Please define the exact line between what is ATM and what is a question.

[tommac]

I have mods complaining about my ATM posts in questions and answers ...

It seems that if you ask a question you can not extrapolate against the answers provided or else it is deemed ATM.

Can someone please post clear guidelines as to what is considered an ATM.

Example.

I post a question about where the mass of an object exists ( locally or accross the universe ) ... this is a clear question, no ATM ...

Later in the question I ask if energy can be removed from gravity and that results in a loss of mass ... then shouldnt the mass of an object be really accross the universe ... I give some examples and I state that I think that this would lead to tired light ...

Then the thread got moved to ATM ...

I am not stating that I believe in tired light ... I am merely suggesting that what they suggested would extrapolate to suggest an arguement for tired light.

This is not the first time this has happened but the most blatent.

Please clarify for me.

[Swift]

Tommac,

I don't think there is an exact line. It is a fuzzy boundary that is determined by the judgement of the moderators and the administrators. In fact, if you look at this post by the Bad Astronomer, he thinks it is a line that should be pushed over to the non-ATM side.

I would venture to say this list holds true for anyone making any claim, not just one that is ATM. Extending scientific thought is sometimes by definition ATM.

Q&A is mostly intended for straight forward answers to straight forward questions. As soon as a thread starts becoming a debate on the topic, odds are it will get moved elsewhere.

And there is no dishonor to an ATM thread.

If you have specific questions about specific threads or posts, please use the red report triangle to bring those questions to the moderation team (I know you have done it in this particular case and we are discussing the matter).

[gzhpcu]

I thought that the moment you contest the mainstream view with an alternate view, you are in the ATM arena.

[captain swoop]

In the thread I moved you asked a question and got a mainstream answer, you then asked some more questions based on the answer you were given. Where it bacame ATM is when you decided you dsidn't like the answers and would give your own ideas an airing. That thread can't be taken on its own, there are several related threads in the Q&A forum started by you all discussing more or less the same thing. To my mind all have become borderline ATM discussions. In one of them you even state that

Its no fun over in ATM ... I try to ride the cusp ...

in response to another posters contention that you are espousing an ATM theory.

If you ride on 'cusps' then sometimes you are going to fall off.

[ToSeek]

I think Q&A should be reserved for straightforward questions with straightforward, mainstream answers. Questions intended to provoke discussion should go somewhere else. It's debatable where the thread in question should go, but you explicitly stated that you were getting into arguing against the mainstream concept of Hawking radiation, which would be a red flag to me that this has become an ATM discussion.

[tommac]

I thought that the moment you contest the mainstream view with an alternate view, you are in the ATM arena.

Even if the answers that are being presented lead to ATM? The original question is not ATM ... the answer to the question is not ATM ...

It was not answered ... someone led it to ATM ville ...


As long as we are consistent with this I dont mind. I think you will find that many of the questions in q/a should be in ATM by this definition.

I will look for others and point them ALL out as we go along. I will use the quote above as my measuring stick.

[Swift]

Even if the answers that are being presented lead to ATM? The original question is not ATM ... the answer to the question is not ATM ...

It was not answered ... someone led it to ATM ville ...


As long as we are consistent with this I dont mind. I think you will find that many of the questions in q/a should be in ATM by this definition.

It is as consistent as us humans (and one Vulcan ) can make it.

Please don't make this a test or a competition.

[captain swoop]

Even if the answers that are being presented lead to ATM? The original question is not ATM ... the answer to the question is not ATM ...

It was not answered ... someone led it to ATM ville ...


As long as we are consistent with this I dont mind. I think you will find that many of the questions in q/a should be in ATM by this definition.

I will look for others and point them ALL out as we go along. I will use the quote above as my measuring stick.

I think it would be more productive to use the post by ToSeek (No 5 above) as a measuring stick.

[Fazor]

...I wonder if there could be a easy solution to these problems. This ties in with re-organization of the forum (which, my asnwer to the poll was an emphatic 'meh') but;

What if instead of calling it ATM and having all the negative assosiation with the weirder of the ATM theories, call the section something like "Experimental Science" or "Science in Progress" and include ideas that are "extending mainstream thinking"

[hhEb09'1]

It was not answered ... someone led it to ATM ville ...

I haven't looked at the thread closely, but don't you say in this thread that the someone was yourself?

As long as we are consistent with this I dont mind. I think you will find that many of the questions in q/a should be in ATM by this definition.

I will look for others and point them ALL out as we go along. I will use the quote above as my measuring stick.

Much appreciated.

But I think you'll find most of the culprits have already been examined and weighed.

If an OP of a thread states a question, and then uses that question to discuss ATM subjects, that seems like an obvious thread to transfer to ATM. If some other poster introduces the ATM topic, then that post (not the thread) might be moved, perhaps warned. That's what I see happening anyway.

[PetersCreek]

Likewise, arguing against the answers to your questions because they don't fit your ATM ideas will likely get you a ticket on the train to ATMville.

[sabianq]

I have observed on occasion that there are some questions that are asked where there is no clear "mainstream" answer.

but ironically, lots of people have answers to these questions

and if ToSeek's assertion is the general consensus of the moderators

I think Q&A should be reserved for straightforward questions with straightforward, mainstream answers.

then unanswerable questions should be given their own category as ToSeek suggested.

here are some examples of answerable and unanswerable questions in the Q&A section and of course any unanswerable question will garner answers that are against the mainstream

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1401333
answerable? not really, as the answer regardless is pure speculation.

Could Singularities, and Dark Energy have something in common? Could they be of the same stuff?
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1397442
answerable? not really, as the answer regardless is pure speculation as we really do not know what Dark energy is yet.

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1397807
answerable? i doubt it, so the answer is pure speculation.

versus

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1403000
straight forward and answerable i am sure.

How do astronomers take the temperature of stars?
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...star-temp.html
straight forward and answerable



http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...-massless.html
straight forward and answerable

i guess what i am getting at is that the whole Q&A category can lead to an unintended "trap" where a person might ask a seemingly straight forward question that has no real answer in cosmology, physics or quantum mechanics, where the true answer would/should be , "well, no body really knows and here is why..." and all other reasoning or speculation on an answer to the paticular question is strictly speculative which would be ATM.

__________________________________________________ ________________

but to answer the OP question as for

Please define the exact line between what is ATM and what is a question.

when i was reading the thread, you were asking question then you said the magic words "I believe"...

[Swift]

<snip>
i guess what i am getting at is that the whole Q&A category can lead to an unintended "trap" where a person might ask a seemingly straight forward question that has no real answer in cosmology, physics or quantum mechanics, where the true answer would/should be , "well, no body really knows and here is why..." and all other reasoning or speculation on an answer to the paticular question is strictly speculative which would be ATM.

I don't disagree with any of that, except for the term "trap". If someone posts a question in Q&A that they think is perfectly innocent and either isn't, or because of the discussion that follows it get moved to ATM or some place else, I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. We are not talking about banning people or closing threads, we're just moving things around. I know as a mod I'm fine with doing that. I also have moved things into Q&A if more appropriate. And no matter what structure we have, we'll always have to do this.

I don't understand why people think it is such a trauma if something gets moved?

[Fazor]

I don't understand why people think it is such a trauma if something gets moved
I'm glad I'm not the only one

Though I could see being put off if I, for instance, asked a question on a subject that I was very interested in, only to have it labled as ATM and moved there. Particularly if I was the thread starter, as the rule is then that I have to either support the ATM aspect of it by answering questions or watch the subject I was curious about die.

I guess a shorter, clearer way to state that is, it can be a put-off if your thread is moved to a different section that then subjects it to different rules.

[sabianq]

i do not understand either, however i have been chastised for suggesting an answer to a question in Q&A by referencing research papers from an educational institution.
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1360272

while i know now the real answers to the question, the research i did when trying to figure out the answer led me to some dubious information which i posted. i was called on it privately my a unnamed moderator and was told that i should not try to answer questions in Q&A unless i was better versed in mainstream physics.

You have to stop posting ATM stuff in the Q & A section. I believe you are just enthusiastic and want to discuss you ideas. Q & A is not the place to insert your ideas. It is only for mainstream theories.

i reiterated that the idea is not mine as i found the answer through my own research.

to which the reply was.

Mainstream theory is what you will find in textbooks. Scientists are always looking for ways to disprove/prove the current theories. A mainstream theory has been tested and retested many, many, many times before being accepted. A scientific theory is testable, falsifiable. Note that scientific theory does not equal scientific fact.

Any ATM idea must explain the observations better than current theory to be accepted. Most ATM proponents do not even understand current mainstream theory well enough to show why their own theory may be better.

The only way to learn the difference is to educate yourself. Most of our respondents in Q & A are very good at answering questions. I would suggest that you not attempt to answer the questions in Q & A until you are well versed in mainstream theory.

I was threatened with suspension as that was the second time i was called on it.

regardless, that response didn't make me feel very good.
hence the "trap" analogy.

[Swift]

I guess a shorter, clearer way to state that is, it can be a put-off if your thread is moved to a different section that then subjects it to different rules.

I can see that as a potential concern. And if the OP's original question was very innocent, and by no fault of their own it got moved to ATM and now they were expected to defend something, I could see a legit complaint. I think it would be reasonable for them to ask it to be moved again, to maybe something like Astronomy or even BABBling, where the rules were looser, if they wanted further discussion.

But if instead the OP themselves was pushing it over the edge, and they wanted to debate the answers they were given, then maybe they should have to deal with the added rules of ATM.

And no, I can't define a set of definitions as to how this will always be handled. That's why it is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[Fazor]

@Swift, right. And thus, each thread needs to be taken on a case by case basis... which they are. And there can't really be a clear cut line. Which there isn't.

For the most part I think it works well. Maybe just a little more caution before moving a thread into the ATM and CT sections specifically. I've never had it happen to one of my posts (though I don't start a whole lot of threads outside of OTB). But there's been once or twice where I was disapointed to see a thread that started out legitimately get moved to ATM and then shut down. And there was a recent thread in ATM that was there because of the OP but the discussion was fairly mainstream, and it got shut down. If I had cared a little more, I would have requested it moved and re-opened. Can't just assume that request would have been denied--I've always found the mod staff to be fair and accomodating.

[dgavin]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised my Ball Lighting in a Lab thread has lasted in General Science as long as it has. It's sort of a Science, ATM, but Not ATM topic in it's own right.

Q&A didn't seem right for it, GS didn't seem right for it, nor did ATM. So after wracking out my brains on where to put it, I just tossed it in general science.

I'll let the mod's figure it out

[captain swoop]

Sometimes the legitimate Mainstream answer is 'We don't know' and that is the answer that is given. For posters to then push alternative speculation is I think taking it to ATM.

[HenrikOlsen]

The problem that has caused the moderators to be rather sensitive about ATM in Q&A is that asking an apparently innocent question fully intending to later turn the discussion to their pet idea has been a favorite tactic for ATM proponents who are really pushing their agenda.

It has abated somewhat after several people got permanently banned for doing so, but the lingering effect is a heightened sensitivity for, and stronger response towards, threads that begin to stray.

It's a case of once burned, twice shy.

[Nereid]

...I wonder if there could be a easy solution to these problems. This ties in with re-organization of the forum (which, my asnwer to the poll was an emphatic 'meh') but;

What if instead of calling it ATM and having all the negative assosiation with the weirder of the ATM theories, call the section something like "Experimental Science" or "Science in Progress" and include ideas that are "extending mainstream thinking"

While in principle this may seem reasonable, in practice it likely would have essentially zero impact.

Why? Because ~1% (or less) of ATM threads contain core ideas (as developed) that could be called "experimental science" (or similar). In my experience, very few of the ideas presented in ATM threads (as ATM ideas) are "science".

[tommac]

I just went through Q/A and within 5 minutes I was able to see about 10 threads that by the definition above should be ATM.

Can someone please go through and move the posts as appropriate by the above definition

[tommac]

that is absurd.

The problem that has caused the moderators to be rather sensitive about ATM in Q&A is that asking an apparently innocent question fully intending to later turn the discussion to their pet idea has been a favorite tactic for ATM proponents who are really pushing their agenda.

It has abated somewhat after several people got permanently banned for doing so, but the lingering effect is a heightened sensitivity for, and stronger response towards, threads that begin to stray.

It's a case of once burned, twice shy.

[tommac]

I think ... at least for the short term ... you should split Q/A into two forums.

1) simple questions as defined above
2) complex questions that result in debate ( maybe called scientific questions / debate / discussion )
---
3) ATM ... posts that clearly fly in the face of mainstream science.

My problem is now is that a complex question by your definition is ATM.
Why is it "Against the Mainstream" to ask a complex question that may require some level of debate ... is it agains the mainstream to discuss an unanswered question?

[tommac]

Can we look at this thread in particular:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...-universe.html

The background here is based in ATM ( arguably ) ... I do not fully understand Hawking Radiation and am kind of arguing ( but more of so I understand why it does ) that a BH does not lose mass with Hawking Radiation. Now I pulled a legit question out of my arguably ATM post ... and posted it as a legit question.

The deal is this ... it was argued in the ATM post ... that the BHs gravity is used to promote the virtual particles resulting in a loss of mass of the BH ( I assume this is mainstream ) ... so my legit question is ... maybe misworded but .... if usage of gravitational energy can cause loss of mass , then can I consider an objects mass to be spread out among its gravitational field.

This in my opinion is a legit non-ATM question ... not an ATM proposal.

[tommac]

BTW I feel that an accpetable and straight forward answer to the question is posted here by hornblower:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...ml#post1406677

So we have a straightforward and legit question ... answered correctly in one fairly simple post ... why did this post end up in ATM? I understand that it went through a strange path to get there ... I feel that there clearly is a subjective nature and additional bias by some moderators vs some users to push all posts into ATM.

Look at:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...ml#post1405750

This is clearly a bias from a mod. Without naming names one of the mods were banned because of nasty remarks they have made in the past to me. I believe it was this same mod that is moving all of my posts to ATM ...

It is clear that there are still others in Q/A that can by the definition above be considered ATM ...

If the clear definition is:
Q&A is for straight forward answers to straight forward questions.

Then please enforce it across the board and not just when certain members post.

Can we look at this thread in particular:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...-universe.html

The background here is based in ATM ( arguably ) ... I do not fully understand Hawking Radiation and am kind of arguing ( but more of so I understand why it does ) that a BH does not lose mass with Hawking Radiation. Now I pulled a legit question out of my arguably ATM post ... and posted it as a legit question.

The deal is this ... it was argued in the ATM post ... that the BHs gravity is used to promote the virtual particles resulting in a loss of mass of the BH ( I assume this is mainstream ) ... so my legit question is ... maybe misworded but .... if usage of gravitational energy can cause loss of mass , then can I consider an objects mass to be spread out among its gravitational field.

This in my opinion is a legit non-ATM question ... not an ATM proposal.

[gzhpcu]

Tommac,
IMHO, if you ask questions, it is no problem and is OK in Q/A.

The problem begins if you refute a mainstream view, say that you do not believe it, and propose an alternate solution. This would then belong in ATM.

[Hornblower]

BTW I feel that an accpetable and straight forward answer to the question is posted here by hornblower:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...ml#post1406677

So we have a straightforward and legit question ... answered correctly in one fairly simple post ... why did this post end up in ATM? I understand that it went through a strange path to get there ... I feel that there clearly is a subjective nature and additional bias by some moderators vs some users to push all posts into ATM.

If that question which I answered in the linked post had been the only issue in this thread, then by all means Q&A was the right place. However, you posted in this same thread an argument against Hawking's theory in which mass/energy can be bled from a black hole. As I think I understand it, Hawking's theory is a consequence of long-standing mainstream quantum-mechanics theory, which dates back several decades now. Thus I would concur with the mods in interpreting it as ATM.

[Gigabyte]

If you already understand every possible mainstream view/opinion/theory on every possible subject, you would never need to ask a question.

The very nature of asking questions is (or perhaps should be) to ask about stuff we don't understand, know anything about, or have trouble grasping the concept. Or are curious about.

I can see them darn ATM rascals sneaking in a heretical idea by framing it as a question, or being all clever and asking a question that brings up an ATM idea, or some other way of using questions to bring ideas that are forbidden to the attention of those who don't want forbidden ideas discussed, or at least not discussed as a discussion.

This is a very real and continuing problem. After spending a huge amount of time thinking about it (12 seconds) I came up with what might be a solution, but it also would mean a wildly off topic discussion, hence I would have to start a topic about it, rather than express it here.

As a mere user none of my answers would mean anything in regards to this topic any how. I don't even know why I responded. I should delete this.

[Gigabyte]

No wait. I remember why I posted. I wanted to use the phrase darn ATM rascals.

I blame them for a lot of the problems here. Them and them darn forbidden topics. Always trying to sneak in under the radar.