate why Phil and Fraser have come to this decision. To keep all the different discussion under control takes a lot of work by the moderators, to the point where it may be all they do. In some cases, the forum will be better, in some cases worse. And I would hope that there is a review of this policy after some time and some consideration given to continue threads, such as the Arp thread, on a case by case basis.

[Uclock]

I personally think the 30 day limit is a mistake. If an idea is radical to the mainstream it may take longer than the 30 days just to get the mainstreamers to grasp the idea. Setting a limit to the amount of time a person can discuss aspects of his/her idea, to me, is more akin to censorship. I think this is a sad day for all those who have the ability to think outside the box and are willing to challenge the mainstream and fight their corner.
Even mainstreamer’s ignore experimental evidence when it goes against everything they have been taught and will try and dismiss the evidence because it does not suit their argument. They also ignore or avoid answering awkward questions from the ATM’ers, which I thought was against baut rules, this means it can take some time to put your argument across.
The results from the gravity probe ‘B’ experiment are due next month and under these new rules I cannot relate these results to my theory even if the evidence is in favour of my concept and against GR.
I have discussed time dilation with Neried a number of times and because she found it difficult to calculate time dilation from the point of view of my idea I have written a paper explaining how to work the math to calculate time dilation. Under this new rule I am not allowed to present this paper on the ATM site nor can I discuss the GPB results from the point of view of my theory.
This ATM was the best site on the internet in my opinion and the quality of knowledge of those in favour of mainstream physics is high, with a few exceptions, which means they have helped me to solidify my concept in a way that would not be possible anywhere else.
There is no other site where the amateur can have access to such high quality physicists to discuss their ideas and to me this is a tragedy for those amateurs who find the subjects of physics fascinating but whose life has not allowed them to make physics a means of earning a living.
The least I would have expected from baut was to let the ATM’ers have the last say on their thread before it was closed.
I have thoroughly enjoyed bumping heads with the mainstream and have learned a lot from the experience but sadly this now seem to have come to an end.
I will still visit baut but in the meantime I will have to try and find another site with access to professional physicists to try and bring my theory further forward. I can only wish baut well and hope that this decision will take the ATM section in the direction you wish to take it and not turn it from one of the most popular sections into the one least used.

Tony

[Uclock]

I apologise, it seems I double posted.

Tony

[Cougar]

Obviously the Arp thread is way too long. It was started in January of 2005. What BAUT member who hasn't been a participant in that thread is going to slog through the last hundred or thousand posts to understand the thread's context well enough to join the discussion?

And the thread is overly broad. It has covered myriad topics that are roughly related to the general concept. It would be better if each separate topic had its own thread that did not contain hundreds or thousands of posts. This would open the door for more participation and provide a better focus on the discussion.

Question is, is there anything regarding the Arpian Hypothesis that has not already been hashed and rehashed? With the frequent "evolution" of the Hypothesis (some would call it "moving of goalposts"), there are likely to be developments to the Hypothesis that have not been fully addressed. Obviously these topics could be the subjects of new threads, if anyone is willing to defend them....

[Bogie]

I personally think the 30 day limit is a mistake. If an idea is radical to the mainstream it may take longer than the 30 days just to get the mainstreamers to grasp the idea. Setting a limit to the amount of time a person can discuss aspects of his/her idea, to me, is more akin to censorship. I think this is a sad day for all those who have the ability to think outside the box and are willing to challenge the mainstream and fight their corner.
...

That is very true. In the year or so that it took me to develop the ISU idea thoroughly, I was repeatedly challenged to come up with something that could be tested; something that would take the idea out of the purely qualitative variety.

Knowing that the aged threads were going to be shut down I pleaded with the professionals to examine the post where I proposed the possible testable feature of the ISU, hoping someone knowing the tools of science could say how such a test might be conducted, or at least could discuss such a test and help define the criteria.

Aside from RussT who added thoughts about his idea, not one post occurred and no one took up on the testability idea that I finally came up with.

I want to request that the thread be reopened so that the professionals can have time to consider the test and respond. I have defended the qualitative idea and am willing to stay and give any necessary input to fairly resolve the possible testability of the idea.

[Squashed]

Does this provision have to be applied in a "blanket" manner where everyone gets treated the same?

There are many posters that have frequented this website for years without attempting to advertise their ideas, for profit - I would think these posters should be excluded from the blanket coverage of this policy;

whereas, a new poster who also includes personal websites and merchandise in their signature or user profile are obviously out to make a financial profit either through direct sales or website traffic.

I understand the desires of Fraser and Phil but the application of the idea seems overly broad.

Sincerely yours,
Squashed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

btw: send me a PM for information on ordering your own personal, autographed copy of my latest book:

The Musings of a Squashed Mentality

Great for Christmas gifts and special occasions and for that special someone who has everything already - who could ask for more?!?!?!?!

Call now while supplies last.

[VanderL]

Obviously the Arp thread is way too long. It was started in January of 2005. What BAUT member who hasn't been a participant in that thread is going to slog through the last hundred or thousand posts to understand the thread's context well enough to join the discussion?

And the thread is overly broad. It has covered myriad topics that are roughly related to the general concept. It would be better if each separate topic had its own thread that did not contain hundreds or thousands of posts. This would open the door for more participation and provide a better focus on the discussion.

Hold it right there, there used to be several Arp-redshift related topics that became one thread, which then became a focussed discussion on bridges between object with different redshifts, and while the thread is very long, as indicated a few posts back by Dgruss23, much of the length is due to the "mainstreamers" failing to understand certain concepts, you included. A 30 day limit will not mean a more focussed discussion, just a shorter one.

Question is, is there anything regarding the Arpian Hypothesis that has not already been hashed and rehashed? With the frequent "evolution" of the Hypothesis (some would call it "moving of goalposts"), there are likely to be developments to the Hypothesis that have not been fully addressed. Obviously these topics could be the subjects of new threads, if anyone is willing to defend them....

You're bending the truth here a bit, there was no shifting of goalposts, I think the Arp thread is a monument to ATM behaviour as it should be. The fact that the mainstreamers either walked away from the discussion (after being asked specific questions), or rehashed invalid criticisms, or just don't "get it", is a clear indication that ATM is not allowed to progress beyond a certain point.

I hope Antoniseb wants to reiterate his comment on the Arp thread , where he indicates the Arp et al. thread is special.

Anyway, your qualification of the Arp thread just doesn't cut it.

Cheers.

[Thanatos]

I see nothing in the new policy that forbids asking the same old questions. In fact, I wonder why only the usual ATM suspects find it objectionable. Anyway, VanderL, your comment about 'qualification of the Arp thread' is even more obscure than your characteristically evasiveness when pressed for numbers - like how many extragalactic Cepheids have been catalogued to date. I thought that was a fairly simple question.

[hhEb09'1]

I see nothing in the new policy that forbids asking the same old questions.

From Fraser's OP, this thread, "Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted."

[Kelfazin]

You know, when this change was made to the CT section back in January people said that it would die. As far as I can see there are still posts there every day. The ATM section won't die either.

[gannon]

I have a question if someone make something similar to a current ATM theory later on and posts it will it be locked (such as something similar to arp)?
It seems this rule will scare away newer ATM posters by locking there threads right away unless they go through all the archives or it would just encourage people to fragment there theories into tons of smaller threads.

[VanderL]

I see nothing in the new policy that forbids asking the same old questions.

That's maybe because you didn't read the opening post before responding to this thread (see hhEb09'1's post).

In fact, I wonder why only the usual ATM suspects find it objectionable.

"Usual ATM suspects", that was almost funny, but of course the problem with ATM as perceived by Fraser et al. is the enormous amount of non-productive (sometimes counterproductive) posts. I think the best policy to "quench" the flow (apart from the draconian measures taken now, and apart from closing the ATM section altogether) is to subdivide the ATM section ( for example: 1. ATM peer-reviewed papers and theories, 2. Original theories/ideas presented by the author, 3. "Wild" ideas) and make sure everyone behaves. As I have said numerous times, if you think an idea is wrong and the presenter is not listening, just stop responding, the thread will stop (just make sure the presenter is not allowed to "bump" the thread). And of course there is the point made by Dgruss23 a few posts back, clearly indicating the blame is also on the challengers.

Anyway, VanderL, your comment about 'qualification of the Arp thread' is even more obscure than your characteristically evasiveness when pressed for numbers - like how many extragalactic Cepheids have been catalogued to date. I thought that was a fairly simple question.

There is no Arp thread any longer, maybe you could try and start a thread in Q&A section?

Cheers.

[01101001]

It seems this rule will scare away newer ATM posters by locking there threads right away unless they go through all the archives or it would just encourage people to fragment there theories into tons of smaller threads.

I don't know about the rule interpretation, but what would be so wrong with going through the archives, as part of due diligence in investigating ones own idea before trumpeting it to other members?

I don't mean reading every word ever published here. Search engines, both the forum's own, and web-wide, where a site-specific search can be conducted (e.g. Google), can lead one to topics and articles that should be read for background.

Then if the idea-promoter finds the idea to be here novel, and presents it, and, say, some member actually recalls a prior forum discussion of same and points it out, and that suffices to disprove the novelty, is the topic then not worthy of closure at that point? I'm not sure I see what the harm is.

[gannon]

well personally I think the atm section should be shut down then. Its a section of the forum with tons of extra rules that change often that is hard to manage. Locking in 30 days and saying any thread you make can be locked right away if it is close to a different idea no other part of the board has to deal with these things not even the off topic posts.
There are other boards that deal with this instead of making extreme rules that are dependent on mod interpolation it would be better to direct them to a different board. There are many skeptical boards that have lots of experts in many different fields it may be best to just point them there.

[Nereid]

well personally I think the atm section should be shut down then. Its a section of the forum with tons of extra rules that change often that is hard to manage. Locking in 30 days and saying any thread you make can be locked right away if it is close to a different idea no other part of the board has to deal with these things not even the off topic posts.
There are other boards that deal with this instead of making extreme rules that are dependent on mod interpolation it would be better to direct them to a different board. There are many skeptical boards that have lots of experts in many different fields it may be best to just point them there.

I'm curious - may I ask if you could cite one or two that cover astronomy and/or space science?

And, if significantly different, cosmology (as a science)?

[gannon]

well I was thinking more of the general science ones would work. The atm theories that I have seen here haven't really needed great space science knowledge to argue against. (personally I like jref)
The problem may be that the atm is trying to be several things at once. A place to poke holes in the mainstream, a place to give new theories, refine atm ideas, and a place to search for alternatives to the mainstream. Those different kinds of threads need different rules but as the rules stand now only brand new theories can be presented.

[VanderL]

I think the best policy to "quench" the flow (apart from the draconian measures taken now, and apart from closing the ATM section altogether) is to subdivide the ATM section (for example: 1. ATM peer-reviewed papers and theories, 2. Original theories/ideas presented by the author, 3. "Wild" ideas) and make sure everyone behaves. As I have said numerous times, if you think an idea is wrong and the presenter is not listening, just stop responding, the thread will stop (just make sure the presenter is not allowed to "bump" the thread).

Fraser, Nereid how about the above approach, wouldn't this separate the "serious" from more wild ideas and have moderators check only for abuse (bumping, disruptive behaviour)? Perhaps an additional section where challenging observations to mainstream theories are discussed (see gannon's post)?

Cheers.