Talk:Peter Lynds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Excised:

Peter Lynds (born May 17, 1975) New Zealand theoretical physicist and philosopher who has made important contributions to the study of time, mechanics, Zeno's paradoxes and consciousness.

He hasn't made significant contributions, according to his website he has published only 3 papers, in little-known journals.

Making Lynds' achievements all the more remarkable, is that he attended university for just 6 months.

Lynds' achievements aren't remarkable, see above.

From an edit summary:

Previous edit removed once again. I sincerely ask that you please be fair R. Rumour mongering and conspricacy theories do not belong in an encyclopedia.

We have lots of articles on conspiracy theories, and rumour mongering is OK if the subject matter is addressed with a neutral point of view. -- Tim Starling 04:25, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] non bias

"He hasn't made significant contributions, according to his website he has published only 3 papers, in little-known journals."

Dissagree about not being significant, as many others would (including some world class scientists), but I have removed "important" for time being. The journals he has publihed in are very good ones.

The article as it stands includes detail of the controversy, but is balanced and fair. Adding more would not be, nor even be relevant.

Actually I think you'll find it's journal, singular. He's published one paper in one journal -- Foundations of Physics Letters. Plus he has two preprints in unreviewed archives.
As for the many others disagreeing, who are they? Can you give me a few examples? -- Tim Starling 00:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

See below.

[edit] Re: Whatever the reason for your strong bias againist Lynds Rasmus, play fair

I have no bias against Peter Lynds. As far as I am concerned, he is a nobody. But biographic pages should mention all important facts about the persons concerned. Rasmus Faber 21:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rasmus, be fair. Details of the controversy regarding lynds and his work are already included. Your addition is nothing more than mud slinging and not at all balanced or necessary. Saying that you aren't bias againist lynds or his work, and then calling him a nobody, don't really go hand and hand.

Please stop inserting the claim that Peter Lynds' achievements were remarkable, unless you have some evidence of this beyond a widely ridiculed scientific paper and a couple of preprints. -- Tim Starling 05:57, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)


Here's just a few:

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opletters.jsp?id=ns24249 http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/entrelynds.php http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/6121 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030801.utime0801/BNStory/International/ http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=827792003 http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s920462.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1017908,00.html http://www.tendencias21.net/index.php3?action=page&id_art=41112 http://www.dagbladet.no/kunnskap/2003/07/31/374849.html http://www.physics4u.gr/articles/2003/lynds.html http://perso.wanadoo.fr/marxiens/sciences/lynds.htm http://www2.uol.com.br/cienciahoje/chdia/n935.htm

"Author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity", said a referee of the paper, while Andrei Khrennikov, Prof. of Applied Mathematics at Växjö University in Sweden and Director of ICMM, said, "I find this paper very interesting and important to clarify some fundamental aspects of classical and quantum physical formalisms. I think that the author of the paper did a very important investigation of the role of continuity of time in the standard physical models of dynamical processes." He then invited Lynds to take part in an international conference on the foundations of quantum theory in Sweden.

Another impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, who said he admired Lynds' "boldness", while noting that it had often been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."

None of the above references, except those who quote the press release, claims that the article is remarkable.
In fact, when questioned about the paper, Khrennikov replies [1]:
"It's interesting but it's not great," says Andrei Khrennikov, an applied mathematician at Vaxjo University in Sweden, who assessed the work when Lynds submitted it to a different physics journal.
And by the way, User:213.35.136.178 has used an anonymous proxy to insert a possible copyvio from http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/entrelynds.php . We will need permission to use that.
Rasmus Faber 10:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


our seeming innate subjective conception of a present moment in time, and the phenomenon of conscious awareness, are actually one and the same thing

What does that even mean? It's like saying stars and starlight are "one and the same thing". The subjective present is an aspect of consciousness, but only one aspect. I think Bertrand Russell once characterized consciousness as "I-here-now", in which case both self and situatedness are also fundamental to it. -- mitch, not yet a user 23 Jan 2004 ((Mporter 04:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)))

Hi Mitch, welcome to Wikipedia. Note that making an account doesn't require giving any personal information like email addresses or anything, it just takes about 10 seconds. It also allows you to keep your IP address private - yeah yeah yeah, just say the word, just say the word :) -- Tim Starling 04:47, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: copyvio.

We will need a letter from Astroseti or similar. I am afraid an anonymous proxy telling us that it is OK is insufficient. Rasmus Faber 15:13, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For what it's worth

For what it's worth, and all those interested in this topic. I'm a physicist, and my field of study is relativistic mechanics. I've published three articles in FoP and have refereed articles for them as well. I know the editor, Alwyn van der Merwe, pretty well too and he helped me get a book published of my work. I love FoP. It's a great place to put forth new ideas. They are very wide open in what they'll accept. It's a place to be speculative, but publishing something in there is quite different than say, publishing it in the Physical Review. FoP Letters is even more speculative: just can all but write a note off the top of your head and have it get published, if you're lucid enough.

As far his being praised by John Wheeler, well let me say this: Wheeler's a great guy, one of the pillars of the 20th century physics who helped invent scattering theory more than fifty years ago. I've met him on more than one occassion because he was at the place I went to graduate school. But he retired long ago from active work, and is quite, well, how do I put this, advanced in years. While advanced age itself is not a barrier to scientific thought, Wheeler now is mostly interested in spirituality and consciousness, and he is more of a religious philosopher than a physicist at this point. From my experience, Wheeler's the kind of guy who says good things about almost anything at this point and is especially interested in communicating his ideas to undergraduates and younger students.

That being said, I'm open to an honest evaluation of Lynds article. On the other hand, this whole drama has the familiar air of being yet another case of the news media seizing upon something scientific and blowing it way out of proportion. This happens so often that in physics we don't even pay attention to media hype anymore very much, because there is a built-in presupposition that the press will do whatever it wants to with the information it garners.

As far as Lynds being invited to a conference, well, that's what you're supposed to achieve as a graduate student: getting a paper published and going to conferences. This happens to tens of thousands of people in their twenties every single year around the world.

I can say that if an article came across my desk to referee with the abstract that Lynds wrote,I would be highly skeptical because of the broadness of its claims. But like I said, the refereeing process for FoP is much looser than other journals (FoP Letters even more so).

In my mind, I can imagine that it was quite possible that Lynds, upon getting a paper published mentioning Stephen Hawking (upon whom the world wide press has seized as being the "world's greatest physicst"), somehow got involved in a skillful manipulation of a small achievement to dupe reporters into thinking the article is something it is not. I'm open to understanding it, but as a physicist, I am somewhat duty-bound to be highly skeptical of such claims because without such skepticism, physics would fall apart almost immediately and revert to pre-modern natural philosophy.

From a physicists point of view, the physics of Lynds work is in the new mathematical equations he derives. Philosophical implications without mathematics are treated as so much handwaving. If there is something to Lynds, we will know over time because of the mathematics, not because of the philosophy (of course philosophers are free to evaluate his work on its own merits).

A final note: New Zealand has a great tradition of real physics that has actually stood the test of time, i.e., Ernest Rutherford.

--Decumanus 18:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article as it stands is way too pro-Lynds. It does not include a discussion that a great many physicists think he is a fraud. The article as it stands mentions criticism but in a lighthearted while, linking the "genius" etc. An NPOV would include much harsher criticisms which have been reverted by previous anonymous contributors. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great many physicists think that he is a fraud?! Name one (and I mean a respected one and not some nut). Just because you cannot stand him or his work does not mean that the article should be changed to be strongly anti Lynds. As it is it is balanced and fair and just states the facts. If anything, I think it could and should be much more pro Lynds, but because this should be balanced as possible, I feel I should leave it as it is.

Sorry but there is a controversy of Lynds and this will stay disputed. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for lifting Neutrality dispute

I have prepared a lengthy discussion of my reasons for this neutrality dispute. In the interests of space, I have included in on separate page here.

It also includes a proposal for lifting the neutrality dispute, basically involving a rollback to previous versions of the article with some modifications. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for adding Neutrality dispute (againist Decumanus)

You are obviously so biased and twisted towards Lynds Decumanus, that I do not think you should be involved in editing this page. You will not be happy until the article absolutely rubbishes him and his work. The two options you provide to resolve the dispute will result in both very negative and inaccurate articles. As it is, it is certainly not a puff peice for Lynds and just states the facts. Please put aside your strong bias (or jealously?) and be neutral.


Sorry, anonymous editor. That's not the way it works around here. And there goes the inevitable jealously charge (yawn). The RickK version is acceptable (with the modifications I mentioned). The only way the current article could be made NPOV is by a detailed explanation of the media controversy, including the story of the press release, etc., but without the addition of any more material in support of Lynds. I have a feeling this would not be acceptable to the anonymous editor. The addition of the single word "fraud" is not enough because it doesn't explain why. It leaves the impression that opposition to Lynds is opposition to his "philosophy". The controversy is much deeper in nature. -- Decumanus | Talk 11:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On Peter Lynds' Petitio Principii

To the Editor,

It is of course your right and responsibility to include any material of your preference in Wikipedia but in reference to Peter Lynds I would like to point out the following for your kind consideration:

In the paper published in Foundation of Physics Letters, Peter Lynds starts with the postulate that “there is not a precise instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process”. From this postulate Lynds argues that time is continuous and then from the continuity of time he further argues that there is indeterminacy in physical magnitudes. Then, he affirms the consequent by arguing that because of indeterminacy in physical magnitudes, continuity and the flow of time are possible.

Even the referee of the journal spotted the petitio principii in Lynds’ argument but decided to recommend the paper for publication. This is an action not for me to judge. However, Lynds commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent in his paper and as such the whole value of the paper lies in his postulate. But, the assertion of the non-existence of a precise instant in time is as old as in Aristotle’s Physics 239b5-7. Actually, Aristotle used this premise in an argument of a solution to Zeno’s paradox of the arrow.

Lynds’ assertion that he has solved Zeno’s paradoxes can only be justified by his lack of understanding of the issues involved. The paradoxes challenge Pythagorean 3-D metric conceptions of space and absolute time combined with plurality, i.e. infinite divisibility. Lynds considers none of these issues, as it appears they are beyond his grasp. He uses buzzwords found in popular science texts in conjunction with a petitio principii to come to the statement of “indeterminacy versus discontinuity”. Nothing from such statement can offer a solution to any of Zeno’s paradoxes.

I too see the bold initiative of someone with no formal education as interesting and his attempt to verbally tackle serious issues such as the flow of time and continuity as a layman’s effort. At the same time I recommend the removal of the reference to Lynds from Wikipedia, simply because there is nothing original he has contributed, although such decision ultimately rests with you.

For an analysis of Lynds’ argument please see the following links:

http://www.geocities.com/eleatis/index.htm

Sincerely,

Efthimios Harokopos Athens, Greece Makischarokopos@yahoo.com


Issuing a press release about writing a letter to the editor of a journal Efthimios?

Lynds is right about Zeno's paradoxes. Maybe you should just get over it.

Seb

Issuing a press release to let uninformed people know that the claim is unfounded and its author simply does not understand the issues he is talking about. You must realize whoever you are (obviously you are afraid to post your mane and email address and this is a clue of your identity) that this news was on TV, newspapers and radio all over the world, including my country, making ridiculus claims about a young chap with no formal education solving a problem that great scientists have dealt with and never pronounced it done other than offering a solution.

In one line I will prove you that you have never solved Zeno's paradoxe of dichotomy: There are infinite tasks to complete whether or not there is indeterminacy or not in defining the start and the end of these tasks.

In other words, you have never dealt with the plurality paradox that is the base of Zeno's paradoxes simply because you did not know what it is. Indeterminacy versus discontinuity does nothing to resolve the plurality paradox (look it up in a book), your claims are trivially incorrect and so the references in wikipedia.

E. Harokopos

==TO HAROKOPOS== You say that you have proven that Lynds did not solve Zeno's paradoxes by stating: "There are infinite tasks to complete whether or not there is indeterminacy or not in defining the start and the end of these tasks." Actually, all you are doing is restating the paradoxes here. I think you'll have to do a bit better than that.

Also, I'm not going to leave my name either. I choose not too simply because I do not want to. It doesn't mean that I'm Lynds. Or does it take away from what I'm writing, just as you leaving your name, doesn't gain you anything.


[edit] NPOV (again)

I think these edits address the concerns of Decumanus and others. Seb, you probably believe they are unfair and biased. Before you revert, could you let us know what you believe is NPOV and how you would improve it. I think we all prefer a constructive discussion rather than an edit war. 211.110.6.213 11:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Press releases

Press releases are common for experimental physics results. For theory papers, they are virtually unknown. There is a large difference. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute reintroduced

This version [2] was completely acceptable, and I lifted the neutrality dispute. The anon editor, having refused this and reverted the article, I have reintroduced the NPOV dispute, as the version still tiptoes around the issue of Lynds usings the media to proclaim himself a genius. The version I found acceptable was very gentle on this point, yet it was not acceptable to the anon editor. Thus the article is still a puff piece for Lynds and not NPOV by Wikipedia standards. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your rejection of this last version, with the controversial material removed, now indicates to me that you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith. I will regard reversions to previous versions with the NPOV dispute, or inclusion of removed material, as introduction of POV into the article, and it will be reverted as such. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest you take this compromise. I am prepared to defend the neutrality of this article day-in, day-out over the long haul, if need be. We could settle this here and now. Why not take this olive branch. All the controversial material has been removed. Just a mention that a controversy exists, but doesn't even say what it is. It has a long discussion of his work. This is my absolute final offer. The fact that you can't agree on the stripped down version tells me there is no point in discussion this further.
For the record, here are the versions which the anon editor found unacceptable but which I offered as compromise:
  • [3] version by RickK, January 25 2004 (I have since rescinded my original offer on this one)
  • [4] version by Decumanus, January 26 2004 (I have since rescinded my original offer on this one)
  • [5] version by 211.110.6.213 contribs on April 25, 2004 (this one would still be acceptable)
  • [6] version by Decumanus of April 26, 2004 (the stripped down version, with all the controversial material removed).
-- Decumanus | Talk 04:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This version [7] is acceptable too. -- Decumanus | Talk 14:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why there doesn't seem to be hope of compromise

There does not seem to be any hope of compromise with the anon editor. I observe this is based primarily on two things

  • The anon editor insists that Lynds be compared to Einstein, and even with the modification of the comparison, it is a still a favorable comparison.
  • The anon editor insists that the controvery surrounding Lynds' use of the media to call attention to himself be removed or downplayed, with all controversy about Lynds' work, rather than the whole reason for his coming to the attention of the media. Even mentioning the (embarassing) press release is taboo.

These two things together are highly POV. I have offered a version that removes the discussion of both, but this is unacceptable. To the anon editor, Lynds is a young genius whose work is controversial on its own merits. Discussion of anything else is taboo. I will again accept the stripped down version mentioned about. All the versions offered by the anon editor are laudatory POV, with even the criticisms being roundabout compliments of Lynds.

I expect this will go on for some time. This is especially true if the anon editor is Lynds himself using an anonymizing proxy, as has been suspected by some. It seems highly important to the anon editor that the Wikipedia article paint Lynds in a favorable light as a budding, but controversial, young genius. -- Decumanus | Talk 14:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's a pity that you now have to go into the page history to get a complete picture of why this is controversial. After all the controversy is far more significant than the paper to most people. -- Derek Ross 15:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I won't get involved in this edit war because I feel there is no point (it will be reverted back to one of the wiki "fascist" versions, no doubt). I do want to say though that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of information. This is not anyone's personal website, where they should write their own personal opinions. Because some people here (actually, all of you involved in this war) have strong opinions of Peter Lynds and his work, compromising is the only way to resolve this. This means if you want to write about the controversy surrounding Lynds' press release, you have to be open to someone writing that the controversy didn't exist and that it was fabricated by people who are anti-Lynds. Of course, this applies to both sides.

Also, Decumanus, I've read all that you've written and although I agree with a few things you've written, I don't completely believe that you aren't biased towards Lynds. I'm writing this to you because you've spent so much time reasoning to everyone that you are right. I don't understand why you think just because someone writes something positive about Lynds, that it IS Lynds. I've been following the Lynds "story" and even though it is entertaining, I've never read any proof of Lynds promoting himself.

You've also written about people pulling the "jealousy card" when they argue against you. Don't you agree that pulling the "it must be Lynds promoting himself" card, is just as bad, or even worse? -- editor 24.101.131.182

I am forthright about my opinions and biases. I have nothing to hide, as I've said. I have described my background and my opinions. I have strong feelings about this. I have never once denied that. I was never looking for the article to reflect my opinions, but to be what I considered to be balanced (which I am happy that it is now). I don't really see what your point is. You seem to have completely misunderstood what I wrote. I was never closed to anyone writing that the controversy didn't exist, so long as it was also stated that some people believe it did exist. You obviously misunderstood my point completely. I am satisfied with the compromise right now. You should take a better look at the edit history of those of us who have tried very hard to find common ground. You are certainly free to edit the article, as is anyone. In any case, thank you for your opinion. It is important to understand: it is possible to have strong feelings and biases about a subject and yet still seek to write an article that is balanced. In fact, the best articles are, I believe, written by people with strong points of view who can find common ground. -- Decumanus | Talk 03:01, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As for the "it must be Lynds promoting himself" card, I am not the only one to allege that. We often have vanity articles on Wikipedia--a constant stream of them in fact--and when you see enough of them, you get to know the smell they have. I would have been perfectly satisfied with an honorable statement asserting the contrary from the editor. In any case, that is no longer needed and I am not interested in such a statement. -- Decumanus | Talk 03:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I too would be perfectly happy with someone explaining why there is no controversy or why Lynds did not write the press release himself. I am not happy with a compromise that completely avoids the issue. 207.157.54.2 07:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about that him and his media represenative using the same contact address mean nothing. Lynds would of also known what was in the press release, and probably had some input into it, so EVEN IF HE DID write it (which I don't think he did), it doesn't change anything either. All of the facts reported in it were that..facts. It seems to me to just be unfair way of trying to bring him down. As why, you've got to wonder.

Yoshi

If it means nothing then it should be allright to include it in the article, right? Then you can let the reader come to his/her own conclusions. 207.157.54.2 11:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If it means nothing, it shouldn't be included. The controversy is already in article. Do we include details of his diet? I notice you also don't include details about support his work has recieved from some very high class scientists or other such "positive" things. As said in notes, this should be a professional biographic type page. Would you see your version in a proper bio book? No. Does it warrant inclusion here? No
I don't find that the strong possibility that some scientist had invented some "press representative" is unimportant. Besides peer review, science relies a lot on credibility. Journal editors don't have the means to check all the computations or experiments given in papers (and this is especially true of most journals whose title ends in "letters", since these are fast-publication journals light on refereeing). Inventing a press representative may be a sign of mythomania, or a sign of self-aggrandizement (just like some people trump up their resumés), both of which are bad for credibility. David.Monniaux 12:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"strong possibility"? I think more "unlikely possibility"

Please sign your messages. In scientific fields, it is customary that academics sign with their real names (which I do here) and engage their personal credibility. Even though I'm not interested in your real name, I think you should at least sign with a registered username. Thank you.
I'm sorry, but in the real world, scientists don't have press representatives, and when people have press representatives, these generally cite their own professional address for correspondence. David.Monniaux 14:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Almost all published scientists work in universities so the university public relations department handles any press releases for them. Lynds wasn't with a university and didn't have that facility open to him, so I think it's very easy to see why he would use a rep to help get word of his work out. Good on him. The work deserved it. As to why his his home address was used, you'd have to ask her or him. One obvious reason though could of just been that it was considered the best base. You should also remember that a Universitiy press dept lists the same general postal address as the researcher - the university. The only real difference between the two (lynd and a university researcher) is basically just the size of their two buildings and the number of people in them.

(As you may have noticed when looking on my personal page, I know fairly well how the scientific community works.) Indeed, some universities do have a public relation department dealing with the press and handling press releases. However, I find it a bit... premature that a scientist with only one refereed publication, and in a "letter" journal too, would need to make a press release and hire a representative for that. As I explained elsewhere on this page, the normal procedure in science is to get your ideas recognized before engaging in public relation stunts. Granted, in some fields with practical applications there are increasingly inflated claims that reach the popular press, but this is normally not the case in theoretical physics.
All this does not prove that what this young guy has done is worthless (I can't judge by myself). Still, it shows that he does not act according to the normal rules of conduct in scientific circles, and this goes far beyond his condition as a self-employed person. David.Monniaux 05:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] General principles of scientific publication

I don't know the specifics of Lynds' case, however, I would like to point out the following facts:

In the scientific world, self-aggrandizement and too much media hype is frowned upon. The issue is that there are thousands of hard-laboring scientists with significant results, but the press somehow gets hold of a few favourites, which it then hypes as "geniuses". Especially, most scientists would find it suspicious that a scientist should have a "press representative". Generally, at best, famous scientists (Nobel laureates etc..) have a secretary.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most journalists do not understand how science works and how scientific publications work. As Decumanus rightly points out, the standards of quality vary greatly from publication to publication. In some, the editorial board is conservative and won't publish anything that has been thoroughly confirmed. In some others, the editorial board will allow almost any "stimulating" idea. There are also, shall we say, scientific publications and venues that scrap the bottom of the barrel and will publish anything.

Getting invited to a conference may mean close to nothing to a significant recognition, depending on the event. In most disciplines, speaking at conferences is done by invitation, which is generally granted to anybody that has something that sounds interesting to say. There's no peer review. In some other disciplines, prospective speakers have to submit peer-reviewed papers to be authorized to speak. There are, again, venues that admit anybody (you can detect them easily – vague objectives, close to nil editorial process, enormous proceedings, and the venue is located in some nice place like Florida – the idea seems to have some university-sponsored vacation).

Publishing something as a "preprint" does not mean anything. Anybody can publish preprints on servers such as arXiv (well, I suspect that if your preprint had a shocking title, it'd get removed, but anything that looks scientific will go).

All this is not bias, but mere recognition of the current situation in science. A normal, unbiased scientist probably cannot help being suspicious at a young man with little to none scientific training that alleged publishes something revolutionary, then gets a press representative and gets in the news of the general press.

This is not the first time that it has happen, and what generally happens is that the hype deflates by itself after a while. David.Monniaux 11:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good thoughts David. Problem is though in relation to lynds, I think is actually right and his conclusions deserved the attention they got.
Would you be so kind as to sign your messages? All it takes is 4 ~ signs at their end.
I personally have no idea about whether Lynds' conclusions are significant or hoaxes (I'm not a physicist, and all this spacetime stuff looks too much philosophical to me). However, let's say, to put it mildly, that the way that Lynds allegedly behaves is extremely detrimental to his credibility as a scientist.
Unfortunately, science has its share of kooks, self-aggrandizing folks, and total hoaxes. Generally speaking, one strong indication that somebody fits within this 3 categories is that the person seeks the attention of the general media before seeking the recognition of his peers, or claims he is a victim of some conspiracy, or similar behavior. Of course, there are possibly exceptions to this rule of thumb. David.Monniaux 12:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Note

This seems to have been a really big effort to reach a compromise and although I feel the article could be more favourable towards Lynds and still be fair, I think the current version (the protected version) is the right solution.

[edit] NPOV

65.36.113.10, you seem to have some strange conceptions about NPOV. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and explain to me exactly what passages you believe violate NPOV. 207.157.54.2 07:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


To join in, I think basically every difference between your version and the protected one violate NPOV; insinuation, neutral language, Space and balance, to name some obvious ones. Attribution and citation is another. For example, where did he proclaim himself a scientific genius? From what I’ve seen of his comments, he actually says the complete opposite. You're also guilty of chasing your own strong bias and not negotiating with others. The protected version seems to have taken great effort by a number of people to reach a middle ground. It was finally found, and yet you want to ignore that to pursue your own strong personal bias. That you don’t seem to be able to see it, suggests worse.

The protected version should be the one used.

Let me address your concerns. You seem to be taking issue with the following sentence:
Depending on one's point of view, Lynds is either a brilliant theoretical physicist and philosopher, or is a hoaxster who has taken advantage of the news media to proclaim himself a scientific genius.
First of all, this is quite NPOV. It does certainly not assert that Lynds has proclaimed himself a genius, it only claims that some people believe that he has. According to the Guardian story [...] newspapers from Australia to Canada rushed to acclaim Lynds as an amateur genius.
However, I would be perfectly happy to change it to:
[...] or is a hoaxster who has taken advantage of the news media to compare himself to Einstein.
or
[...] a hoaxster who has taken advantage of the news media to promote himself.
The article then later explains who believes he is a hoaxster and why they do so.
The other differences are:
  1. Lynds has been a controversial figure since his work was first discussed in the world-wide news media. It was alleged in early news reports that his work was compared to that of the young Albert Einstein and that it had received praise from some of the world's leading scientists. An August 14, 2003 article about in Lynds in The Guardian, however, asserted that the comparison to Einstein probably originated from an anonymous Foundations of Physics Letters reviewer who wrote "[the] author's work resembles Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity in that its validity is not destroyed by the [circular reasoning] from which it is formally derived." (see external link below)
  2. The press release, issued by independent media consultant Brooke Jones, proclaimed that the publication of Lynds' article in the current issue of Foundations of Physics Letters was a "ground-breaking" work that "seems set to change the way we think about the nature of time". The claims in the press release were circulated widely on the Internet on news sites and weblogs, taking the physics community by surprise. The issuance of press releases about publications in theoretical physics is virtually unknown.
  3. Alex Boese, editor of the website "The Museum of Hoaxes", discovered that the author of the press release, Brooke Jones, had contact-info matching the address of Peter Lynds. Peter Lynds claimed that Ms. Jones was his media representative and that they had agreed to have all correspondence sent to his parent's address. He was not able to provide any other contact information for her, though. Boese suggested that Brooks was an identity invented by Lynds. Lynds strongly denied the allegation, calling it a "conspiracy theory" and threatening legal action.
Please explain how these violate NPOV. I believe this should all be properly attributed and factually correct. Please explain why you do not believe so. Perhaps we could remove The issuance of press releases about publications in theoretical physics is virtually unknown, though I believe it to be correct.
As for the protected version being a compromise, that is using a very loose definition. At the time there were three people were editing, you, me and Decumanus. (Or, Decumanus, me and 17 people behind anonymous proxies, each making one edit, if you prefer...) Decumanus wanted the unattributed, disputed claims removed or attributed (Lynds and his work have been compared to the young Albert Einstein and received praise from some of the world's leading scientists) and after an edit war in which I inserted other information, you and Decumanus seemed to agree on both removing the unattributed praise and the criticisms. 207.157.54.2 13:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


If you can’t see it, I don't think my doing so will help much. It’s an absolute waste of time.

I also just checked some of the addresses in the edit history and the discussion, and most of the editors I checked from the past months didn’t use proxies. Who cares if some did as well. Who could blame them when people like you are going to snoop on them. You also seem to forget that you’re trying to use one. To say that they're all the same person (I presume me?) is rather lame. I will also say that I think there’s a conflict of interest in your wishing to contribute to this page. I’ll refrain from saying more, but I think you probably know what I mean.

The usual way to achieve NPOV is to attribute all disputed claims. Please work with me. How do we change these claims to become more NPOV?
It is no secret that I do these edits from behind an anonymous proxy. I took a look at the edit history and could see that a lot of edits were being made by anonymous proxies. I am not proud of it, but I did not feel like revealing my identity to someone who would not reveal his. I try to keep behind the same, however, in order to be identified in this context. The anonymous proxies might of course be multiple people, but I have no reason to believe so. Could you let me know which IPs weren't proxies? I believe I have checked them all. User:203.109.254.40 (proxy for www.ihug.co.nz) is the only who have edited anything besided this article.
Please let me know what my conflict of interest is. I obviously believe you are Lynds, but I have no idea who you believe I am. Alex Boese, perhaps? But my edit history should have told you that I probably am located around GMT+0...
207.157.54.2 15:48, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From memory, some of the editors who didn't use proxies came from Japan, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Italy. I'm extremely flattered that you'd believe that I'm Lynds. I seriously doubt that he'd feel the same way though. It would also be rather difficult for me considering my age. Perhaps his father? As for who I think you are, I'll refrain from listing a name. This has become crazy enough. But no, it’s not Alex Bose.

Trying to talk to you is a waste of time. The bias in your version has been pointed out a number of times (as if it needed to be) and yet you won't let it rest. Your version, or anything resembling it, will obviously never find agreement here, and if you continue to try to add it, an edit war will inevitably result until you stop.

[edit] I second that

For what its worth, I've edited this page and don't use a proxy. I also think that the protected version should be used and that User: 207.157.54.2 is biased from beginning to end.

[edit] Compromise version

After unprotection, this page this morning was reverting to a controversial version. I have once again reverted to the agreed compromise version. I expect this will now be another round of this. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

To the anon editor: I hope this was not your intention all along, simply to wait until every lost interest and revert back to your preferred version. I assure I haven't lost interest in this. I thought we found a good compromise. Why are ruining it now? -- Decumanus | Talk 16:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Most notable?

I tried to take out this but of course someone put it right back in. Notable means worthy of note- why is his conclusion worthy of note?

More importantly, someone refers to his one paper as he has "done work". He wrote one paper. He likes to mentally masturbate, but let's be serious, he is not in University actually working. (And why? Because if he went to University he would realize that most of his ideas are old hack, or he just couldn't cut it, one.) And it is NPOV to say it is "one paper", which is what I changed it to, but I guess that doesn't sound as great as "done some work" so someone changed it back.

Please, stop wanking this guy off! Jeez...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/Talk%7EPeter_Lynds_4d8b.html"