Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop

Note to Physchim62 and to parties generally

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I assume that everyone would be willing to abide with ArbCom sanctions—I'm most curious about what sort of resolution parties would find helpful. I think I might have over-emphasized "concessions." I only mentioned it because parties sometimes acknowledge that their own behavior was problematic/over-aggressive, or whatever. In that case, they might be willing to set limits for themselves if their other concerns are addressed.

At any rate, I agree that there should be better guidelines for these sorts of disputes, and I would especially like to clear up the issue of community/admin topic or page bans. This issue also came up in the WMC-Abd arbitration, but it was very muddled in that case. I think this would be a better case for that issue. Cool Hand Luke 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There already are guidelines: WP:NPA and WP:talk, but they are enforced erratically instead of upon all participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements in the contributions, not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. Bandwagoning, snowballing, and gossip should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General Question

In reading through this arbitration case, I see posted a comment by one of the arbitrators that seems unclear to me. This is perhaps due to the fact that I do not have as long of a history of observing arbitration pages as other users may. Nonetheless, I thought I would point it out, and another user could perhaps clarify if they have time. The lead section of the workshop page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", which would imply that suggestions on effective solutions by uninvolved editors are welcome. On the other hand, the drafting arbitrator's comment that "Non-parties may only add a statement here with my permission, and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute" indicates that uninvolved suggestions are deprecated or prohibited. Either way is fine, it just seemed potentially confusing. —Matheuler 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular comment is only for the questions that CHL had posed to the parties; I believe his intention there was just to figure out what the parties wanted out of the case. In that situation, comments from uninvolved editors are neither terribly helpful nor useful (no offense intended to anyone who is uninvolved). We do still allow workshop proposals from uninvolved editors, however, as they can provide an outside view of things and could provide more moderate proposals than may be suggested by involved parties. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for your quick and clear explanation. —Matheuler 16:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Totientdragoon has made a series of noble proposals at the workshop. But until he can show where these issues have been breached up until now, it's hardly going to get to the root of the problem. The problem at speed of light has got absolutely nothing to do with original research, righting wrongs, soapboxing, disruptive behaviour, or fringe views. The problem at speed of light is about what balance to apply regarding two different concepts of the speed of light as in (1) the defined speed of light in SI units that is beyond measurement, and (2) the physical speed of light as is measured in most other systems of units.

It follows therefore that Totientdragooned's proposals are tantamount to pre-empting the judgement. The proposals assume that some of the involved editors have been guilty of breaching these issues. Until it can be proved that some of the editors have been guilty of disruptive behaviour, or soapboxing, or whatever, then these proposals are totally irrelevant as far as solving the problem is concerned, and they should be shelved until the judgement is completed. In fact, Totiendragoond's proposals are merely a re-statement of the existing wikipedia rules. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. They are proposed principles, not evidence or findings of fact about any particular party.TotientDragooned (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But they are already part of wikipedia's rules and regulations. We need to be aware of the fact that one side in particular in this dispute is making unsubstantiated allegations about behaviour. I am not interested in sanctions being imposed against anybody. However, when all of this is over, I would hope that warnings are given to all parties who have made unsubstantiated allegations, because it is those unsubstantiated allegations that have been the only thing so far that have disrupted the debate on the speed of light talk page. David Tombe (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is about the workshop... why is it on the evidence talk page? Anyone mind if I move the thread over there? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, Yes, you can move it over there. I didn't realize that a talk page existed for the workshop. David Tombe (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this case

It is in the best interests of the community to have a broad scope for this case. The scope presented by arbitrator Vassyana makes good sense. Attempts to limit this scope in order to avoid scrutiny for problematic behavior should not be entertained. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the best interests of the community to keep the scope of this case focused upon Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. The introduction of material and allegations based upon other pages will take place with inadequate context, and may be weighed incorrectly. If a broadly based decision with broad implications is entertained, the case should be drawn up that way and should invite comment and evidence for the purpose that is envisioned; it is not acceptable to invite evidence and opinion on a narrow topic and then allow incomplete allegations to be brought in from venues where other issues were at play, and where a different dynamic existed. That is not to say that lessons learned from the present dynamic at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light may not have broader implications, especially for the conduct of Talk pages and the proper enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:Talk. However, using the narrow case of Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light as a pretext for dragging in discontents that arose in other venues, and bringing them for judgment in a surrounding where adequate assessment and complete evidence is unavailable, is unreasonable and unjust. Brews ohare (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I agree. The case was proposed exclusively in relation to the speed of light and it was accepted on that basis. If the case is widened to include debates that took place a year ago on other articles, then it would become necessary to call upon a wider pool of witnesses. The matter would have to be re-initiated with statements from those additional witnesses who were involved at, say centrifugal force, as to why any actions needed to be taken in relation to a page that is now calm. Clear evidence would need to be presented regarding what the supposed original research or disruptive behaviour had actually entailed. I notice that they have only mentioned pages that you and I were involved with, and that they haven't mentioned any pages that the opposition in this dispute have been involved with in our absence. This again illustrates the presumption of guilt that has prevailed throughout the entire preceedings. If there had been matters warranting discipline on those pages, then that discipline would have surely been enforced at the time. David Tombe (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors subject to arbitration may have all their actions scrutinized. They don't get to limit the scope. In this case there are colorable suggestions that there's a pattern of disruptive behavior. Of course the editing at other articles can and should be considered. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, The term 'colorable suggestions' is an interesting term. Those who are are making these colorable suggestions ought to be obliged to very swiftly back these colorable suggestions up with hard evidence. Were the administrators ever aware of a problem at [Faraday's law of induction]] over a year ago? What was the nature of that suggested problem? Who are the witnesses? Was Steve Byrnes perhaps the one at fault for wanting to claim in the introduction that there are two Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction? These are matters that need to be swiftly attended to before Totientdragooned can be allowed to propose that I be banned from all physics related articles simply on a vague inuendo from Steve Byrnes, who rather than clarifying his accusations chose to go into a long rant about the JFK assassination. David Tombe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: I am undoubtedly naive about these proceedings, and when I was invited to make an initial statement it never occurred to me to go back years and discuss every encounter I ever had with Dicklyon (for example) and why I was right and he was wrong, and why I understood things and was civil, while he was annoying, truculent, and deliberately disingenuous, and how I evolved over the months into an ever more capable editor, while Dicklyon steadily slumped into becoming a nasty curmudgeon. (Of course, this is all a bit colorful, to get the point across.) Now it appears Dicklyon can drag things in from anywhere and state the case as he wishes with whatever diffs he thinks are in his favor and make no attempt at balance at all. The arbitrator obviously cannot possibly dredge back and restore balance, recreate the dynamic of what was happening then, or assess whether everything turned out OK or not, or whether attitude has changed with time. It would be exhausting for me to do that myself for every editor that wishes to drag up their own examples out of context and put their own spin on things, round up my own team of positive players to testify on my behalf, etc. Frankly, that is not what I signed up for, it is not what the case originated as, and I find it all disturbing indeed. The only way I can see to narrow this inquiry down to where some kind of accurate picture can be constructed is to look at Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light and regard other flotsam and jetsam from the WP archeological past as possibly (big grain of salt) casting some light on what happened on Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light period, and not as being on the same footing.

In any event, I find an emphasis upon the behavior of individuals to be misplaced, as the focus really should be upon methodology for promoting useful Talk pages and avoiding stupid backbiting pie-throwing contests. Yes, somebody threw pies, but it isn't the pie thrower that has to be looked at; it is the inadequate regulation of perfectly obvious bad behavior that draws the flies to the dung, and encourages more crap. Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I don't think we had much interaction before May of this year, but feel free to add an evidence subsection about my behavior if I did something wrong that should be examined. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick: My first encounter with you was in May 2007 where we had a little run-in over "analog" vs. "analogue". I abandoned that one. We collaborated on a number of semiconductor device articles MOSFET, Early effect, etc. More recently the physics articles have come up. I think you are aware that you have not always been civil - remember the turd you left me on my user page because you couldn't understand the purpose of my adding an historical reference? That little episode led to a complete rewrite of that section which thankfully brought in an historian that could read Danish. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately once dispute resolution reaches arbitration, the parties have very little control over the scope of the case, and should expect to have all of their editing scrutinized to determine if there's been a large-scale pattern of disruptive behavior. My one piece of advice is to focus on what matters: are there any instances where you brought up a technical error in speed of light or other physics article, amicably discussed the error on the talk page, then had that change implemented on the article after consensus agreed there was a problem? What about diffs showing that other editors, besides you, David Tombe, and Count Iblis, have legitimate concerns about the redefinition of the meter, and believe that this discussion is worth having? Diffs demonstrating your willingness to disengage when opposed by a majority, after an appropriate amount of discussion, even if the majority is wrong? Adding these kinds of diffs to the evidence page would, in my opinion, be tremendously helpful to your case. "[Going] back years and discuss[ing] every encounter [you] ever had with Dicklyon" is probably much less helpful. I'm not an arbitrator, so of course take this advice with an appropriate amount of salt and use your own judgement, but I hope it's something you'll consider. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-intentioned advice, which comes too late I am afraid. I do not have the energy to go back and rearrange all the furniture. Beyond that, I have found this experience so distasteful as to discourage my participation. My perspective is that a huge battle has grown around what is really nothing at all, and deliberate distortion, vicious attacks and entirely unwarranted accusations have been made. My enjoyment in contributing is nonexistent, I recognize that hours of work drafting figures, finding sources, explaining issues, are pissed on, and huge numbers of editors I have never worked with (and hopefully never will) have jumped on me just because they figured it was a lot of fun. My respect for the WP editing community (with a few wonderful exceptions) is now nonexistent, association is a negative, and I draw no pleasure from interacting with them. I restrain myself from evaluating their acumen, their motives, and their education. IMO they are not serious about WP except as a platform for peacocking. I wish I felt better about this, and I wish my original enthusiasm for the WP project were still with me. I would be better off doing other things. My wife agrees enthusiastically. Brews ohare (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Totientdragooned takes on the role of cheer leader in the public gallery

Totientdragooned styles himself as an 'inclusionist'. You can see this fact proudly advertised on his user page [1]. This is in stark contrast to his behaviour at this arbitration hearing. As a knee-jerk reaction to unsubstantiated allegations by Tim Shuba, he has decided to propose that I get banned from all physics related articles for a period of one year. He has not explained exactly how this would help with the impasse at the speed of light article, which I have had very little to do with, and which is the subject of this hearing. So what is Totientdragooned's evidence that I have been editing tenditiously at Faraday's law of induction? Why has this vacuous allegation been allowed to interrupt the hearing? Steve Byrnes has categorically stated that I have not been inserting original research or fringe views into the articles. So why does Totientdragooned then accuse me of this and claim to be parroting the evidence of Steve Byrnes? The arbitration committee are supposed to be judging this case carefully on the merits of real evidence, and not on the noise coming from the public gallery. I suggest that the public gallery be closed down for the remainder of the hearing and that Totientdragooned's proposals be removed from the workshop noticeboard forthwith as they are destructive to the neutral environemnt of the hearing, and they indicate that Totientdragooned doesn't have the remotest grasp of what the dispute at speed of light is about. David Tombe (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you sit down for a while, calm down, and then remove your comments above. You can remove these ones as well, so long as you just scrub the above. Physchim62 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Workshop page

Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of the Workshop page (this is my first experience as a party in an arbitration), but much of the extensive argumentation on the Workshop page appears to me to be out of place. The discussion of specific proposed principles has degenerated into broad arguments and counterarguments about who misbehaved, rather than discussion of the specific proposed principles. In this regard, it resembles the behavior on article talk pages and project talk pages (and also some user talk pages) that led to this arbitration and to several AN/I incidents. —Finell (Talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. See here. Also see the section above the linked one which states, "Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topical or general bans." Some of the behaviors in this case have indeed paralleled those that precipitated the case, a pattern which can be expected not to escape notice by the arbitrators. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about the provocative behaviour of editors Physchim62 and Totientdragooned in attempting to get some of the disputing parties banned. David Tombe (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: When I get a chance (unfortunately, I'm about to head to class at the moment) I will go through and see if any discussion needs to be brought back to the original topic. If there are any instances of particularly incivil or inappropriate comments, anyone is welcome to leave me a note on my talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And while it's sort of off topic for this particular discussion, I'd also point out that what is proposed here will not necessarily end up on the proposed decision or the final decision. The workshop is intended to gauge what sort of outcome the parties would like to see, and what they feel the main core of the dispute is. Therefore, a ban proposal here may not lead to a ban proposal on the proposed decision, and the lack of one here doesn't mean there won't be one on the PD. That said, if someone is proposing you be banned from anything, it would be in your interest to watch your conduct for the remainder of the case as well as provide evidence (in the proper location) that shows you're not being disruptive. Adding evidence to show others are being disruptive isn't going to help your own case as much (see WP:NOTTHEM). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to incivility on the Workshop page. I am referring to lengthy argument in the nature of, "I'm not pushing fringe views", when the issue is whether a proposed principle is correctly stated or should be adopted. —Finell (Talk) 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The same thing applies, though - if you feel something is getting entirely out of hand and I seem to be either missing or not seeing it, feel free to let me know. Incivility is a bit more severe, but in the interest of keeping things in order, I'd like to know if I'm missing wildly off-topic debates too. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Process?

Can an admin or arbitrator tell us how this case is supposed to proceed? I've been pretty much avoiding the discussion/workshop so far, as it seems like just more of the usual interminable discussion that the case was complaining about. If there's a process that will help this to get to a resolution, let us know what it is. I can't imagine than anyone is going to actually read all this stuff, but it's a good example of some of the editing style that makes collaboration so difficult. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently we're in the evidence/workshop phase. During this phase, parties and others may submit evidence they feel is relevant to the matter at hand on the /Evidence page. They may also propose various principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions on the /Workshop. The purpose of the Workshop is for the Arbitration Committee to get a feel for what the parties believe to be the main causes of the dispute, how it can be remedied, and other questions of that nature. After some time, Arbitrators will begin making workshop proposals of their own, again to see how the parties react to them and get feedback. After this time, the drafting Arbitrator will begin making proposals on the /Proposed Decision page, which is where the Arbitration Committee will vote in the Final Decision for the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration can probably give you some more information, but this covers most of it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically, this page is most useful when the arbitrators have posted some proposed remedies for comment. We value critique on our draft proposals, but we don't usually put much weight on tons of comments saying "yeah!" or "boo!" It's true that a lot of this sort of partisanship goes on in the workshop, but it doesn't normally help your case. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tombe's statement re: "battalions of the relativistic army"

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#David Tombe

Note: I moved this section because it was in Tombe's section, but I have my own comments below. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The "spearhead battalions of the relativistic army"???? I couldn't make it up if I tried! Meanwhile, David Tombe refuses to answer simple questions about his "theory" like "what does it predict?" and "How does it differ, in terms of practical measurements, from those used by everyone else?" He has another chance to do so here. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

David, the main problem I'm having in analyzing Talk:Speed of light is understanding why this dispute has persisted for so long. The sources simply do not present the 1983 definition of a meter as any kind of enigma at all. Contrary to what you've said, 26 years is a very long time in research science, and the definition is mentioned in the textbooks I used several years ago. They say the same thing that has been argued on the talk page umpteen times by a half dozen editors: namely, when the speed of light is measured, one is now simply calculating the length of the meter. It's not unmeasurable as you've repeatedly claimed, any more than it's sensible to say that the rod in France was unmeasurable in the pre-1950s SI system (yeah, it was defined as one meter, but the point of measuring it is to provide a reference to other lengths). This isn't conceptually difficult.

More importantly (and this is the part where Wikipedia policy comes into play), none of the sources present it as a baffling tautology—and we must follow the sources. While your interpretation of suppression by a "relativistic army" is illuminating, I will not support any finding that writing articles within widely-accepted scientific frameworks is akin to belonging to a cabal—let alone a "battalion." Cool Hand Luke 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, This diff here may help shed some light on your query [2]. When I first got involved in this in early August, I noticed that there were some very bad inaccuracies in the history section regarding Maxwell's work on linking the electric and magnetic constants to the speed of light. I set about to fix those errors, but my first edit was immediately reverted by Martin Hogbin with the caption "No crackpot physics". That immediately alerted me to the motive behind it all. I had already warned Brews on his talk page that he may be sailing too close to the special theory of relativity controversy. Maxwell's work involves the luminiferous aether which is the anti-thesis of the special theory of relativity, and that is why it set the alarm bells ringing. Tim Shuba soon moved in and deleted the entire section on the luminiferous aether.

My guess is that Brews simply couldn't understand why he was encountering so much resistance to his attempts to make a very basic point, and that he felt that it was his duty to the readers to keep pushing for the truth. And his argument is correct. The speed of light when expressed in SI units is 299,792,458 times the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, every second. That tells us absolutely nothing about the physical speed of light. The physical significance of the speed of light has been cancelled out of the expression, and Brews felt that it was important to explain this fact in the introduction for the benefit of the readers. Surely you must realize that such a trivial clarification would not normally encounter such a prolonged and determined resistance unless there was some kind of hidden motive.

By the way, the administrator Jehochman that banned me on 19th August asked an interesting question on the workshop project page. I couldn't help thinking that he is actually beginning to get somewhat amused about all this. He wanted to know why he couldn't use a meter stick to measure the speed of light. He seemed to think that it was me that was causing the trouble. But when his ally Physchim62 came back with answer "But you would measure the speed of light relative to the average length of your metersticks", Jehochman disappeared. I can't help thinking that Jehochman is maybe now thinking the same as myself and wondering why he ever got involved. Who on Earth could possibly understand a statement such as "But you would measure the speed of light relative to the average length of your metersticks"? That really is Alice in Wonderland physics. David Tombe (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Cool Hand Luke's question, the reason that the discussion has lasted so long is that Brews ohare and David Tombe have fixed ideas about the 26-year-old redefinition of the SI metre, wrote and wrote without listening to others, paid no attention to the explanations of other editors (other than to belittle them), and were determined to argue and re-argue their position despite the lack of supporting WP:RSs. Tombe is motivated by his disbelief in 20th century physics. He accuses physicists, including those who edit Wikipedia, of conspiring to defend their fallacious science against the "truth" as Tombe imagines it. His remarks about "battalions of the relativistic army" and "the special theory of relativity controversy" (which exists only in the minds of Tombe and other FRINGE relativity deniers) spring from that context. His post immediately above [20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] illustrates Tombe's point of view, his ascribing motivations to others, and also his contempt for other editors and for real physicists. Finell (Talk) 21:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself. I posed two questions above, David Tombe still has the opportunity to answer them should he wish and should he be able to. That he has (yet again) chosen not to is – to me – rather telling. Physchim62 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A point that I repeatedly raised but which was never rebutted is that while it is a tautology, it doesn't mean that it's useless: many people have an idea of how long a metre is, even if they don't know how it's defined. To these readers, saying "the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s" tells "so, in a time roughly that between two consecutive heartbeats of mine when I'm calm, light travels a distance about 300 million times the width of my bed. Whoa, that's fast!" By the same token, saying that there are three feet in a yard is a tautology because of the way the foot is defined, but that doesn't make it useless. Ditto for saying that the triple point of water is 273.16 K (0.01 °C, 32.02 °F). In particular, all of mathematics consists of tautologies (as all mathematical statements logically follow from the definitions of the terms in them, without possibly being able to be false), but that doesn't make all of mathematics useless. --___A. di M. 09:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A. di M., The bottom line is this. Can I still go into a shop and buy a meter stick, and place it across the plates of a capacitor? And if the reading is 2cms, can I then use that value for the separation distance d in the experiment that measures electric permittivity? Can I still substitute d into the equation C = εA/d ? I would say 'yes'. But the others say 'no', and the experiment in question, which is a historically very important experiment dating back to 1856, has disappeared from the textbooks since 1983. That is clearly an important change worth noting.

And ultimately this all comes down to establishing why Martin Hogbin was so keen to (1) obstruct Brews ohare from elaborating on the special details surrounding the speed of light when expressed in SI units, and (2) to revert the history section edit of mine here [3], and which relates to that important experiment of 1856. David Tombe (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the replies of others (myself included), you'd already know the answer to your question about the Weber–Kohlrausch experiment. You haven't, nor have you daigned to reply to the questions I put to you on the evidence talk page: 1) what is the difference between the "actual physical speed of light" and the one used to define the metre; 2) what are the "full practical consequences" of the redefinition of the metre in 1983, in your eyes.

For the benefit of others (because evidence suggests that David Tombe will not read this paragraph) David quotes a classical equation for the capacitance of a plate capacitor: the equation suggests that you can calculate the capacitance by knowing the distance between the two plates and the area of the plates. That is true (subject to boundary conditions which are well understood), it has been standard physical theory now for more than 150 years. You can only calculate the capacitance as well as you can measure length, either to get the distance between the two plates or to get the area of the plates. There is no tautology involved in its use with a unit of distance defined in terms of the speed of light. If it has disappeared from textbooks since 1983 (not true, David has only provided us with a single pre-1983 source that it has ever been included recently), then maybe it is because this experiment is pointless in the current state of physical theory. A version of the same experiment was used to measure the speed of light (ie, assuming that the underlying theory was valid) as early as 1907 [4]. Physchim62 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another example of Physchim62's attempts to totally misrepresent, confuse, and obfuscate the issue. In relation to his first question, there is no difference between the physical speed of light and the speed of light that is used to define the metre. Nobody ever said that there was. Physchim62 even passed a motion on this matter at the workshop and it totally fooled arbitrator Cool hand Luke. Cool Hand Luke was quick to agree with Physchim62. Well of course, because the motion is absolutely true. But that has never been what the controversy has been about. The controversy has been about the fact that when the speed of light is then expressed in terms of this new metre it becomes a defined quantity that is beyond measurement. And Physchim62 has just shot himself in the foot by providing a convenient source which states,

The new definition of the meter, accepted by the 17th Confe´rence Ge´ne´rale des Poids et Mesures in 1983, was quite simple and elegant: “The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.” A consequence of this definition is that the speed of light is now a defined constant, not to be measured again.

Thank you very much Physchim62 for this source. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)