The Demise of ATM Discussions

[Jerry]

:
Originally Posted by Jerry
[snip]

Neried and others keep insisting that if a valid ATM thread starts, it will not be cut off, but the criteria for a 'valid ATM theory' is much more stringent than is places upon current mainstream thought.

[snip]

Jerry, I think something is missing, or mis-typed ... I can't make nor tail of this sentence; would you mind checking it please?

Have you ever applied plastic tint to a window? You cut a piece slightly larger than the window, wet the window, and squeege the bubbles out, then cut the excess plastic from the edges. It works extremely well-as long as the surface you are applying the tint to is nearly flat. If you try to apply plastic tint to a round object, It will still flatten well in the center, but the rest will be a mess.

That is the way the current mainstream cosmology has been layed out, and it looks very good unless you try to chase the bubbles near the edges.

Mainstream cosmologists insist that they have the local terrain correct; meaning our current understanding of first principles is correct. It is not, and the only reason that the local terrain looks smooth is that they are not properly interpreting the local horizon.

Phoenix will be landing in May. The attitude will be steeper than expected, the parachutes will slow the descent through the upper atmosphere less than expected; the probe landing system will have to buffer more energy than expected, just like the Viking I and II landings. The Phoenix may land successfully, or not; but the Doppler and surface radar data will not be reconcilable with each other - just as they were not in the analysis of Huygens' landing on Titan.

These are the seams in the local fabric: The application of physics as it is known and studied on this planet are not correct. 'Gravitational waves' and weakly interactive dark matter do not exist; because the theories that drive these predictions don't even work well within our own solar system-let alone our own galaxy. This is the reason no one understands the surface of Titan or Enceladus, nor the black-and-white terrain of Iapetus. It is the reason comets are not dirty snowballs, and planetary orbits are relatively circular.

[Trocisp]

I fail to understand...

Modern Cosmology isn't like a sheet of window tinting, and the universe isn't like a window, the analogy is flawed.

[Tobin Dax]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see the connection between Jerry's post and what he quoted.

[Maksutov]

I don't see the connection either.

This appears to be yet another recycled version of this thread. What it's doing in OTB I have no idea. But Jerry should be given credit for his remarkable perseverance.

[Michael Noonan]

I don't see the connection either.

Nor do I but how long before it gets the chop then?
Guesses anyone

This appears to be yet another recycled version of this thread. What it's doing in OTB I have no idea. But Jerry should be given credit for his remarkable perseverance.

Well let's see then how long it can stay in OTB before it gets kicked out, meets its demise so to speak

The OP could be about the standards required of ATM idealists while set high are naturally above the capacity of "any" ATM'er either due to the benchmarks that must be set, the endorsements an idea must receive, the ability to deliver an idea or it might be a thread where the question is asked does anyone care?

So long as it doesn't devolve into ATM, it won't see out post 30 in OTB.

Well that is my guess

(and that is from the one who shot the last attempt at a discussion in the foot)

[mfumbesi]

I am taking bets on how long it will last, I say 12 hours.

[Jim]

Oops, 13 hours. Sorry.

Thread moved.

Jerry, it is against the Rules for Posting to introduce an ATM topic outside of the ATM forum.

[Jerry]

Oops, 13 hours. Sorry.

Thread moved.

Jerry, it is against the Rules for Posting to introduce an ATM topic outside of the ATM forum.

Sorry - this is supposed to be a discussion about ATM topics, not a discussion of an ATM topic, but I did get a little carried away.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see the connection between Jerry's post and what he quoted.

I think everyone will concede our vision of the universe becomes distorted, whether we are looking at the micro or macro scale. My (ATM) argument is that this distortion occurs much closer to home than anyone seems to realize.

The greater point - that I lost track of, is that whenever one speculates beyond the known event horizon, the hypothesis should be considered ATM. Otherwise, only the most popular of unproven theories get any press time.

Which brings us back the the ATM thirty day turkey timer. Dark Matter has failed yet another test; a small bubble technique that should detect the weak interactions necessary for DM to form the 'tuffs and curls' it is hypothesized to exist in. In my opinion, this failure places weakly interactive dark matter in an ATM subclass: A theoretical prediction that has been tested and failed.

Gravitational waves pedictions arguably fall into the same category: In spite of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours and gigaseconds of computer time, no one has been able to detect them locally. The theory that predicted these events is in jeopardy.

In neither case would anyone dream of limiting discussion to thirty days, and declaring the underlying theory off-limits to discussion. But like it or not, the theories are failing. If discussion of alternative concepts should be contained, where do we go from here?

[korjik]

Sorry - this is supposed to be a discussion about ATM topics, not a discussion of an ATM topic, but I did get a little carried away.



I think everyone will concede our vision of the universe becomes distorted, whether we are looking at the micro or macro scale. My (ATM) argument is that this distortion occurs much closer to home than anyone seems to realize.

The greater point - that I lost track of, is that whenever one speculates beyond the known event horizon, the hypothesis should be considered ATM. Otherwise, only the most popular of unproven theories get any press time.

Which brings us back the the ATM thirty day turkey timer. Dark Matter has failed yet another test; a small bubble technique that should detect the weak interactions necessary for DM to form the 'tuffs and curls' it is hypothesized to exist in. In my opinion, this failure places weakly interactive dark matter in an ATM subclass: A theoretical prediction that has been tested and failed.

Gravitational waves pedictions arguably fall into the same category: In spite of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours and gigaseconds of computer time, no one has been able to detect them locally. The theory that predicted these events is in jeopardy.

In neither case would anyone dream of limiting discussion to thirty days, and declaring the underlying theory off-limits to discussion. But like it or not, the theories are failing. If discussion of alternative concepts should be contained, where do we go from here?

Consdering that the ATM rules allow additional discussion upon the presentation of additional research, why is there a problem?

The 30 day rule was made to keep threads from going to hundreds of posts with no discussion. Something that several of your threads did. There are alot of seemingly unkillable nonsense threads that disappeared cause there was no advancment to the discussion.

Your comments on DM and gravity waves also show where alot of the ATM posters go wrong. You say that DM should be ATM cause it failed a test. What you have never been able to understand that what dark matter is is not understood well enough to be mainstream or not. If there was an experiment, and a null result was obtained, or a contradictory result was obtained, posting a link to the article is a perfectly acceptable re-opening of the discussion. You have never understood that "there is no such thing as dark matter" is a nonsensical phrase because 'dark matter' is the term used to describe the fact that we cannot see why large scale mass distributions that we can see dont obey newtonian mechanics. DM is not something you can put in a can. When we find whatever is causing the discrepancy between what we can see and what we think should happen, it will get a real name. All we really know about it is that it is really hard to see, and it should be exerting gravity.

The gravity wave problem you mention is another problem. The most recent detectors have only very recently gone into active service, and they are barely able to see down to the minimum intensities that GR allows. If they get a null result, that is not the last nail in the gravity wave coffin. It is a nail, just not the last one.

Lastly, you are right that the scientific community would never dream of putting a 30 day limit on a discussion. This isnt the scientific community. This is a privately run forum that uses volunteers to moderate. The 30 day rule was imposed to make it so that the moderators were able to keep up as much as to close down useless discussions. That is the difference, and a needed one to keep this forum the way it is.

[Jerry]

You say that DM should be ATM cause it failed a test. What you have never been able to understand that what dark matter is is not understood well enough to be mainstream or not. If there was an experiment, and a null result was obtained, or a contradictory result was obtained, posting a link to the article is a perfectly acceptable re-opening of the discussion.

I was speaking specifically of weakly interactive dark matter - WIMPS; the constraints virtually eliminate this candidate; just as warm dark matter and baryonic hot or cold matter have been systematically eliminated from the dark matter search.

That does not leave many dark matter options - almost exactly none; but something unexplicable is happening. Is alternative gravity on the front burner now or not? How does a theory move from mainstream to background status? Since WIMPS are unlikely to exist is talking about WIMPS an ATM theory now?

What about 'dirty iceballs'? Are they still a mainstream concept, or is it now more kosher to discuss 'icy dirtballs'.

These are the sematical difficulties encountered by canonical concepts, not scientific ones. An opinion.

If the only result of the thirty day turkey timer were the elimination of gas bag diatribes, that would have been useful, but it is not - rational alternative discussions have died out rather completely. An observation.

[Michael Noonan]

I was speaking specifically of weakly interactive dark matter - WIMPS; the constraints virtually eliminate this candidate; just as warm dark matter and baryonic hot or cold matter have been systematically eliminated from the dark matter search.

That does not leave many dark matter options - almost exactly none; but something unexplicable is happening. Is alternative gravity on the front burner now or not? How does a theory move from mainstream to background status? Since WIMPS are unlikely to exist is talking about WIMPS an ATM theory now?

What about 'dirty iceballs'? Are they still a mainstream concept, or is it now more kosher to discuss 'icy dirtballs'.

These are the sematical difficulties encountered by canonical concepts, not scientific ones. An opinion.

If the only result of the thirty day turkey timer were the elimination of gas bag diatribes, that would have been useful, but it is not - rational alternative discussions have died out rather completely. An observation.

When God Himself turns up to explain to mainstream science that He did it differently, you can be quite sure their mathematics will prove Him wrong too.

[phunk]

I was speaking specifically of weakly interactive dark matter - WIMPS; the constraints virtually eliminate this candidate; just as warm dark matter and baryonic hot or cold matter have been systematically eliminated from the dark matter search.

My appologies if this has been covered already, I haven't read the whole thread yet. But WIMPs have most certainly not been ruled out yet. The detector that has failed to detect them can currently only detect WIMPs that are more than 100x the mass of a proton. My understanding is that they are expected to be in the range of 40x the mass of a proton. So the null result does not rule out WIMPs, it places an upper limit on their mass. We'll need more sensitive detectors to see them if they are smaller than 100 proton masses.

[Jerry]

nutant gene reads me better than I read myself

The success of Dark Energy has nothing to do with a successful mathematical solution: It is a painful herd-following of the assumptions made by a small cadre of supernova researchers who were at a loss to explain why their curves were bending in the wrong direction.

It is also a blind acceptance of oddball data reduction practices used by supernova researchers, such as the normalization of data about a midpoint that is anchored only on one end.

Many other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from our supernova observations which are more mathematically robust:

Why didn't Goldhaber, Nugent and Perlmutter find ANY evidence of Malmquist bias in supernova distributions? We know they vary in magnitude. We know we should selectivily find brighter events in the more distant past; and yet the data reduction techniques used to create Dark Energy ignore the statistical quirkyness of the conclusion.

This is where the exclusion of non-mainstream opinions creates arid science: One pat answer, posed by the same researchers who created the paradox in the first place.

The cometary 'dirty iceball' is another indice of how sterile astro-theory has become. Comets were thought to be primal matter that lurked in the solar fringe, until a gravitational fling sent them sunward. But when we looked at them close, and we have examined several now, they have clays and other components fenced into the inner solar system by solar theory. The theory has been shown to be false in at least one aspect: Why is there so little controversy? How many other ways might solar theory be failing? Is Iapetus a dirty snowball, or a snowy dirtball of a moon? Why isn't there more discussion - and what in the hell is going on at Enceladus? Wouldn't it be fun to run with a bunch of ideas and see what pans out?

If you would have told me in the salad days of Sagan cosmology, that by 2008 there would be no direct evidence of Dark Matter, No Evidence of Gravity waves, No first generation stars, No compositional directive for 'tholins', dirty comets and an ammonia-free Titan, I would have bet my Atari Space Invaders game you were inhaling glue.

Sorry, but the predictions are not panning out. Jumping on one new bandwagon doesn't make the music sound any better: Dark Energy is just one more missing Flugglehorn.

[Fortis]

The success of Dark Energy has nothing to do with a successful mathematical solution: It is a painful herd-following of the assumptions made by a small cadre of supernova researchers who were at a loss to explain why their curves were bending in the wrong direction.

Ten or fifteen years ago, was dark energy "mainstream" cosmology?

[korjik]

Ten or fifteen years ago, was dark energy "mainstream" cosmology?

Which is what this thread is supposedly all about.

Jerry, unless I am missing something, you started this thread to say that the 30 day rule only assists mainstreamers in defending their orthodoxy. That it stifles out alternate views.

I pointed out that within recent history, a very very ATM view became very very mainstream.

Then you and nutant gene 71 started discussing the problems with dark energy.

That is seemingly not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss how the 30 day rule has stifled ATM discussion and contributed to othodoxy.

So, since this is ATM, I will ask a simple question.

First some qualifiers:
I am not asking if DE is correct or incorrect.
I am not asking what problems there are with DE theory
I am not asking for problems with any cosmology
I would prefer a one word answer

Note: this is predicated on my assumptions about this thread. If I am wrong about what this thread is about, an explanation of what this thread is for is an acceptable answer.

So here is my question:

Was dark energy against the mainstream when it was first presented?

I will expect a prompt answer. I would prefer a short answer also

[nutant gene 71]

Which is what this thread is supposedly all about.

Jerry, unless I am missing something, you started this thread to say that the 30 day rule only assists mainstreamers in defending their orthodoxy. That it stifles out alternate views.

I pointed out that within recent history, a very very ATM view became very very mainstream.

Then you and nutant gene 71 started discussing the problems with dark energy.

...[snip]...

So here is my question:

Was dark energy against the mainstream when it was first presented?

I will expect a prompt answer. I would prefer a short answer also

Not to nitpick korjik, but the first mention of DE was in yours here above.

The quick answer to your question is "no" in 1970, but "yes" in 1998.

[korjik]

Not to nitpick korjik, but the first mention of DE was in yours here above.

I know I mentioned it first. I mentioned it because it is the best example of how there isnt a kneejerk defence of orthodoxy. That it isnt this kneejerk defence of orthodoxy at work in ATM.

The quick answer to your question is "no" in 1970, but "yes" in 1998.

Which shows my point. Make your data work and you will be accepted.

[Jerry]

So here is my question:

Was dark energy against the mainstream when it was first presented?

I will expect a prompt answer. I would prefer a short answer also

The answer is never that simple.

There are mainstream concepts that are jealously guarded: The Big Bang and the three pillars that support it: Metallicity evolution, expansion and the CMB. When the size of the universe became too great; a auxillary hypothesis, inflation, was added to the equation. Inflation required a reverbation signal in the the CMB; but in the Boomerang and WMAP measurements, the signature was much too small. Dark Energy was proposed as an auxillary hypothesis to an auxillary hypothesis. So was it a mainstream concept? It was a patch on a sinking raft, because without dark energy; the Big Bang was losing air and flying around backwards. Supernova researchers found more attenuation than they expected and there you have it: A bandwagon to reel-in the BB.

There has been no careful or critical examination of the assumptions made by supernova researchers as you imply: The explanation seemed to fit into the existing puzzle; so every other possible reason that supernova magnitudes are queer becomes an ATM issue. If you think about it dark matter is a very big patch: it is like floating all the pieces of a puzzle that do not fit on water and calling them islands. I guess since 70% of the earth is covered with water, 70% Dark Energy is a reasonable number, too.

So once again, observational evidence exists that comets are not the dirty snowballs they were predicted to be. Is the dirty snowball concept mainstream today, or ATM? Where do we discuss alternative hypothesis that attempt to explain why comets are made out of clay? How long should a discussion of alternative theories of comets last, and which theory should be allowed to be discussed on a mainstream discussion board?

[korjik]

The answer is never that simple.

There are mainstream concepts that are jealously guarded: The Big Bang and the three pillars that support it: Metallicity evolution, expansion and the CMB. When the size of the universe became too great; a auxillary hypothesis, inflation, was added to the equation. Inflation required a reverbation signal in the the CMB; but in the Boomerang and WMAP measurements, the signature was much too small. Dark Energy was proposed as an auxillary hypothesis to an auxillary hypothesis. So was it a mainstream concept? It was a patch on a sinking raft, because without dark energy; the Big Bang was losing air and flying around backwards. Supernova researchers found more attenuation than they expected and there you have it: A bandwagon to reel-in the BB.

There has been no careful or critical examination of the assumptions made by supernova researchers as you imply: The explanation seemed to fit into the existing puzzle; so every other possible reason that supernova magnitudes are queer becomes an ATM issue. If you think about it dark matter is a very big patch: it is like floating all the pieces of a puzzle that do not fit on water and calling them islands. I guess since 70% of the earth is covered with water, 70% Dark Energy is a reasonable number, too.

So once again, observational evidence exists that comets are not the dirty snowballs they were predicted to be. Is the dirty snowball concept mainstream today, or ATM? Where do we discuss alternative hypothesis that attempt to explain why comets are made out of clay? How long should a discussion of alternative theories of comets last, and which theory should be allowed to be discussed on a mainstream discussion board?

You avoided my question. You assume that all scientists willingly participate in fraud to have to keep from admitting they are wrong. You accuse them up just pulling numbers out of air to sound good. You go on irrelevant tangents.

And you wonder why you dont get listened to?

[Fortis]

The answer is never that simple.

There are mainstream concepts that are jealously guarded: The Big Bang and the three pillars that support it: Metallicity evolution, expansion and the CMB.

Wasn't the Big Bang theory (its name even coined by one of its detractors) originally ATM? IIRC the mainstream view was very much Steady State.

Perhaps Steady-Staters are just trying to guard an older orthodoxy?

[Hornblower]

Concerning the title of this thread: What demise?

Rough and dirty at times? Perhaps.

A lot of ** (bad science) flying around at times? Perhaps.

Dead? No way. The action in this part of the forum is alive and kicking vigorously.

[nutant gene 71]

Ten or fifteen years ago, was dark energy "mainstream" cosmology?

It appears Dark Energy was first postulated in 1970, but was coined as a term in 1998 by Michael Turner. Here's what Wiki says about it:

The term "dark energy" was coined by Michael Turner in 1998.[9] By that time, the missing mass problem of big bang nucleosynthesis and large scale structure was established, and some cosmologists had started to theorize that there was an additional component to our universe. The first direct evidence for dark energy came from supernova observations of accelerated expansion, in Riess et al[5] and later confirmed in Perlmutter et al.[4]. This resulted in the Lambda-CDM model, which as of 2006 is consistent with a series of increasingly rigorous cosmological observations, the latest being the 2005 Supernova Legacy Survey. First results from the SNLS reveal that the average behavior (i.e., equation of state) of dark energy behaves like Einstein's cosmological constant to a precision of 10 per cent.[10] Recent results from the Hubble Space Telescope Higher-Z Team indicate that dark energy has been present for at least 9 billion years and during the period preceding cosmic acceleration.

If space 'expansion' is due to Dark Energy, then everything appears to fit, except for that niggling data where researchers are "at a loss to explain why their curves were bending in the wrong direction. It is also a blind acceptance of oddball data reduction practices used by supernova researchers, such as the normalization of data about a midpoint that is anchored only on one end," per Jerry. If redshift is from non-expansion space but gravitational line of sight gravity well, then the further you look back the more light will redshift, I would think. The problem with the gravity well idea is that at Newton's universal constant G there is not enough dust and gas mass out there in intergalactic space to account for redshift Z, so a new understanding of intergalactic gravity would be needed. At this time we have no evidence, other than MOND, Brans-Dickie, hydrogen gas combusting into stars (not enough gravity for that to happen), perhaps Pioneer Anomaly, or very tall gas atmospheres of outer solar system Gas Giants (and moons like Titan), or flat rotation curves, et al, so we have no theory in place to account for evidence of G not being universal. So that's where we're at, and Dark Matter and Dark Energy fill in the blanks.

Back in the salad days of Sagan cosmology those were not as much an issue, but now we may be on a cusp of new discovery, which would happen if Newton's G were empirically found different from what we measure on Earth; but that is not acceptable at present. So for now, as Jerry stated earlier, we are stretching into place a flat piece of "local terrain" observations onto a curved space and squeezing out those niggling bubbles that keep showing up in data, where the fit isn't exact. But we can stretch that only so far before something must break. What ATM offers, if intelligently presented (and there are a lot of intelligent people here), is to show where the stretch is too much, and perhaps a new idea is called for to explain how our "local terrain" in cosmology may not work in an 'isotropic and homogenous' universe as we had thought. But until it is truly broken, nobody around in mainstream will find reason to fix it. It could be a research funding problem? But as Fortis says "unless there is new evidence, or a better thought out theory", we need better and new evidence, and not just anecdotal evidence but real evidence away from "local terrain" knowns.

[dgruss23]

Ten or fifteen years ago, was dark energy "mainstream" cosmology?

I think the answer here is not so black and white. I don't think all ideas can fit into a simple "mainstream" or "against the mainstream" dichotomy. When Reiss et al (1998) provided supernova results that suggested an accelerated expansion, many cosmologists were already well prepared to make the jump to a universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. It was well established by 1998 that there were observational difficulties for the standard inflationary CDM cosmology that could be alleviated by the re-introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant (lambda).

For example Efstathiou (1995) discussed several problems that persist for the CDM cosmology if the cosmological constant is zero. The biggest of these problems was that the ages of the oldest stars (in globular star clusters) were difficult to reconcile with a Hubble constant of ~70 km s-1 Mpc-1 - the old age crisis whereby the universe would be younger than its oldest stars. This problem was also discussed by Krauss in 1998 among numerous other authors during the 90's. Another problem that had come to a head by that time was that observations indicated a matter density too low to account for Omega=1 as required by inflation (see for example Carlberg et al 1996 study on the matter density of the universe from galaxy clusters).

A nice review of the Cosmological Constant was provided in 1992 by Carroll&Press In their conclusion they state:

In terms of ruling in a nonzero cosmological constant, the situation now is not too different than it has been in the past. A high value of H0 (>80 km/s/Mpc, say), combined with no loss of confidence in a value of 12-14 Gyr as a minimum age for some globular clusters would effectively prove the existence of a significant Omega-lambda term. Given such observational results, we would know of no convincing alternative hypotheses.
What is most different now from in the past, and what provides hope for breaking the seemingly endless alternation between Lamda-fashionability and Lamda-rejection, is the existence of a new set of tests - gravitational lens statsistics - that have the ability to rule out a dominant omega lamda contribution.

The point here is that the cosmological constant term has always been in the equations and whether or not its value is zero had been a topic of serious discussion in mainstream journals long before 1998.

In the end, the supernova results were the final piece needed for cosmologists to abandon the occam's razor excuse and adopt the cosmological constant as a means of saving CDM cosmology from other observational difficulties.

So I don't buy the argument that has been made here in the past that cosmologists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dark energy. It's not that simple. Were they cautious? Yes. Were they hoping they could get away without it? Probably. Are they concerned about the fine-tuning problem it presents? Certainly. But when the time came, the community of cosmologists readily accepted the cosmological constant and dark energy because observations suggested it exists and not inconveniently it provided a means of rescuing CDM cosmology from other troubling observations.

I don't think there will be agreement on this thread regarding the issue of whether or not cosmologists are dogmatic or open minded where new ideas are concerned. People have well staked out positions on that matter. The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it. The reason ATM ideas are often taken less seriously is that they typically require more dramatic modifications to what is accepted than the cosmological constant did (for example).

[korjik]

I think the answer here is not so black and white. I don't think all ideas can fit into a simple "mainstream" or "against the mainstream" dichotomy. When Reiss et al (1998) provided supernova results that suggested an accelerated expansion, many cosmologists were already well prepared to make the jump to a universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. It was well established by 1998 that there were observational difficulties for the standard inflationary CDM cosmology that could be alleviated by the re-introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant (lambda).

For example Efstathiou (1995) discussed several problems that persist for the CDM cosmology if the cosmological constant is zero. The biggest of these problems was that the ages of the oldest stars (in globular star clusters) were difficult to reconcile with a Hubble constant of ~70 km s-1 Mpc-1 - the old age crisis whereby the universe would be younger than its oldest stars. This problem was also discussed by Krauss in 1998 among numerous other authors during the 90's. Another problem that had come to a head by that time was that observations indicated a matter density too low to account for Omega=1 as required by inflation (see for example Carlberg et al 1996 study on the matter density of the universe from galaxy clusters).

A nice review of the Cosmological Constant was provided in 1992 by Carroll&Press In their conclusion they state:



The point here is that the cosmological constant term has always been in the equations and whether or not its value is zero had been a topic of serious discussion in mainstream journals long before 1998.

In the end, the supernova results were the final piece needed for cosmologists to abandon the occam's razor excuse and adopt the cosmological constant as a means of saving CDM cosmology from other observational difficulties.

So I don't buy the argument that has been made here in the past that cosmologists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dark energy. It's not that simple. Were they cautious? Yes. Were they hoping they could get away without it? Probably. Are they concerned about the fine-tuning problem it presents? Certainly. But when the time came, the community of cosmologists readily accepted the cosmological constant and dark energy because observations suggested it exists and not inconveniently it provided a means of rescuing CDM cosmology from other troubling observations.

I don't think there will be agreement on this thread regarding the issue of whether or not cosmologists are dogmatic or open minded where new ideas are concerned. People have well staked out positions on that matter. The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it. The reason ATM ideas are often taken less seriously is that they typically require more dramatic modifications to what is accepted than the cosmological constant did (for example).

I think you are looking too much at semantics. My point is that DE was ATM but isnt now. You are correct about the how, but it was still a major change to the thinking of the day.

Your last paragraph has it correct, and is what I have been trying to say. I would change:

The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.

generalizing it to

The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that scientists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.

I would also say that ATM idea are less accepted for more reasons than yours. First is a refusal by many to give a straight answer to a straight question. Second is the inability to admit errors. Third is the mainstreamers are out to get me paranoia. Fourth is the oddball ideas.

[dgruss23]

I think you are looking too much at semantics. My point is that DE was ATM but isnt now. You are correct about the how, but it was still a major change to the thinking of the day.

I can live with that. My thinking was more that the ATM ideas often being advocated would require the abandonment of much more theoretical structure than the acceptance of DE required. For that reason I think those on the ATM side and those on the mainstream side of these debates are often talking past each other.

To the mainstreamer, DE was a major change, but to the ATM'er proposing the Big bang is wrong, universe is not expanding, universe is contracting, universe is electric ... DE was not that big a change because pretty much the entire mainstream framework the ATMer is challenging is still in place after the mainstream adopted DE.

And thus the ATM'er genuinely believes that the mainstream is close minded and the mainstreamer's genuinely believe they are open minded. I think a lot of time could be wasted arguing who is right on that because the two points of view are looking at two very different scales of what it means to change opinion.

So it is really just a difference in perspective - what the mainstreamer sees as a major change, the ATM'er sees as a minor change. So DE is held up as an example of the mainstream scientist being open minded and willing to change view, but the ATM'er sees that change of view as a grain of sand on the beach rather than the big deal mainstream cosmologists view it as.

And in the end it still boils down to the observational evidence - which people on both sides of the debate agree should be the deciding factor - they just don't agree on what level of evidence is needed to make any given ATM idea compelling enough to discuss seriously.

[jedaisoul]

I'd like to add my experience as a fairly recent contributor to the ATM forum. On the 30th August 2007 I posted "Terry's Simultaneity-Time Cosmology". Despite the fact that this was obviously posted by an amateur, a strong discussion followed, but by the 5th September 2007 it was all over.

It seems to me, in retrospect, that it died because I over-blew my claims. What I had was not a cosmology, but a novel framework for a cosmology. Also it seemed that no one saw any significance in that framework. So the 30 day rule did not limit discussion. I learned a lot, and have since presented the ideas on other forums. But, conversely, nowhere has it received the feedback that it did here.

So I, for one, do not believe that the ATM forum on BAUT is dead. Nor do I feel that the 30 day rule is unreasonable.

[Gillianren]

Let's forget the DE/DM discussion. Let's pick something nice and noncontroversial. Meteorites. Was the idea that they fall from the sky once ATM? Was the idea (incorrect, of course!) that they didn't, which Thomas Jefferson believed, once ATM? Before now, of course.

[JonClarke]

Let's forget the DE/DM discussion. Let's pick something nice and noncontroversial. Meteorites. Was the idea that they fall from the sky once ATM? Was the idea (incorrect, of course!) that they didn't, which Thomas Jefferson believed, once ATM? Before now, of course.

Yes rocks falling from the sky was ATM, at least in the western world (not in China though AFAIK).

Jon

[Gillianren]

Yes rocks falling from the sky was ATM, at least in the western world (not in China though AFAIK).

Right. (Don't know about the China thing, either.) Now? Not so much.

How about (you don't have to answer this one, Jon; you're not any of the people I'm aiming at) the idea that blood flows through the human body? ATM at first or no?

[Jerry]

Adapting 'maths' as a standard of whether or not a theory should be considered viable begs the question: Is the math used to reduce astrophysical data that is supportive of mainstream positions superior to mathematical solutions that suggest otherwise?

No one would expect the data reduction tools to stand up to a Food and Drug administrative audit, but cranking and recranking the data until something close to what was expected falls out has very harmful potential.

It is reasonable to ask the questions:

Why haven't the comets we have observed been icy snowballs? Does solar theory need a major revision, and how do we decouple long established hypothesis that no longer appear to be true from the theory that produced them?

Why do supernova researchers reinvent the wheel every time they reduce supernova data?

Why is it acceptable for the WMAP teams to release data years after the original deadlines, and what peer review process allows pixel-by-pixel after- the-fact baseline corrections? (Contrast WMAP with Gravity probe B scientists, who are taking a similar approach, but they are also being much more open and candid about why the data release has been delayed.)

When does the thought process in such endeavors stray so far from acceptable statistical guidelines the the interpretive process should not be sanctioned?

The anticipated threshold at which we are likely to observe gravitational waves has been revised many times in the past four decades. At what junction should the confidence level drop in the underlying theory?

Is it reasonable to wait until a more likely theory weighs in before abandoning one that is inconsistent with observational evidence?