Talk:Photon belt/Archive 1

Old stuff

(originally posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal#The_Photon_Belt):

This is yet another article that was deleted as "nonnotable bollocks". Some discussion: Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_July_14#Photon_Belt. I will be proposing a deletion review on it, like I did with Bob Dobbs but I can only take so much on at one time. The photon belt is mentioned extensively by Cosmic Awareness and other chanelled entities.[1] Other sources to research/investigate: [2], [3] (which claims "The photon belt was described in the book You Are Becoming A Galactic Human ISBN 0937147087 (1994, Spiritual Education Endeavors), ISBN 0446672041 (1995, Warner Books)] by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, [Sheldan Nidle] where it is presented as 'Channeled information'." and sources the old Wikipedia article (the only one I could get on Internet Archive is from December 15, 2005 but it doesn't have this information). -Eep² 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On closer review of the Crystalinks article referenced above, I think the entire indented portion was the Wikipedia article (from Jun 2006):

The Photon Belt is a belief largely linked to some parts of the new age movement that a band of photons is going to collide with the earth and cause massive failure of electrical equipment.

There are a number of related beliefs involving the belt but they have a few common elements. The first is that earth orbits the Pleiades cluster. This is not the case. The second is that a belt of photons also orbits the cluster. No such belt has been observed (and it is hard to see how one could exist within the current understanding of the universe). The third is that earth is going to collide with this belt. A number of predictions have been made as to the date of this collision, so far none have been correct.

The first appearance of the idea appears to have been in an Australian UFO magazine in 1981. It gained in popularity after it was reprinted in the Australian Nexus magazine in February 1991.

Somewhere in the universe there must be a center star(s) which everything spins around. As matter is pulled into this center, photon beams are emitted from the top and bottom poles.

Although our planet is a distance from the center sun and the photon band that encircles it, we will eventually pass through the band. Some people say this will be the end of the world, however this planet has passed through the belt before. Electrons will not flow the same way so electronic devices on the planet will fail. Spiritually it represents a transition point but it is only a temporary window.

The photon belt was described in the book You Are Becoming A Galactic Human by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, where it is presented as "Channeled information".

Unfortunately, the page has no references other than the deleted Wikipedia article. I find it annoying that deleted pages are inaccessible to non-admins for viewing!

More sources: Noel Huntley (not this one), this one: PhD [4] (Amazon.com books by, or references to, him), and Amazon.com "photon belt" references.

I think one way to get an article about some esoteric/fringe idea/theory to remain on Wikipedia may be to first establish the credentials of the authors--create their pages and works, link them to existing ideas/theories/whatever, and then bring in their more esoteric/fringe theories/beliefs--which may or may not need its own article (it does if multiple authors refer to it, like hollow earth). -Eep² 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Found the SkepticWiki: Photon Belt article which looks like the Crystalinks one. Wikt:toroid also mentions the photon belt (I added the links):

1994: The photon belt, a huge torroid [sic] shaped object composed of photon light particles, was first discovered by your scientists in 1961 near the vicinity of the Pleiades by satellite instrumentation. — You are Becoming a Galactic Human, by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidel, ISBN 0937147087, pp. 27–28

-Eep² 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this has been discussed much more intelligently on Wiktionary (wikt:Talk:photon_belt) than on the Wikipedia article's deletion nomination. I'm going to incorporate the findings from the Wiktionary discussion into the article here; hopefully it will have enough reliable sources to make it through a deletion review... -Eep² 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

orbital wave

Orbital wave (redirects to surface wave); other references as to how waves can orbit: Nature search results, [5], Google search results. -Eep² 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

wave belt

• "Jupiter is an emitter of strong radio waves (peaking at 10 cm), caused by both thermal and non-thermal processes. Here is a plot of the detected radio belt around this planet"[6]
• "The most important question in relation to radiation belt acceleration relates to determining the dominant processes which accelerate magnetospheric electrons to MeV energies. In particular recent studies have emphasized the question of the relative dominance of ULF and VLF wave acceleration processes across the outer belt."[7]
• "Under the wave of energetic particles from the Halloween 2003 solar storm events, the Earth's radiation belts underwent significant changes in structure."[8]

-Eep² 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the radiation talked about in these sources are caused by the belt. The belts themselves are made from charged particles. Taemyr 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Van Allen radiation belt too: "It is generally understood that the inner and outer Van Allen belts result from different processes. The inner belt, consisting mainly of energetic protons, is the product of the decay of albedo neutrons which are themselves the result of cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere.". -Eep² 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Van Allen belt consists of protons (ionized hydrogen) and electrons - charged particles, which can be bent into orbits by magnetic or gravitational fields. Photons are massless, uncharged particles, which are unaffected (except for space curvature) by both phenomena. Proton != Photon. Get the difference? --Alvestrand 06:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, I know they are different. However, the point of mentioning the Van Allen belt, and the other links, is to show to you that yes, waves CAN be belts, waves DO orbit, and what LaViolette describes DOES bear relation to the photon belt. Do YOU get it yet? -Eep² 09:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Charged particles do belts. Uncharged, massless particles don't. If you believe that particles and waves are fundamentally different, you need to read up on Wave-particle duality. --Alvestrand 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A photon is a subatomic particle which can be a charged particle; and what about virtual photons and Quantum Chromodynamics (where "a real photon interact both as a point-like particle, or as a collection of quarks and gluons, i.e., like a hadron")? Anyway, regardless of whether it is a "photon belt" or whatever (perhaps when the term was allegedly created by Hesse back in the late 1940s, photons weren't as understood then as they are now), I believe remaining neutral and scientifically explaining how such a "belt of photons" would not be impossible is a necessary addition to the article. Please remain civil. -Eερ² ^(t|c) 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on explaining physics to Eep. --Alvestrand 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

wikt:cop-out. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as such, no. Please cite a peer-reviewed source to support the idea that photons can orbit, as this theory requires. A cosmology journal or a physics journal, either will be equally good. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First Google hit on photon orbit (unquoted): [9]. Damn that was easy... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this discussion, to be made before I read the actuall article. To Alvestrand; it is correct, in Einsteinian physics, that light is not affected by gravity if you disregard space curvature. This is because space curvature is the mechanism that drives gravity in this model. Light is massless, eg. a photon have zero mass when at rest, but a photon is never found at rest. They are always found traveling at exactly 1c. At 1c your weight is multiplied with infinity, for photons this becomes nil times infinity, and if you go into the underlying formulaes you will find that actual weight depends upon the wavelength of the light. To summarize, light have mass and is affected by gravity, see Gravitational_lensing. To explain physics it helps to understand physics. On to orbits, to be in an orbit your speed can not be greater than the escape velocity of the object you are orbiting. This follows directly from the definition of escape velocity. There are objects with escape velocities that are greater than the speed of light, these are called black holes. Outside of the event horizon photons can not orbit. The link given by Eep shows that things are not quite that simple, but only to the point of talking about orbits that are unstable and occuring close an event horizon, so this is largely irrelevant. To have a belt of photons in a stable, or near stable orbit of photons due to gravity an object needs to have an event horizon. Taemyr 05:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the Van Allen belt and other EM belt-like (orbiting) phenomenon in the universe, exhibit "photon belts". Remember, a photon is not just visible light but also includes all other electromagnetic spectrum wavelengths. In 1949, when the "photon belt" was (allegedly) initially conceived/detected, not enough was known about photons at the time in order to differentiate these key points. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(at indent level 11) No, they don't, and your unsupported assertion that they do won't make the photons they emit orbit anything. In 1949, photons, and their non-interaction with gravity and electromagnetic fields, were fairly well understood by physicists. --Alvestrand 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958--almost 10 years later than 1949... So much for understanding photons fairly well, eh? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the Van Allen belt and other EM belt-like (orbiting) phenomenon in the universe, exhibit "photon belts". No, they do not, wavelengths are therefore irrelevant. In 1949 QED had been established for 9 years. And gravitic lensing was proposed in 1929. Van Allen belts might have been discovered in 1958, but it was postulated, with experimental verification, by Kristian Birkeland in 1903. Taemyr 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I was wondering when the black hole edge-case would pop up in this discussion :-) I've got no objection to people claiming that photons can circle a black hole - otoh, if the Earth encounters the edge of a black hole, a "spiritual reawakening" will be a relatively minor part of the effects! --Alvestrand 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to point out that massless does not mean unaffected by gravity, and that meant I had to mention the necessary scales. Considering candidates for the label "spiritual reawakening" in the sense being used here I would put death forward as a strong contender. If you accept that then a "spiritual reawakening" on a global scale would be expected, if we had any interaction with a black hole. Taemyr 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've read that what is to happen is, in 2011/2012/2013 (depending on the source) when the Earth (or entire solar system) is supposedly fully inside the alleged photon belt, a sort of "warp"/hyperspace/wormhole-type effect will occur that will move the solar system towards Sirius.[10] (and [11] for the dead SpiritWeb link on that page) ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposing we delete this fork(from Alverstrands comment at 10:34) since it is not really germane to the ongoing discussion.

scientific evidence

Where is the citation/reference/source that show the photon belt is not in any peer-reviewed scientific/cosmological journals? -Eερ² ^(t|c) 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(

• wp
• g
• b

). You can't conclusively prove a negative (without examining every peer reviewed journal in the history of mankind), but nobody's come up with an example yet. --Alvestrand 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another person who doesn't know how to use a search engine properly. First of all, learn about quotation marks:

• Encyclopedia Britannica gets 1 hit on "photon belt" (without quotes, however) for "Diffuse nebulae (H II regions)" (but doesn't list the full article without a paid membership--screw that).
• [12] doesn't even get a hit on "photon" so it's doubtful it knew what a photon was in 1911 anyway, let alone a "photon belt".
• Bartleby's search engine doesn't even get what Google does.
• MSN Encarata doesn't know what quotes even are, apparently: [13] so I don't consider its results valid--plus, it charges for full access--screw that.
• Dunno why you think the photon belt would be discussed on the PC Magazine website...

Second, specifically searching for "peer reviewed journal" is silly. Start with the base phrase "photon belt" and go from there. Regardless of mainstream media coverage, it's doubtful this would've been made public, which is why it would've remained underground all these years. And not even all of the "underground" people who have allegedly channeled info about the belt haven't stayed very consistent about it (referring to it by different names, for example). Some abandon the Pleiades connection and focus on the galactic center in Saggitarius, while others say they are the same thing--just distorted/confused somehow. Is it mass delusion or is there something deeper going on? I'm not as quick as you and many others, apparently, in dismissing it. Yes, it's hard to decipher things amid all the "wackiness" but that's what a real researcher does: decodes, translates, and interprets--try it sometime... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As above. Nothing found on Lexis-Nexis or any other search I could conduct with my limited resources. Rebuttal is a trivial matter of citing a peer reviewed source to support the theory. Until then, the para should stay in. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "para" can stay in but it needs a reference. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

image

How is the accretion disk and extragalactic jet relevant to this article? The article is on a photon belt, and we're putting in pictures of a galactic black hole? There is no photon belt in that picture. Antelan ^talk 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Sloth felt it illustrates the general idea of the scientific mainstream--now we just need an image of the photon belt that has appeared in various forms over the years for comparison. A Google search comes up with some interesting ones--I think I like this one best though--and it's free per the author: "Please click the following image to enter the World of Gravitonics. This gravitonic image can be set as a wall picture of your computer screen so that you feel much more comfortable working on the computer. For your cellular phone or mobil phone and your PC, please click the following image to read further information." ... "Please feel free to download any jpgs and gifs on this web. They are free!"[14] ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use an image that claims to illustrate the photon belt specifically? That one seems to be intended to illustrate "gravitonics".. --Alvestrand 09:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, it seems the photon belt, depending on who interprets it, has ties/analogies to various space phenomena: precession, Van Allen Belt (solar wind), galactic superwave (see LaViolette in article), magnetized plasma (Alexey N. Dmitriev)[15], gravitonics (from above), etc. http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/1.htm#Photon%20belt has a decent compilation. Interesting stuff but I need to go to sleep now though. :( ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Displaying the image is WP:OR unless you can provide a reliable source documenting that it is an adequate parallel to the subject at hand. Antelan ^talk 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol

From the cited [16]; The presence of these positrons, however, has been predicted to interfere with electricity,... Really, you think? And The photon energy as a result of the collision of electrons and positrons will become a major source of free energy (and at this time the NWO will be unable to suppress its use). Yes well you just wave your hand and it(the hand) turns into an instant nuke. Taemyr 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Critisism section.

This needs a rework. The purpose of such a section within an article is to relate existing critique of the topic. Not to debunk the topic. It is worth bearing in mind that the article does not purport to be about a scientific fact. Authors feeling a burning need to debunk should perhaps look at here instead; SkepticWiki: Photon BeltTaemyr 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The belief described in the article claims to be about a physical phenomenon - the "photon belt".

When a theory is utter bunk from the viewpoint of a physically knowledgeable person, AND we have multiple sources attesting that other people think it is bunk (several of them are quoted in the article), the article can and should say so. See the NPOV FAQ - it even has a separate section on Pseudoscience; this article falls (in my opinion) squarely in the "obvious pseudoscience" group. It's worthy of an article because it's an interesting social phenomenon, but the article can and should say that from the standpoint of physical science, it *is* junk. --Alvestrand 06:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice FAQ.

...the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

I stand by my earlier comment. The fact that the faith claims to talk about a real phenomenon does not mean that the article does. Taemyr 06:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point there. The "criticism" section could well be renamed to "Relationship of belief to physical reality" or somesuch. I initially started editing this article because it seemed to claim that things were facts that I knew to be inconsistent with reality, but it's gotten a little better in that it now (mostly) seems to clearly describe a belief, not a phenomenon. --Alvestrand 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the criticism section should remain, because the faith has similarities with Paul LaViolette's hypothesis it is necessary to allow him his say. After that you are really only left with the straight dope entry, which skims a bit light over the issues, and as such should not stand as a separate section.Taemyr 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first bullet point ("The Earth orbits the Pleiades cluster") should be removed. It attempts to discredit the belief by pointing out the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the galactic centre. While of course true, the claim is actually (if I understand the article) that the Sun is a part of the cluster, and the cluster would (and does, presumably) orbit the GC. So this counter-point doesn't work very well, at least how it's currently phrased.
This is not in defense of the "theory"; there are plenty of other valid criticisms, it just doesn't look like this belongs as one of them. However, as I'm a newbie I won't just edit it out. For now, I'll just point it out and let others respond or do what they like. Darrdevyl 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The important point here is that neither the Earth nor the Sun orbits the Pleiades. Taemyr 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This section should consist of a summary of sources that actively criticize the photon belt, backed up by selection sources that support astronomical facts. What there actually is is a section of WP:OR which contains a synergy of mainstream astronomical sources that don't even mention the photon belt. In fact, there's no actual third party criticism of the photon belt at all, it's all editor driven criticism.

perfectblue (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment here until I'd added my comment below. Anyway, you still haven't commented about LaViolette's criticsm, which IS about the belt. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Channelling is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience, so in theory, one shouldn't need the pseudoscience label.
Personally, I think both are needed, since the article contains a good deal of pseudoscience that is not channelling. An argument against the blind application of the "don't include an article in a cat if it's already in a subcat" rule. --Alvestrand 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be in both cats. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Category:New Age is also a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience, so the Category:Pseudoscience is superfluous. The argument above might still pertain to the retention of Category:New Age. Taemyr 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if categories are subcats of each other, an article can apply to both categories on its own merit--there is enough evidence to show that the photon belt is both a new age and pseudoscience concept on its own, individually. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Electrons aren't photons

Moved from the main article:

July 17, 2007 National Geographic Headline reads: Source of 'Killer Electrons' in Space Discovered, Study Says. It goes on to say:

"I think we show conclusively they do not come from further out [in space]. They are accelerated in the radiation belt itself," said Reiner Friedel, co-author of a paper published in the July issue of the journal Nature Physics.

... "When killer electrons collect in large numbers, they can penetrate a spacecraft and build up a significant electrical charge.

"The charge is released as a type of electric bolt that can devastate sensitive equipment.

Could these 'Killer Electrons' be 'Photons'?

An electron is a charged particle with a non-zero rest mass. A photon is an uncharged particle with a zero rest mass. They're different. If the belief had been named "the electron belt", it would not have been so inconsistent with physical reality, but that's not what its proponents chose to call it. --Alvestrand 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What followers belive, what they choose to call it and what the physical reality is is three different things. Several proponents of the photon belt theory does not refer to a belt beeing made up of photons.

That said, there is nothing in this article that refers to the photon belt. So it's inclusion is violating WP:OR. Furthermore the article specifically concludes that the high energy charged particles that are referred to originates within earths radiation belt. Taemyr 08:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got a problem with the theory tht an article called "Photon belt" doesn't refer to a photon belt... that's so obviously false that I must have misunderstood you. Can you elucidate?

Some sources, like LaViolette, are talking about phenomena that are neither belts nor made up of photons; I've got some problems seeing how those sources are relevant to the article - if what you mean is that THOSE should be deleted, I could agree to that. --Alvestrand 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

LaViolette is taking pains to distance himself from the whole photon belt thing, so calling him a proponent of the theory is perhaps not appropriate.

I was thinking more about Noel Huntley. Which describes the belt as giving of high quantities of electromagnetic radiation, this presumably follows from the fact that he thinks it has a high density of positrons.

Though looking over the history it seems that most of the photon belt crowd is in agreement that the belt is made up of photons. Taemyr 10:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Huntley's article (reference 24). It makes my head hurt, the way he strings physical concepts together with words between them that seem to indicate causation - "These spiralling energies give rise to natural spacetime orbits: satellites around planets, planets around stars, solar systems around other more major vortex centres, and so on".... he has several sentences that seem to be concerned with "what is the belt made from", but I can't figure them out enough to actually say what he thinks. So it's hard to cite him as saying anything specific except "it's important". --Alvestrand 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's called pseudoscience. It doesn't have to be realistic to be a new age belief. - perfectblue 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OR tag on criticism secton

An "original research" tag has been added to the "criticism" section of this article, with an edit summary of "This section contains a sythesis of sources compiled in such as way as ton infer sustained scrutiny of the topic".

I don't understand either what this means or what is "original" about the "research" in that section. Could the editor please explain? --Alvestrand 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor of that section pasted a series of facts about the galaxy and then put them into the context of criticism of the photon belt even though the original sources didn't mention the belt itself. This is classified as a synthesis of works and is regarded as being Original Research on the part of the Wikipedia editor. Which is prohibited.

This goes straight to the heart of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. You can't simply jam together unrelated works and present them as if they were a single cohesive argument. What you must do is find a person or people who have made the argument (in this case that the photon belt is bunk) and then cite them. What the section should have contained information from a series of physicists directly criticizing the photon belt by name and pointing out how inaccurate new age beliefs about it are and pointing out that the belt doesn't, in reality, exist.

[User:Perfectblue97|perfectblue]] 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? The belief claims to be about physical reality; why isn't matching up the claims of the theory with commonly accepted physics' statements about the same phenomena relevant? Before the "criticism" section (which started out as "relation of theory to physical reality" got added), one could read the article and come away with the impression that it was a theory that enjoyed some kind of acceptance in the physics community (which it is not). Anyway, reference 26 (Paul LaViolette) is exactly the kind of debunking you are looking for. I believe mainstream physicists don't bother with debunking obvious nonsense, so I wouldn't expect many such sources to be found. --Alvestrand 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. You can't simply say that there is criticism of an hypothesis and then cite sources that contradict it but do not mention it. You have to cite sources that offer actual criticism of the phenomena being discussed. There is nothing wrong with the citations in themselves, but everything around them violates WP:OR, therefore the section violates WP:OR.

Perfectblue, please don't delete the sections you don't like ("Criticism") without any sense of consensus. At the moment, I like that section, and you don't - that's no consensus. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm following the rules. In order for there to be a criticism section editors must demonstrate that there is third part criticism. It doesn't matter whether or not the section is 100% accurate, the criticism must come from a citable third party. I'm not disputing that there should be a criticism section, I aded an expand tag to the page in order to alert other editors that there should be one, what I am trying to explain is that you need to find a serious scientist who criticizes the photon belt and then cite them else you are violating policy.

As for consensus, there isn't even a debate going on. You're the only other person involved and you haven't participated for 2 months. In such a situation policy win out, and WP:OR and WP:V are both strong policy designed to clean up sections such as the criticism section as was. - perfectblue (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue you are not cleaning the section. You are simply removing it. Note that, LaViolette's writing is a direct rebuttal of the photon ring, as is the straight dope entry. In addition you are undoing unrelated edits. I am personally in agreement with that the section needs a rewrite, but it should be there. However the reason I am undoing your last redo is that you overrode intermediat edits. Taemyr (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, I removed a section that that violates WP:NOR and replaced it with an expand notice. I never claimed to be doing otherwise. The criticism must come from a third party, not an editor.

It's moot anyway as I've rewritten the section to include the actual argument that LaViolette made, and to exclude the OR. However, I have doubts about LaViolette on WP:RS grounds. I am including him here as I believe that his criticism is valid. However, I can't see myself using much that he says as WP:RS in support of science until feel more comfortable that he isn't promoting pseudoscience. Some of his own hypothesis are not backed by the mainstream. - perfectblue 16:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LaViolett is extremely pseudoscience. Taemyr (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, I'm wondering where you want to go with this. You have deleted a lot of material that contained sourced statements of fact, and where it's obvious that the facts cited are incompatible with the photon belt theory.

In the debates I had with the original theory proponent, Eep, he kept insisting that anything that was obvious to anyone with a college-level physics education, but couldn't be quoted word for word from a third party source *as an argument against the photon belt* was original research and had to be OR-tagged or deleted, while any claim from a photon belt proponent, no matter how outrageous, was a reliable source and should be included. Is that the policy you're trying to establish for the article? --Alvestrand 12:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not an admin and I can't establish policy. I'm simply following the existing policy which is that all arguments, either for or against, MUST be cited to a third party source.

The problem with the content of the old criticism section wasn't that the facts weren't cited, but rather that the argument itself was not cited. You see, when you (the general you, not necessarily you in particular) try to put together a criticism section it's not enough to demonstrate that the hypothesis is bunk by citing facts against it, you also also have to cite sources to show that somebody other than yourself thinks that the hypothesis is bunk and has attempted to show it in published media. This is all part and parcel of WP:V which states means that other people must be able to look the source of the criticism up for themselves.

As per a college level physics education.... let's just say that most people don't have one of those and therefore need things explaining to them by people who have.

perfectblue (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

... and you don't want anyone to try to explain things here unless they can cite someone else's explanation. The confluence of these two lines of argument is not something I'm happy with. But I think the article isn't all that unreasonable as it is now. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Invoking mainstream science in this article, at least as it had been done, lends undeserved and inappropriate credibility on this highly fringe theory. Frankly, the article is too long, given the actual limited notability of its subject. Antelan ^talk 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this reasoning. If we note why it's considered fringe, it lends credibility? I would rather say that the absence of criticism lends it credibility; the people trying to defend the theory (and that's what some of them have been doing) by removing or OR-tagging the "criticisms" section certainly don't seem to hold that view. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with tagging criticism sections. I have removed a 'mainstream science' section, but it contained absolutely nothing critical. I interpreted it as a vague endorsement of the theory, seemingly suggesting that there are rough parallels between mainstream scientific thought and the ideas in this fringe theory. Antelan ^talk 05:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Long history - I've been dealing with this article since May 2007 January 2006. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... but can you explain your thoughts? Especially if you look at my diff? Antelan ^talk 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New section... --Alvestrand (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3-revert-rule blocking

After seeing User:76.112.23.57 revert the article three times in 24 hours to an older state, this user has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of WP:3RR. Some edits done to the version that this IP has reverted to have gotten lost. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." How do you explain the validity of your block? Also, that edit summary appears to be a pretext for reverting back to your preferred version of this article. Can you explain to me what I'm missing here? Antelan ^talk 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I committed the fencepost error. Block reverted. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The fourth revert has now arrived. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of article

Starting a new section, trying to reset discussion, and to think of this subject on a higher level, without mixing it up with what the current state of the article is....

My thinking of what I want out of an encyclopedic article on the name of a "fringe theory" belief is that I want an article that helps the reader who has come across the term and wants to figure out what it is. This reader may not necessarily know that it's a fringe belief he's looking for info about.

Thus, I think the ideal article should contain:

• A summary of what the belief is
• A history of the belief: Who used the term first, who's been picking it up since?
• Easy access to relevant material that gives context to the belief. This means, for instance, that a "hollow Earth" article should make it easy to find material on current mainstream theories on what the Earth is made for, that a theory about time travel should make it easy to find current physics theories on why it may be impossible even in theory, and a theory that mentions Earth orbiting the Pleiades should make it easy to figure out what the Pleaides are, and Earth's relative motion compared to them (according to current astronomical understanding). The purpose of such a section would be to give the reader some easily accessible context in which to evaluate the theory.
• Controversies sparked by the theory. This might include straight-on criticism, notable schisms within a movement, use of the term to denigrate opponents in otherwise-irrelevant debates and so on.

I think we're going a bit back and forth about the advisability and form of the third part - in particular, whether listing of relevant facts is itself OR (by the picking out of "relevant"), or whether it needs to be sourced from sources directly relevant to the article. But I tend to want to go with "useful" (according to my thinking of what the article should do for the reader) rather than "easily defensible under the formalized rules".

Other thoughts? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the third bullet: According to current Wiki-Regs, you must (in the simplest terms) base the crux of any section on citable third party material that itself references the topic. There is room to add in some third party material that doesn't reference the topic, but only really to reinforce the points already made. To do otherwise violates WP:V and WP:NOR.

Using your example, if you were to add a criticism section to the Hollow Earth page, the vast bulk of the material in said section should be from people who are directly criticizing the Hollow Earth hypothesis. You can add in a few citations from mainstream geology that do not refer to Hollow Earth in any way shape or form, but only really where they back up statements already made in the sources that do criticize Hollow Earth.

The problem here is not the validity of the material in the citation, but rather the argument being made. In order to comply withWP:NOR, the argument itself must be from a citable third party source. Else any user could simply cite contradictory material in order to build a criticism section even if no criticism had been offered by any established authority on the subject.

Adding a criticism section implies that there has been sustained controversy and critical analysis of a topic. This must be verifiable so. Else, it could just be the opinion of the user writing it.

perfectblue (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"whether listing of relevant facts is itself OR"

As per WP:NOR in order for a user to list facts that are relevant to the topic, they must first be able to find evidence that a citable third party considers them to be relevant facts. If you (the generic you, not you specifically) can find a third party who says that quantom-whatsits make the photon belt impossible, then all you need to do is to cite them. However, if you consider that quantom-whatsits are relevant but you cannot find a citable third party who does then you cannot include it in the entry even if it appears obvious to you that this is the case. This is the very crux of WP:NOR. It's what somebody else can be verified to have said/done, not what a user thinks/says/does. - perfectblue (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a disagreement about WP:NOR. It shouldn't be used as a cloak for suppressing criticism - see WP:PSCI. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that that the sources you want to base your criticism on never talked about the photon belt. WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance is fairly clear on the subject.Taemyr (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Links

I removed two links in the History section: Washta and "Sirian". These were going to an article on Washta, IA and the Syrian people. If someone wants to replace them with relevant links, I would have no objection. However, I would not be surprised to find that there are more like these hanging around this article. -Athaler (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

His bio has been deleted, so the paragraph about him seems non-notable here. Thoughts? Lara 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitur. And I'm not aware that we debate notability of paragraphs. In any event, the paragraph isn't about him, it's about his argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He's one of the few people (apart from the idea's proponents) who's taken the photon belt phenomoenon seriously enough to argue about it. He's definitely a citable source. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he has taken it seriousely. But several of the propnents of the photon belt refers to his theories as justification for the phenomenon. So his rebuttal is relevant. Taemyr (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

His views may be important, but characterizations of him as a fringe physicist and ufologist (which I had originally written urologist! :D) are unsourced. Removing per WP:BLP, which still apply even though this isn't specifically a biography about him. I've also delinked him. Since he was deleted via AfD, he's not really a redlink with possibilities at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the first AfD Epstein mentions [17] [18] [19] [20] as sources for his dismissal from the US Patent office due to fringe views. I lack access to the sources so I am a bit unsure on how far they go. They do establish that LaViolette felt that his belief in cold fusion should be considered as a religous view. Taemyr (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they say so in such a way that doesn't require synthesis? Obviously, we have to be particularly careful to conform to high quality sources and WP:V with material like this when the subject himself has objected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That he advocated that his views on Cold fusion should be considered as a religous view is stated clearly. It was the basis for his lawsuit against the Patent office. That he practices fringe science might require synthesis, I don't really know since I don't have an account with the medias that I listed. Taemyr (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note, that he said that his views on cold fusion should be considered religous is a de juro statement. It does not follow that he means that his view is religous, merely that they fall under US equal oppertunity laws. Taemyr (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

←If we have to use synthesis to declare him a "fringe scientist", we should not do so. The term is undeniably contentious, and BLP requires that it be well-sourced. Likewise, unless he's been labeled a "ufologist" by reliable sources, that term should not be restored. As far as the other material, if it is necessary to context here to explain his legal history and that he claimed shelter for "sincerely held personal beliefs", then we could certainly craft (carefully) a statement indicating as much, but I don't see that it directly relates to this particular article. I'm not sure if he needs more context than he's already received before we tip into undue focus on him. But what a fascinating legal case! My familiarity with the gentleman does not extend beyond this context (I was not involved in the AfD and have not read his article), but it seems like it could have far-reaching implications...for instance, preventing a proponent of evolutionary biology being fired by a creationist for his beliefs. I'm tempted to do some reading into the current status of that lawsuit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

LaViolette is a promoter of fringe theories, but here he's being used to represent the view of mainstream science?

His books have been published in houses like "Starlane publications". That house has published a total of three books, all authored by LaViolette[21]. As far as I know, the editorial is owned by or very closely related to LaViolette and those books should be considered as self-published.

I can't find reviews of his work to assess if he is a reliable source in astronomy and astrophysics.

The source in the article is hosted in the website of the Starburst Foundation, an institution that he apparently founded himself.

As far as I know, he is a self-published source. And we can't use WP:PARITY to justify his inclusion, because there is no proof that he is representative of the mainstream view of science. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare

There are so many things wrong with it I'm not sure it's redeemable. The intro makes a specific connection between the belt's arrival and 2012, but the article suggests that 2012 is only a recent addition, and not the most significant date. It then goes on to suggest that "This interaction might cause..." implicitly suggesting that it will happen. The references contain massive amounts of additional data, some of which is a huge violation of NPOV, such as describing The Shift of the Ages as a "masterwork" and Edgar Cayce as a "great healer". The references are mostly primary rather than secondary sources, and are often just bare weblinks, without any attempt to make them presentable. Unless there is serious and credible argument against it, I'm going to renominate it for deletion. Serendi^podous 10:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2012 date was given when previous dates arrived with no noticable effect, older sources use dates as far back as (IIRC) 1996. A primary source is the topic itself or sources making pure observation, a secondary source is one that interprets the topic. So I rather doubt any souce could be described as primary. If you feel the article needs to be rewritten to make it more clear that this is, essentially, a religous viewpoint I think most editors would support you. Like many new age things the problem is that it attempts to seem scientific while beeing clearly unscientific enough that no proper scientific treatment is likely. Also rewriting requires reading up on the topic and that makes my brain hurt, don't expect anything that makes sence or even anything to be particulary consistent. Taemyr (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it's pseudo-scientific or religious. What bothers me is that this has been clearly written from the New Age point of view, rather from a neutral one. And primary sources do not help with wider context. The mere fact that some New Age paper cited the photon belt on a specific date, which is all citing the paper itself can tell us, doesn't explain anything about the popularity of the photon belt in New Age circles. Serendi^podous 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there is the straight dope entry. [22] Taemyr (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Well, I asked for this article to be deleted, and now it's about half its original length, which is, I suppose, a very Wikipedian compromise :) However, the most intractable issue remains citation. This article needs some third party commentary, both to bolster its notability and to ensure NPOV. Right now, nearly all the citations for the facts on this page go back to the original sources of those facts, rather than to outside commentators. This is similar to discussing a UFO sighting and only citing those who were there on the night. Yes they may have seen a UFO, but then again they may not have. Other more authoritative sources are needed to balance the argument. Serendi^podous 13:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire page is wrong

If anyone cares to google it "photon belt 2012" you will see that actually people claim that it's called the photon belt, true, bUT it's actually composed of gamma rays HUGE DIFFERENCE ! Apparently photon belt is just a fancy name, maybe cause it sounds cool or something, but every article on the internet reffers to gamma rays. Someone needs to corect this. Just google it, if you dont believe me. Anyway i'm no believer in this topic, but it's just that there's a huge mistake here, it's not photons, but gamma rays.

Actually, gamma rays ARE photons. Not that it matters anyway, since this entire idea is complete idiocy to begin with. Serendi^podous 07:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you should measure your idiocy level before and after you read point 6 of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst . After reading point 6, in conjunction with this, which also appears on the same page, you can realise that these aren't just any old photons. 'The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). This whole page looks at this ' photon belt' as if ti's made of photons with weak energy levels. Under no circumstances Earth can be considered safe or untouchable in the context of something that is capable of carrying so much energy over such distances. Furthermore if you consider one topic idiotic or not doesn't give you the right to delete a whole paragraph. This topic is real, weather fruitcakes believe it or not; gamma rays bursts are very real. Also real is the fact that it appears on quite a bunch of websites about the 2012 topic. This isn't a conversation, it's a notice to you. I'm not asking for your permission, i'm telling you. Gamma rays appear on multiple website related to his topic, and therefore it should also be mentioned on this page. Why are gamma rays more special and must have their own section as opposed to the 'regular' photons ? Because these are bursts. Again read point 6 on that page. Also as you can see here it's one of the top 3 most powerfull entities known to man in the observable universe. Actually top 2 considering the planck power is an imaginary value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#Greater_than_one_thousand_yottawatts78.97.165.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

"The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, ...". True, but that means they are unrelated to the concept being discussed. If you put "photon belt" into Google, you get images like this. The belt is just that, a circular orbit, and so obviously nonsensical that it may be hard to find any genuine scientific rebuttal of the belief. The stable orbit for a photon around a black hole is 1.5 times the radius of the event horizon and there are no stable orbits within that so the locations shown for all the stars (including the Solar System) are impossible in conventional science. This should be included in the "Scientific Criticism" section if a suitable third-party source can be found (i.e. not me). George Dishman (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true for a Schwarzschild black hole, but untrue for a Kerr black hole, where one WOULD find what is essentially a photon belt. Of course, getting even vaguely close to that point would result in rather unfortunate tidal effect on the observer.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)