Talk:LeSage's theory of gravitation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Cleanup

This article seems to be suffering from wandering prose, self-interruptions, and poor structure, and questionable claims due to careless haphazard edits. User:GangofOnes recent edits are Previous edits appear to include questionable material inserted with (apparently) no regard to how it fits into existing prose.

Mention of Halton Arp and Harold E. Puthoff needs to be carefully written to avoid implying that their suggestions are anything but non mainstream.---CH (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Look again. I do not see how the edits in question fit the catagory in which you attempt to place them. Specifically, the creation of 2 internal wiki links to two names that exist elsewhere in wikipedia, for the benefit of the reader. GangofOne 20:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I suspect you meant to direct your comment toward 62.253.48.43 GangofOne 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The edits by 62.253.48.43 also exhibit the problem I mentioned, but in my comment I was referring specifically to a sentence which you 203.109.254.40 added, An alternative to a particulate flux, a wave flux has also been considered. Harold E. Puthoff has demonstrated that a wave flux proportional to the fourth power of frequency would have no drag. I was complaining both about 'demonstrated', which I think should be 'claimed', since Puthoff appears to have little credibility in physics, and also where you place this sentence, breaking up the connection between two earlier paragraphs. Can you please fix these problems? (Or else leave the current version as it stands.) I am not objecting to the internal link to Harold E. Puthoff, but if you keep it, please we keep it, we should make sure that the latter article states that Puthoff's view rarely represent the mainstream and are regarded with suspicion (or ignored) by the vast majority of physicists.---CH (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Look again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LeSage_gravity&diff=next&oldid=11464429 I believe it is 203.109.254.40 you wish to address. I leave the sentence untouched.
"...Puthoff's view....are regarded with suspicion (or ignored)...". I will note in passing that he seems to be getting the (USA) government grants. GangofOne 03:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just out of curiousity, why do quote me without comment on your user page? Are you saying you agree with my pessism about the medium-term future of the Wikipedia? ---CH (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am disinclined to explain myself, lest I take away the pleasure of the reader of decoding the message for his/herself, however I will say that I thought the quote worthy of wider circulation, so it is (happens to be) first on my list of such quotes. If you feel I am wrong in my judgement, please let me know. GangofOne 03:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The summary of the above is that C Hillman attributes to me edits I did not make. Check the history yourself if you care. GangofOne 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I would apologize if I knew that to be the case. I tried to check, but unfortunately I wasn't very specific in my comment on 4 Oct on which edit I was referring to. You (Goo) did edit this article before my comment several times, so if I didn't goof I must have been referring to one of those edits. Does it really matter at this late date? How about archiving these comments and starting over again? ---CH 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The flow of time from the past to the future is an illusion, although a persistent one. I'm baffled that you can't examine my edits, of which there are exactly three, and convince yourself that your comments can't possibly have been meant to refer to them. GangofOne 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, GoO, honestly, I have no idea what you mean by writing the summary of the above is that C Hillman attributes to me edits I did not make. (The above talk page discussion?) I certainly try my best to attribute edits to the user who wrote them, so if you think I goofed, could you please
  1. quote below the first sentence (say) from each edit which you did not make
  2. using the history page (of this talk page?), link to the actual author
  3. using the history page, link the my own edit in which I appear to attribute the edit (of the article? the talk page?) incorrectly to yourself.
Fair enough? ---CH 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not so complicated. The procedure you propose is problematic, quoting each edit I did not make, that would be most. I will propose a simple alternative. First though, in answer to your first question "I have no idea what you mean by writing ...", look at the top of this page: "This article seems to be suffering from wandering prose, self-interruptions, and poor structure, and questionable claims due to careless haphazard edits. User:GangofOne's recent edits are an example of questionable material inserted with (apparently) no regard to how it fits into existing prose." Also mentioned at WikiprojectGTR-Bulletin [1] "User:GangofOne This user has recently made some exceptionally careless edits to LeSage gravity (questionable claims inserted into article with no regard for existing prose; this entire article seems to be suffering from wandering prose due to careless edits). See his contribs, which show many edits to various potentially controversial articles, including various protoscience to pseudoscience topics. I have left a message in Talk:LeSage gravity expressing my concerns." The history of the article has the information it had on Oct 3, no more or less, about edits up to then. Three are mine: Oct 2. Remove 3 keystokes, add 12 keystokes. Oct 2. Add 4 keystokes, move 2 lines. Oct 3. Add 4 keystrokes. I repeat "I'm baffled that you can't examine my edits, of which there are exactly three, and convince yourself that your comments can't possibly have been meant to refer to them." And if you care which anons made the objectionable edits, the history is there for your perusal. GangofOne 05:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

GoO, I can see that you are very upset about what you feel are misattributions, and I would like to mollify you. But because this seems to refer to stuff which happened last year I don't know exactly what edits (yours, mine, SomeOtherGuys) you are talking about. If you bothered to show me that I really did misattribute specific edits to you, I would be more than happy to apologize, but you do need to show me exactly what you are complaining about, given the fact that apparently this all happened quite some time ago. Fair enough? ---CH 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about my state of mind. All I'm interested in are facts. What I ask is extremely simple. I made 3 edits to "LeSage gravity". They are:
From this you can see that the edits you complain about, that I quoted above, were not my edits which were extremely trivial. Is it not so? GangofOne 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I apologize for the misattribution, GoO. I don't know how that happened, but I slashed my comments above appropriately. Is this satisfactory? ---CH 10:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite satisfactory. Apology accepted. Thanks. GangofOne 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream physics advocated by "serious scientists"?

Where does it suggest that LeSage theory has entered the mainstream? In fact, it specifically states "Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of research and interest for a growing number of researchers who find themselves unsatisfied with current mainstream theory." which is true. These include Halton Arp, Tom Van Flandern, Matthew Edwards, and others. And they are indeed unsatisfied with current mainstream theory. This does not hint at, or suggest that LeSage Theory is becoming mainstream. In fact, it clearly states just the opposite. I would say that it is Hillman's objectivity that is in dispute.

(unsigned edit by anon)

Feb 20, 2006 - It is important to remember that bias is not limited to any one side. Most concepts or ideas, be it abortion rights or scientific concepts, have people that zealously believe and defend their perspective as being right, and all others wrong. LeSage theory is controversial, and like anything of this nature it raises strong emotions in some. Care has been taken to present the information in the article in as factual and neutral a manner as possible, without introducing either a negative or positive bias. For those with strongly held beliefs, information presented in a truly neutral manner will probably be perceived as biased against their perspective. Any theory under current development, as evidenced by the recent pubication of Pushing Gravity, is not an obsolete theory, although it will certainly be considered so by anyone that has a bias against it. It is factually true that the majority of practicing scientists (usually denoted as mainstream) are not working on, nor are they interested in, the LeSage Gravity concept. They are quite content to accept the tenets of General Relativity at face value, without any further need of explanation or causal process(es). It is however the duty of an encyclopedia to provide all information, mainstream or not, without bias, even that slanted toward the perceived mainstream views.
(unsigned edit by anon)
Hi anon(s?), first, please consider using a registered account to avoid the impression that you are one user trying to appear like two distinct persons. I am not accusing either(?) of you of anything, just letting you know that anon edits sometimes raise the issue of manipulative tricks which have been a problem in the past, such as multiple votes using different IPs in AfD debates, so you should be aware that simply making anon edits unfortunately sometimes raises questions, due to misbehavior by previous anons.
Second and more important, please re-read what you added to the article and find ways to remove the POV bits. For example, I am sure you know that the alleged "expertise" regarding general relativity of Tom van Flandern has been questioned by several observers, including myself, so you should remove serious scientists since this flunks WP:VAIN. Contrast this weasel wording with the verifiable fact that he once earned a Ph.D. from Yale. In this particular case, however, I urge you to just remove that particular comment, link to the article on Flandern and let interested readers follow up there on the question of whether Flandern's credentials are as impressive as some claim, or whether his views have any scientific merit.
In other bits of the edits you made which I am asking you to tone down, you may prefer to replace weasel words with verifiable facts, which would probably be OK by me. Fair enough? ---CH 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, the book you cited probably cannot be regarded as mainstream, as you seem to imply. By rewriting you should be able to sidestep the issue. I am not suggesting you remove the link to that book, just suggesting that remove the implication that it should be regarded as representing mainstream physics. Fair enough? ---CH 03:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

subjective statements removed

I have done some cleanup here. I changed "growing number" in the introduction to just "number", and deleted that last paragraph talking about "unresolved issues", etc. In both cases I found the statements to be at best highly subjective if not POV. That last paragraph was very strange, and read like it compromise between two POV warriers instead of being coherent summation of this theory and its status. --EMS | Talk 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Newton and LeSage gravity

The following made for an interesting addition, but it is both trivial and POV IMO, and therefore is inappropriate. It was also placed in the lead, where is totally did not belong even if it was appropriate for the article. The edit was:

Even Newton would likely have favored a mechanistic theory like LeSage's rather than the geometric treatment given by the current mainstream theory, General Relativity, according to an opinion he expressed in a letter to Richard Bentley :
That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one Body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity, that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain Laws[...]

--EMS | Talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

EMS: your points of view are offensive, so are your edits. I wish you'd be objective. Alun Anderson 172.200.200.127 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Press Controversy

A Vanity press is defined to be a publisher that charges an author to publish the material. This type of publication is a for hire publisher. The book 'Pushing Gravity' is not a vanity publication nor is Aperion a vanity publisher. See the reviews of the individuals that have actually read the book. It contains articles by literally dozens of different authors, none of which paid to have their articles included. Moreover, the references in question are both properly cited and quantative in nature. Thus if the reader has a problem please be specific as to the mathematical or logical error. What it appears here again is a POV issue where a reader has taken issue based solely upon their subjective point of view.

(apparently Matt Edwards, ed. of Pushing Gravity)

This link has a list of all of the books published by Aperion. They are:
year ISBN          author(s)           title
1998 0-9683689-0-5 Halton C Arp         Seeing red: Redshifts, cosmology and academic science
2000 0-9683689-5-6 Jean-Pierre Vigier   Jean-Pierre Vigier and the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics
2002 0-9683689-7-2 Matthew R. Edwards   Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation
2003 0-9683689-9-9 Halton C. Arp         Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations
2003 0-9732911-0-9 Mendel Sachs · A. R. Roy Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia 
2005 0-9732911-2-5 Volodimir Simulik    What Is the Electron?
It looks mighty suspicious to me. Perhaps not a vanity press, but "self-published". I've never seen a seven-digit publisher code in the ISBN before, so it is certainly no maintsteam publisher (six books over an eight-year period). Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

March 24, 2006: Aperion is a named Publisher of C. Roy Keys Inc. 4405, rue St-Dominique Montreal Canada. Check [[2]] for other publications. This is a legitimate Canadian book pubisher, not any vanity outfit. If you have any questions you can contact Mathews Edwards, the editor of the book in question.

Many of the books look a little on the speculative or fringe side to me. Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Apeiron Press says of itself at it's website, Apeiron Press specializes in the publication in electronic form of books that could not otherwise be published, which about sums it up. ---CH 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
NO! The link you give is to some other Apeiron (dialog.net:85/homepage/apeiron.htm). The correct link to the Apeiron where Pushing Gravity appears is (http://redshift.vif.com/Apeiron_Home.htm). This could be where the confusion concerning vanity press comes from. I can assure you the Apeiron where the above list of books was published is not vanity. 128.100.121.28 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You may assure me, but I may not be reassured. I notice that the Editorial Board includes Halton Arp, so should his Apeiron book be characterized as self-published? Another member of the editorial board is Tom Van Flandern, whom several prominent physicists have said they consider to be a crank. And there is a CD which is apparently sold by MetaResearch (Van Flandern's organization) which apparently includes "an overview" of Arp's Apeiron book.
But in any case, I think the real point here stands: Apeiron Press is a publishing house which cannot be considered to publish mainstream science, and at least some of its authors also seem to serve on its editorial board, which raises questions about attempts to cite publication by Apeiron as evidence of alleged reputability in mainstream science. ---CH 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: several anons have contributed to this talk page. The IP 128.100.121.28 is apparently registered to the University of Toronto library; C. Roy Keys, Inc. is apparently located in Montreal. Someone above, apparently Matt Edwards, seems to say C. Roy Keys owns Apeiron Press. I still can't figure out who is saying what in much of this page, due to carelessness in adding signatures. IMO, it would avoid further confusion if Matt would adopt a single signature and stick to it. The best way to do that is by registering (this is free and you need not even give an email address, but it ensures that your talk page sig will be stable, no matter what machine are you using to access WP.)---CH 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... the link I cited is apparently now invalid, but from this page it seems that this other Apeiron Press may be associated with one Kent Palmer of Orange, CA. So it does indeed appear that I confused two distinct companies with the same name.---CH 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

INCLUSION OF FEYNMAN

I think Feynman's statements are useful to people reading about LeSage.

It is obviously a POV, Feynman's...

Disproof that LeSage is not mainstream: LeSage was even investigated by Feynman. It is not dismissed because it is ether heresy so much as because it is 'not even wrong' and non-predictive, hence non-scientific in the modern sense of making quantitative predictions.

This statement is simply incorrect. LeSage's model is quite quantitative and predictive. In fact, it is these very predictions that causes the controversy. LeSage's model yields precisely,


F = \frac{fs^2Mm}{r^2}


For its weak static solution and,


F = \frac{fA_1A_2}{r^2}
for the strong static solution... Where f is LeSagian momentum flux term and s is the attenuation coefficient...
For LeSage theory the gravitational constant is actually, fs2
The equalibrium thermal power flux Q (in watts per square meter) predicted quantitatively by the theory is,


Q = \frac{(fs)^2}{2 \pi c} \frac M r


The drag predicted for weakly attenuating bodies is,


a_d = fs \frac v c


Given,
f = 6.74 kg/m-sec^2
And,
u = 3.16E − 06 m^2/kg
Then for the Pioneer spacecraft moving at a speed v of ~12,000 m/sec the predicted deceleration is,
a_d ~= 8.5E-10 m/sec^2

Feynman failed to make LeSage gravity work in his November 1964 Cornell Lectures Character of Physical Law but he did conclude that someday someone might succeed.

So then where's the problem? Work appears to be still ongoing...

Those lectures were mainstream, they were recorded by the BBC and broadcast on TV in 1965, as well as being published in Feynman's book Character of Physical Law. On the topic of renormalisation for quantum gravity and the problem of a purely mathematical abstract theory, he said a lot:

Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3:

"The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory."

One of the thing that should never be inserted into an encyclopedia is bias. As you are aware, bias comes in two forms, positive & negative... Let's avoid both & present a neutral format that actually contains referenceable factual information.

On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but finishes off by saying (p. 39):

"'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today [1964], from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form."

Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities." [3] Anderson 172.200.200.127 14:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the ongoing edit war I have protected the page. Please do not ask me to help choose the "correct" version. Try and solve this as soon as possible. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the thing that should never be inserted into an encyclopedia is bias. As you are aware, bias comes in two forms, positive & negative... Let's avoid both & present a neutral format that actually contains referenceable factual information. The article contained in the reference Pushing Gravity are from 20 different authors and were sent out for independent review by its editor Matt Edwards. Derivational results referenced in the article itself are quantitative in nature and the final forms are presented in the INCLUSION OF FEYNMAN section above. The full derivations are contained in the book in the identified sections. This article discusses LeSage's model. It does not make any claim that the model is correct, or more correct, than any other(s). It simply discusses it predictions & brief history with some of the actual quantifiable elements of the model referenced. Given its apparent controversial nature deliberate care was taken to attempt to remove all bias (both pro & con). User talk:71.132.13.87 March 25, 2006

The article is not about the book "Pushing Gravity". We could argue endlessly about that book, and the qualifications and sanity (or lack thereof) of the contributors, and about the quality of the "independent review", and so on. Anyone familiar with that book knows that the contributors not only disgree with all reputable scientists, they disagree with each other. Referring to a section of that book as if it was a reputable source of information is absurd. Obviously 71.132.13.87 is one of the contributors to that vanity publication, so he ought to recuse himself from debating the question of whether or not it is a valid "reputable reference" as defined by the Wikipedia guidelines for science articles. He is NEVER going to agree that it is a load of juvenile crackpot drivel. Every author will argue that what he has written is reputable... the question is, does any other reputable person in the world agree? But all this is a side issue, because this article isn't about "Pushing Gravity". If 71.132.13.87 wants to arite an article on that book, he is free to do so, but the present article is supposed to be about Lesage gravity.

However, that book is compendium of articles solely about LeSage's Model. The article is is about LeSage's Model. I suggest checking Google Scholar on this topic. Further, based upon the Wiki's own definition of Vanity press you have presented no evidence to support your continuing claim that the book is a vanity publication. It is in fact your rather obvious negative bias that makes you continue to claim this.

The edit conflict here seems to focus on the introductory section. To resolve the issue, I suggest people read the two versions (below), and vote on which one seems best (most historically accurate, most objective, most encyclopedic). We already have two votes cast... 71.132.13.87 votes for the first version, and I vote for the second version. Does anyone else care to cast a vote?

Version 1:

When Sir Isaac Newton published his Theory of Universal Gravitation, he noted that he could not propose a mechanism by which it worked. In 1784 Georges-Louis LeSage (1724-1803) of Geneva proposed a simple kinetic theory of gravitation. LeSage extended the speculations of Newton's friend and contemporary Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, who first suggested a similar explanation for gravity in 1690.

The idea was not well received in LeSage’s time but subsequently resurfaced in the nineteenth century. It influenced John Herapath's thinking in developing the kinetic theory of gases and this kinetic theory was then used by Lord Kelvin to develop an updated version of LeSage’s theory. Kelvin’s work however was criticized by James Clerk Maxwell, for reasons discussed below. In the twentieth century, it was still studied by a few researchers, such as the Russian astrophysicist V. V. Radzievskii. Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of interest and research for a small minority of researchers who find themselves unsatisfied with current mainstream theory.


Version 2:

When Sir Isaac Newton published his Theory of Universal Gravitation, he declined to present any hypothesis as to what underlying mechanism (whether material or immaterial) might be responsible for the manifest effects of gravity. Newton described, in other writings, some possible mechanisms, but declared himself dis-satisfied with them, and wrote that he did not think them worth including in the Principia. Newton's young friend Nicolas Fatio attempted to persuade Newton that gravity was due to a barrage of extremely small and rapidly moving particles coming from all directions, tending to drive larger objects together because of the mutual shielding effect. For a time Fatio hoped that he could persuade Newton to include this theory in the second edition of the Principia. However, David Gregory commented that Newton "smiled" at Fatio's theory. In 1784 Georges-Louis LeSage (1724-1803) of Geneva re-stated the theory of his fellow-countryman Fatio, whose papers he had collected, although in some respects the version of the theory proposed by Lesage was less sophisticated than that developed by Fatio.

The idea was not well received in LeSage’s time, any more than it had been in Fatio's time, or at any time since then, but it did influence John Herapath's thinking in developing the kinetic theory of gases. In the 19th century Lord Kelvin develop an updated version of LeSage’s theory, but this work was criticized by James Clerk Maxwell, for reasons discussed below. In the twentieth century, it was still studied by a few individual, such as the Russian astrophysicist V. V. Radzievskii, but the theory has never found favor with the majority of scientists, who believe it is ruled out for the reasons discussed below. Today the theory is primarily of interest to individuals who find themselves unsatisfied with current mainstream science.

A Proposed Compromise Version
When Sir Isaac Newton published his Theory of Universal Gravitation, he declined to present any hypothesis as to what underlying mechanism (whether material or immaterial) might be responsible for the manifest effects of gravity. Newton described in other writings some possible mechanisms but declared himself dissatisfied with them and wrote that he did not think them worth including in the Principia. Newton's young friend Nicolas Fatio de Duillier attempted to persuade Newton that gravity was due to a barrage of extremely small and rapidly moving particles coming from all directions, tending to drive larger objects together because of the mutual shielding effect. For a time Fatio hoped that he could persuade Newton to include this theory in the second edition of the Principia. However, David Gregory commented that Newton "smiled" at Fatio's theory. In 1784 Georges-Louis LeSage (1724-1803) of Geneva restated the theory of his fellow countryman Fatio, whose papers he had collected, although in some respects the version of the theory proposed by Lesage was less sophisticated than that developed by Fatio.
The idea was not well received in LeSage’s time, any more than it had been in Fatio's time but it did influence John Herapath's thinking in developing the kinetic theory of gases. In the 19th century Lord Kelvin develop a version of LeSage’s theory, but this work was criticized by James Clerk Maxwell, for reasons discussed below. In the twentieth century it was still studied by a few individuals such as the Russian astrophysicist V. V. Radzievskii, but the theory has never found favor with the majority of scientists, who believe it is ruled out for the reasons discussed below. Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of interest and research for a small minority of researchers who find themselves unsatisfied with the current mainstream theory.

Comments on proposal

If this is the total scope of the proposed changes I'd find this to be quite acceptable. Furthermore, you do not speak for me. User talk:71.132.13.87 March 26, 2006

Great progress has been made. User 71.132.13.87 agrees to Version 2, with the exception of the last sentence. So, we've agreed on 90% of the introductory text, and it only remains to decide on the last sentence. I suggest other potential editors (if there are any) review and cast their votes as to which of the following two versions of the last sentence should be used:

Version 1: Today the theory is primarily of interest to individuals who find themselves unsatisfied with current mainstream science.

Version 2: Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of interest and research for a small minority of researchers who find themselves unsatisfied with the current mainstream theory.

I vote for Version 1. Version 2 differs from version 1 in two respects. The main difference is that Version 2 asserts that the Lesage theory of gravity "continues to be developed", but this is not accurate. Nothing new has been "developed" about Lesage's theory in at least 100 years. The last arguably new idea was to replace particles with waves, but that idea is over a century old. Granted, many crackpots (such as the contributors to the embarrassing volume "Pushing Gravity") who are fixated on Lesage gravity believe they are developing the theory, but this is merely out of ignorance. In fact, Lesage himself was mistaken (at best) in believeing that he was developing the theory, because he was not fully aware of the extent of Fatio's work.

The second difference in Version 2 is that instead of using the neutral term "individuals" to refer to people whose attention is focused on Lesage's theory, it uses the term "researchers". I regard this as POV, just as if we replaced the word "individuals" with what I believe to be the more accurate term "crackpots". We basically have three choices for how to refer to those individuals: (1) crackpots, (2) individuals, or (3) researchers. I prefer (1), but I will settle for (2) as being NPOV. I believe (3) is POV in the other direction, so I don't think it's appropriate.

I vote for individuals. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As the editor of the book "Pushing Gravity", I would like to add my opinions to this debate. I would very much like to see a decent article on Le Sage's theory in Wikipedia. First off, I think the efforts to downplay Le Sage's contributions by saying that Fatio did it all earlier are a bit off the mark. Fatio never published his work and what he did say was not developed as fully as Le Sage. Le Sage found out about Fatio's work well after he had done his own work on the theory. Subsequently, he made all efforts to give credit to Fatio (and others who had similar ideas, such as Redeker). This is all covered in James Evans' paper in the book. Secondly, the question of whether Newton supported Fatio or not in his theory is a complicated one. There is evidence both ways and this is discussed by Van Lunteren in the book. Newton himself had many ideas about gravity. One of them, his "Aether Stream Hypothesis", had Le Sage-like elements and a historical paper on that also appears in PG (a reprint of Aiton's article). Version 2 is thus inaccurate on this count as well. I would say Version 2 is an attempt to undermine both Fatio and Le Sage. Version 1 is also inaccurate in one respect. It says Le Sage extended Fatio's ideas. That sort of implies that Le Sage knew of Fatio's work before he came up with the theory himself, which is not true. I think Version 2 is more interesting than Version 1, however, but it needs to be corrected. Here are the corrections I would suggest:

(1) Take out the line about Newton smiling at Fatio's theory. It implies Newton was totally opposed and the record is unclear.

(2) The sentence after that would be more accurately:

"In 1784 Georges-Louis LeSage (1724-1803) of Geneva published a theory of gravity very similar to that of his fellow countryman Fatio. Fatio's theory had never been published and was not developed as far as LeSage's theory. Nonetheless, after learning of Fatio's work LeSage gave him credit in all his writings and scrupulously collected Fatio's papers."

(3) In the second paragraph I would remove the phrase "any more than in Fatio's time", for the reasons discussed above.

(4) The last sentence I would change to:

"Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of interest and research for a small minority of researchers who are unsatisfied with current mainstream theory."

I don't like the expression "find themselves unsatisfied". It sort of implies that their dissatisfaction is different from other scientists unsatisfied with other theories. And "researchers" is definitely the right word.

I think there are problems in the following section of the article too, where some ideas that are too specific have been introduced. I'll talk about those later.

Lastly, the comments about "vanity press", etc., are without any basis and totally offensive. I hope this discussion page could be one notch above the usual physics boards in decorum.

MRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.121.28 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 March 2006

I wouldn't recommend basing any of this article on the book "Pushing Gravity". The fact that the contributors to that volume couldn't get those things into any peer reviewed journals is not surprising, considering how loopy most of them are. In any case, the Wikipedia policy as to what counts as a "reputable publication" for science articles is fairly clear
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
No one would claim that "Pushing Gravity" qualifies as a reputable publication under this standard. On the other hand, there are plenty of good sources of information, including primary sources, on the subject of Fatio and Lesage, and there are some good articles on the web that point to these sources, so it wouldn't be very difficult to produce a well-document and factual article. Unfortunately, the cadre of "Pushing Gravity" contributors are likely to block any attempt to produce a reasonable and rational article on this subject. This will just become yet another crackpot Wikipedia science article. In fact, I think in some circles the term "Wikipedia science" is beginning to catch on as a synonym for fractured ceramics. 130.76.32.23 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the last sentence above is any indication of the accuracy & extent of your knowledge on the book (which I doubt seriously that you've even held in your hand) then your expertise can be discounted, See [[4]] unless, of course, you also think that Nature does not qualify as a reputable publication. User talk:71.132.13.87 March 30, 2006

That was a report comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica. What does Encyclopedia Britannica say about LeSage Gravity? Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
PS - there is nothing about LeSage Gravity in the authoratative McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopdedia of Science & Technology'. Bubba73 (talk), 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The person talking about "reputable publications" and "fractured ceramics" is again way offbase and is speaking from a position of ignorance on this topic. This person is unaware it seems that most of the contributors in PG have had many journal articles published and many of them are experts in their fields. James Evans for example is Associate Editor of Journal for the History of Astronomy and a longtime scholar of Le Sage. George Gillies is an expert on gravitation, in particular attempts to find deviations from Newton's law. Vladimir Radzievskii (deceased in 2003) was a noted Russian astrophysicist, and known for his work on the "Yarkovsky-Radzievsky effect". The list goes on on. There were only one or two contributors without a long publication record. It seems to me the writer here could not have actually looked at PG or he could not be making these statements. I wish he would desist - he's not advancing the discussion.

Someone said the page under question here is not about Pushing Gravity but about LeSage gravity. I heartily agree. But the book was put together with one aim being to have it as a resource tool for those interested in studying this topic. I think we succeeded in this goal. As far as I'm aware there is no other such book where different aspects of LeSage gravity have been brought together. There is a new one in Russian, but this was patterned after Pushing Gravity and has several PG papers reprinted. One way of assessing reputability is to look at a book's reviews and citations. PG already has about 7 hits in Web of Science and about 30 or so in Google Scholar (there are some false hits in Scholar relating to one entry). Pushing Gravity has been reviewed in about 20 or so science and history of science journals. Most of the history of science reviewers praised the historical articles, but were often more skeptical about the new LeSage models in the book. That's not surprising. The reviewer in the astronomy journal Astronomische Nachrichten was quite negative, but the reviewer confused LeSage's theory with Descartes' vortex theory. A review by Alan Cook in Contemporary Physics was quite thoughtful and interesting and certainly not dismissive of LeSage gravity. Everyone can rest assured: PG is reputable. Now could we move onto the specifics of the page and lay off with the smear campaign?

MRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.121.28 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 March 2006

You have carefully avoided the only relevant point, which is the official Wikipedia policy statement on what is a reputable publication. I did not make this up. These are not my words. This is Wikipedia policy -
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
As I said, no one can claim that "Pushing Gravity" qualifies as a reputable publication under this definition.
In response to the person who cited the Nature article comparing the credibility of Wikipedia and Britannica, I would point out that the article confirms the fact that there is widespread concern and skepticism over the credibility of Wikipedia science articles, since that is what prompted the study in the first place, and I would also say that to the extent Wikipedia articles have - so far - maintained some degree of respectability, it is only because they have - so far - managed to mostly thwart the best efforts of crackpots like yourself, and this has been accomplished by the "anti-physics crackpot" groundrules established by the Wikipedia founder, Jim Wales, chief among which is the requirement for Wiki science articles to be based on "reputable publications" as defined above. Now we find you and MRE attempting to circumvent the very policies that have allowed Wiki to maintain whatever degree of credibility it has. My earlier comment was merely an expression of my skepticism that Wikipedia can continue to keep people like you and MRE from filling it with pseudo-scientific crackpottery. Time will tell. If, a year from now, there is a reasonable and rationale Wiki article on Lesage gravity, then I will be pleased and impressed. On the other hand, if a year from now there is an article that reflects the pseudo-scientific mythology of "Pushing Gravity", then my skepticism will be proven right. 130.76.32.167 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I too am concerned by cranky-POV pushing at WP. Suggested reading for all participants:
Everyone: please register and please sign your comments! TIA---CH 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that someone confused the Apeiron where PG was published with a different Apeiron which is indeed a vanity press (see my coment in "Vanity Press Controversy" above). Now as to whether Apeiron falls under the Wikipedia definition might be debatable. It is a small publisher and fairly new, only about 8 years old in its book section. So its reputation is still being built. Yet I would also say it's made a considerable dent in a short time and so, yes, I'd say it's a "known, academic publishing house". MRE128.100.121.28 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If Apeiron is a known academic publishing house, then I'm Eleanor Roosevelt. Get serious. Look, it isn't up to a publisher or editor or author of a work to declare that, in his opinion, the work is reputable. That is for others to decide. The concensus view of the scientific community is that "Pushing Gravity" is not a reputable source of scientific information. This doesn't mean that NOTHING contained in it is accurate - it would be almost impossible for an entire book to consist of nothing but falsehoods - but it does mean that if Pushing Gravity is your only source for some "fact", then that "fact" is not qualified to be presented as a fact in a Wikipedia science article.
The problem, from your point of view, is that once the uniquely "Pushing Gravity" facts are removed from this article, what remains is something that you are not going to like. The accepted analysis of reputable scientists from Maxwell and Poincare all the way to today leads unavoidably to the conclusion that Lesage gravity is not tenable. But you are obviously not going to be happy with an article that presents this clearly and accurately. 63.24.42.237 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, selectively removing facts to suit one's POV is bias and fundamentally dishonest. It is a mathematical fact that LeSage's model accurately arrives at Newton's graviatational formulation. Should this fact be removed or omitted? It isn't mentioned, and should be. Likewise, it is a fact that Maxwell evaluation the model was negative. Should we remove or omit this fact. Well that depends upon the one's bias doesn't it? I've said this before, on a highly controversial topic an actual objectively neutral presentation will be displeasing to both sides. In the spirit of compromise I could accept removing the actual references to Pushing Gravity's articles as long as the textual topic remains. Example,
A modern quantitative analysis has shown that this heating effect can be in line with observation. {...} Again recent quantitative analysis has shown the predicted magnitude (assuming the LeSage particle's mean speed is light speed c) matches that actually observed in the slowing of the Pioneer and Ulysses spacecraft. This is known as the Pioneer Anomaly.
Doing so however just makes it much harder for any interested reader to find the information behind the statements. I would advocate that the references to specifics like Maxwell work & others should also have references if possible to actual sources documents. Finally, if the conclusion is unavoidable, the readers should be able to arrive at it even when all of available information is provided. You & others should not act frightened to have it presented. Acting otherwise suggests that, deep down, you do not believe your own statement. User talk:71.132.13.87 March 31, 2006
No one suggested removing "facts" to suit a POV. The suggestion was to include only facts that can be verified from reputable sources in accord with the policy of Wikipedia, a policy formulated expressly for the purpose of excluding the kind of crackpot pseudo-science that you espouse.
As to specifics, of COURSE the article should note that a Lesage model (with suitable parameters) trivially yields an inverse-square force (approximately). However, the article should most definitely NOT include any of the pseudo-scientific drivel of crackpots like Mingst and Stowe claiming things that are known to be false based on "quantitative analyses" that any high school student can recognize as fallacious. But please note: The official reason for not including this drivel is NOT that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether one or another scientific or pseudo-scientific proposal is valid. The official reason for excluding that material is simply that it is not verifiable in reputable publications as defined by the Wikipedia guidelines. This is the "No Original Research" policy. This policy is adopted not because anyone is unsure about the fallaciousness of the drivel you espouse, but because it eliminates the need to argue endlessly and pointlessly with crackpots about their ideas here on Wikipedia. It is a strategy - one which so far seems to have had some success - for excluding pseudo-scientific drivel. My suggestion is that we should adhere to Wikipedia policy in writing this article. This means that all the statements you most dearly wish to include in the article must not be included.
It's unfortunately that the existing "Protected" version of the article happens to include a lot of that drivel, but at least the disclaimers at the top should discourage anyone from taking the present article seriously. 63.24.45.199 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that refernces to the new, previously unpublished models of LeSage gravity that appear in Pushing Gravity should be taken out of the article. Someone said that many of the contributors to the book do not agree with each other and where the new models are concerned that is certainly true. I view this as a strength of the book not a weakness. But to include portions of these often conflicting models in the article will only serve to confuse the casual reader of an encyclopedia article. If someone wants to write up their own work they could start a new article I suppose. On the other hand references to the historical or analytical articles in the book would be appropriate. At the moment there are no specific references to articles of the latter type in the article. I had done some earlier edits to the article in December. Would people be happy if we moved the article back to the way it was on December 31? It had no controversial aspects then, in my view.
One of the speakers above seems to accept the popular historical account that Maxwell was correct in his criticism of Kelvin's model. As discussed in my own historical article in PG, Preston showed that Maxwell was in error. Poincare's analysis only repeats the idea that if we don't satisfactorily account for energy absorption in a LeSage model there will be excessive heating. I think the speaker has established that he doesn't like PG. I ask again: could you move on? MRE 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to move on, once it is agreed that the article should not include any "fact" whose only source is Pushing Gravity. If there are things in Pushing Gravity that can be verified in reputable publications, then of course they can be included, but in that case the reputable publication(s) should be cited as the source. On the other hand, things in Pushing Gravity that are not verifiable from reputable publications should not be included. This criteria should be applied to "historical and analytical facts" as well as any other kinds of "facts". I think this is what is demanded by both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy on science articles. Are we in agreement? If so, we can (happily) dispense with Pushing Gravity and by all means "move on". 63.24.59.83 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I've already agreed that statements regarding the new models that have been proposed in Pushing Gravity (about 6 or so) should not be accepted as factual. There needs to be more work done on all of them before anyone could make that claim. But there are many other papers in the book that discuss and analyze LeSage gravity in different aspects and uncover some interesting facts about it. These are papers by historians and physicists who could not in any way be categorized as being outside the mainstream. I've indicated that there is not specific mention yet of that group of papers in the article, but mention of them would be entirely appropriate. These papers do add to the body of knowledge on Le Sage gravity. If we can agree on this then we could move on. If we can't then someone else will have to decide the issue, perhaps someone who has actually taken the time to consult the book.MRE 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point. If you are referring to "facts" that appear NOWHERE other than Pushing Gravity, then by definition those are "facts" do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (other than perhaps in an article on the book Pushing Gravity itself). As I've already said, any material in Pushing Gravity that is verifiable from reputable publications is perfectly fine for inclusion in the article - and those reputable publications should be cited as the source. However, Wikipedia is NOT the place for "original research", which includes material that has bypassed the normal scholarly process and appeared only in, say, a book like Pushing Gravity, which has no scholarly standing. The reader is perfectly justified in asking why, if these "facts" are consistent with the consensus in the field, it is not possible to find these "facts" is ANY reputable published source. Why can they be found ONLY in this one particular book, which has no scholarly standing? Mind you, this is not to imply that the "facts" are wrong, but merely that they do not qualify as facts suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. This is the policy of Wikipedia. You should stop trying to circumvent it.
Ask yourself this - Do you want every crackpot who has published a book on some subject (and there are hundreds if not thousands of them) to be allowed to insert his own "facts" and "analyses" into Wikipedia science articles? 63.24.118.243 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're worrying too much about this. I suggest that the article be reworked back to the point it was around December 31, perhaps including the new intro. If you check that earlier version I don't think you'll find anything controversial. There is nothing there that comes out of PG specifically. The article could be expanded from there and any changes could be debated in the usual manner. MRE 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Dec 31 version is not particularly good. The entire section on "Recent Attempts at Revival of the Theory" is hogwash, full of unsubstantiated and false claims (e.g., "the heat problem could be brought in line with observation if..." and "provides an explanation of the Pioneer anomaly") as well as howlers like referring to Tom "faces on Mars" van Flandern as a serious scientist. But I don't think it matters much which version is taken as the starting point, the whole thing needs to be re-written. Some partial decent versions have appeared, but they would have to be re-asembled. Unfortunately, as soon as it's unlocked for editing, the crackpots will again start reverting it to their preferred version. That's what makes editing an article like this so difficult. 63.24.125.112 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement on the heat problem is of course true. That is the number one problem to be addressed in a Le Sage-type model. I saw no mention of the Pioneer effect. You might not like Arp and Van Flandern, but they are serious scientists, with many peer-reviewed articles between them, whether you like to acknowledge it or not. Their names are strongly connected to the recent interest in Le Sage and so are not out of place here. It seems you just want to consign LeSage gravity to the dustbin of history. What we're saying is - it's very much alive. If you're wanting to take out the modern bits, you're missing an important part of the story. I think we will need some input from others before we can proceed in a fruitful manner. MRE 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no objection to describing the heat problem. The objection is to the claim that the heat problem has been (or even can be) solved. Every analysis in every reputable publication agrees that it can't, at least not without violating the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics (or the laws of mechanics). Of course, if we're willing to entertain the violation of basic laws of physics, then pigs might fly... but a Wikipedia science article is not the place for such flights of fancy. Look, MRE, I know you believe the heat problem for Lesage models can be resolved, and I know you are wrong, but this isn't the place to argue about it. Any analysis purporting to resolve the heat problem is "original research" under the Wikipedia definitions, and has no place in the article.
As to the qualifications of Tom "faces on Mars" van Flandern, I will note that his college degree was in astronomy, not physics, and under the Wikipedia groundrules a degree in one field does not confer any authoritativeness in any other field. Tom is not a physicist, as the rank foolishness on his website (and in his article in Pushing Gravity) amply demonstrates.
I understand you are saying Lesage theory is very much alive, but you saying it doesn't make it so. Perpetual motion machines are very much alive in the minds of dozens of "researchers" and "serious scientists" who submit patents and write articles on them every year, but it would be wrong for a Wikipedia article to suggest that perpetual motion machines are an area of active serious scientific study. This isn't just an idle analogy. Lesage gravity violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics just as surely as do perpetual motion machines. I know you don't realize this, because no one who understands it has ever taken the trouble to explain it to you, but it is nevertheless true.
The bottom line is, you are trying to smuggle into this Wikipedia article your own (crackpot) POV on a subject in which you have a personal interest, but your point of view is not suitable for a Wikipedia science article. 63.24.58.50 22:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The insults and falsehoods just keep piling up. There's nowhere to go with this. Is there a moderator in the house? You can consult Tom Van Flandern's own Wikipage to see that he has a PhD and is an expert in celestial mechanics. Hey, I wonder if they need physics to do that?
In the December 31 version my wording was
"In dealing with the issues raised above, a number of mechanisms have been proposed. For instance, the heating issue could be brought in line with observations if all of the energy is not ultimately turned into heat. While heating is certainly the common result of many energy exchanges, it has been suggested that the energy an object absorbs might, for example, be converted to new mass within the object instead."
Is this misleading? Is it different from style than the Wiki article on string theory, for instance? I think we should acknowledge that further discussion between us two is a waste of time and Wiki-space.MRE 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I stated that Tom's college degree is in astronomy, not in physics, and that he is an astronomer, not a physicist. This is easily verified from the autobiography on his web site. Hence according to Wikipedia policy he has no recognized qualifications as a theoretical physicist. His "expertness" (such as it is) in "celestial navigation" does not qualify him as a theoretical physicist, and it is undeniably the consensus of theoretical physicists that he is a loon.
I would also point out that, by your own admission, Tom's article in Pushing Gravity is grossly at odds with other articles in Pushing Gravity. Tom regards the refusal of those other contributors to accept superluminal forces as kooky, and they regard his insistence on superluminal forces as kooky. It follows that AT LEAST ONE of these contributors to Pushing Gravity must be a kook, according their own judgements. Since you are now endorsing Tom's views on superluminal forces, you evidently regard the other contributors to Pushing Gravity as kooks. (By the way, there is also a Wikipedia that says biographies of living individuals like Tom in Wikipedia are problematic.)
As to your suggestion that the heat gets converted into mass, this is precisely what I was referring to when I pointed out to you that you must violate the first and/or SECOND law of thermodynamics. You don't understand why the process you are postulating violates the second law because you don't understand the second law, any more than you understand the rest of physics. As I said before, this isn't the place to discuss "original research", nor to give you a remedial tutorial on Physics 101.
The most telling part of your message is where you spout that gibberish, and then ask "Is it different from style than the Wiki article on string theory?" You see, MRE, it isn't a question of STYLE, it's a question of the underlying coherence and viability of the CONCEPTS that are being described. It is true that sometimes genuine physicists (and experts in other fields) talk in somewhat vague and speculative ways about how certian problems with a theory might be overcome. The value and legitimacy of such talk has nothing to do with the STYLE, it has to do with the inherent cogency of the ideas. When Ed Witten speculates about theoretical physics, it is interesting and worth paying attention. But Matt, you're not Ed Witten. You may perceive this as unfair, but that's the way it is. 63.24.46.162 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not let the Wiki-readers decide who's interesting and who isn't? Your general aim is to disqualify LeSage gravity a priori, even though it is has been a minority thread in physics for over three centuries now. As for violating laws of thermodynamics, wake up to interconversion of mass and energy. This is nothing new. And it's MUCH less speculative, in the LeSage context, than anything on the string theory page. MRE 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Article Policy vs Free-For-All

MRE's latest message asks why we don't "let the Wiki-reader decide who's interesting and who isn't". The answer is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be edited in such a way as to meet certain standards of factualness and verifiability from reputable published sources. Wikipedia science articles are not the place for authors/editors to espouse their own "original research" on any topic. This is not MRE's personal blog. The material in this article should include ONLY things that are verifiable from reputable published sources. MRE doesn't like that policy, because it means he can't use this article to promote his own hobby-horse ideas about theoretical physics, so now he wants to open it up, and let anyone post whatever they want, and "let the reader decide". But when I asked MRE previously if he would be happy to see every other individual self-styled "researcher" have the same freedom, he declined to answer. Well, we all know the answer: Of course he wouldn't. For example, he surely would not be happy for this article to include my review of Pushing Gravity... but why not? Maybe some Wiki-readers would find it interesting. Let's let them decide.

Clearly that free-for-all would make a shambles of the article. This is why Wikipedia policy does not allow un-verifiable material in science articles. I ask MRE to abide by the policy. 63.24.55.93 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Again just more nonsense. You commented that Ed Witten's ideas on string theory are interesting and hence worth reading, but just assume that anything to do with LeSage gravity is not. I have rebutted every point you've made concerning the reputability of the sources. You just ignore all that. I attempted to bring neutrality to the discussion (see my last edits in December 2005). Furthermore, when I make a point such as matter-energy conversion is not so radical, you don't bother conceding the point. In other words, there is no back-and-forth here. It's just a one-way assault from your side. I agreeed that the present page needs work and that there is a risk of pro-LeSage contributors getting carried away. There is a middle point which would be reasonable from all sides, but you are unwilling to reach that point. I think the page of December 31 was fair. I don't think you read that page carefully. In any case, I've grown weary of this and do not plan to write here further until someone else suggests a way out of this mess.MRE 21:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The point about Ed Witten is that he is a reputable source on theoretical physics, and his ideas on the subject of string theory have been published in the most reputable journals in the field. He has advanced degrees in both physics and mathematics, and it widely respected within the scientific community, not just by those who agree with his research program, but also by those who don't. This respect comes from being knowledgeable and intelligent and not saying foolish things. You, on the other hand, have no credentials in theoretical physics, and are widely regarded in within the scientific community (when it bothers to take note of you at all) as a crackpot, and your ideas on this subject have not been published in reputable scholarly journals. You have absolutely no justification for expecting to be allowed to insert your crackpot ideas into Wikipedia science articles.
You have not rebutted the plain fact that Pushing Gravity is not a reputable publication according to the definition in Wikipedia policy.
You complain there is no "back and forth", ignoring the whole point, which is that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to get free remedial physics tutorials. I would strongly encourage to get such a tutorial, but this is not the place. The point here is that your ideas to not meet the Wikipedia ground rules for inclusion in a science article. The fact that you don't understand the difference between mass-energy equivalence and matter-energy "conversion", and that you think the latter can somehow circumvent the second law of thermodynamics, merely illustrates how utterly clueless you are. Matt, my honest recommendation for you is to (1) forget Wikipedia, and (2) go find a real scientist and get him to explain all this stuff to you. Your ideas are not valid. Your understanding of basic physical concepts is inadequate for you to even be a hobyist in the field. But trying to fill Wikipedia science articles with your bogus ideas and demanding they remain until someone educates you is not the right approach. Surely you can see that if everyone did that it would lead to chaos.
I repeat, we should adhere to Wikipedia policy in the writing of this article.63.24.43.84 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


It occurs to me that some individuals might not be aware of Wikipedia policy or its intent. Here's a quote from the Wiki policy pages:

Quote of Official Wikipedia Policy:

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

What counts as a reputable publication?

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

End quote63.24.105.77 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)