Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Thank you. I wondered how you did that. I'll try it. Now, as to your comments above, I agree that the adherents of religion, scientific dogma, philosophy, politics, etc. are never completely reasonable, as a group or, especially, as individual advocates. Many can and do argue irrationally. Mainstream physicists are certainly no exception. There are many highly qualified physicists who disagree with mainstream "facts" in QM and GR, let alone theories in astrophysics, cosmology, etc. For this reason, the philosophy of Newton was to strictly adhere to inductive science and to avoid inventive science at all costs. Thus, his famous refusal to "feign" a hypothesis of the nature of gravity in the absence of any physical basis for it. It is curious matter then when one considers how far we have strayed from the understanding, the wisdom, and the guidance of this "father" of modern science. Today, inventive science reigns supreme, thinly disguised by obtuse formalisms, but many times simply accepted because "there is no other way."

In the present case of the investigation of gravitational radiation, however, we have an example of good inductive science. The phenomenon of the decaying orbits of the binary stars, is just the sort of physical evidence that Newton longed for, and it is this long sought discovery that is the basis for the award received by those who first observed it. On this basis they were able to "feign," for the first time in history, a hypothesis to explain how the observed phenomenon of gravity works that is finally testable (not just "inventive").

Of course, their hypothesis is based on GR, since that is really the only viable solution they know of, but, just as in the case of the precession of Mercury's orbit, there is at least one other possibility, though they know nothing of it. However, the point is that it doesn't matter in this case, because this "most important of all tests" of GR, happens to be testing a crucial aspect of GR that AT THE SAME TIME is a also a crucial aspect of the RST.

This propitious coincidence is great news for anybody seeking the truth about the nature of gravity and the viability of Larson's compelling paradigm. However, to make a case for the HYPOTHESIS itself, independently of the results of impending observations, as you have just done above, and to justify such unscientific conclusions on the premise that those who hold a different view of the matter, and whose bets are placed on the opposite outcome than that upon which the majority have fastened their hopes, are therefore necessarily "attached" by prejudice, while the majority's case is ultimately rational, is the height of folly and rather hypocritical to boot.

This argument is lame too because if the case based on circumstantial evidence (meaning "there is no other way") was all that could be made, we would all have the right to continue to argue our case, if we have what we believe to be a viable alternative, without being accused of irrational "attachment." However, the "most important of all tests" is most important for that very reason; It promises conclusive, direct evidence of the hypothesis that gravity is a transmission process wherby energy is transmitted at the speed of light via a 4D space-time continuum described by GR field equations.

Although, one could argue on the grounds of Popper's philosophy that even if the test finds the radiation, it does not establish GR because this is not a test of falsibility for GR, it nevertheless, is a test that does falsify the RST, and, therefore, one could not rationally continue to argue the case of the RST in the face of such direct evidence to the contrary.

This is a fact that is very pertinent to an article on the RST and therefore it definitely ought to be included. However, it ought to be shown in its true light. GR did not predict the decay in the orbits as the article puts it. The decay was observed and GR theory was used in a hypothetical explanation to explain it. There is a big difference. While the decay itself is observed, the radiation hypothesized to account for it is not, not yet anyway. This point is vital and should be clearly made. The fact that, using the theory, one can calculate the decay of the orbit to an accuracy of .05% is beside the point. Even if the mathematical calculation were 100% accurate, it doesn't prove that the mechanism involved is gravitational radiation. The radiation must be observed to prove it, so far it hasn't been. Thus, a theory that says angels, or any number of inventions, are slowing it down could be just as defensible.

There may be another explanation that accounts for the decay that has nothing to do with radiation of gravity at the speed of light (or not), but the answer is UNKNOWN until reliable, repeatable tests conclusively show that the radiation exists and propagates at the speed of light as GR requires. Therefore, the article as it now stands, in the statement that says that the ground based intruments "may provide more direct evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation," is extremely misleading, since there is NO direct evidence for the radiation.

-- Doug 20:33, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You make a few good points. Indeed to simply claim that the mainstream is rational and you're not is not a very good argument by itself. To have any hope of demonstrating such a point, I would have to discuss the rationality of scientists, the nature of the evidence, and the scientific method in great depth. I just wanted to give you some insight into my POV, rather than make the point.

However, I would say that it is possible to make a case for a hypothesis even when the only evidence is "indirect". IMHO the difference between "direct" and "indirect" evidence is entirely artificial and arbitrary. What is direct evidence? Do we have direct evidence for the existence of quarks? What about electrons? What about the existence of my hand as I wave it in front of my face? There is a continuum of directness, and it bears little relation to the parameter which I think is far more important: accuracy, or reliability.

There is only one way to test a hypothesis, and that it is to derive a prediction, and then test it. If the prediction was accurate, then the hypothesis was a good one. That doesn't mean the hypothesis is "right", it just means that it is useful. Scientists regularly make hypotheses that they know full well are wrong. They aren't called hypotheses though, they are called "models". Philosophically, there is very little difference between a model and a theory.

Hence, GR is useful. RST is much less useful than standard physics, because it makes far fewer predictions. RST does not predict a decay in the orbit of binary neutron stars, GR does. Even if you take RST's dubious "arbitrary" predictions as fact, they are still nothing compared to the variety and utility of predictions made by SR and QM.

The standard reply at this point would be for you to point out that RST is not finished yet, and that more predictions will be forthcoming. It's a good reply, and one which can only be dealt with philosophically. I would say this: Larson worked on RST from 1959 to 1990, and yet he was not able to produce a method for making useful predictions. Einstein's work produced useful predictions almost immediately, and some were verified within a few years. Relativity needed no ad hoc additions to make it consistent with observation, it has essentially been fixed since 1915. Compared with accepted theories, the development of RST has been slow and useless.

I find the way you are shifting the debate towards this "most important of all tests" intriguing. If you remember, I've already dismissed such arguments as a "red herring", in the article. By an "untestable" prediction, I meant a prediction which is not testable right now, as we speak. I find such arguments irrelevant and boring. There's plenty of interesting statements we can make about the RST right now, there's no need to wait 10 years.

I'm getting off-topic. I have half a mind to delete those 6 paragraphs I just wrote. It shouldn't be necessary to discuss this theory in depth in order to write an article about it.

Please stop creating RST articles, e.g. gravitational motion. You're getting people annoyed.

-- Tim Starling 00:30, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

It's a frustrating and often debilitating task to wrestle with philosophical issues, especially in writing. I do appreciate your point of view though, even if I disagree strongly. I think it's a much better article than we've ever had before. I'm going to let it be for now so as not to tie up your time in a lengthy debate.

I don't understand why people are annoyed by my adding articles. Are we running out of disk space? I've written several articles to reduce the length of the original. This editing is hard work, but I find it exhilerating to be able to expound on the subject at hand. I have other subjects that I would like to tackle when I get through with this one, like Mormonism and theology in general. Is that going to annoy people too?

-- Doug 02:17, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tim Starling makes a good case that this article is not factually accurate. I have added it to the list of disputed articles. However, I think it would be much better to delete this page since it's what Wikipedia is not...

First list:

(#3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum. See #1, #6, #8, #9, #18.

Second list:

(#6) Propaganda or advocacy
(#9) Personal essays
(#10) Original research
(#18) A vehicle for advertising (assuming Doug's last name is Bundy, at least the Wheel of Motion article qualifies to be self-promotion and advertising, since it is a theory originating from Douglas L. Bundy)

It is clearly a fringe theory with very few hits on Google, no peer review, no academic recognition, and shares many attributes with pseudoscience. Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to conduct a poll here to see if people more familiar with this page believe this page should be deleted. A formal vote is also taking place on VfD for all of the RST-related pages. This poll is just for this page. Log your opinion, one line at most for a comment, and please place longer comments below.

Delete the page:

Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC): this page should be deleted, this page is Wikipedia damage

Keep the page:

"Tim Starling makes a good case that this article is not factually accurate. "

Excuse me, I do no such thing. The article is the same, in its overall tone and structure, as when I removed my own NPOV warning. A fair proportion of it is actually written by me. This article is a masterpiece of compromise. Doug contributed his knowledge of the RST, I contributed my knowledge of mainstream physics, and together we've managed to create an article which contains quite a good comparison of the two.

I'm not sure about the Nothing But Motion paragraph just yet, I haven't really worked on it. The Mercury paragraph has a bit of a digression into the theory, but that's alright in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps you should actually read the article before claiming it is factually inaccurate.

Deletion is another matter, but since the article has been here since at least September 2001, with serious discussion in the archive from Larry Sanger, Ed Poor, Stephen Gilbert, LDC, Maveric149, etc., I have to assume deletion has been ruled out previously.

-- Tim Starling 13:36, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

I finally got around to scanning the talk archive. Wow. That's one interesting discussion. Ever wondered how all those policies came into existence? I can see why it hasn't been deleted. In /Archive 1, the general sentiment was in favour of deletion, but in the 64 KB /Archive 2, a number of the people who were in favour of deletion, reversed their position and started saying that it should be kept, but that the article needed to be neutralised. By the end of that archive, it appears Ed Poor and Maveric were actively involved in neutralising that article, and that Lee was the only one still arguing for deletion. The start of /Archive 3 apparently saw an attempt to improve the text that now resides in tutorial introduction to the RST, but it seems as if everyone got bored with it. That stagnation was probably partly due to a reduction in editing by Larry, Ed and Lee. Discussion stopped for 6 months until I picked it up a couple of weeks ago.

Briefly, here's what's happened while I've been around:

I suggested splitting off Tutorial introduction to the RST. Doug thought that was a good idea, so he did it.
I removed most of the criticism that had been put in place by the previous authors, on the basis that it wasn't very good criticism.
Doug pointed out some experimental predictions of RST.
These experimental predictions gave me a starting point to write a more intelligent criticism. I did so.
Doug joined in, writing up more predictions, and clarifying the ones we already had.
There was a bit of debate about the whether or not gravitational radiation is real or not. I said in the article that it's a fact. To suit Doug, I later changed it to merely say that most scientists think it's a fact. That's certainly acceptable to me, and it seems to be acceptable to Doug as well.
Finally, Doug added claims that RST is falsifiable. I removed them, and my explanation for doing that sparked the rather off-topic debate you see above. The discussion was off-topic because Doug probably would have been happy to leave them out regardless of my justification.

-- Tim Starling 14:35, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Tim, I think I'm going to make this easier for everyone. I'm going to delete everything but this article, the tutorial and the "Wheel of Motion" article. This bickering and fighting is unpleasant and a waste of time. If we come to some compromise that will settle things now, it won't last long. The first time someone comes along with the same condescending attitude (and there are an endless number of them), the process will start all over again. I'm tired. --- Doug 16:23, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig's alterations need a fair bit of editing. In fact, they need a fair bit of reversion, I would say. I'm going to keep editing the article for a while, mostly out of pride. I don't want to see it rapidly degrade into the unqualified claims of "pseudoscience" and "unfalisfiability" that we had before. I know how you feel about the endless tiring debate -- I haven't tried to hide my jaded outlook on these kinds of discussions. I haven't been going for as long as you, so I've still got some stamina left. Maybe if I keep at it, we'll end up with a stable article in a few months. We'll see how it goes. -- Tim Starling 08:19, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Revert away -- I should never have gotten involved. :) It's obvious this entry is much more contentious than I at first realized. I noticed it was up for deletion, and when I saw the article, I thought that a few edits might prevent it from being deleted. I can understand that some would feel I went too far in classifying RST as pseudoscience (though my personal opinion is very firm on the matter), and if you want to trim back any and all of my edits, no hard feelings. Sorry for intruding on the debate. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts Tim. See my comments - and suggestion - below (after Dan's comment) concerning the "endless tiring debate." On the more interesting topic of gravitational radiation, I found an actual Caltech class on it by Kip Thorne (no less!) online. What a find. I haven't finished it yet of course, but I listened to him explain things in a recorded webcast from Cambridge where he was speaking and attending a birthday event for Hawking. It was so interesting because he says he has learned more about physics in general from being involved in the LIGO project (Caltech is very heavily involved), than in anything else he has done in his life. Not only does he explain the LIGO project, its concepts and challenges as well as the instrument itself, but gives some great insights into the science and the "quadrapole moments" and the nature of and the scale of the space-time response to gravitational radiation. If they can ever find it, they will have to overcome enormous difficulties they face in the search for it. It's a super way to get the facts straight (he even offers clarification and additions to textbook knowledge on relativity.) I'll give you the link if you want it. -- Doug 00:45, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why does this article even stay in Wikipedia? The pseudoscience aspect aside, it has almost no following, not even including advocates. I don't think it passes the 1000-person or 5000-person test. The only reason this article has any attention is the "extended persistence" of Doug. Attention is better given to pseudoscience with a real following, like perpetual motion, cold fusion, etc. Daniel Quinlan 12:59, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Dan is bent over real hard on this one. Others have been too in the past. I don't think the popularity of an article, or the idea of the article, should have that much to do with it, unless there were a database space constraint and then only after careful consideration. However, that's not a problem I'm sure. If it were, then we would have to start judging SUBJECTS, even CATEGORIES of SUBJECTS on a criterion of "worthiness." Sort of a "sponge-worthy" test. - LOL - This is clearly a constraint for old media pedias, but not online ones.

No, it's not at all an issue about database space contraints for me. It's that the act of including fringe articles such as RST in Wikipedia does a dis-service to Wikipedia users. (Continued below.) Daniel Quinlan

So, what is Dan's problem really? Clearly, it's his disagreement with the IDEAS of the RST. The intellectual content is what he hates. And not for a just cause, like racism, or sexism, or bigotry. No, it is for the cause of scientific prejudice, very closely akin to what priesthood zealots feel towards ideas that they feel are violations of the doctrine safequarded in their sacred canons of holy scripture. To them, it's the spread of "dangerous" doctrine that they fear most, so they do all that they can do to supress its exposure to and consideration by others.

You completely misunderstand my reasoning. While I do disagree with the ideas of RST, there are articles about many ideas in Wikipedia that I disagree with ... even strongly (and I have no problem being very up-front about it). Examples include communism, slavery, and Critical Mass. However, I think those articles must remain in Wikipedia. Leaving out communism because I disagree with the philosophy and political movement would be silly. It is a major major thing that has affected billions of people, really everyone. However, RST is a fringe "scientific" idea while you seem to have unlimited time to work on advocating it, it is only followed by a few people. If, in a few years time, considerably more people followed it, or more mainstream scientists have spent time refuting it, I think it would be worthy of an article. Right now, it's just a distraction and including an article is a waste of time, a time sink, and it is hard to come up with any good reason, aside from a select number of people (one at the moment) who are very persistent about advocating the theory, why it belongs in Wikipedia and it is quite easy to come up with many reasons (already accepted by the Wikipedia community) why it does not.

I am not even the opposition to RST (the theory). I am not a physicist. I am a computer scientist by education, a computer engineer by trade, and here, a Wikipedia editor. While I believe it's pseudoscience, that's is not at all why I think it should be wiped from Wikipedia. It's because it fails to meet the guideline of what knowledge belongs in Wikipedia. I am the oppposition to RST (the Wikipedia article). I have actually been convinced that the article can be made factual and NPOV. I think the article is much more factual and NPOV than it was before. However, it is still not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

To add to this, I think there are well-accepted scientific topics that would also fail to qualify to be Wikipedia articles. For example, an article on the Mating Habits of 2-year old Arctic Spotted Gnats of Northern Siberia would be equally non-encyclopedic, albeit for slightly different reasons (some reasons are shared, of course, for example, original research, small audience). Daniel Quinlan 01:49, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the RST's popularity is quite amazing among those who have heard of it. It makes a lot of sense to those with an open mind. However, that's not the point is it now? No, the point is there is strong OPPOSITION to these ideas as well. So, let's address that in the context of the Wikipedia for a minute. The editors of old media encyclopedias had to face the same thing, but with the severe constraints of space and cost, these prejudices could more easily be hidden behind appeals for consideration of these constraints. However, since those constraints have been lifted to a huge degree in Wikipedia, other hiding places have to be found. Thus, the lengthy battle and debate that is continually fought in these talk pages rages on, which represents a great deal of time and effort that otherwise could be spent on writing and improving the articles themselves.

Tossing out fallacious arguments, such as "it makes sense to those with an open mind", meaning I am closed-minded because I don't think it makes sense is non-productive. I don't think it matters whether or not I think it's silly. It only matters whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. I agree that my time is better spent on more important articles. Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

So, I have a suggestion Tim, Larry and all who care to listen. There may be a way to not only avoid this wasted effort, but enhance the concept and even the form, fit and function of the online encyclopedia itself. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but here it is for what it's worth: Add a "Viewpoint" list to the heading of each article. So, at the top of every article, a list of links to articles, if any have been written, appears under the heading "Alternate Viewpoints." The vast majority of articles will have a null list, but for those in areas where a great deal of "intellectual capital" has been invested, such as politics, history, religion, education, science, etc., a very large segment of the total, this would take advantage of the online media's strength by providing much more room for ideas than has ever been possible in the history of mankind.

This would also vastly reduce the wasted effort (can't ever eliminate it altogether) that the minority views spend fighting for the coveted space under major elements of the great outline in the book of knowledge. Also, it would reduce the time and effort that the "priesthood" of the majority view have to spend fighting off disidents and heretics. The editor's election for which view gets top billing would certainly replace the present election for which view gets included and which gets excluded or severely limited, but it's a much easier decision to make because almost always it will be the majority viewpoint that gets top billing.

The only measure to debate in that case is which is the majority or authoritative point of view, although that can also be treacherous, to be sure, for some subjects especially. But the point is that the resources required to publish the Wikipedia are scant compared to the old media, so by taking advantage of this great strength in the name of mankind's freedom of thought, we can present the ideas of principled men and women everywhere who are ambitious enough to express them cogently and coherently, and let the readers choose what to read and what to think about what they read instead of taking that sacred perogative away from them and leaving it to a miniscule subset of humanity to edit, censor and otherwise decide for them what they shall and shall not be permitted to read in Wikipedia.

This approach also addresses the fear of Dan's that Wikipedia might appear to "advocate" ideas which are highly elaborated in it, while relativly few in the public at large have ever heard about them. By "decoupling" the content from the concept of "popularity," we liberate the expression of those who have a lot to say, but without in any way appearing as advocates for their ideas. This is a good thing, except maybe for those interested in the suppression of such ideas. It might be construed as opening the door to "patent nonsense" articles, but history has taught us the folly of thinking along these lines too. An awful lot of what we take seriously, may be "patent nonsense" to those of future generations who are prepared with greater light and knowledge than we are.

In short, what I am suggesting is a redirection of our efforts along the lines of seeking to "capture" the intellectual capital of mankind, as opposed to "canonizing" it, which is what we are doing now as the present dispute only too clearly bears witness.

--- Doug 22:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for original research, advocacy of new scientific ideas, for personal web pages, etc. I cannot agree with you that we should redefine what Wikipedia is to give an exemption to RST so you can pursue your advocacy campaign any more than I think Wikipedia should change policies to become a dictionary or any number of other things that we've pretty much all agreed that Wikipedia is not. Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

First I'll give a short answer to Daniel's question "Why does this article even stay in Wikipedia?" Because Larry Sanger, Ed Poor and Maveric (among others) want it here. Ed Poor and Larry Sanger do not contribute much anymore, but they were both extremely important in getting this project off the ground, and in formulating its ideology and policies. Their opinion continues to carry weight even in their absence.

My argument is not merely an appeal to authority -- there's lots of good reasons for this article to be kept. But I don't want to repeat them all now, because they're discussed in detail, in archives 1 & 2.

Regarding Doug's idea: a few people have put forward this concept of presenting points of view separately. I don't agree with it, personally. I think it turns a coherent article into a boxing ring, where each side uses their space to argue against the other side. Neutrality is not observed in either section. I think what we've done here is better. -- Tim Starling 01:00, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I don't follow why this article should be kept. I see lots of discussion and lots of reasons why and how the article can be made factual and NPOV, but none that convince me that it should be in Wikipedia and is anything other than what Wikipedia is not. Daniel Quinlan 01:32, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

To be clearer, it actually looks like many people have had the same objection as me. Ed Poor and several others may have devoted time to making the article neutral and factual, but others have made repeated arguments that it doesn't even belong in Wikipedia, irrespective of length, content, or number of articles. I have never been one to advocate throwing good money after bad. Meaning, if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether the article can be made neutral and factual, then previous effort is no justification for further effort. Daniel Quinlan 01:42, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I think Ed's point was (or someone's) that if we have articles on the Simpson's and other cartoon characters, we can have an article on a man's life's work addressing some of the most profound questions in history. I think the reason a lot of people, whose original opposition to the article mellowed over time, changed their attitude a bit was that they saw that it was a serious, scientifically and philosophically sound work, here to stay, not some speculative, fly-by-night whim invented for the popular press or the Internet. Even Tim made some positive remarks about certain predictions of the theory in The Basic Properties of Matter (BTW Tim, I guess the details that you found missing are in the 1959 edition). The work Larson did was truely prodidgous and phenomenal, even if you don't believe a word of it. Funny thing is, discoveries like the flat geometry, the dark energy, and the nature of complexity, things he had never heard of are consistent with the RST, but throwing current physics into turmoil. As far as 'original research' is concerned, I see we now have an article on "The Big Rip." Every theory is original research at some point, some are made irrelevant by new observations, while others are still standing pending further consideration. The RST is in a stronger position now than it was when Larson was still alive.

-- Doug 14:28, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It still isn't encyclopedic no matter how passionately a few people believe the theory and how profound it is to them. You can keep going back to how great it is, but you haven't answered my concerns about how the theory does not merit, not because of whether we think it is right or not, but because it doesn't pass the 1000-person test, it has received virtually no attention outside of it's small core, etc. Daniel Quinlan 01:19, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

There was no 1000 person test when it was decided that this article should be kept. In fact, this "1000 person test" is not policy, it's just a proposal. You cite Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which as far as I know was written by Larry, who is coincidentally the strongest supporter for the inclusion of this article.

I think we do want to remove the article. We've had a lot of this sort of thing recently, and the only way to deal with it is to keep deleting the articles until the proponents get bored and go away. Doing anything else just encourages them. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 1

I respectfully disagree. We will do the world a service by amassing huge numbers of erstwhile crank theories and reporting about them objectively. They will not benefit as a result. Besides, your suggested policy seems to be directly contrary to the Neutral point of view. --LMS

Larry was a strong supporter for the inclusion of this article, and towards the end of /Archive 1 and in /Archive 2, just about everyone came around to his point of view. Lee and Zundark still argued for deletion, but by the middle of /Archive 2 it was a lost cause. Although Ed Poor and Mav may not have explicitly argued in favour of inclusion, they gave their implicit support by doing exactly what Larry said they should do: forget about deleting and concentrate on NPOV. Stephen Gilbert, on the other hand, did explicitly support Larry's position:

Ok, here's my argument. Larry summed it up pretty well on the old talk page: "We will do the world a service by amassing huge numbers of erstwhile crank theories and reporting about them objectively. They will not benefit as a result." I think an article on this topic would be very useful and appropriate if it included information on why the scientific community considers RSS a crank theory. Far too many people are scientifically illiterate, and don't see why this theory is any different than those in current physics. It sounds very scientific, right? While not taking a position itself, the article could and should help these people come to a decision, instead of slapping on the label of "crank theory". --Stephen Gilbert

That comment by Stephen is one which is very close to my own opinion on this issue. This article is a triumph of NPOV. Perhaps, Daniel, you've never been involved in the whole crank theory scene. The information in this is extremely valuable to anyone who encounters RST. Arguing against a crank theory generally requires an immense amount of time and effort, because in many cases, the only thing that has been written about them are huge books and articles, by the inventor. Occasionally you can be very lucky and find a critical discussion, say by a sci.physics participant who has bothered to write it up. Other than that, there's just the usenet archives, and they generally have a S/N ratio so low that it's often not worth the effort.

But when the issue comes up, these theories require someone to be there on the spot, to argue against them. Otherwise they win converts. I've seen it happen, I'm not joking. This kind of crap can get easily get into New Scientist, if the counter-arguments aren't good enough. Since this one has been around so long, I wouldn't be suprised if it's already been in a magazine or two. Responsible scientists need to be able to put forward an intelligent, well-thought-out reply to every crank theory that crops up, and that is not a trivial task. If a scientists dismisses it out of hand, or ridicules it, many media sources will take that as a publishing green light.

RST is not going anywhere. It has been around since 1959, and has survived the death of its inventor. It is entirely possible it will continue to win converts. Even without the convert issue, publicity of theories like this undermines confidence in science. And that is a very serious issue indeed.

This article now constitutes a valuable resource for scientists. As such, I would feel obliged to mirror it elsewhere if it were deleted. However, since it is entirely within the parameters of the Wikipedia project, Wikipedia seems like a logical place for it to be hosted.

-- Tim Starling 03:14, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Can you please remove that accuracy dispute warning?

I removed the accuracy dispute warning after making some edits that I believed were necessary, but that action in no way indicates that I believe should keep this page. I still firmly believe it should be deleted. Also note that the result of the current vote on the deletion of related articles seems to favor deletion of every other RST article except for this one, including the wheel. The article will need to be accordingly changed to remove references to those articles if they are indeed deleted. Daniel Quinlan 07:26, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

No problem. You could have put a VFD notice there, like I just did. And yes, it looks like all the others will be deleted, in a few days time. -- Tim Starling 07:57, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

Though I disagree with the assessment of most regarding the scientific validity of the RST, I DO agree with Tim that "this article is a triumph of NPOV." I stumbled across Wikipedia several years ago and thought "Wow, what a great idea, I'll write an article for the RST." Ha! So, I began, linking it to "Theory of Everything" on the main physics page. Was I ever in for a rude awakening! Of course, I didn't know the first thing about NPOV or the "corporate cultural" of Wikipedia, so I stepped right into a buzz saw. But I hung in there because I could see the genuine desire of some of these guys to be fair, even though they literally hated the RST.

So, I'm part of a vast conspiracy trying to suppress the real truth about RST? You seem to be unable to talk about RST and whether this article belongs in Wikipedia without descending deep into logical fallacies that have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. I have stated many times that RST doesn't belong in Wikipedia because it's a fringe theory with almost no following. Daniel Quinlan 21:46, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

I was able to actually win a point here and there in the lengthy battle, which was encouraging to say the least, even though I was always totally out numbered by opponents. More importantly, however, I also conceded a few points here and there, because I could see that I was wrong on some things. Soon, I sincerely wanted to be able to write an NPOV article, and I learned how really hard it is to do. While I knew the RST well enough to write intelligently about it, I honestly could not balance that with a correspondingly intelligent proponent point of view.

I had nothing to work with except the most general statements like "all mainstream scientists regard the RST as pseudoscience," and "the RST has no mathematical basis," and "the RST is not falsifiable." As Tim noted when he first joined the battle, most of what I had written was just trying to answer these "strawman" allegations. As a result, the article was bulky, unwieldy, and unsuitable. He made some great suggestions though, and I was impressed with his NPOV expertise. He easily reduced the article to a consise, NPOV statement of the essence of the RST and its unknown, unregarded standing in the mainstream physics community. But at the same time, he made some positive statements of fact with regard to the RST's claims. Something no one but me had ever done before.

Though I did take exception to some points of the article, and still do, I agree with Tim that it is a valuable asset now to everyone. It has taken a long hard-fought battle to get this far, and to throw it away now would be a crime after all the years of work and effort it has taken to get to this point.

I want to say a word too about "crank" theories in general and the perceived moral imperative of encyclopedias to "protect" the canon of public knowledge. I notice that the word "convert" is used frequently in the discussion above. It's used in the context of an implied obligation to minimize the rate of "converts" to "crank" theories. I have previously called our attention to the striking resemblance of this attitude to the religious community's analogous struggle to prevent the the "sheep of the flock" from being led away by the erroneous, heretical doctrine of apostates. They too were afraid of "converts," and convened their councils to devise the best strategy for stemming the tide which threatened their kingdoms. Now, let me quote Tim's statement above and tell me, if it weren't for the obvious anachronisms that would give it away, couldn't this statement be indescernible from theirs?

But when the issue comes up, these theories require someone to be there on the spot, to argue against them. Otherwise they win converts. I've seen it happen, I'm not joking. This kind of crap can get easily get into New Scientist, if the counter-arguments aren't good enough. Since this one has been around so long, I wouldn't be suprised if it's already been in a magazine or two. Responsible scientists need to be able to put forward an intelligent, well-thought-out reply to every crank theory that crops up, and that is not a trivial task. If a scientists dismisses it out of hand, or ridicules it, many media sources will take that as a publishing green light.

If you replace the words "New Scientist" with holy scriptures, and "scientists" with priests, and change the modern venacular to the ancient, it could easily be the argument coming from an oracle of the priesthood, dressed in long flowing robes in the midst of an elegant hall of marble. You can almost hear the echos of his thunderous warning ringing ominously off the walls.

On the other hand, the spirit of the Internet is the spirit of democracy and the free flow of ideas that has made the modern world so great by liberating the expression of all who have something to say. The idea is to let the reader beware, and to leave the responsibility to consider or not to consider, to listen or not to listen, to believe, or not to believe, to convert, or not to convert, to the individual, but to encourage all to express their ideas.

Now, I would suggest that history has demonstrated that it is a wiser policy to enbibe the spirit of liberty, than the spirit of suppression. This applies to the expression of scientific dogma as well as religious dogma in public gathering places. It does not apply to private property, private organization, or private gatherings of course. They have the inalienable right to EXCLUDE ideas, to protect dogma, to guard the canon, to correct the flock, to hold sacred certain ideas, and to proclaim the profanity of others.

So, obviously, the only real question for us to answer is this: Is Wikipedia a public gathering place or a private one? I think the answer is obvious since all are invited to contribute and all are invited to read the contributions. The obligation of the governers (we call them "sysops") is to maintain order and respect for differing opinions and ideas, and ensuring that lying, personal attacks, rights violations, and the like are not permitted. If this is done properly, contributions to the corpus of articles by principled men and women will result in a valuable public, not for sale, freely available resource containing the extant knowledge and ideas of mankind.

However, this is a far cry from controlling what knowledge and what ideas are to be permitted. If you begin excluding this set of facts, or this or that idea, on any basis other that the basis of "principled and civilized behavior," the governers will face accusations of being unjust and biased. If you exclude them on the basis of gender, or religion, or any other basis including adherence to the "political," "cultural," "religious," "populist," or "scientific" persuasions of one group or another, you risk jeopardizing the project.

I know I'm not going to change any minds here by pointing this out and encouraging, even urging you to consider the argument, but I can at least go on record as having made it. I make it for the cause of the RST in particular, but as a general case as well. The "Wheel of Motion" is not a lie. It is not slanderous. It is not racist. It is not sexist. It is a fact. It exists as a result of the insight provided by the RST. It is part of the knowledge of humanity. It is another, alternate representation of the order of the elements, that is just as valid in its properties as the usual, table, representations. It is accurate, fair and just to say that it is a prediction of the RST. It is accurate, fair and just to say that it is original, that it does not violate the rights of any. It is accurate, fair and just to say that it is generated by the $4 n 2$ relationship of elements discovered by Larson. In short, it is clear that the only basis for banning it from Wikipedia is the bias and fierce opposition of those of a certain "scientific persuasion," whose IDEAS clash with it, but who cannot fault it on the basis of any principle of civil behavior.

The same goes for the tutorial as well, but I'm not going to burden you with a repitition of the argument. Suffice it to say that there is nothing but factual information contained in it, and, though it might be "blasphemous" to those of a certain "scientific persuasion," it stands on the merits of a genuine public contribution to the knowledge of mankind that is also innocent of any violation of code of principled civil behavior that the governers of Wikipedia ought to be concerning themselves with.

Finally, I want to add that I stand ready to answer any challenge as to the factual basis of the content of any of these articles. If any wish to challenge a statement on the basis of NPOV, or the on basis of accuracy or on any other basis other than that of "political," "religious," "cultural," "populist," or "scientific" "correctness," I am eager to work with you. --- Doug 18:40, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Doug removed his name from the "Wheel of Motion" mention in the article. I think this is a non-neutral edit intended to hide the fact that a Wikipedia author, the same person who created these articles, was the person who created the "Wheel of Motion". If the Wheel of Motion is important enough in the RST community (however tiny it may be) to be mentioned here, then its creator should be mentioned. It's not appropriate to scrub the name just because it's a Wikipedia author. If the "Wheel of Motion" is a lesser element of RST and doesn't deserve an encyclopedia mention, then we should just remove that section of the article. You can't have it both ways. Daniel Quinlan 20:42, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Doug's comment on that edit was that it was a factual matter--that some other person named Douglas had created "Wheel of Motion." That should be checkable--and if it's true, then of course we shouldn't list the wrong person as author.Vicki Rosenzweig 21:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/rec/rec27/wheelmotion.htm — Doug's comment was merely "Removed my name as author of Wheel of Motion". I interpreted that as "removing my name", not "removing my name since it is incorrect".

Incidentally, if you read that page and the Wheel of Motion (Periodic table) article history, it makes it clear that both are original research (I don't use the "research" term to imply that I believe the scientific method has been followed) and are what Wikipedia is not. This article should be deleted for primarily other reasons, although I think it also qualifies as original research. Daniel Quinlan 21:46, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

The reason I removed my name, Dan, is because you took issue with my putting it on there. Now, you are taking issue with me taking it off!!! Make up your mind will you? Apparently, you will use whatever pretext you can find to attack the article, even if those pretexts are logically opposite one another. It just doesn't matter to you does it? I guess one reason is as good as another, huh? As long as it gets you what you want, who cares? Your motives are very suspect at this point. Tell me, is this a personal vendetta, or do you really despise the RST that much? I wish you would try taking on a technical aspect, or are you even up to discussing science? --- Doug 02:21, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have many separate issues with the "Wheel of Motion" and other aspects of the RST articles. I also have a single issue with RST itself: I think it's bunk. But, here we try to present a NPOV, so I have tried my darndest to focus on my concerns with the articles rather than the theory itself. For example:

Your use of this and other articles to promote your own works, specifically, the "Wheel of Motion", as well as RST in general which you advocate via Wikipedia.
The "Wheel of Motion" is original recent research and not encyclopedic.
It has a very small following and has had virtually no effect thus far on the world or science.

It may be better to just leave out the mention of the "Wheel of Motion". I'm not sure if it really should be mentioned here since I'm not intimately involved with RST. Would a short summary of RST written by someone other than Douglas Bundy include this text? I have my doubts, so I removed the section. Also, I don't know why you think I have a personal vendetta since I am not alone in criticizing these articles or trying to balance out your editing. I have stated more than once that I believe the article can be made factual and neutral (and it is now closer than ever before). Therefore, I don't know why you persist in coming back to technical discussions about RST and avoid any discussion of whether it belongs in Wikipedia aside from your personal belief that the theory does not get enough attention and has been wilfully ignored by the scientific community. Your personal beliefs are not reasons to add an article, but the small following, advocacy, and original research aspects are reasons to leave out these articles. Daniel Quinlan 07:12, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

This is a ruse on your part, as if you were only concerned with the editorial issues and the Wikipedia issues of the articles and not the theory itself.

A ruse? I've been very up-front that I've had both editorial/Wikipedia issues as well aside from my personal belief that they theory is bunk. Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

To wit:

The "Wheel of Motion" issue: this was first characterized by you as an 'advocacy' issue, but only offered as evidence in the deletion argument, not as a editorial suggestion to improve the article. When I removed the offending reference to myself as author, you then used that action to bolster your argument for deletion. Now, you turn to argue for the same thing on the basis of original, recent research. This kind of posturing clearly exposes your ulterior motives.

My ulterior motives? My goal is to convince people that RST fails to meet the well-accepted criteria to be a Wikipedia article. None of those criteria say that we can't have an article because a theory is considered to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community and I support the inclusion of most of the existing "fringe" articles such as cold fusion. So, I've tried to avoid that as an argument for deletion. However, when you are personally the author of the "Wheel of Motion", that it is original research, and you stand to gain from your own inclusion of it, then it does bolster my argument for deletion of that particular article and related paragraphs. I have been nothing but consistent. Removing your name as the author did absolutely nothing to fix the problems I've stated and only served to hide your own self-interest in pushing that original research. Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

The small following issue: Tim has already corrected you on this point, but you continue to ignore his words. I have some additional thoughts on this issue that I would ordinarily profer, but since it appears that you are not contending in good faith, but have a hidden agenda, I will forbear.

Can you please enlighten me and inform me what my hidden agenda is? I think I've been pretty obvious about my intentions. Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

My Advocacy of the RST issue: This is the most subtle of all your rationale. If you were truely interested in this as an NPOV issue, there would be no need to call for deletion, and start all this bruhaha once more, as you have done, because the Wikipedia policy for working these issues is NOT deletion. I have worked on this article for a long time and, in good faith, and have attempted to work out the NPOV issues as best I could as the record shows. In the beginning, the challenge thrown to me by the opponents was that the RST was "bunk," as you now characterize it, and, thus, didn't belong in Wikipedia. However, they gave nothing but generalizations to justify these allegations such as it was not 'falsifiable,' and it had no 'mathematical content,' etc, all of which had a common technical basis for classifying it as 'bunk.' Therefore, I spent a great deal of effort addressing these technical aspects, only to have Tim dismiss the result as "answers to proponents' strawmen."

Now, it appears that you concede that point, and have proceeded to try to delete it on the basis of these editorial and purvue issues. Well, I'm sure if I went to work as before, and toiled to parry this thrust, you would just find another pretext to limit, reduce or eliminate the article(s). The true reason for this is your opposition to the IDEAS expressed in them. The actual justifications you raise are immaterial as long as they serve your purpose. It doesn't matter to you whether they have a technical, editorial, or policy basis if in the end you can limit the RST article as much as possible, or, ideally, eliminate it altogether.

Unfortunately, Dan, if you succeed in this mealy way to eliminate the RST from Wikipedia, you will have damaged it far more seriously, and far more profoundly than any number of articles on the RST could ever do. Think about that as you reach for still more unjust and unfair arguments to pursuade Wikipedians to delete these articles. --- Doug 18:18, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I only need my current set of arguments. Tim and others have invested so much time and effort debugging your article that they are unlikely to ever agree that it never belonged in Wikipedia in the first place, so my efforts appear unlikely to succeed in the case of the primary article. Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

If you look back at my original detailed comments as to why this article should be deleted, my argument basically remains unchanged except I have been convinced subsequently that the article can be made factual and neutral and I also unintentionally mischaracterized Tim in one comment of mine. So, let me post my original arguments, striking out the arguments where I have been convinced that they can be corrected or otherwise addressed through means other than deletion. Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

~~Tim Starling makes a good case that this article is not factually accurate. I have added it to the list of disputed articles. However,~~ I think it would be much better to delete this page since it's what Wikipedia is not... First list:

(#3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum. See #1, #6, #8, #9, #18.

Second list:

(#6) Propaganda or advocacy

(#9) Personal essays

(#10) Original research

(#18) A vehicle for advertising (assuming Doug's last name is Bundy, at least the Wheel of Motion article qualifies to be self-promotion and advertising, since it is a theory originating from Douglas L. Bundy)

It is clearly a fringe theory with very few hits on Google, no peer review, no academic recognition~~, and shares many attributes with pseudoscience.~~ Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

As you can see, my arguments are virtually unchanged despite all of Doug's hysterics to the contrary. I also later added the 1000-person and 5000-person tests as additional arguments (several times) although those tests are clearly related to the fringe theory aspect and lack of any substantive attention, either positive or negative. I may have missed an argument or two of mine, but most of the rest of the discussion is just me pointing out that Doug is using various fallacious arguments, that I'm being "mealy", "unfair", or "unjust". I've tried to be reasonable. For example, I removed the banner at the request of Tim after making a few edits of my own. However, when people have invested so much in the RST theory (Doug) or this article (Tim and others), I'm afraid that the emotional attachment outweighs any rational arguments about the persistently non-encyclopedic nature of this subject.

Also, to respond to Tim, who mentioned Larry's support even though Larry is the original author of Wikipedia is not, nice try to employ an appeal to authority fallacy here, but Larry is wrong on this one (and that page has been updated over time by the Wikipedia community). ;-) Daniel Quinlan 03:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Please respond below. The indentation is getting a bit excessive. Thanks.

Tim and others have invested so much time and effort debugging your article that they are unlikely to ever agree that it never belonged in Wikipedia in the first place, so my efforts appear unlikely to succeed in the case of the primary article.

Indeed. In fact quite a few people have said they want this one kept despite never having worked on it. But lucky for you, your opinion on the secondary articles seems to be exactly the same as the rest of the Wikipedia community (except Doug), so you don't have anything to worry about there. -- Tim Starling 07:11, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

section heading so that I can just edit a section

I have spent far too much time studying physics and chemistry to believe in fringe theories of any kind. So, I am inclined to believe that RST as a whole is some very plausible sounding patent nonsense.

However, deleting the article is not the answer. We have lots of articles about patent nonsense. As long as the articles themselves are factual, and the patent nonsense in question is relevant, there should be no problem with this. What greater harm is there in having articles on RST than in having articles on, e.g. Middle Earth or the Silmarillion, or Star Trek, or UFOs?

Clearly a good deal of effort has gone into these articles, and as long as the material contained in them is identified as being inconsistent with widely held, peer reviewed, mainstream scientific thought, we should keep them.

Kat 18:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Doug's Reply

Well put Kat. To do otherwise is very revealing, in a very unflattering way, of course. You make an excellent point here. I took the liberty to examine the VfD policy and I found that "patent nonsense" is actually defined for the purpose (something I hadn't realized until now.) Here is the definition:

On Wikipedia, we get lots of brilliant prose, but occasionally some patent nonsense. This falls into a couple of categories:

# Total nonsense, i.e., text that has no assignable meaning at all. This tends to be created after the consumption of too much alcohol.

# Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.

This is very revealing. Just which of the two above categories categories do the RST articles up for deletion fit into may I ask? If the answer is neither, then maybe someone is confused here and needs to read the refining guidance:

The following, while often regrettable, is not patent nonsense:

* Really poorly written stuff. (see Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited)

* Partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact. (reword it for a neutral point of view)

* Religious excogitations. (Make it factual. Yes, there are ways of doing this; e.g. add phrases like "Followers of X hold that...")

* Incompetent and/or immature stuff. (Well, it's not nonsense, but perhaps it does deserve to be greatly improved. So improve it.)

* Flame bait entries. (Don't take the bait; instead, replace it with something that actually adds to the quality of the Wikipedia.)

* Vandalism (see dealing with vandalism)

Again, I ask, which category do these articles fit into? Somebody needs to be more articulate about this and justify these "patent nonsense," or, what is tantamount, "bunk" allegations. Let me submit that the reason no one does is that the allegations are coming from a scientific merit point of view, not a intellectual prose point of view, which is the obvious objective of the policy. The Wikipedia policy is strictly concerned with intelligibility under this definition, not scientific merit. Clearly, Kat has hit the nail on the head here.

Take the Wheel of Motion article for instance. What is non-factual about the article? How is it not relevant? Let's have some specifics, please. Is it "patent nonsense?" Obviously not, but it is clear what is happening here, isn't it? The only basis for placing these articles in VfD is nothing but bias. Scientific bias masquerading as editorial zeal. The policy quoted above, if it applies at all to these articles, clearly calls for their remedy, not their deletion. So, why all these votes for deletion? I want to hear the reasons, not just the monkey see, monkey do, knee-jerk reactions to general prejudice.

Doug's Reply continued

Moreover, I find it irresistable to comment further on Kat's interesting choice of words. I haven't called on Mr. Kuhn's observations much lately, but if you are familiar with his ideas of how much the establishment of "normal" science practicioners have invested in their profession, and how this sets up a terrific barrier to the acceptance of the new paradigm that would otherwise define a major advance in science, then you understand why he concluded that true scientific advances are correctly characterized as "revolutions" of ideas. These kinds of revolutions can only be precipitated by a theoretical "crisis" of major proportions in his view.

Modern science is in the throes of just such a crisis today and it's just beginning. I won't take the time to describe the situation, even though many, especially those active on the lower echelons, down in the trenches so to speak, can't see it yet, and it might be an eye-opening discussion for them. But major theorists and philosophers who understand the conflicts, contradictions, ad hoc assumptions, and the general shakey foundation of today's wild collection of inventive, patchwork theories that we call physics, KNOW we are headed for a rude awakening.

Larson was keenly aware of this and the philosophical violations of sound scientific practice that he perceived had a deep and abiding impact on his thinking. His opinion and observations on the subject make a compelling read that I would recommend to all. But, I like your choice of words in the phrase above describing his work as "very plausible sounding patent nonsense." Funny, I would think that this might be a conundrum of sorts. I thought the words "patent nonsense" used in this context meant "plain," "obvious," or "unambigous" nonsense. Nevertheless, you apparently find that this plain nonsense makes a "very plausible sounding" case.

Not only is this statement intriguing on account of your having made it in the context of the present "battle" for deletion, but it's intriguing from the standpoint of the curious fact, that in all this time, in all this dialog, from day one until this present moment, not once has any opponent, such as Dan or many others like him, taken the time and effort to give any rational justification whatsoever for the relegation of this theory to the category of "pseudoscience," "bunk," or "patent nonsense." Now, to exacerbate my curiosity, you characterize the "bunk" as "very plausible sounding patent nonsense." Whoa, you guys are sooooo interesting as a group of opponents.

Let me try to see if I can reach any of you with just a little reasoning of Larson's, just a bit, ok? Listen carefully to what he is saying here and see what a rational, scientific response might be on your part (see, this is sort of turning the tables on you guys (opponents in this battle) and placing you on the defensive for a change.) I want to see if you think this is also part of his "bunk," "pseudoscience," or "patent nonsense," or if maybe you can see your way clear enough to at least acknowledge the LOGIC. Here is his statement, what I shall call his rational statement of the case "for deletion" of all physics theory articles in Wikipedia (ok, not really now, I'm just having fun with it, so don't get all riled up Dan):

All existing physical theory is based on the assumption that the universe in which we live is a universe of matter, one in which the fundamental entities are "elementary units" of matter existing in a framework provided by space and time. As brought out in the text, this concept is no longer tenable, because many ways are now known in which matter can be transformed into non-matter, and obviously that which can be changed into something else is not basic. There clearly must be some common denominator underlying both of these interconvertible entities. This is not the kind of an issue on which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. If matter is the basic constituent of the universe, as current theory assumes, then it cannot be changed into anything but some other form of matter. Conversely, if matter can be transformed into non-matter, as we now know that it can, then it is not the basic constituent of the universe, and conventional physical theory is founded on a false assumption. There is no escape from these cold, hard facts.

LOL, isn't this fun? By this logic, we better start the voting for deletion for all the articles in Wikipedia that are based on "conventional physical theory" because we can't permit these things that are so obviously proven now to be "founded on a false assumption" to taint the Wikipedia, can we? Man, we can have a hey day. Down with string theories that's for sure (oh brother what a mess that is anyway, what a relief) and there goes the Big Bang (now a "Big Poof" we might say, LOL), and, of course, without the big bang, we don't need Inflation theory anymore (the British will be pleased at least), but, oh my, now how are we going to explain to all those quantum guys that have toiled so long and hard on their beautiful Standard Model, that all the articles explaining the beauty of their theories, from quantum mechanics to QED and to all their other colorful and charming and strange theories (puns all intended, LOL) must go in order to protect the purity of the knowledge base in Wikipedia?

But, the cruelest blow of all, the most excruciating vote for deletion we must face, is of course, the deletion (can we even bring ourselves to say the word?) of the cherished theories of relativity. How did this happen we want to know? There were so many tests of Einstein's theories, why we actually treat these theories as laws, no one doubts them today, no one. Could it be that we turned a blind eye to the fact that they weren't falsifiable? Why didn't we listen more attentively to Popper? We knew that Einstein had, in the end, simply renamed the aether, didn't we? But the mathematics were so right on, how do you explain that? Never mind, it was all founded on a false assumption, just like all the rest, and, so, must go.

Well, so much for my flight of fancy. However, I honestly have to ask all you, who have classified Larson's works as "bunk," "pseudoscience," and "patent nonsense," without the least effort to show any justification for these baseless allegations, other than unjustified, unsupported ones such as "no mathematical content," or "unfalsifiability," etc., now turn to this simple statement of Larson's and answer it's challenge logically and cogently.

I challenge you to refute his case, made so simply and sraightforwardly, against all "conventional physical theory" that is founded on the basis of the fundamental assumption that the universe is a universe of elemental matter existing and interacting in a container of space and time. He has presented the evidence and the logic for his conclusion in one short paragraph. If you can show why this is "bunk," then please do so. If you can't, then stop calling it bunk and try a little harder to understand the case he makes for a universe of motion.

This is a challenge to your own cherished beliefs and assumptions and "science." You do not have to understand the RST, or study the works of Larson to do this, because it's about your science, not his.

Now, before I end, let me quickly add, that having said this, no one, including Larson especially , thinks for a minute that there is no good in modern physics or that the tremendously intelligent and talented community of mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and scientists in all branches of the physical sciences haven't accomplished incredible feats of analysis, synthesis and formulations which are marvelous scientific contributions to the knowledge of mankind. That is not the point here, and I hope no one will try to construe it as such. The only point is this: modern physics is struggling under the handicap of a false and misleading assumption, that matter is the fundamental constituent of the universe. Larson has pointed out that it simply cannot be so. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that his idea of what is the fundamental constituent of the universe is correct, but it does mean that it is a serious and viable alternative to consider, and right now, the only one that is even on the table. Which, of course, some want to remove from the table. Kind of ironic in my view. -- Doug 06:09, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Doug, if you're still around, please see your talk page. Cyan 05:50, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The main problem with Mr. Larson's paragraph is that it states that

This might be a reasonable characterisation of 19th century science but it in no way describes 20th century post-Einstein, post-Planck science. To paraphrase Larson the current view of the universe might better be described as

based on the assumption that the universe in which we live is a universe of energy, one in which the fundamental units are elementary energy fields existing in a multidimensional continuum of uncertain degree.

So since the paragraph appears to be attacking the 19th century scientific viewpoint rather than the 20th century one, the rest of the paragraph makes perfect sense, to me at any rate, and thus I can only nod my head in agreement with Mr. Larson thinking to myself, "How True! But how Irrelevant! This man is a century behind the times! No wonder that he writes 'patent nonsense' if his basic assumptions are so confused'!".

The matter/non-matter conversion problem that Mr. Larson describes was solved when early 20th century physicists realised that matter was merely a form of energy and that it could be converted into other forms of energy under the right circumstances or with the right equipment. There certainly are problems with modern physics but this is not one of them. -- Derek Ross 15:28, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for an intelligent, informed response Derek. I disagree, however. Modern QFT and string theories not withstanding, energy and antimatter do not have the properties of matter, and are therefore distinct entities. While it's true that

E = m c 2

shows that matter and energy can be transformed into one another, these two entities have distinct properties. Energy does not have mass, cannot aquire a charge, has no magnetic properties, etc, unless it undergoes a transformation that transforms it into matter. The same with matter, its potential energy cannot be extracted without changing its position. It's electrical energy cannot be utilized without subjecting it to an external force, its magnetic energy cannot be utilized without a similar action, extracting its chemical energy requires another, and so on. The fact is, that there is an equivalence between the two, related by a factor of motion, but certainly not an identity. Only in theory, not in practice, can man equate the two.

What Larson is refering to here is fact, not theory. The energy and matter and antimatter in the universe have different properties. It's a fact that when matter and antimatter come into contact that they annihilate each other and are transformed into energy with different properties. The properties of the matter that they possessed prior to coming into contact disappear and no longer exist. In other words, something can exist either as energy or matter, but not as both simultaneously.

It might be possible, in high energy physics to transform energy into matter. However, this is still a transformation process wherein the properties of the energy are replaced by new properties, the properties of the matter, demonstrating the common basis that they share but in no way establishing their identity. Energy is convertible to matter as the mass-energy equation shows, but this merely indicates the relation between the magnitudes involved if and when the conversion takes place. In the words of Larson:

Energy is mass only if it is converted to mass, and when such a conversion takes place so that a quantity of mass makes its appearance, the equivalent quantity of kinetic energy ceases to exist.

Thus, while one might assume that the universe in which we live is a universe of energy, one in which the fundamental units are elementary energy fields existing in a multidimensional continuum of uncertain degree, this assumption would not invalidate Larson's argument since it still follows that energy cannot be any more basic than matter if it can be changed into matter. The argument that energy can be assumed to be the basic entity of the universe is just as false as the assumption that matter is the "fundamental unit" of the universe, since this argument is just the other side of the coin so to speak of the other. Larson's argument is that neither energy nor matter can be basic BECAUSE they can both be changed into something else. The basic constituent of the universe would not be convertible into anything else by definition, that's what makes it basic.

-- Doug 18:18, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Doug summarized "Reverting to my previous version - Tim hasn't seen it yet & I'm waiting for his input. Please leave it be for a while."

If you need comments from Tim, you can create a temporary page under your user page and leave him a note on his talk page. I don't think we should leave article in a mode where it is misleading advocacy for RST, so I reverted back to the better version. Daniel Quinlan 18:33, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Look, this is the talk page for the article. Why don't you place specific comments here relative to your POV, so we can work on changing it. I'm reverting back to the article I think is best. Please work with me Dan, I'm not trying to write an advocate article. Let me know where you think I need to change something and why. --- Doug 22:55, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think I like the old one better. The new version seems to be more focused on a series of Larson quotes, and as such is much closer to his POV. The new version has more discussion of the theory itself, rather than its consequences. I'm not sure if there's a place for that sort of thing in the article or not. After all, that is the kind of material that you agreed to host offsite after it was deleted from Tutorial introduction to the RST. -- Tim Starling 02:15, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not sure why you are now making a distinction between the "discussion of the theory itself" as opposed to its "consequences", but I don't want to argue the point. I have accepted the result of the VfD quietly and gracefully. I have no intention to fight the "verdict" and attempt to add more RST articles as before and annoy you all. I am perfectly content to host the additional material offsite as I said before, but I reserve the right to change my mind should future circumstances warrant it to some degree.

As far as the main article is concerned, I will strive to maintain a NPOV, but at the same time it is an article about the RST and should at least contain more than the fact that it is ignored or dismissed by mainstream scientists at the moment. As long as the information it contains is factual and represents both sides of the opposing theoretical conclusions, there should be no objections. Also, as I mentioned before regarding the NPOV of the article, a good way to approach it is to explicitly recognize the opposition that the theory poses viz-a-viz conventional science. We've got a good start on this which you happily provided through the judicious application of your excellent skills. I have tried to build on this in my latest version, while at the same time balancing out some of the obvious POV statements of the opposition. Doug 01:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

section heading so that I can just edit a section

Doug's Reply

Doug's Reply continued

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search