Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What does Carlip's PLA paper really say?

First, I want to remark that I do not support TVF views and theories. Once said this, I am really shocked from reading in this talk statements like:

The claims made in that [PLA] silly paper were thoroughly refuted (as if that was necessary) by, among others, the little recreational paper by Carlip.

I suggest citations for both claims with links to the appropriate papers as well as a link to Carlip's refutation.

The same journal (Physics Letters A) soon thereafter published still another refutation of Van Flandern's fallacious claims, by S. Carlip in the March 2000 issue, focusing specifically on the aspects of aberration related to general relativity, whereas the paper of March had addressed the more generic fallacy of applying Laplacian aberration arguments to any relativistic field, including electromagnetism.

The paper alluded above is "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" Physics Letters A 267 2000 81–87. Carlip, Steve.

It is fair to notice that Carlip papers about the speed of gravity are also open to several objections. Carlip makes several mistakes (e.g. some recent Physics Review E papers show the physical deficiencies of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials and why interactions are not retarded by c as was previously thought from an incomplete mathematical analysis of interactions). Also recent experimental papers published in J App. Phys. Microwave Opt. Techn., Lett. Phys. Rev. Lett., and other journals do not support the idea of interactions retarded by c. However, this is not the adequate place for such one debate, which involves mathematical treatments beyond the usual in the field (a complete literature and analysis could be given in another Wikipedia page, suggestions?). Moreover, it is not needed, because I want just to remark what Carlip really says in his paper:

In a recent paper in Physics Letters A [1], Van Flandern has argued that observations show that gravity propagates at a speed much greater than c. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, Ref. [1] relies instead on directional information, in the form of observations of (the absence of) gravitational aberration. But the translation from a direction to a speed requires theoretical assumptions, and the implicit assumptions of Ref. [1]—in particular, that the interaction is purely central, with no velocity-dependent terms—do not hold for general relativity, or, for that matter, for Maxwell’s electrodynamics

[...]

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

Contrary to statements extracted from this talk, Carlip did not refute any superluminical propagation of gravity or similar claim.

JuanR (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Flandern's claim was that gravitational and electric forces propagate (almost) instantaneously in general relativity, properly understood, and indeed that this applied to any theory that obeys causality.

This is a rather confusing part of his paper. At the one hand he does clear that the speed is c in what he calls the "traditional GR interpretation". He defended superluminity in that he called an alternative explanation. I think he failed to understand that alternative was not general relativity but another different theory. Thus I think he was really stating that gravitational and electric forces propagate (almost) instantaneously in his theory. This interpretation may be reinforced by his claim in the abstract to replace SR by LR. JuanR (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He played a shell game. He wanted to claim that his theory was the same as SR and GR

From the article abstract:

Apparently, Lorentzian relativity better describes nature than special relativity

Could you cite some part from Van Flandern's article where he says that his theory is the same than SR? JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In his paper with Vigier he said LR and SR are "mathematically identical", and also that they make the same predictions for the outcomes of all the experiments. Of course, he also said LR allows superluminal travel, but he was obviously mistaken about that, because both LR and SR predict that the energy of a body increases to infinity at c. Van Flandern's claims where self-contradictory.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Therefore you give no part from TVF article (which was revised by Carlip and is the subject of this section) saying that the theories are identical. Whereas I gave the quote from the abstract where he says that are not. About mathematical identity. Often we say that the Newtonian-like expression a=-grad(phi) is mathematically identical (I would prefer the term "formally identical") to the weak-limit of the GR geodesic equation a=-grad(phi) but the physics (and the interpretation of both theories is completely different). Wald has a beautiful discussion about this in his textbook on GR. JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

so that he could claim the empirical success of their predictions, but at the same time he wanted his theory to make different predictions, which of course implied that his theory was falsified empirically, so then he would switch back to claiming that his theory was the same as SR and GR, except that his theory made different predictions, but it was the same, but it was different, but it was the same, but... and so on. This is the shell game he played. Many times Carlip and others pointed out that he simply did not understand general relativity (nor did he understand electromagnetism or special relativity or fluid mechanics or quantum mechanics, or... etc). 63.24.98.125 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Carlip and Van Flandern's did mistakes on the other side. JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The papers of Carlip and March et al, conclusively refuted both of those claims.

Of course, I agree that the speed is c in general relativity. JuanR (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Van Flandern claimed that the experimental evidence shows that gravity and electric forces MUST propagate superluminally. This too is explicitly refuted by the papers mentioned.130.76.32.16 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is untrue. Above I quoted Carlip paper saying both that the experiments says little about the speed of gravity and that the observations of aberration are consistent with superluminical propagation. Moreover, there is some mistakes in Carlip analysis and modern literature that do not support what you say, as was noticed above. JuanR (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Read more carefully. Van Flandern said experiments show conclusively that forces MUST (please note the word MUST) propagate superluminally.

Again from Van Flandern's article abstract:

Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the "speed of gravity" yields a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c

Where is the word MUST in the abstract? JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The words "lower limit" signify that the speed of light cannot be less than that value. Therefore, the sentence you quoted implies that the speed of light MUST be greater than c. This is the claim that was refuted by March et al and Carlip.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Therefore you cannot find the word MUST such as you quoted. It is better to focus on what was really said for avoiding misinterpretations. For instance above you write stuff about the "speed of light" that he did not say. JuanR (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When Carlip says experiments say little about the speed of gravity, he is refuting Van Flandern's claim.

And refuting the common claim (also from you below) that experiments says that the speed of gravity is c. This is the same partial reading of Carlip paper denounced in this section of the talk. JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing aberration observations with all possible observations, and you're confusing gravity with electricity. The empirical fact of Fitzgerald contraction and the undetectability of absolute motion by Michelson/Morley, etc, implies that all massless forces propagate at c.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating well-known mistakes, but this is another issue. The goal of this section is to inform about what Carlip paper really says. I am merely quoting Carlip, and he is very clear; far from falsifying TVF, Carlip remarks that observations are compatible with superluminical propagation of interactions:

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To say that observation are CONSISTENT WITH superluminal propagation is not to deny that they are also CONSISTENT WITH propagation at c.

This is an unfair repetition of what I remarked above in my first message. I write it again: "[...] it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity." Thus you are adding nothing useful. JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeated it because you obviously have not grasped it. By showing that aberration is consistent with propagation at c, Carlip refutes Van Flandern's claimed lower limit on the propagation speed.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Carlip did not refute TVF claim "Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the "speed of gravity" yields a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c" but supported it as quoted above. I will repeat once again the relevant part from Carlip paper for you:

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why Carlip says the observations of aberration say little about the propagation speed. This flatly refutes Van Flandern's claim. Of course, there are other observations that show that the electric force and the gravitational force propagate at c, but Carlip was just focusing on aberration of gravity. Since Van Flandern's argument for the electric force being superluminal was identical to his argument for gravity being superluminal, it suffices to refute his reasoning by pointing to the abundant empirical evidence that the electric force propagates at c. This is empirically verified billions of times every day. There is no doubt that Van Flandern's reasoning about aberration was utterly wrong, as explained in the published refutations. (Actually, the March paper is better than Carlip's for making this general point.)63.24.98.125 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of that! Carlip paper says that experiments are compatible with Van Flandern's claim about superluminical propagation. If you disagree, says so, but do not misuse Carlip paper.

I have represented the papers of March et al and Carlip accurately. They refute Van Flandern's claimed lower limit on the propagation speed of gravity.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not what the paper says. Carlip states in a clear and unambiguous way that observations are consistent with that TVF said in his PLA paper. The exact words of Carlip are:

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there are none observations that show that the electric force and the gravitational force propagate at c, this is why Carlip wrote:

What do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory

This is also why Carlip has debated in print with Kopenheim and others claiming they had measured that speed to be c. They did not measure it.

The Kopenheim controversy concerns just one specific proposal for trying to make an observation revealing propagation speed. It is not dispositive for this discussion.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

At contrary, in this talk it is said often that TVF silly claims about superluminal propagation were refuted by Carlip. You just wrote above that "[...] implies that all massless forces propagate at c". This is not a forum for correcting your mistakes about the physics, but it is fair to remark what Carlip really said about the issue. And he agrees that no measurement of the speed of gravity has been provided. There is no doubt about this point. JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There exists none empirical evidence that the electric force propagates at c, and in fact modern literature which I llauded above do not support this claim. At contrary, there is a recent physical review E paper that explains why EM forces are instantaneous and what are the traditional mistakes about this issue (as said before Carlip paper repeats the mistakes corrected in PRE and would not be taken very seriously).

Your beliefs about superluminal propagation are mistaken, but I have no doubt that you will cling to them for the remainder of your life. 6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The main goal of this section is to reveal what Carlip papers really say about the speed of gravity and about TVF claim in the PLA paper. JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But again this is not a forum for debating the mistakes about EM and gravity (in my initial message I asked for suggestions for an adequate forum). My focus is on what Carlip paper really said and how his paper is misunderstood or misquoted against TVF here. JuanR (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The papers of Carlip and March et al are accurately portrayed in the discussion here. They both refute Van Flandern's ridiculous claims.6324xxxx (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Carlip did not refuted TVF claims about the speed of gravity done in the PLA paper. At contrary, Carlip confirmed that observations are compatible with a model where interactions are not propagated at c. I will quote what Carlip really said for avoiding any possible confusion:

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

JuanR (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion clearly establishes the relevant verifiable facts, which are (1) Van Flandern's paper claimed that the absence of aberration places a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c on the propagation speed of the forces of electricity and gravity, and (2) the papers of March et al and Carlip refute this claim. The quotation from Carlip's paper that clearly and unequivocally proves JuanR wrong is the one he has pasted multiple times into his comments above.

All the additional claims introduced by JuanR into this discussion are equally erroneous, as explained in the preceeding discussion, and they are also irrelevant to this article. As JuanR has said, this is not the place for a discussion of his personal beliefs about superluminal travel, etc.6324xxxx (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above this is not the adequate place to correct your misunderstandings on the issue, neither I need to correct your misreadings (e.g. I never wrote "superluminal travel"). This is a section devoted to explain what Carlip and TvF really said in their papers (as proved with quotes extracted from their papers) and to correct some exagerated and unfair claims done against TvF. TvF was wrong in some issues (as said at the very start of my talk, I do not support his theories), but this does not mean anything inaccurate or unfair can be said about him in an Encyclopedia.

The indisputable facts are that (1) TvF main claim in his PLA paper (as he wrote in the abstract) was:

Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the "speed of gravity" yields a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c

and (2) Carlip analyzed TvF main claim and concluded that observations do not reveal what is the speed. In particular, the observed absence of aberration is also consistent with the lower limit claimed by TvF. All the misguided claims done in this talk (mainly by one editor) about that the speed of gravity is c and cannot be other or about that Carlip refuted TvF "silly claims" are totally unfounded. Next I remark what Carlip really said about the speed of gravity issue and aberration in particular:

In a recent paper in Physics Letters A [1], Van Flandern has argued that observations show that gravity propagates at a speed much greater than c. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, Ref. [1] relies instead on directional information, in the form of observations of (the absence of) gravitational aberration. But the translation from a direction to a speed requires theoretical assumptions, and the implicit assumptions of Ref. [1]—in particular, that the interaction is purely central, with no velocity-dependent terms—do not hold for general relativity, or, for that matter, for Maxwell’s electrodynamics

[...]

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

JuanR (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the disagreement here is due to the language barrier. In English, when someone asserts that experiments place a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c on the speed of propagation, and someone else says that those experiments are also consistent with the speed of propagation being c, this constitutes a refutation of the claimed lower limit. The words "lower limit" in English mean that it cannot be below that value. Once this is understood, it is clear that the papers of March et al and Carlip have been accurately represented as refutations of Van Flandern.6324xxxx (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know your level of English and cannot say if your disagreement with several editors is due to some language barrier. However, I can say that your logic is clearly flawed. To show this consider Carlip's paper. He asserts that observations are consistent with a speed of propagation much more larger than c (Carlip assertion is certainly compatible with the lower limit computed by TvF). At the same time, Carlip asserts that the same observations are also consistent with the speed of propagation being c. Is Carlip refuting himself? The response is "No". JuanR (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement seems to be at a more rudimentary level. Van Flandern claimed that the lack of aberration of forces implies a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the propagation speed of those forces. March et al and Carlip refute this claim, by explaining that the lack of aberration is also consistent with a propagation speed of c, which is far below the "lower limit" claimed by Van Flandern. Hence March and Carlip's papers are clear refutations of Van Flandern's silly claim. (By the way, the idea that the lack of aberration implies superliminal propagation was already dubunked by Poincare over 100 years ago.)6324xxxx (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the existence of disagreement at some more rudimentary level:

(i) Above I reproduced the exact statement done by TvF in the PLA paper. You have changed it again, substituting by your version. Why? This is a talk to achieve consensus among editors. Do you propose that editors substitute the quotes extracted from the TvF paper by some of your unreferenced personal versions?

(ii) Above I reproduced the exact statement done by Carlip in the PLA paper. As quoted above (several times) Carlip agrees on that the lack of aberration is also "consistent with instantaneous propagation", which is evidently compatible with a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c. Neither Carlip refuted TvF claim neither Carlip refuted himself! In no part of his work Carlip writes that he has done "clear refutations of Van Flandern's silly claim". These are again your own words as an anonymous outsider (see point iv below). Carlip emphasizes that "different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions."

Why do you substitute Carlip exact words by your owns? This is a talk to achieve consensus among editors. Do you propose that editors substitute the quotes extracted from Carlip PLA paper by some of your own unreferenced personal versions? Do you propose to write words as "silly" in an Enciclopedia?

(iii) At the very start of my talk I wrote that this was not the adequate place to debate physics, because would involve mathematical treatments are clearly beyond the usual in the field. I did clear that the objective of this section of the talk was to show what the cited papers really say. For this reason, I have provided quotes extracted from the cited references. At the first you started discussing about the physics. I reminded you the goal of the talk again (this is a talk about "TvF" not a talk about the "physics of interactions"). You seemed to agree, but now once again you jump over the physics, this time with your appeal to Poincaré. Why do you agree but next change of opinion? Will you change again?

I will not revise here Poincaré ideas in detail, but simply will add that his theory of gravity is totally forgotten and that his analysis of interactions was clearly incomplete. In no way this is a dismish of Poincaré other great achievements, of course, do not misinterpret me! However science has advanced since him.

The questions that I want ask you are: Why do you think that 100 years old incomplete literature have more validity that modern literature in top journals named above? Do you suggest that editors would cite only old references ignoring modern publications correcting those? If your response is yes, I am curious, why would we cite papers from 100 years ago? Why do not ignore those also and cite still older literature?

(iv) As other editors have pointed out you look too involved in participating in the edition of this article, but I am also curious on why you remain totally anonymous. I am using my real name. Could you give us the your? JuanR (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Flandern's paper explicitly claimed that "experiments" yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the speed of propagation of gravity. This silly claim was refuted in the papers of March et al and Carlip, who explained that a speed of c (which is far below the "lower limit" claimed by Van Flandern) is also consistent with the observations. This is perfectly clear, so it isn't clear to me what you are complaining about.

By the way, please review the Wikipedia policy on "outing", and on assuming good faith. Thanks.6324xxxx (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You have avoided to reply any question from above. How do you wait achieve consensus among editors if you refuse to explain us what are your suggestions for improving the article? For instance, above I asked you "Do you propose that editors substitute the quotes extracted from the TvF paper by some of your unreferenced personal versions?" You ignored this, but now you promote again other of your own versions. I am forced to assume that your response is a "Yes".

However, it is good, that your last versions of what TvF explicitly said in the cited paper are rather better. Still I prefer the quote from TvF paper that I have introduced above rather than your version, because the quote from the paper is more accurate. I see no objective reason which an accurate and referenced version may be substituted by your own inaccurate version.

In no part of the papers that you are citing the authors assert to refute the "silly claim" or similar. Again I see no objective reason which accurate and referenced statements may be substituted by your own version as an outsider (I assume that you are none of those authors since you did not reply to the question about your identity). Also words as "silly" are not adequate for an Enciclopedia, even if you think so.

Above I reproduced the exact statement done by Carlip in the PLA paper. As quoted above (several times) Carlip agrees on that the lack of aberration is also "consistent with instantaneous propagation", which is evidently compatible with a lower limit of 2x1010 c. Carlip also emphasizes the correctness of TvF claim in the next terms "different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions." All of this is accurate, physically correct, and referenced. Also at this point I see no objective reason which accurate and referenced quotes may be substituted by your own inaccurate versions, which also lack important details and may confound readers. In fact several of your messages you state that the speed of gravity is c, however the own Carlip writes in his paper this has been not measured. We would differentiate facts from your beliefs and suppositions.

About your remark on Wikipedia policies I have also something to say:

Avoid personal attacks. However you have written "In summary, Tom was not an example of a highly credentialed scientist who came to challenge the prevailing views. He was an amateur in the field of physics, and knew no more (and no less) about physics than the typical individual who promotes the kind of ideas that he promoted", "Tom's notability and therefore the whole reason for this article is due to his espousal of kooky and outlandish ideas", "What's more, he not only didn't understand these things, he had active MISunderstandings... things that could have been cleared up in just a couple of hours if he had ever chosen to do so", "The notability discussion concluded that TVF was marginally notable, primarily for his prominence as a pseudo-science crackpot", "I don't see the need to describe in detail each and every one of his intellectually dishonest ploys.". Whereas I agree that Tom was wrong in many points, I find your anonymous quotes a direct attack on Tom.

Neutral point of view but many editors noticed your lack of neutrality. There is even a section in this talk specifically devoted to you.

this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject but you continuously discuss in general terms. Incredibly you wrote "But again, this article is not the appropriate place to discuss the details of ideas that have been deemed by all reputable and verifiable sources to be erroneous". However, in your responses you ignore yourself and then discuss; a last example your invalid attempt to discuss an old paper by Poincaré...

Assume good faith. However, you have launched accusations over others editors: "I think your proposed alternative is clearly less informative and intentionally obscure", "Your reasons for regarding these plain facts as ridiculous are, shall we say, somewhat obscure", "Taken all in all, the dishonesty of the editor's misrepresentation is rather breath-taking". Again you wrote all this in an anonymous way.

Verifiability, still you have removed references and continuously substitute the quotes extracted from the articles by your own inaccurate versions. I have copied and pasted exact quotes from the cited papers. Up to in eleven occasions, you have ignored the quotes and substituted by your own version or readings (including some terribly wrong). This looks like a systematic attempt from an anonymous editor as you to hide that the papers exactly say. JuanR (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you contend that the papers of Marsh and Carlip did not refute Van Flandern's claim. I think we agree that Van Flandern's claim was that "experiments" yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the speed of propagation of gravity. I think we also agree that the papers of Marsh and Carlip explain that a speed of c (which is far below the "lower limit" claimed by Van Flandern) is also consistent with the observations. Where we seem to disagree is that I regard this as a refutation of Van Flandern's claim, whereas you do not. I'm really not sure how to resolve this disagreement, and I can only think that perhaps it is due to different understandings of the words involved, such as "lower limit" and "refutation". The word "refutation" means to show that a claim is false. The term "lower limit" means that something can't be below that value. Van Flandern's claim that certain observations yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the speed of propagation of gravity is therefore refuted by explaining that those observations are also consistent with a speed of gravity much less than Van Flandern's claimed lower limit. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly.

By 12th time you have ignored the quotes extracted from the papers and substituted by your own anonymous-editor versions, which misinterpret what the authors exactly said. JuanR (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I will also mention that Wikipedia discussion pages are intended for discussions of how to improve the article, not for discussions on how to improve previous discussions of the article (which seems to be your focus).6324xxxx (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And now you misinterpret me too. JuanR (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), you contend that the papers of Marsh and Carlip did not refute Van Flandern's claim. Nevertheless, I think we agree that Van Flandern's claim was that "experiments" yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the speed of propagation of gravity, and I think we also agree that the papers of Marsh and Carlip explain that a speed of c (which is far below the "lower limit" claimed by Van Flandern) is also consistent with the observations. Where we seem to disagree is that I regard this as a refutation of Van Flandern's claim, whereas you do not.

I'm honestly not sure how to proceed. The verifiable facts seem to be quite plain, and we actually seem to agree on the facts. Van Flandern made a claim, and Marsh and Carlip explained why it was wrong. Explaining why a certain claim is wrong is essentially the definition of the word "refutation". Can you explain why you believe the papers of Marsh and Carlip do not refute Van Flandern's claim?6324xxxx (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the 13th time you ignore the quotes extracted from the papers, then substitute them by your own anonymous-editor versions —which misinterpret what the authors exactly said— and finally ignore any explanation given.

Honestly, you have been explained "how to proceed" more than a dozen of times and by more than three different editors! JuanR (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Van Flandern's paper expressly claims that experiments establish a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the propagation speed of gravity, and the papers of Marsh and Carlip explain that, contrary to Van Flandern's claim, experiments are consistent with a propagation speed of c. To my knowledge, you are the only editor who disputes these easily verifiable facts.6324xxxx (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

JuanR, I am trying to understand your argument here. You say that Carlip's paper makes two important points 1) that it is impossible from his analysis to measure the speed of gravity and 2) that the experiments could point to the speed being c, or instantaneous.

Carlip says 1) the speed of gravity has not been directly measured but inferred from some theory and 2) observations on aberration could point to the speed being c or instantaneous; it depends on the theory used. JuanR (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, since Van Flandern's proposed "lower limit" falls between those two points, Carlip does not refute Van Flandern in any way. Granted, he does not support Van Flandern's claims, but your saying that the paper does not show that Van Flandern was wrong? And that it would be incorrect for someone to use Carlip as a source of trying to show Van Flandern was wrong? Akuvar (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Van Flandern analized laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments and got a lower limit (v_g > 2x10¹⁰ c) for gravity.

Van Flandern said that the speed would be greater than 2x10¹⁰ c and Carlip found that one possibility is (v_g = infinity), which evidently is greater. You are right that Carlip did not refute Van Flandern. And it is incorrect to use Carlip papers for that. JuanR (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When someone claims a lower limit for the value of the propagation speed, and someone else points out that it is NOT a lower limit, because the speed can be much less than the claimed limit, then this constitutes a refutation of the claim. Van Flandern's paper expressly claims that experiments establish a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the propagation speed of gravity, and the papers of Marsh and Carlip explain that, contrary to Van Flandern's claim, experiments are consistent with a propagation speed of c. This constitutes a clear refutation of Van Flandern's claim. I think this has been explained clearly and adequately. It is really not a controversial point.6324xxxx (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You already used this same argument before. The response is the same now. Let me paraphrase you:

When someone (Carlip) claims a value c for the propagation speed, and someone (Carlip) points out that it is NOT, because the speed can be much greater than the claimed c [in fact Carlip second speed is consistent with Van Flandern lower limit], then this does NOT constitute a refutation of the claim. Carlip did not refute himself; your logic is flawed.

Moreover, it is worth to mention that this is the 14th time that you use your anonymous identity for substituting the original quotes of the authors by your own versions. JuanR (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your paraphrase (exhibiting clinical echoalia, by the way) is false, because Carlip's paper does not make the claim that you attribute to it. Carlip's paper does not say that experiments imply a propagation speed of c. To the contrary, Carlip's paper very explicitly states that experiments currently do NOT tell us very much at all about the propagation speed (of gravity). On the other hand, Van Flandern's paper claims explicitly that experiments yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the propagation speed. The papers of Carlip and Marsh (repeating explanations made by Poincare, Lorentz, Eddington, and many others beginning around 1900) explain that Van Flandern's claim is false. A lower limit on the propagation speed of a force cannot be inferred from the absence of aberration as Van Flandern (following Laplace) claimed. Thus the papers of Carlip and Marsh are refutations of Van Flandern's claim. Please note that even Van Flandern himself agreed that Marsh and Carlip disputed his claim, and he wrote follow-up papers attempting to answer their refutations. There is really no serious disagreement - among people who speak and understand English clearly - that the papers of Marsh and Carlip refuted Van Flandern's claimed lower limit for the propagation speed.6324xxxx (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) If you read my message, you will discover that I was not paraphrasing Carlip but paraphrasing you. Of course what you say is wrong and so is the paraphrase as well. This was already said.

(ii) Next, you repeat what I have explained before about measurements and propagations speeds. If you read the talk you will remind that I corrected a series of incorrect statements that you wrote in this talk. For instance, you said "all massless forces propagate at c" and also said "Of course, there are other observations that show that the electric force and the gravitational force propagate at c". After several months of explanations and corrections to your statements, I am rather satisfied that at least you have got this point correctly. Congrats.

(iii) Unfortunately, you continue repeating your invalid claims about refutation. This is done clear in the quotations that you systematically snip (this is the 15th time that you do).

(iv) Van Flandern did not agree with you. He wrote follow-up papers where he noticed some of the mistakes done by Carlip in his paper. Since publication of Carlip paper more mistakes have been found and today we know that his analysis of speeds using LW potentials is already wrong in the section devoted to electromagnetism. What Carlip papers are subjected to criticism was already noticed before in this talk. Read it. Please remind this is a talk about Van Flandern not a general forum for discussing about the physics of interactions. JuanR (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your congratulations are pre-mature. It remains true that there are abundant observations that show the electric potential propagates at c, and there are even observations that collectively imply the gravitational force propagates at c. But these are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about what Carlip and Marsh et al said in their refutations of Van Flandern. They were addressing the specific observations regarding aberration that Van Flandern claimed imply a lower limit on the speed of propagation. Van Flandern's paper claims explicitly that experiments yield a lower limit of 2x10¹⁰ c for the propagation speed. The papers of Carlip and Marsh (repeating explanations made by Poincare, Lorentz, Eddington, and many others beginning around 1900) explain that Van Flandern's claim is false. A lower limit on the propagation speed of a force cannot be inferred from the absence of aberration as Van Flandern (following Laplace) claimed. Thus the papers of Carlip and Marsh are refutations of Van Flandern's claim. Please note that even Van Flandern himself agreed that Marsh and Carlip disputed his claim, and he wrote follow-up papers attempting to answer their refutations. Of course, Van Flandern's follow-up papers were wrong, which is why Phy Lett refused to publish his response to Carlip. Instead, he was forced to publish it in the highly "speculative" and essentially un-refereed journal "Foundations of Physics". The point is that Van Flandern was well aware that Carlip (and Marsh et al) disputed his claim. There is really no serious disagreement - among people who speak and understand English clearly - that the papers of Marsh and Carlip refuted Van Flandern's claimed lower limit for the propagation speed. You are certainly free to disagree with the arguments of Carlip and March et al, but the fact remains that they rejected Van Flandern's claim. The title of this Discussion section is not "Was Carip right?" but rather "What Did Carlip's Paper Say?". The answer is clearly that it said Van Flandern's claimed lower limit is wrong.6324xxxx (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your misconceptions, misreadings, and misquotations were adequately corrected before in many occasions in this talk. If you have still some valid point (rather than repeating the same mistakes forever) you are welcomed. JuanR (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Meta Research website edits

Editor 6324 is making changes to the main article without citation. The meta research site states "Meta Research, Inc. is a scientific non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation run by a 7-member board of directors" Until editor 6324 can post a source that this is false, the article should not be changed. Changing a main article for personal bias or reasons is considered vandalism of the article and will be reported. Akuvar (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review the archived Discussion pages for this article. The background of the "Meta Research" "organization" was carefully researched from available public records, and ther personal vanity nature of the "organization" was fully documented. For example, the 7 board of directors were identified, consisting of Van Flandern himself, his wife, his son, and other relatives. It is/was a very common personal incorporation. Also, if memory serves, the "corporation" no longer exists. This has all been fully discussed and documented, as has been the obvious fact that his web page is a personal web page, since none of the articles are by anyone other then himself.6324xxxx (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have any sources, documentation, or something to refute what is listed on the website other than your personal opinions or beliefs, please feel free to list them, otherwise information found on the website describing the nature of the website is our only source, and follows wiki guidelines. If you change this aspect of the article without providing any documentation, I will report it as vandalism. Akuvar (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've already been referred to the verifiable sources of information that prove the nature of Van Flandern's self-incorporation. (Please re-read my previous comment.) If you're not acquainted with how to read the archived Discussion pages and locate the discussion of the "Meta Research" corporation, I'm sure some administrators would be happy to assist you. You might also want to ask them where you can read about Wikipedia guidelines on assuming good faith on the part of other editors, and about the policy regarding making persistent threats (e.g., "I will report it as vandalism") against other editors, who are merely presenting verifiable facts in accord with Wikipedia policy, and objecting to the insertion of crackpot POVs into Wikipedia articles.6324xxxx (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It the first time I hear about this person and this article, but this issue is crystal clear to me - as long as the said organization and its web site call themselves Meta Research, I do not see any valid reason for repeated changing the link name by 6324xxxx. Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New Section Formatting Seems Broken

Hmmm... The text continued to be truncated until I deleted the "Low Importance Stub" template. Then the problem seems to have been fixed. If someone wants to restore the stub template, feel free, but hopefully it can be done without truncating the discussion text.6324xxxx (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Article revision

I am proposing to completely re-do the Tom Van Flandern wiki article, using some of the existing language, but trying to focus more on the items that he believed in and what made him notable.

Thomas C Van Flandern (June 26, 1940[1] – January 9, 2009) was an American astronomer, specializing in celestial mechanics, who was known as an outspoken proponent of unorthodox views on various topics. He graduated from Xavier University in 1962 and then attended Yale University on a scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO). In 1969, he received a PhD in Astronomy from Yale. Van Flandern worked at the USNO until 1982, having become the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office. Afterwards he worked as a consultant at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS), organized eclipse viewing tours, and promoted his views through his own company, Meta Research. He died in Sequim, Washington after a brief battle with cancer.

Van Flandern advocated inquiry into astronomy theories which he felt were consistent with the principles of science but were not otherwise supported because they conflicted with mainstream theories. He espoused 10 principles for assessing ideas and dubbed theories in compliance as “Deep Reality Physics". He published papers asserting his advocacy of LeSage gravity and that "the existence of faster-than-light interactions is compatible with causality if special relativity (SR) is replaced with Lorentz's interpretation (LR) of relativity." He believed that the speed of gravity was many times that of light. He later extended the idea of Faster-Than-Light propagation to Electrodynamic and Quantum Field Interactions in a paper coauthored with Jean-Pierre Vigier. Van Flandern was also known for his contention that certain anomalies seen on Mars are not of natural origin. He authored a book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated,[2] in which he challenged prevailing notions regarding dark matter, the big bang, and solar system formation, and advocated the theory (first proposed by Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded planet. He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the scientific community.

In 2009, asteroid 52266 was named in honor of Van Flandern, with the following citation given in Minor Planets Circulars, which regularly publishes names given to asteroids: "(52266) Van Flandern = 1986 AD Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas."

Please post comments or your affirmation that the article should be changed. Akuvar (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to generate some more attention to it, I mentioned your proposal on the fringe theories notice board, here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Tom_Van_Flandern. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see some references in the article. I'd be tempted to AfD this article as it stands. Simonm223 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this format doesn't lend itself to doing references like on the main article page. You'll notice however that many of the items still have their reference tags because they currently appear in the main article already. The items that aren't tagged and are new to the article are pulled from the subject's website and resume (posted on the website) and can easily be found there. If there is something that stands out as peculiar, highlight it for me and I'll provide the source. Obviously, if this replaced the article, I would use the reference tools there. **I just read this post by myself and it gives the feel of me trying to avoid citing references, so I'm going to work on that in the next 48 hours and reference all the new quotes and info** Akuvar (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New references for extra material. I am not inserting footnote marks, it is easy enough to see where these references would be inserted.

(1) Sequim Gazette obituary (2) biography and resume of Tom Van Flandern from Meta Research website (3) "Physics has its Principals" http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp (4) "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say" Tom Van Flandern, Physics Letters A, Volume 250, Issues 1-3, 21 December 1998, Pages 1-11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1 (5) "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions" Tom Van Flandern and Jean-Pierre Vigier, Foundatins of Physics, Vol 32, No. 7, July 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016530625645 (6) Tom Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated, North Atlantic Books (Berkeley, CA 1993 and 1999) ISBN 978-1556432682 (7) Asteroid naming citation http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs050001.html scroll to 52266

Akuvar (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With overwhelming support of editors to keep this article in the recent AfD, and many suggestions by the same that the article needed improvement, I have replaced the regular article with the one above. The only comments in the last two weeks by editors was the request for references and the declaration that the article would be nominated for deletion. Note that there were no requests to change, correct, or trash the improvements. Akuvar (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any objections to these changes. Some of the contentions over this article in the past have been how explicitly to state that many of Tom Van Flandern's ideas never found acceptance in the wider scientific community, so I can foresee the possibility that the wording might get pushed a little bit more in that direction, but overall that's a minor issue, and the newer version seems like an improvement. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making some corrections and for your comments. I believe the problem with the previous article version was that it became a victim in people arguing about the merits of the subject's ideas. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the ideas are bunk or genius, they were what the subject wrote about and should be listed. The article is not a place for arguing about the ideas themselves. Akuvar (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sometimes some topics or people are controversial. Excellent work. Maybe I would suggest the change on the part "He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the scientific community." to "He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community." or maybe "He issued newsletters, papers, and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have found little acceptance within the scientific community."

Your "have not found acceptance" would imply that his papers and books are never cited, which is not true. They are sometimes cited by some scientists. For instance:

http://scholar.google.es/scholar?cites=8426379223260991526&hl=es&as_sdt=2000

http://scholar.google.es/scholar?cites=16946126823527200144&hl=es&as_sdt=2000

One of the works in those lists is the next preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019v10, where the author writes "The generally accepted idea of the retarded propagation of gravity is not supported by any experimental data [28, 29]. Recent claims about measurements of the finite speed of gravity [30, 31] were challenged in a number of publications (see section 3.4.3 in [15])." References 28 and 29 are van Flandern papers (references 4 and 5 in this Wikipedia article). JuanR (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Salon article

An editor has been trying to restore the old salon article link. This link had been removed because it did not meet wiki guidelines, as salon is an editorial website. Wiki guidelines allow links to mainstream news websites and salon.com is not a news site. If any editor can show that the opinion piece in question was written with the same standards as a mainstream news outlet, or appeared on any mainstream news outlets, we can reconsider. Akuvar (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Has the acceptability of Salon been raised on Wikipedia before? I would like to see the discussion that lead to a consensus not to allow it as an external link. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Salon.com is used all over the place here as a source. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here you go, a feature story in a science magazine. In case you also wish to impugn that source to promote the idea that Van Flandern was anything but a major relativity crank, you can start reading about the magazine here. ▻Tim Shuba (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar, where do you get the idea Salon is just an "editorial website"? The article featured independent reporting on Van Flandern by way of asking various mainstream scientist for their opinions on him. Anyway, if you want to call into question Salon's reliability in this case, I'd invite you to start a section on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard...if you look at archived questions about salon you'll see it's pretty consistently considered reliable, though. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar is now scraping the bottom of the barrel by adding blatant antisemitic crackpottery. Of course letters to the editor have different status than articles and should not generally considered reliable unless they come from a reliable person and the identity can be resonably identified. Do check google for the record of that antisemite kook if you wish – meanwhile I am reverting the grossly improper addition. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to please check your remarks, we are trying to keep things as civil as possible here. I was against the salon articles in the first place, you cannot pick and choose which articles you like from that source simply because they argue against your point. Akuvar (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything explicitly anti-semitic in the letter, what are you referring to? Anyway the letter doesn't belong in the links because it's a letter to the editor (not a news article from a reporter) consisting of a bunch of unsourced assertions (with no technical details to back them up) from a guy with a fringe view. The guy totally fails to understand the difference between mainstream speculations about a theory of quantum gravity that might replace general relativity (but which is generally be expected to reduce to GR at energies far from the Planck scale, which would include its predictions about gravitational radiation in most situations), and the claims of van Flandern and other anti-relativists about what general relativity itself predicts, like van Flandern's claim that GR says gravitational effects move faster than light (for example, the letter says On the one hand, Farrell tells us through Carlip that, to account for gravity, some scientists believe Einstein's theories need to be adjusted to a "considerable degree," yet, on the other hand, he now tell us through the same Carlip that there are hardly any "adjustable parameters in general relativity." So which is it, Mr. Farrell and Dr. Carlip? It appears that your support of relativity is just as relative as the theory itself.) And of course the letter writer gives no technical grounds for his claims that GR does not give unique and correct predictions about things like the Perihelion of Mercury, he just makes random assertions like Mr. Farrell tries so hard to save Einstein from the accusation of "jiggering" the values of Mercury's perihelion. He quotes again from Steve Carlip: "As far as I can tell, Van Flandern simple doesn't understand the Einstein field equations." This is what you often find in relativity circles -- the constant whining that anti-relativists don't understand them. But believe me, Van Flandern understands Einstein all too well. And truth be told, it is common knowledge among physicists that very few people in Einstein's day understood his tensor calculus. That's because Einstein made it up to suit his theories. "Believe me" pretty much sums up this guy's whole argument! Anyway, the fact remains that random letters to the editor from a news source don't count as reliable sources, even if the news source itself is reliable. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, for discussion on why letters to the editor are not generally considered reliable sources (except in some cases where the author is a notable figure), see here Hypnosifl (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to check google with the name signed to the letter of the editor if you wish to see the apparent motivation of the writer. Sure, you are right that the letter writer is not notable in any case, which I had pointed out before Akuvar continued to edit war to insert this obvious junk. I have warned Akuvar of wp:3RR. ▻Tim Shuba (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what motivation the two of you have to push your agenda, but you are doing it at great expense to my character. I am not in violation of the 3 revert rule, so your "warning" is simply a personal attack on my editing. I asked the two of you to be civil and refrain from personal attacks, and in response I get a comment about antisemitism? Akuvar (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you saying "the two of you"? I haven't said anything about the antisemitism issue besides commenting that the letter didn't look antisemitic to me, in response to Tim Shuba's comment "Akuvar is now scraping the bottom of the barrel by adding blatant antisemitic crackpottery". Tim may be right that the letter-writer has an antisemitic history but you couldn't have been expected to know that from reading the letter itself, so I agree this issue isn't relevant (and if Tim wanted to bring it up to discredit the author he should have been more clear that he wasn't accusing you of knowing about this or of sharing the author's views). If you think I have attacked your character in some other way, please explain. As far as personal attacks, I don't appreciate your use of the phrase "push your agenda" which makes it sound like I have some illegitimate ideological motives, I just want to make sure that wikipedia articles clearly separate mainstream from fringe views on scientific topics, and that includes the idea that when you have articles which center around fringe theories or the creators of these theories, an effort should be made to include information that shows what mainstream scientists think of these theories. Hypnosifl (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I was lumping the two of you together and that was unfair, and I misunderstood your comment about antisemitism. Again my apologies. The salon article was here for a long time until I read it, and the scientists quoted in the article just happened to be long standing antagonists to Van Flandern, and I do not consider it a news article. The sources it contains are just quotes from those interviewed who are defending GR and belittling Van Flandern. I felt it was more akin to an editorial than a legitimate article. You seem to feel very strongly that it belongs on the reference part of this article. because I feel strongly against the types of things written on salon, can we settle for quoting the Cosmos article that editor Tim Shuba gave a link to? Akuvar (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypnosifl is entirely correct. The antisemitism refers to the motivation of the crackpot who wrote the letter to the editor inserted twice by Akuvar. This was my own observation and Hypnosifl was simply asking why I brought it up. Turns out that I am not alone in this characterization. According to his wikipedia entry, this nutjob is actually a notable antisemite. If Akuvar doesn't want antisemitism brought up here, Akuvar should perform a minimal level of fact-checking so as not to insert the uninformed rantings of antisemetic crackpots as ostensibly reliable sources. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd be OK with using the Cosmos article, but if you compare it with the Salon article you'll see they're almost identical: written by the same reporter, and with all (or nearly all) the same quotes about Van Flandern by Carlip and others. Maybe the reporter was doing freelance work and decided to make more money by submitting slightly reworded versions of the same article to different organizations. I don't agree, though, that focusing on mainstream scientists makes it "more akin to an editorial than a legitimate article"--reporters don't have an obligation to give the same weight to "both sides" on a scientific issue where there's a clear mainstream consensus, for example it would be legitimate for an article reporting on creationism to include a lot of discussion by mainstream biologists about what's wrong with creationist claims without giving creationists equal time to argue for their own views. See the problem of false balance. Hypnosifl (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to incorporate the material into the article text, regardless of which source is cited. Of course Akuvar will possibly have a problem with that, preferring instead to turn the article into a hagiography, but that should be rejected. Basically, you will not find a serious, mainstream relativity researcher to give the "pro-Van Flandern" position. His writings about special relativity and what he called "Lorentzian relativity" found on metaresearch are total garbage, not even worth refuting. The top-level historical researcher quoted in the Salon/Cosmos article, Michel Janssen, more or less dismisses Van Flandern as a fraud in a few terse words. The legacy of Van Flandern as far as relativity theory is concerned is some combination of incompetence, fraud, and self-delusion. The views quoted in the Salon/Cosmos article are entirely representative of the prevailing, extreme majority of scientists who can even be bothered to comment on the theoretical babblings of Van Flandern regarding relativity theory. Tim Shuba (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in question was written by John Farrell. John is engaged in a long standing war of words with Tom Bethell, another reporter. My father evidently came into Mr. Farrell's sights when Mr. Bethell wrote about my father in the American Spectator article "Rethinking Relativity". Farrell references Bethell's article in his attack piece. Personally I find it somewhat ironic that my father's work is sometimes used to promote religious theories and that he is sometimes lumped in with religious zealots given he was an ardent atheist and scientist. Farrell's article cites several credible sources but also includes sources like Chris Hillman, which is at the very least problematic. Personally I think Farrell's article is an opinion piece that has no place in an encyclopedia article. However, if it is included the Bethell article should be included as well (readers can draw their own conclusions). Thanks Mikevf (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you comments are extremely derogatory and offensive. I agree that most relativists disagreed with Tom but he had some support among physicists. His papers were published in peer reviewed journals and Vigier, a respected professional himself, coauthoered a paper on this topic with Tom. Certainly their views were in the minority and this is expressed in the article. The personal attacks are both unscientific and unwikipedic (even for a discussion page). I knew Tom personally, and while I'm not impartial, neither is your description on him. Can we please keep this civil? Thanks. Mikevf (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, aside from that paper in Physics Letters A (which I'm not sure would be seen as an entirely respectable publication by mainstream scientists, see the discussion of various questionable papers it's published here) did he have any other papers on relativity and the speed of gravity published in peer-reviewed journals (and if so what journals)?

(i) The article cites the FOP paper also.

(ii) The scientific value of an article is not given by the objective/subjective quality of the journal. There is right papers published in PLA, just as there is completely wrong and even fraud papers published in mainstream journals as Physical Review or even top journals as Science or Nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n

I didn't claim that the value of an article is given by the quality of the journal, but the opinion of mainstream scientists about the journal is relevant to whether it's considered a "reliable source" on wikipedia (of course when differentiating mainstream from fringe views we should look at more than just the overall quality of the journal but also at whether there's any kind of consensus opinion on the claims themselves). Hypnosifl (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. First you seem to agree with me that articles may be evaluated by their own merits (or absence of) instead by subjective analysis as where was published. However, next you add that "the opinion of mainstream scientists about the journal is relevant". JuanR (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(iii) Several experts in general relativity and relativistic chaos have confirmed that observations can be perfectly explained using theories where gravity does not travel to the speed of light. I have cited several references in a section which has been now cleared (by archival motives) from this talk. Still above you can read some citations and one Arxiv preprint showing that anomalous perihelion of Mercury, GPS, light bending and all that can be explained without assuming that the speed of gravity is c. JuanR (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that there are theories where gravity doesn't travel at the speed of light which successfully replicate all the experimentally-verified predictions of GR? When you say "above you can read some citations and one Arxiv preprint", what are you referring to when you say "above"? Can you just post citations to peer-reviewed papers here? Hypnosifl (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is sometimes believed that the speed of gravity has been measured but this is not true. There was an extensive discussion about this in this talk. I will only add the next relevant quote by Steve Carlip in "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" Physics Letters A 267, 2000, 81–87:

In a recent paper in Physics Letters A [1], Van Flandern has argued that observations show that gravity propagates at a speed much greater than c. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, Ref. [1] relies instead on directional information, in the form of observations of (the absence of) gravitational aberration. But the translation from a direction to a speed requires theoretical assumptions, and the implicit assumptions of Ref. [1]—in particular, that the interaction is purely central, with no velocity-dependent terms—do not hold for general relativity, or, for that matter, for Maxwell’s electrodynamics [...] Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity.

For your other question, when I said "above" I did mean the end of the section "Article revision" above. At the end of that section, you can find the link to the ArXiv preprint I was refering to. JuanR (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Did these papers include the claims about gravity going faster than light in general relativity itself, or claims that general relativity does not uniquely predict things that it's claimed to predict like the perihelion of Mercury, or that it is not used in the GPS clock corrections? These are the kinds of claims attacked in Farrell's article. I don't think Bethell's article belongs in the wikipedia article because the article itself makes clear that it is describing a fringe view, that of so-called "relativity dissidents" (and it doesn't even attempt to get responses to their arguments from proponents of the mainstream view). The article also makes silly claims like the part at the end where they say "Special Relativity will always conflict with logic", without explaining why there is anything illogical about the notion that there need not be any objective truth about the rate a clock is ticking (just like there is no objective truth about other coordinate-dependent notions like an object's velocity, or an object's x-coordinate). Anyway, you are free to believe that one frame's perspectives represent the "truth" in some metaphysical sense, special relativity just says there should be no physical experiment that will pick out a preferred frame--see the Lorentz ether theory article which points out that this is just seen as an "interpretation" of special relativity, not a distinct physical theory in itself. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Reputable Citations

I see that this article used to have a banner stating that much of the material was unsourced, but the banner has been removed when links were added to the subject's personal web page. For example, the article now has a reference to a "biography", but this is actually an autobiography appearing on the subject's personal web page. (Every article on the web site was written by the subject.) So this doesn't satisfy the requirement for citations. I think the use of the personal web page as a reference should be removed, and probably the banner should be restored. Basically, the page constains many assertions that are no verifiable in reputable secondary published sources. I think it's okay to include a link to the subject's personal web page at the bottom of the article, under External Links, for general reference and for the autobiography, but it shouldn't be used as an independent verification of facts about the subject.130.76.32.182 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Afaiac, go ahead. DVdm (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors, please take note in archive 5 of this discussion page, the second to last section, "Meta Research website edits" where there was a discussion on this being a company website. It was ruled that it was not a personal website and I urge you to read that section before continuing this argumaent. I caution any editor not to make changes to the article and its citations based on a personal opinion that the referenced website is personal. Akuvar (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the website in consideration is a personal or company website makes no difference. It is not a reliable source. Tim Shuba (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? Akuvar (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On the grounds of WP:SECONDARY, WP:COI, and WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing a bunch of wiki policies without an explanation is worthless. Regardless, I accommodated you by visiting all three of the listed pages and I see no violations. The Meta Research website would qualify as either a primary or secondary source, if you're accusing someone of COI you should state your facts, and quoting directly from the website certainly does not constitute original research. I caution you about throwing wiki policies around if you are unwilling to explain yourself or back up your accusations, especially if they are wrong. Akuvar (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was listing a bunch of policies and guidelines describing under which circumstances a source is supposed to be reliable, independently of what the article is about. I hadn't even looked at the article.

There is no need for you to accuse me of "accusing someone of COI". I am not accusing anyone of anything. Frankly I'm a bit amazed that you, having been editing here since more than a year, never had visited the listed pages before. So perhaps my listing them was not such a bad idea, and I hope you enjoyed reading them.

Keep up the good work, and try to avoid seeing accusations where there are none. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No excuse for not listing your rationale as to what made the source unreliable according to those policies. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said I had never read them before, since you didn't bother listing your reasons for citing them, I visited them in case I was missing something. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't list WP:COI as a reason an article doesn't meet citation standards unless you're going to back it up with an explanation. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your interspersed comments below my comment. I notice that you have also interspersed you comments into 130's comment below, creating an entire series of unsigned comments in the process. That makes this section as good as useless. I will leave the fixing to 130.* or to you. Please follow the talk page guidelines and reply below other user's comments? Thanks.

I have looked at your and Mikevf's edit histories, user pages, talk pages, etc. It is clear to me now that you (a close friend of the subject) and Mikevf (a family member) both are here with a specific purpose (see WP:SPA) --which, I know, is not forbidden of even harmful per se--, and I can imagine that trying to avoid a COI is (and certainly should be) your very first priority. I was not aware of your mission before, and I understand why (and apologise for the fact that) you were upset by my listing of the 3 policies, specially the COI. I repeat that the COI was not about you or any editor here, but solely about the subject's private website as a source, fully in line with 130.*'s opening comment of this section.

I still haven't read the article itself, and I don't intend to do so before it will have become sufficiently stable. DVdm (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar, the biography link should at the very least be labeled "autobiography". While it's inaccurate to claim all the articles on Meta Research were written by Tom, he certainly did write the content in the biography link.

There was a request for citation on Tom's views about Le Sages's Theory of Gravitation. They are not discussed in the referenced papers. I suggest citing the book "Pushing Gravity - New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" by Matthew R. Edwards (ISBN 0-9683689-7-2) which includes a paper titled "Gravity" writen by Tom where he discusses "how gravitons can give relativistic properties of gravity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with shuba and DVdm that it's quite clear the "Metaresearch" web page was totally in the control of TvF, so it in no way could be construed as a valid secondary source of information. (Mikevf says some of the articles on the site were written by people other than TvF, but I do not see any. Even if there are some, it wouldn't change the fact that the content of that web site was totally controlled by TvF, but I'm curious... could anyone point out any articles on that site that were not written by TvF?)

This issue was looked into by wiki administrators and covered under archive 5, the second to last section. This is the second time I'm pointing this out. If you don't want that entire section reprinted here, don't bring it up again. If you think the wiki administrator was wrong in their ruling, take it up with them on their talk page. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think some actual secondary sources have been suppressed in the article. For example, there is verifiable documentation for TvF's espousal of infinite free energy (driven by the ultra-mundane flux), but this has been suppressed in the article.

Please don't make a statement like this unless you can cite references. The only reference to this is an author's comments about TVF's talk and his own editorial comment of what this could mean to proponents of infinite free energy. No one has ever offered a quote from TVF's papers that "documents his espousal" of infinite free energy. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, one of the main features of TvF's notability (justifying the inclusion of this article in the first place) is the artificial structures on Mars, and the related ideas, which have been downplayed to a single innocuous-looking sentence in the article. This is disproportionately small in relation to it's contribution to his notability. (See Wiki policy on making sure articles focus on the notable aspects of the subject.)

I don't have a problem including more on this topic, but disagree with all of your statements concerning his notability due to this one issue. If you would like to propose the inclusion of more information, please post it here so all editors can comment on it. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall I get the impression that the article has been biased to one point of view. Another example is the asteriod naming thing being given such pominence, like a Nobel prize or soomething. Ringo Starr has an asteroid named after him. Lots of frivolous asteriod naming has taken place. The citations are not peer-reviewed entities. It is basically a condolance card that someone was kind enough to arrange for the van Flandern family after his passing, in lieu of flowers.

I don't know much about the organization Minor Planet Circular but going to their site, it seems that they are part of Harvard and I see no form for "purchasing a name for an asteroid as a condolence card." Even the wiki page for them doesn't mention any frivolous handing out of asteroid names, so I think to make this statement you should either 1) back it up with citations or 2) go to Ringo Starr's page and add the citation for him, too. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the citation doesn't even mention faster than light travel, faces on Mars, or infinite free energy, the very things that justify TvF's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, so even the relevance is questionable. This article isn't intended to be an obituary or a thank-you note. The present article would be okay as a respectful and admiring obituary, but for an encyclopedia article, different standards apply. Perhaps we should re-consider whether the article should really be here. It's hard to see how the family members and friends will ever be comfortable with anything other than a favorably biased article.130.76.32.19 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands (before it was butchered today) was posted as a NPOV alternative to the anti-TVF sentiment that had un-balanced the article in the first place. It is safe to say that the anti-TVF crowd also will not be satisfied until this article is un-balanced once again against Tom. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Reputable Citations

I see that this article used to have a banner stating that much of the material was unsourced, but the banner has been removed when links were added to the subject's personal web page. For example, the article now has a reference to a "biography", but this is actually an autobiography appearing on the subject's personal web page. (Every article on the web site was written by the subject.) So this doesn't satisfy the requirement for citations. I think the use of the personal web page as a reference should be removed, and probably the banner should be restored. Basically, the page constains many assertions that are no verifiable in reputable secondary published sources. I think it's okay to include a link to the subject's personal web page at the bottom of the article, under External Links, for general reference and for the autobiography, but it shouldn't be used as an independent verification of facts about the subject.130.76.32.182 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Afaiac, go ahead. DVdm (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors, please take note in archive 5 of this discussion page, the second to last section, "Meta Research website edits" where there was a discussion on this being a company website. It was ruled that it was not a personal website and I urge you to read that section before continuing this argumaent. I caution any editor not to make changes to the article and its citations based on a personal opinion that the referenced website is personal. Akuvar (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the website in consideration is a personal or company website makes no difference. It is not a reliable source. Tim Shuba (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? Akuvar (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On the grounds of WP:SECONDARY, WP:COI, and WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing a bunch of wiki policies without an explanation is worthless. Regardless, I accommodated you by visiting all three of the listed pages and I see no violations. The Meta Research website would qualify as either a primary or secondary source, if you're accusing someone of COI you should state your facts, and quoting directly from the website certainly does not constitute original research. I caution you about throwing wiki policies around if you are unwilling to explain yourself or back up your accusations, especially if they are wrong. Akuvar (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was listing a bunch of policies and guidelines describing under which circumstances a source is supposed to be reliable, independently of what the article is about. I hadn't even looked at the article.

No excuse for not listing your rationale as to what made the source unreliable according to those policies. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for you to accuse me of "accusing someone of COI". I am not accusing anyone of anything. Frankly I'm a bit amazed that you, having been editing here since more than a year, never had visited the listed pages before. So perhaps my listing them was not such a bad idea, and I hope you enjoyed reading them.

I never said I had never read them before, since you didn't bother listing your reasons for citing them, I visited them in case I was missing something. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, and try to avoid seeing accusations where there are none. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't list WP:COI as a reason an article doesn't meet citation standards unless you're going to back it up with an explanation. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar, the biography link should at the very least be labeled "autobiography". While it's inaccurate to claim all the articles on Meta Research were written by Tom, he certainly did write the content in the biography link.

There was a request for citation on Tom's views about Le Sages's Theory of Gravitation. They are not discussed in the referenced papers. I suggest citing the book "Pushing Gravity - New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" by Matthew R. Edwards (ISBN 0-9683689-7-2) which includes a paper titled "Gravity" writen by Tom where he discusses "how gravitons can give relativistic properties of gravity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with shuba and DVdm that it's quite clear the "Metaresearch" web page was totally in the control of TvF, so it in no way could be construed as a valid secondary source of information. (Mikevf says some of the articles on the site were written by people other than TvF, but I do not see any. Even if there are some, it wouldn't change the fact that the content of that web site was totally controlled by TvF, but I'm curious... could anyone point out any articles on that site that were not written by TvF?)

This issue was looked into by wiki administrators and covered under archive 5, the second to last section. This is the second time I'm pointing this out. If you don't want that entire section reprinted here, don't bring it up again. If you think the wiki administrator was wrong in their ruling, take it up with them on their talk page. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think some actual secondary sources have been suppressed in the article. For example, there is verifiable documentation for TvF's espousal of infinite free energy (driven by the ultra-mundane flux), but this has been suppressed in the article.

Please don't make a statement like this unless you can cite references. The only reference to this is an author's comments about TVF's talk and his own editorial comment of what this could mean to proponents of infinite free energy. No one has ever offered a quote from TVF's papers that "documents his espousal" of infinite free energy. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, one of the main features of TvF's notability (justifying the inclusion of this article in the first place) is the artificial structures on Mars, and the related ideas, which have been downplayed to a single innocuous-looking sentence in the article. This is disproportionately small in relation to it's contribution to his notability. (See Wiki policy on making sure articles focus on the notable aspects of the subject.)

I don't have a problem including more on this topic, but disagree with all of your statements concerning his notability due to this one issue. If you would like to propose the inclusion of more information, please post it here so all editors can comment on it. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall I get the impression that the article has been biased to one point of view. Another example is the asteriod naming thing being given such pominence, like a Nobel prize or soomething. Ringo Starr has an asteroid named after him. Lots of frivolous asteriod naming has taken place. The citations are not peer-reviewed entities. It is basically a condolance card that someone was kind enough to arrange for the van Flandern family after his passing, in lieu of flowers.

I don't know much about the organization Minor Planet Circular but going to their site, it seems that they are part of Harvard and I see no form for "purchasing a name for an asteroid as a condolence card." Even the wiki page for them doesn't mention any frivolous handing out of asteroid names, so I think to make this statement you should either 1) back it up with citations or 2) go to Ringo Starr's page and add the citation for him, too. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the citation doesn't even mention faster than light travel, faces on Mars, or infinite free energy, the very things that justify TvF's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, so even the relevance is questionable. This article isn't intended to be an obituary or a thank-you note. The present article would be okay as a respectful and admiring obituary, but for an encyclopedia article, different standards apply. Perhaps we should re-consider whether the article should really be here. It's hard to see how the family members and friends will ever be comfortable with anything other than a favorably biased article.130.76.32.19 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands (before it was butchered today) was posted as a NPOV alternative to the anti-TVF sentiment that had un-balanced the article in the first place. It is safe to say that the anti-TVF crowd also will not be satisfied until this article is un-balanced once again against Tom. Akuvar (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User 130.76, you are making extensive edits to this content of a highly controversial and contested article. You are also making specious and obscure arguments that are identical to arguments made by a previous anonymous user who eventually adopted the user ID 63.24.xxxx. Specifically:

1. You claim Tom is notable for espousal of infinite free energy (driven by the ultra-mundane flux). To my knowledge Tom did not publish papers espousing free energy, he didn't write about it on his web site or in his book or in discuss it in any media appearance. In fact, to my knowledge the closest he ever came was a single presentation at an obscure conference where Tom suggested efforts to find sources of free energy would be better directed toward harnessing particle gravity. And the only reason I know about that is because user 63.24 managed to find a obscure google link on the presentation.

2. You seem to have misinterpreted Tom's SoG first paper in exactly the same way 63.24 repeatedly did despite painstaking and repeated corrections by JuanR and you've ignored his subsequent papers.

3. You've challenged the value of citations by the Minor Planets Circular just as 63.24 did. Citations used to be a lot more lax and allowed fictional characters but that hasn't been the case for many years now. The rules are now more stringent and are reviewed by an over-site group. Naming rights are granted to the discoverer. It's not a Nobel prize but it's not a condolence gift either (and cannot be purchased).

4. You called for the deletion of the article because it's not suitably defaming of Tom Van Flandern, just as user 63.24 repeatedly did. This article has been nominated twice for deletion for disgruntled editors and twice voted to keep.

Unfortunately, user 63.24.xxxx's contributions were not held in high regard. If you plan to continue making extensive edits to this article please do so from a user account. That would make it easier to follow your input and reassure others that you are in fact a new editor. I'm sure editors here would be happy to discuss and work through your concerns. Of course if you have edited this article previously with a user account I'd ask that you please sign future edits with that user ID.

One last comment... you asked for any examples of other authors appearing on the Meta Research web site. Authors other than Tom appear in nearly every issue of the Meta Research Bulletin which was published quarterly. I'll post 2 examples (which I assume will suffice):

http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0615/Mrb07bp3.asp

http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp

Thanks -Mike

PS Akuvar, I think you're doing a great job. I also think DVdm's COI link refers to using a citation in this article written by Tom from a site over which Tom had editorial control. I don't believe any slight toward you was intended. And thank you for your contributions to this article and discussion.

Explanation of Edits

As I see it, there are two main problems with the article, both of which I'm trying to remedy. First, as others have commented, this article was lacking verifiable sources for many of its statements. Almost everything was referenced to material written by the subject of the article about himself, mostly in the form of a web site written by the subject, or in "publications" that don't meet Wikipedia standards for reputable sources. We should strive for independent secondary sources. (As it says in Wiki policy, if there are no independent secondary sources, then perhaps the subject isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article.) To remedy this, I've made a considerable effort to find secondary published sources for the statements in the article. For example, there is a statement say TvF worked on the GPS, and it was referenced to the autobiography he wrote on his web site. I think it's preferable to reference a statement like this to some published secondary source. Such sources are quite scarce on TvF, but I was able to locate an article in Salon magazine that mentions the GPS activity, and the author of that article seems to have done considerable leg-work and research to track down facts. So, I added a citation to that article to support the GPS statement. The same applies to the other statements were I've tried to systematically cite reputable secondary sources discussing TvF, such as the papers that appeared in Phys Lett soon after TvF's, refuting his claims. I think this makes the article much more NPOV, rather than just a recitation of what TvF (and his family and friends) believed about himself.

The second major problem with the article, that I've tried to remedy (to some extent), is the proportionality of the coverage to the subject's notability. A quick review of the google hits for TvF shows that he was most notable for his views on artificial structures built on the surface of Mars, like the "face" at Cydonia. Among the very first hits are several public lectures given by TvF on this subject. This is highly verifiable information regarding what TvF said and was known for, because we need only click on the links and we can hear and see him saying it, in front of large audiences. In these public lectures he describes his theory of how an ancient civilization living on a planet that has now exploded may have moved to Mars (which was its satellite), built the faces and other structures there, and then perhaps migrated to Earth. His main 3-part lecture, interspersed with sound bites from the "War of the Worlds" movie, ends with TvF saying that, according to this theory, WE are the descendents of the race that formerly lived on Planet V, and then on Mars. This theory, which was shared with the author Alan Alford, is well summarized in a quote, which I used frankly because I was too lazy to transcribe TvF's public webcast lecture. His words are almost identical to Alfords, but if someone thinks a transcription of TvF's exact words would be preferable, I would certainly support that, although I think the Alford publications are also good as a secondary source.

On a related problem, the article didn't mention TvF's espousal of infinite free energy. I notice that some editors have claimed that he never ever suppoted such an idea. So, I've included two verifiable and (I think) irrefutable references, one to a published article in "Infinite Energy Magazine" describing a public lecture that TvF gave, in which he explained how his theory of ultramundane corpuscles could be used to yield infinite free energy, and another to a U-tube webcast lecture (again, one of the first google hits on TvF) in which he explains (again) how the ultramundane corpuscles can be harnessed to yield limitless free energy. More sources can be provided, but I think these two suffice to establish both the notability and the verifiability of the statement that he espoused limitless free energy.

Hopefully this explains the edits I've made. After making these edits, they have been wholeslae reverted by an editor her, even though at least two other editors had expressed support for these edits. I'm hoping that, rather than simply wholesale reverting my edits again, the other editor will examine each statement in the article, with its linked source, and decide in each case if it meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. I think each of my edits meets both of those criteria, and improves the article. If the reverting editor disagrees, perhaps he could discuss his dispute here before making another wholesale revert.Urgent01 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write all this. Some of it has given me the opportunity to look a little closer at some things, especially the YouTube segments, I had not seen those before. However, I disagree with several of your edits, still. Again, I thank you for finally bringing your changes to the discussion page, however, I feel they should be discussed first before making sweeping changes to an article that has enjoyed some stability in the past few months. Some problems are with the biographical information about his work at the USNO and the consulting on GPS. You have changed the wording and said that citations are needed when the biography page that is referenced at the end of the paragraph covers both. Your own link to the first YouTube video also lists biographical information that closely mirrors what is on the MetaResearch site, not what you have changed. I also do not believe that we need to go into details about theories, that is what links to other wikipedia articles are for. This is a dynamic encyclopedia, when the Moon is referrenced as being in our solar system, we don't need an explanation of what the solar system is, there is a link to it. I do not object to including more information on the alleged artifacts on Mars, especially now that we have this YouTube footage. Upon my googling TVF, I have to disagree with you, however, that it is the number one thing that comes up. I also think that with the YouTube introduction, we have a basis for including more of TVF's numerous awards and memberships that they list.

I think all editors are willing to work towards making the article better, but most of us have a history with this article. I urge you to read editor MikeVF's comments above since you seem to have just created your wiki ID and have used it to launch this monumental undertaking of making substantial changes to this article with no other editing history. Akuvar (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar, I think you've made, within a 24 hour period, three wholesale reverts of carefully prepared and sourced edits. I personally don't mind, and would not advocate banning you for this behavior, but I just thought you might want to be aware of the 3 revert rule, and the prohibition against edit warring.

As to your comments, I think you may have missed the point that I was trying to make about sourcing all the statements to the AUTObiography on the subject's web page. Even Tvf's son, Mike, has pointed out to you that it should be change to AUTObiography rather than biography. This is one of the edits I have made. You also say that you were unaware of the U-tube lectures that TvF gave, which I suppose explains why you didn't realize what his publically held views were on subjects such as Planet V and limitless free energy and so on. But now that you are aware of these things, and they are self-evidently notable and verifiable (seeing and hearing him say these things in public lectures on video is fairly hard to contest), I don't think you have any legitimate grounds for continuing to whole-sale revert the edits. Also, regarding your comments about not including details of theories, I have tried to include only those details necessary to make the statements intelligible. For example, TvF espoused limitless free energy from the ultramundane flux, so I think it helps to say what the ultramundane flux is, and that it related to Le Sage gravity, which he also espoused. I don't know how else to make understandable statements about the views he espoused.

As I said, I think the most productive course would be for you to consider each statement in the article, and discuss if you think it is not verifiable or notable, per Wikipedia policy. For example, let us begin with a hotly debated statement, that TvF espoused limitless free energy from the flux of ultra-mundane particles. Two references, one a published article and the other a video of a public lecture, have been presented in support of this statement, both notability and verifiability. Do you or do you not agree that this statement is correct? If not, how do you explain the cited evidence? Do you contend that the article is lying, and that the video was falsified? Please help me to understand your objection. ThanksUrgent01 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Urgent01, the reason you are experiencing objections to your making wholesale changes to the article without first seeking consensus here is that this topic has been discussed at length with user 63.24xxx (please see the artchives), and the article has been through mediation. But let's start with your suggestion of discussing each proposed change in sequence. In the video reference you provide Tom never utters the words "limitless free energy" and there's no link for your second citation. Tom does say that he believed gravity particles could some day be harnessed as an energy source. But saying Tom espoused limitless free energy free energy implies he supported a violation of conservation of energy laws, and that's simply was never the case. When a controversial statement is offered it needs to be supported by quotes and citations. An interpretation of Tom's views by any editor becomes original content and therefore isn't allowed. Does that help? Also, I would consider it a guesture of good faith if you would revert the article to the consensus state and the then added new content after consensus was reached here. Thanks -MikeMikevf (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Urgent01, I note that in response to my last request you added a the following quote to the article references "For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth.". You did not provide the requested source link, so I'm providing it here (http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/cofe.html). There are a couple of objections to your continuing to claim in the article that Tom espoused infinite free energy. 1) the quote provided is by Kooistra, not Van Flandern and 2) the quote only claims energy is free after turning off a graviton blocking shield (of unspecified energy cost). To say "Tom espoused free energy" implies he supported a violation of conservation of energy laws, and that is not factual. I objected when 63.24 inserted the Tom "espoused infinite free energy" claim in the article last year because it misrepresents Tom's views and makes him appear ignorant and incompetent. User 63.24xxxx made its animosity toward Van Flandern very clear prior to being asked to refrain from editing this article for a while. I provide this context because it seems implausible that anyone would independantly arrive at the same claim about Tom's views given the enormous volume of material about Tom, the obscurity of material regarding Tom on this particular topic, and inaccruracy of the claim. Assuming good faith on your part I'm left to conclude you saw this claim about Tom from user 63.24's prior attempts to get it added to the article. I'm hoping this context helps dissuade further use of 63.24's edits as source material.

I also note that you have not discussed anything I've written here but continue to what appears to be a SPA to make wholesale changes to a highly contested and controversial article, over the objections of multiple editors. Please, rather than edit war I again encourage you to revert your own changes where objections are being raised and then try to build concensus for them here. Thank you. -MikeMikevf (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)