Talk:Tom Van Flandern

The subject of this article, Tom Van Flandern, has edited Wikipedia as Tomvf (talk · contribs). (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Archives
Pre-2009

What is "the organization Meta Research" ?

The article cites as the only notable thing about this person (aside from authoring a book, which may or may not be notable) is that he founded the organization Meta Research in Washington D.C. But there is no link to this organization, nor any explanation of what it is. I followed the link from the autobiography on the MetaResearch web site, and frankly, as far as I can tell, "the Meta Research" organization consists of precisely one individual, namely, Mr Van Flandern himself. If I went to the Washington D.C. area, would I find the headquarters of this "organization"? How many members are in this organization, and who are they, and what are they "organized" to do? I see no evidence of any collaborative effort on their web site, so as far as one can tell, this "organization" is simply a vanity myth for its founding (and sole) member. If I'm wrong about this, I hope someone will correct me and provide some supporting information. On the other hand, if I'm right, then surely this "organization" doesn't merit mention in Wikipedia (does it?) Lumpy27 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta Research exists as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This site has tax returns from 2003-2005, which list among other things a street address in Washington D.C. and the names of the seven members of the board of directors. Of course, none of this makes it notable. I dare say it is just Tomvf, or more precisely a way for him to accept tax-free contributions. His wife is listed as vice president and the other five board members are most likely just there to satisfy a legal minimum. (Only Tomvf is listed as receiving compensation.) Note that I know nothing whatever about Meta Research; the above is the result of a few minutes' research. I know a bit about Tom van Flandern. -- BenRG 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It's about what I expected. In addition to his wife, another of the "board members" is also named van Flandern, and two more share a common name (I would guess they are a husband and wife). The current article here says the Meta Research organization was founded in 1991, so I wonder why the first tax records are 2003. I would guess it must not have been "founded" as a nonprofit until 2003. Also, since there is no data for 2006, it seems questionable if it still exists as a non-profit entity. Above all, it seems like purely a financial arrangement, self-incorporation, the kind of thing any self-employed person might set up. This all just confirms my feeling that the founding of Meta Research is not Wiki-worthy. I propose to delete mention of it from the article. Do I hear any objections (backed up by solid reason why someone's self-incorporation merits coverage in Wikipedia)? Lumpy27 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the website's database is simply incomplete. But yes, by all means delete the mention. Someone else can always add it back if we've missed something. -- BenRG 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

MetaResearch.org is not Tom's personal web site. As already cited Meta Research is a non profit organization. Arguing otherwise because there are some of Tom's family members on the board is akin to arguing Walmart is not a real company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Reference

Can we have a reference for the statement that van Flandern was "Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of..."? The US Naval Observatory web site doesn't show this in their extensive historical listing of department chiefs going back to the 1800's. It's possible that "Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch" is just not a very notable position. The entire USNO web site turns up only 3 hits for van Flandern, one being an obituary for another individual, stating that the individual was led to colaborate with TvF on a search for planet X, but noting that late in his career he was very skeptical of its existence. The other two hits are just long lists of office circulars and papers published by employees, among which are some by van Flandern. Can someone find a solid source for his position as "Chief of celestial mechanics branch" and an indication of whether this is a notable position? (And if so, why it isn't noted on the organization's own web site?)63.24.104.99 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the extremely sparse USNO online records I could not find any list of branch chiefs. If an editor can provide a link to such a list I will make sure it accurately reflects Tom's time as Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch. Failing that I'm not clear what evidence user 63.24 would find acceptable. I believe I can produce a signed a copy of a government document from one of Tom's direct reports with Tom's title. Would that be acceptable?Mikevf (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Article Update

Some of the latest article update reads more like a newspaper obituary than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for personal announcements.130.76.32.16 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Details about North Atlantic Books

I have removed a sentence that appeared after a reference, because the goals of a reference are: (i) to provide a verifiable source to the reader; and (ii) to allow the reader to actually find that verifiable source of reference. Nothing more than that.

The removed sentence is: "North Atlantic Books is "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles", whose self-proclaimed mission is "to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service"."

This type of information never occurs in a reference. Now, there is the usual form of a book reference as it appears in other articles (EPleite (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)).

Someone is reverting my edition. Why? What are the arguments in favor of keeping that sentence about NA Books? (EPleite (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

See the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. If the actual topic of discussion was astronomy and physics, the book would not be admissible as a source, because the publisher (NA Books) is not a "reputable publisher of scientific works" per the criteria defined in Wikipedia policy. The book is cited here not as a source of scientific information, but only as a source of information about itself. This is permissible under Wikipedia policy (if it's notable), just as it's permissible to cite self-published works, provided the nature of the publication is identified. For example, if a book is self-published, it should be so stated. Likewise, if a book on astronomy and physics is published by "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles", whose self-proclaimed mission is "to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service", then it should be so stated. Maybe the note could be trimmed down, to just say "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles". This is certainly a factual statement, and relevant to the nature of the publication being cited, which (remember) is being cited here only for information about itself, not as typical reference which is cited as a source of information about the subject of the book.130.76.32.15 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, your core argument is: (i) "the book is about astronomy and physics"; and(ii) "the publisher publishs alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles". Therefore: this must be stated. Why? This book itself is evidently not about those subjects, no matter what is the general goal of the publisher.

Also, nothing of the like is written on my 1993 copy of this book. Instead, on the second page it is only stated that: [title of the book] is sponsored by the Society of the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a nonprofit educational corporation whose goals are to develop an educational and crosscultural perspective linking various scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to puslish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature.

Therefore, if someone buy this book he/she will not even find the information that you insist to keep as being relevant. (EPLeite 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

The material is verbatim quote from the publisher's web site, so there can be no disagreement as to whether it accurately describes the publisher. Needless to say, the relevance is that a publisher of books on martial arts is not a reputable publisher for astronomy or physics books in accord with Wikipedia policy. Therefore, the book is being cited NOT as a source of astronomy or physics information, but merely as one thing this individual is notable for (to the extent that he is notable, which is debatable in itself), and an accurate description of this "thing" needs to be provided. It is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. This is probably the most notable thing about the book. More could be said on this point, but I think it suffices to simply state the facts.130.76.32.181 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. "

Which is irrelevant, because the book is not about those subjects. The book actually discuss physics and astronomy (I am not arguing about the merits of the discussions) and it is all that matters. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts (EPLeite 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point. You say "the book is not about those subjects" (i.e., martial arts, etc), and that is precisely the point. I say again, it is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. This is a crucial clarification, because it sets this book apart from the ordinary book on physics and astronomy, which is published by a publisher who publishes books on physics and astronomy, and has a good reputation for doing so, with fact checking, peer review, and so on, all of which are explicitly REQUIRED by Wikipedia policy for citing science books. It would be deceptive and misleading to omit the fact that the cited book is not such a book. This is not just some random fact of no relevance (as you suggest), it is a very relevant and significant fact, revealing the nature of the cited work. This fact should not be suppressed.63.24.105.103 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking? Many of the issues in peer-reviewed articles about cosmology and, for example, theoretical physics, can not have fact checking for several reasons, let alone in books for the layman person. The book "The Universe in a Nutshell" is such an example of highly especulative book on theoretical physics. However, I am not aware about the procedure of peer-reviewing (IF there is any) in those kinds of books. Do you? Do you actually know if TVF's book has got any peer-review? It may had. Meanwhile I will hold that it is irrelevant to state what the general goal of the publisher is (EPleite (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite).

I think we can agree that North Atlantic Books publishes material outside the mainstream of science and that it's unlikely a traditional science publisher would have published Tom's book. We just disagree about why a traditional publisher would be unlikely to publish a controversial science book. There seems to be an attempt to discredit Tom's book by selectively associating it with the other titles NA publishes. That is inappropriate, as Tom's book has very little in common with other titles published by NA. The book should be judged on its own merits. Making a disclaimer is fair, but making implications through association is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference seems to simply be providing further information on one of Van Flandern's books. This information should possibly be split into an article focusing on the book, as the purpose of citing sources is to provide reliable sources, rather than to cite an author's book as a reliable source stating that the book exists. I suggest the book should be mentioned, linked to an article devoted to the book. That would resolve this dispute. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This article is about someone who is only marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and even this has been challenged). The notability is due to the person's unorthodox views. As such, this article is subject to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of individuals who are just barely notable, but not public figures. The policy is:

"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

In accord with this policy, I think a lot of the personal information recently added to the article is not really appropriate. Unless someone can cite a good reason for keeping the personal biographical info, I propose to remove it. Wikipedia isn't Facebook.63.24.32.10 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is a travesty. Tom was a well credential professional who proposed several controversial theories late in his career. The work with the most significant implications is the 2 peer reviewed papers on the speed of gravity published in separate professional journals. The article on this site clearly attempts paint Tom as a crank by consistently minimizing or removing Tom's valid scientific credentials and accomplishments (participation in Moon watch, position as Chief Celestial Mechanics Branch of USNO, references to peer reviewed papers, etc) while leaving in place critical material that's clearly not biographical (salon article, mission statement from North Atlantic Books and inflammatory opinions). Tom certainly did make arguments that there may be artificial structures on Mars and it's fair to point that out. However, stating Tom was best known for claims of artificiality on Mars is a statement of opinion at best. It's clear why his critics wish it to be true... it makes dismissing Dr. Van Flandern out of hand easier, and ironically the revisionists will use sites like wikipedia to even make it true. This article is a good example of what's wrong wikipedia. Science is supposed to be about making falsifiable predictions, performing the tests and publishing the peer reviewed results. This page is about character assassination and a popularity contest. It’s disgusting. If someone with some authority at wikipedia is interested in brokering a fair biography I'd be happy to participate in a discussion about what the scope ought to be, and how to do the fact checking. As is this is a sham. Tom's opinions were outside the main stream so of course his critics out number his supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems fairly well balanced, and conforms to Wikipedia policy. This article has been considered for deletion in the past, on the grounds of not meeting the Wikipedia criteria for notability. The outcome of the deletion discussion was a marginal "keep", but only because of the subject's notability arising from his advocacy of certain fringe ideas, most notably the belief that the "faces on Mars" were build by extra-terrestial beings. A quick google search suffices to confirm that this is, indeed, what the most notable of the unorthodox ideas. Second would the contentions involving faster than light phenomena, infinite free energy, and in general the whole "deep reality physics". Third would be the advocacy of Olbers' 1802 expoded planet hypothesis. This is the order in which these topics are listed in the present article.

Please note that publishing a paper, or even a book, does not qualify as "notable" in Wikipedia policy. Thousands of accomplished scientists and professors with many important and frequently cited papers to their credit are not the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Per the previous discussions among a large number of editors here, the consensus is that this article is marginally "keep" primarily as a prominent advocate for the "face on mars" belief. But it was very marginal, and I think if family members would prefer not to have a Wikipedia article describing this notability, probably no one would object to simply removing the article.63.24.33.127 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There has indeed been a discussion about removing Tom from Wikipedia, the text of which is still available in a link at the top of this page. I suggest rereading it. The consensus is 'keep' based on notability for several topics, including his 'speed of gravity' work as well as his 'Face on Mars' assertions. The "face on Mars" is not given any special prominence in the discussion. I understand detractors want to focus on Tom's assertions about artificiality on Mars, it makes dismissing Van Flandern as a crank easier. This is clearly evidenced in the aforementioned discussion where an anonymous user posts "I just found this article after finding his (Van Flandern’s) theory on the instantaneous propogation of gravity on the Internet. It adds information by giving me more information on the credibility of his article (which is not great)." Clearly the goal here is to persuade readers that Tom's work does not have any merit, without actually addressing the merits. This does not seem like a legitimate objective for a biography on Wikipedia. Offering Tom's family the choice of accepting a distorted biography or having Tom's biography erased from Wikipedia is absurd. Fortunately there are other options. The best would be to segment the biography into two sections, pro and con. Folks in the con section can make claims about Tom's work on 'unlimited free energy' (he never did any) while those in the pro section can cite Tom's peer reviewed papers. Despite the fact that this is common practice on several other controversial wikipedia pages (and even Encyclopedic articles about Tom), I suspect from the prior discussion on this article that there's no appetite for a full discussion based on merit. In which case, I suggest simply eliminating the double standard. References to peer reviewed articles should not be deleted in preference to opinion pieces from Salon. Legitimate career accomplishments (record sets while participating in Project Moon watch, work at JPL and on GPS, Chief of Celestial Mechanics branch at USNO) should not be removed in favor of the self reinforcing opinion that Tom's most noted for his assertions regarding artificiality on Mars. You can't include the negative stuff claiming it speaks to the merits of Tom's work and then delete his hard science achievements. It's exactly these accomplishments that make Tom notable... he's not easily pigeon holed as a run of the mill crank.

Another comment on some recent edits: Some have suggested focusing this article more on the "speed of gravity" issue, but this has been discussed here previously, and the conclusion was two-fold: First, the notability is secondary to the faces on Mars advocacy, and second, the focus on gravity is misleading, because the actual belief espoused was that the electric and magnetic forces are also propagated superluminally, and even pressure forces in the air. This was part of a very broad "deep reality physics" that entailed the rejection of essentially all of science. But this article isn't the place to discuss this. It seems that the best course is to just accurately state report the advocacy of what was called "deep reality physics" which was primarily associated with the belief in faster than light propagation and also infinite free energy. These are the notable ideas that need to be mentioned.63.24.112.242 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed work should be more, not less meritorious on inclusion. Tom's two cited papers were specifically on the ‘speed of gravity’. Tom did separately outline a working model for how superluminal propagation might be possible in his book, but he called the model the 'Meta Model', not ‘deep reality physics’. He fully believed the Meta Model was in full accord with most of conventional physics. However, he certainly did take exception with portions of the mainstream model and in particular to the conclusion of quantum mechanics that there is 'no deep reality'. Claiming that Tom essentially rejected all science because of his tongue in cheek jab at the absurdity of portions of the existing model is not a fact, it's an opinion and in my view a gross distortion. And where exactly did he claim to have solution for infinite free energy? Finally, a Google search on "Van Flandern gravity” produces 3x the results as 'Van Flandern mars”. I'm sure you can find a query that supports your opinion, but it's still an opinion that has no place in his biography.

Van Flandern seems sufficiently notable to warrant an article focusing on his notable achievements, rather than his personal life (as per the policy). Information concerning his personal history would be better placed at a personal website, or at a wiki which advocates adding this type of content (which is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Free Energy

It's been suggested that Van Flandern never espoused infinite free energy, so the comment should be removed from the article. However, just a 10-second search on google turns up the magazine "Infinite Energy" reporting on "The First International Conference on Future Energy (COFE) was held over three days, April 29-May 1, 1999...". After explaining that the conference got kicked out of multiple official venues, the article goes on to say

"The concluding speaker of the day was astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern of the Meta Research

Institute, who spoke on "A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy." Van Flandern's background is in astrodynamics and celestial mechanics... For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth."

So, it seems fair to include this as one of the ideas for which he was notable.

Another comment has been that Van Flandern did not espouse "deep reality physics", but this is simply not true, as it was the phrase that he himself used to characterize his ideas. We also need to guard against the mistake (mentioned above) of thinking that his idea about faster than light propagation was limited only to gravity. He explicitly acknowledged that it must also apply to electricity, magnetism, and even to ordinary pressure in the air. And this led to the complete rejection of all of modern physics, with modern being defined as everything since Newton. I agree with the comment that this isn't the place to debate the merits of these ideas, but neither is this the place to mis-represent them.63.24.123.192 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The contributor is confusing the 'Meta Model' with the term 'deep reality physics'. The meta model is Tom's attempt to offer an working model that is in accord with the observational evidence and doesn't violate basic principles of physics. Tom referred to "Deep Reality Physics" as any theory that didn't violate the principles of physics" (as defined in his paper "Physics has its Principles" on the Meta Research web site). The principles are his proposed list of constraints for all models and includes things like "something cannot come into existence out of nothing" and "No Time Reversal". I'd call it a list of common sense rules for developing theories, but given many main stream models violate these principles (ex: Big Bang). It's fair to say that "Deep Reality Physics" is at odds with much (but not most) of what is currently widely accepted in Physics today. What it's not fair to say is "he advocated the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "deep reality physics," the main feature of which was his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy". That's simply inaccurate. Furthermore contrary to the commenter’s claim, Tom did not reject all modern physics; he preferred the Lorentzian model for relativity to the Einsteinian model, because it was in accord with Deep Reality Physics (and also did not limit gravity to the speed of light).

Can the contributor provide context regarding the claim that Tom asserted FTL applied to forces in ordinary air pressure? The Meta Model does argue that particles propagating at scales below the light carrying medium were not bound by C, and it also postulated that all motion at any scale is precipitated from motion of particles at much smaller scales. But to my knowledge Tom did not believe or claim that ordinary air pressure propagated FTL. The peer reviewed papers Tom published on the topic were very specific to gravity and focused on the observational evidence rather than the theoretical speculation indulged in Tom's book.

The same 10 second google search produces the following abstract from Tom's paper: Propagation of gravity has been experimentally shown to exceed the speed of light (Phys. Lett A 250, #1-3, 1-11, 1999). This indicates that a flat-spacetime particle gravity interpretation (originally attributed to LeSage) may be the preferred model. The LeSage perspective also provides the best information for free energy sources since the sea of classical gravitons can in principle be used for propulsion as easily as a windmill. The man speculated about the possibility of using gravity as an energy source at a conference for free energy. That's a far cry from claiming "he advocated the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "deep reality physics," the main feature of which was his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy".

Glad there's agreement that this isn't the place for misrepresentation. Just need to get to consensus on what that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments seem a bit self-contradictory. You dispute the accuracy of describing Van Flandern's beliefs as "deep reality physics", and then you proceed to elaborate on his espousal of "Deep Reality Physics". If the distinction you are making is that the words should be capitalized, I think we could probably all agree to capitalize them. But if your point is anything else, your comments seem to contradict your own position. By the same token, you dispute that Van Flandern was notable as a proponent of infinite free energy, but then you proceed to describe how he was a speaker at a conference on infinite free energy. Again, the facts (that you yourself acknowledge) directly contradict your claims.

On the subject of the "two peer reviewed papers", the Foundations one is such a low quality journal that it doesn't really qualify as an academic peer reviewed journal, and the Phys Lett A paper is a notorious example of how a sufficiently persistent individual can harass a beleagured editor long enough that he will finally agree to let some nonsense be printed, to his subsequent everlasting regret and embarrassment. The claims made in that silly paper were thoroughly refuted (as if that was necessary) by, among others, the little recreational paper by Carlip. Getting a paper published in a journal is not sufficient to qualify someone for a Wikipedia article. This is not why the article on Van Flandern exists. His notability was not as a scientist, but as a proponent of un-scientific ideas, as exemplified in his talks, video tapes, newsletter, web site, book, and various other self-promotional devices.

User 63.23 is expressing the peer reviewed scientific papers in two separate journals are without merit. Discussion on the 'speed of gravity' article concluded they merited a reference.

I don't see any reference to TVF on the speed of gravity page. Checking the history, I see you added a reference awhile back, but it seems to have been removed (not by me, by the way).6324xxxx (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite that user 63.24 has deleted references to these papers from that article as well. User 63.24 is asserting his own judgement of scientific papers in place of peer reviewed sources published by a 3rd party, contrary to wiki policy. Further user 63.24 asserts Tom's notability is for self published work, but the assertion is suspect given user 63.24's experience with van flandern is from usenet discussions about the 'speed of gravity'.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is inherently problematic for Wikipedia. Bear in mind that we all have lost loved ones, people who did wonderful things in their lives, and we are proud of them, and grateful to have known them, and will continue to carry them in our hearts. But this doesn't mean that we will extoll their virtues in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a place for obituaries, or for documenting the meritorious deeds of our loved ones. This article was created only for a specific notable aspect of this individual, and that notability has connotations that may not be pleasing to his loved ones. So what is to be done? We can't let each person turn Wikipedia into a shrine for their departed relatives. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It may be that, in the spirit of kindness and generosity, an article like this one, describing the highly unorthodox beliefs of someone, is in bad taste, and should simply be removed. It's hard to say. 130.76.32.19 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you would like to see Tom's biography removed from Wikipedia. You've made that argument repeatedly now, but that issue has been decided against you (again see link to attached debate at the top of the page). Please, let's move on and focus on what a biography should contain. Tom is notable for being a main stream professional with impeccable credentials who ultimately challenged his own field in several areas. That's why people come to this page. Why not list the areas of dispute and link to articles pro and con? Readers can form judgments for themselves. The objections to your repeatedly inserting the same edits are 1) they're misleading and factually inaccurate, 2) they contain implicit judgments and are clearly intended to disabuse the reader of the notion that Tom's ideas merit further investigation, 3) you consistently delete references to relevant peer reviewed articles while inserting links to pejorative opinion pieces, and 4) your edits show absolutely no response to feedback posted here. I get that you think Tom's work is without merit and that he's a flake. You couldn't be clearer. Start a blog, and tell the world. But wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for your opinions/judgements about other people or their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection to deleting this article. I believe Van Flandern is noteworthy based on his science but user 63.24 is intent on supressing Tom's science and believe's instead Tom is noteworthy for kooky views. Given the sheer persistence of 63.23 (he dominates the contributions to this article with over 50 posts as of 3/14/09), I favor deletion. If Tom was correct in more of his scientific work then time will tell. If note, he's not noteworthy and will be forgotten. A wiki article that primarily reflects 63.24's perspective on Tom does not service wikipedia or it's audience.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The differences between the two versions are not very extensive. The only substantive difference is that the NPOV consensus version mentions Van Flandern's advocacy of infinite free energy, whereas the other version does not. Editors were challenged to find evidence of this free energy association, and the evidence was produced immediately, so the one thing we've established with certainty is that this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable fact that must be included in the article. We also know that one editor here is intent on suppressing this fact, along with relevant and notable facts about the publisher of the referenced book. It's understandable that some individuals, especially close family relatives of the subject, might prefer to suppress such facts, and it's difficult in the circumstances to argue with family members, which is why I've suggested that perhaps the best course of action at this point is to remove the article. Clearly a man's son cannot be expected to present an objective assessment. The best option would be to keep the NPOV version, that has existed here in its present form (except for the recent news) for years. But if the only two choices are a blatently POV re-write by a family member or no article at all, I'd have to vote for the latter, especially since this article was just a marginal "keep" to begin with.63.24.38.95 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You conveniently leave out the other major difference which is references to peered reviewed articles on gravity. Why are you intent on suppressing that fact, it seems very relevant to his notability? In fact you seem intent on suppressing any mention of the man be repeatedly recommending deletion of the article despite a hearing and resolution on the matter. I'm open to a neutral article and think the several compromises I've drafted represent a willingness on my part to be more than fair. However, you are completely inflexible and your posts don't offer any sign you're willing to accept anything but your very slanted perspective on the man. Happy to discuss with you in person, if you are genuinely interested in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.85.221 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the articles regarding the "gravity" issue is really just one of scope and accuracy. Tom admitted that his rationale for why gravity "must" propagate faster than light also applies to the electric force, which has no aberration for uniformly moving bodies. He could never grasp what Poincare and Lorentz explained over a century ago, namely, why relativistic forces do not exhibit Laplacian aberration. Then he had to admit that by his same reasoning static pressure forces in the air and water must also propagate superluminally, and so on. Little by little, anyone conversing with him discovered that his issue was not with gravity, per se, nor even with relativistic field theories in general. His issue was with the very foundations of classical physics. When pressed, he even denied the conservation of energy.

Citation please. User 63.24 has provided prior interpretations of Tom's work that I've found to be incorrect. To persuade others of his view that Tom was a crank user 63.24 needs to provide quotes AND provide a citation (so the context can be verified). Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then he would claim that particles can't be accelerated to superluminal speeds in particle accelerators merely "because the electric force only propagates at the speed of light, so it can't push things any faster". When it was pointed out that this directly contradicts his claim that the electrostatic force must be nearly instantaneous to account for the lack of aberration, and he would say "You need to learn Deep Reality Physics, but unfortunately I'm too busy right now to explain any further." And this same conversation was carried on in many venues, with many different people, over many years. Over and over, like clockwork.

Citation please. My father was exceeding generous with his time and willing to talk with anyone of any education level about science so this seems extremely out of character. However, I will investigate user 63.24's assetion if there's a quote with a citation (for context). Failing that this assertion is suspect at best.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it is very misleading to just say "he believed gravity is superluminal", because this implies by omission that he did not believe every other force was superluminal, whereas in fact he did. The only accurate way to summarize his views is as in the consensus article, i.e., he advocated the rejection of modern science in favor of what he called Deep Reality Physics. There is no other accurate way to put it. And no more detailed explanation is appropriate for Wikipedia.63.24.40.52 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinions, but not relevant. I don't agree with your opinions but that's not relevant either. Opinions are not permissible material for Wikipedia articles. The article should stick to facts. Show me a citation where Tom said he advocated the rejection of modern science. Quote Tom instead offering your paraphrased interpretations, and list the citation. Failing that, stop saying it. You could say instead that Tom advocated "Deep Reality Physics". Rather than calling it a replacement model (it isn’t) it seems appropriate to either include Tom’s definition of the term (not yours) which can be found in the "Physics has its Principles" article on the Meta Research web site. If you don't want to include what he actually said you could just provide a citation with a link to the article. The two articles he published were about the speed of gravity... another fact. They're relevant to the article and should be cited with links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.85.221 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really wish to have a fully documented presentation, with verbatim quotes proving each of Tom's bizarre beliefs, I honestly believe you will not be pleased with the resulting article. These are just "my irrelevant opinions" in exactly the same sense that the claim that Tom espoused infinite free energy was just my irrelevant opinion... which is to say, they are highly relevant facts that can be fully documented very easily. And it gets worse... we can document that Tom disagreed not just with basic Newtonian physics, but even with elementary mathematics. For example, he insisted that the gradient of a potential field is not computed according to the simple formula for the gradient of a potential field. He maintained that the gradient is a non-local operation (!), although when pressed to actually compute a gradient he could never do it. So the article can also document the fact that he advocated the replacement of simple mathematical operations with some vague and undefinable alternatives, and so on. Again, if you really want to present a detailed examination of Deep Reality Physics and everything it entailed, based on verbatim quotes, I'm very confident that the resulting article will not please you. But this has all been hashed out before. The conclusion was that a Wikipedia article is not really the place for this, because by it's very nature, a discussion of the baseless beliefs of an unorthodox thinker (so to speak) involves the use of many sources that are not of high quality, per Wikipedia guidelines. The subject himself was not a reputable source for scientific information, per Wikipedia guidelines, and any discussion of his unreputableness is necessarily of marginal quality at best for Wikipedia.

Honestly, the only real difference remaining between the articles is whether to list Mars or superluminal propagation first or second, and I really think a quick google search confirms that Mars faces was his most notable belief, in terms of press conferences, presentations, videos, etc.63.24.99.174 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making this harder than necessary. You wrote:

"Van Flandern was best known for his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings" That's a subjective claim for which I've already offered contrary evidence. Furthermore, many of the Google search results for "Van Flandern face on Mars" are reprints of your wikipedia text, making your argument a circular one. I proposed listing both his work on the speed of gravity and his claim about artificiality without a subjective qualifier. We can even put the "face on Mars" first since I know that's what you want to emphasize. How about something like this: "Van Flandern was known for several unorthodox theories including his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings and that gravity propagated faster than the speed of light.

I suggest citations for both claims with links to the appropriate papers as well as a link to Carlip’s refutation. I know you want to point out that Tom's claims of FTL forces went beyond gravity, and while that work is both less known and not peer reviewed it merits inclusion so I've added it further down.

Next you wrote: "and for advocating the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "Deep Reality Physics," but that can't remain because it is a factually inaccurate and an opinion. I suggest this instead: "He rejected moderns theories that violated a set of principles he defined (arguing violation of any of the principles necessitated a miracle). He advocated replacing “problematic” theories with "Deep Reality Physics", his term for any theories/models in compliance with his proposed set of principles." I know it does not pack quite the same punch, but it has the virtue of being accurate and with a readily available citation to support it (see "Physics has its Principles"). That is what NPOV is striving for, right?

You wrote: "the main features of which were his beliefs in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy." Again I propose edits that make the claim less subjective and more accurate: "Van Flandern offered the Meta Model as a possible explanation for how faster than light propagation may be possible. In this model he claimed many forces propagating beneath a light carrying medium exhibited superluminal propagation (ex: the force of a charged particle). He also asserted that gravitational shielding may offer the best hope for free energy research.

Next you wrote: "These ideas have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. He authored a book[3] in which he also challenged prevailing notions regarding dark matter and solar system formation, " No problems here. This looks accurate.

And finally you wrote: "and advocated the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet. He maintained a website devoted to his ideas." This implies Tom was either unfamiliar with or did not address criticisms of Olbers theory, but neither is true. Also the Meta Research site was and is maintained with the help of several people. I propose the following more accurate revision: "and advocated reviving (with significant revisions), the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet. He founded Meta Research which maintains a website devoted to his ideas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of peer reviewed science and preferential treatment of self published material

Editors are consistently removing peer reviewed science and references and replacing with paraphrased references to self published material. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to cast Dr. Van Flandern in the most unflattering light possible, in violation of NPOV policy. Dr. Van Flandern is best known for two things 1) his assertion that the propagation ‘speed of gravity’ has been demonstrated in 6 separate experiments to be >> the speed of light and 2) that the structure at the Cydonia site on Mars resembling a face must be artificial. The gravity assertion is supported by 2 peer reviewed papers published in ‘Physics Letters A’ and ‘Foundations of Physics’, the later paper was co-published with Dr. Vigier. The artificiality claim is only supported with papers published by Meta Research, an organization founded by Dr. Van Flandern. Editors removing gravity claims and references while highlighting artificiality assertions cite the Wikipedia policy against promoting self published papers. However, it is exactly the opposite edits that must be made to abide by this policy. Tom's assertions about gravity are not self published and have been deemed worthy of mentioning in other articles on wikipedia. The artificiality claims comes from a self published paper. Given this is a biography, claims about what Van Flandern said should not be made without supporting references. Deleting references to Tom’s papers on the ‘principles of physics’ and then paraphrasing the contents of that paper (with a slanted interpretation) also seems a violation of NPOV. Finally editors are again asked to use the talk page when making edits.Mikevf (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed the previous discussion where your issues were already addressed. See the discussion on Notability. In summary, Van Flandern's notability for a Wikipedia article is not as a scientist, in which capacity he had a very undistinguished career (to put it mildly). Thousands of scientists with vastly more impressive lists of published papers, with with far more importance to their respective fields, do not have Wikipedia articles devoted to them, because simply being a scientist and having published papers does not qualify someone as sufficiently "notable" for a Wikipedia article. Van Flandern appears in a Wikipedia article for one reason, and one reason only, namely, his prominent advocacy of what are widely regarded as kooky ideas. Please understand that no one is saying these kooky ideas represent his life, or that he didn't do meritorious things unrelated to these kooky ideas, or that he wasn't a splendid person, beloved and admired by family and friends. But lots of splendid people, beloved by family and friends, who have done plenty of meritorious things, do not have Wikipedia articles about them. So this is a delicate situation, as you can see from past archived discussions. Is it proper for Wikipedia to have articles on people who are notable for their kooky ideas? Are such things even verifiable? If someone holds press conferences about the faces on Mars, this makes them notable, so they may get a Wikipedia article, but their family and friends may not enjoy the notoriety. It's a matter of balencing kindness with accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia rules. There's no ideal answer, but I think the consensus article is the best compromise of all the considerations.63.24.37.175 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the essence of our disagreement. Asserting that Tom is notable for being kooky leads to an article about how kooky he is. Tom is notable for being a well credentialed atronomer who was in the mainstream and then departed the mainstream by advocating ideas that challenged more than a few sacred cows. An NPOV article lists his credentials, the ideas he challenges and notes he did not achieve majority acceptance in the scientific community. It does not labor to make his ideas seem kooky.Mikevf (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure on the "Peer Reviewed Science"

Some editors here have advocated including reference to "peer reviewed papers" of Van Flandern, but this is an issue that has been discussed here previously, and the difficulty is due to the fact that the papers in question were distinctly atypical of scientific peer reviewed papers, and this is well documented. If those papers were going to be discussed fully and honestly in the article, it would have to say something like the following:

In a 1998 paper published in Physics Letters A (communicated by J. P. Vigier, Van Flandern's 78-year old sponsor and cold fusion enthusiast), Van Flandern lent an air of respectability to his comments by claiming that Arthur Eddington had explained the implications of the lack of aberration of gravitation, giving an extended quote from Eddington's book, ending with the words:

"This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.”

However, in a follow-up paper published in the same journal (Physics Letters A), March and Nissim-Sabat noted something that apparently the editors and referees of Van Flandern's paper had not, namely,

"In Eddington’s book, the very next sentence after Van Flandern’s quote states that "The argument is fallacious, because ... "

In other words, Eddington's point was exactly the opposite of what Van Flandern implied, and it is not plausible that Van Flandern simply failed to realize this. The whole point of Eddington's discussion was to say that the view espoused by Van Flandern is fallacious. March and Nissim-Sabat then go on to elaborate on Eddington's explanation of why Van Flandern's view is fallacious, pointing out that (for example) it is falsified by the Trouton-Noble experiment, and that this was all fully explained by Poincare and Lorentz around 1904.

Tom's quote prior to citing Eddington was "anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequenses of computed orbits introducing a delay into gravitational interactions". In other words he cited Eddington not to claim he supported FTL but rather to show that adding a delay doesn't work. Tom full well understood that GR works around this by supposing field momentum and he addressed this later in the article. So you've now engaged in an extreme ad hominem attack that is not supported by the facts. This is why this paper, the rebutals and follow up should be referenced. Why should this biography be limited to your very biased interpretation when the peer reviewed articles are available for wikipedia's audience to judge for themselves?Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The digrace and embarrassment of having been duped into publishing Van Flandern's dishonest and fallacious paper caused the editorial board of "Physics Letters A" to over-rule Vigier and decline to publish any further comment from Van Flandern. This led Van Flandern and the (then) 80-year old Vigier to submit their patently fallacious rejoinder to another journal known for its loose standards of acceptance, Foundations of Physics. This follow up paper contained nothing new, and simply demonstrated again Van Flandern's complete lack of comprehension of the subject. Thereafter, no journal published any further communications from Van Flandern.

There is absolutely no evidence offered to support this scenario. Vigier was an editor for Physics Letters A and it's seems improbable he would join Tom in coauthoring a paper after a scandel of they type suggested above, though I have no doubt that this topic got political. Further, Tom continued to publish in peer reviewed journals well after both the aforementioned papers were published. See scholar.google.com and search Van Flandern.Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The clear consensus of the scientific community is that the view espoused by Van Flandern was known to be fallacious for over a century, and has no scientific merit, and moreover that Van Flandern had exhibited outright dishonesty as well as incompetence, by blatently misrepresenting the views of Eddington.

If you make charges like this you have to back them up, especially since you've misrepresented Tom's statements. I think a careful reading of Tom's paper makes is clear that he did not represent that Eddingtons views. I will agree he could have and probably should have explicity stated the Eddington did not believe the arguement applied in the case of relativity, if for no other reason that to prevent deliberate misinterpretations of Tom's paper like we're seeing here. Tom did make it clear he was citing the argument to show that adding delay makes orbits unstable, and he later in the article made it clear how relativty tries to work around this. Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the above is a fair and accurate summary of the peer-reviewed science relevant to the present discussion, and yet I don't actually favor including this in the Wikipedia article, because I think it's somewhat unkind and serves no useful purpose. This is basically why the consensus article that has been here for the past few years avoided getting into the whole question, and instead chose to just give a succinct statement of Van Flandern's notable views, and then state that his views have not found acceptance within the scientific community. This strikes me as eminently fair and reasonable (if there's going to be an article about Van Flandern at all). Wikipedia is not the place for discussions of the validity of fringe or pseudo-scientific ideas. 63.24.119.203 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. We have a statement of Tom's views and the disclaimer. Per wikipedia policy let's add the citations for both sides and close on this issueMikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the exploding planet hypothesis, as peer reviewed science, the following incident, which was typical of the reception of Van Flandern's ideas, ought to be represented in the article, to show the extent to which his ideas deserve the status of "peer reviewed science":

"What happens if a scientist has enough influence to get to speak in front of a large body of his peers about an extraordinary idea? This happened to me at an International Astronomical Union Colloquium in Lyon, France, in 1976, where I first spoke to my peers about the exploding planet hypothesis. I had widely circulated lengthy preprints for comment prior to that talk. Unbeknownst to me, a number of colleagues arranged with the meeting chairperson for three specialists to be called on in the discussion period after my talk to give prepared rebuttal remarks2. Afterwards, the chairperson tried to cut off further discussion, although dozens of additional attendees still wished to ask questions or make comments. So one prominent specialist stood up and declared, “Based on what we have just heard, this paper is surely without merit and can be dismissed!” The response was emotional applause and cheers (without precedent for that scientific body) and the immediate adjournment of the session, postponing the remaining scheduled presentations. So much for the pretense of objectivity!"

Tom gave a presentation where he was led to believe the process was he'd present and then there would be a Q&A period. Instead preprints of his paper were distributed to individuals invited to rebut Tom's presentation, Tom was given no information about the content of their rebuttal presentations or that there even would be rebuttals, and upon conclusion of the rebuttals the session was promptly closed without the usual Q&A period or any opportunity for Tom to respond or even the presentation of other scheduled papers. And you think that's an indictment of Tom? It speaks to the politicization of science.Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I personally don't favor including this in the article, for the reasons mentioned above, but without this kind of context, it is grossly misleading to blandly cite "peer reviewed science". So the only sensible approach seems to be the one taken in the consensus article as it has existed here for the past few years, i.e., just present a succinct summary and leave it at that. Any attempt to present Van Flandern's views as "peer reviewed science" must inevitably lead to the full presentation, so as not to mislead the readers.63.24.37.175 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so I understand then... initially you claimed Physics Letters A was not peer reviewed.

No, I never claimed that.

Since that was easily disproven you now claim they were 'duped' into publishing the paper?

I never made the claim that you say has been disproven. Yes, I do claim that they were duped into publishing it. Well, Vigier wasn't duped, he participated in it, because he was always eager to promote any claim that superluminal propagation was possible, because of his fringe "stochastic quantum mechanics" beliefs. But certainly the rest of the editorial board would not have knowingly permited such a deliberate misrepresentation of Eddington's views (for example).

And the reason 'Physics Letters A' did not publish Tom's follow up paper is because they were incensed at being duped...

Yes, and because they could see that his claims were fallacious, as explained in the two follow-up papers.

not because Vigier joined Tom as a co-author creating a clear conflict on interest?

If Vigier's co-authorship was the only obstacle to letting Van Flandern publish a rebuttal in Phys Lett A, Van Flandern could obviously have authored a rebuttal himself, so your argument doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the conflict of interest already existed in the first paper, which Vigier had encourage Van Flandern to prepare for publication (as it says in the paper itself).

One other comment on this, Vigier DID publish in Phys Lett A (see his paper in 2003, for example), with approval of another board member, so this was obviously not an obstacle - if they had been able to get approval of another board member.63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that 'Foundations of Physics' published the article after allowing one of the referees the unusually latitude to go multiple rounds before concluding all raised objections had been answered is because they are a disreputable journal?

I don't claim to know the details of the refereeing process for the Found of Phys paper, but I do know that their charter was to be quite liberal in their acceptance policies. It would be interesting to know why they agreed to publish such patent nonsense, but I don't know how to find out.

If I go to the effort to investigate these claims and can show they are flase will you allow citation of the papers as peered reviewed or will you introduce new objections?

The relevant claims are these: (1) Phy Lett A published two refutations of Van Flandern's paper shortly after its appearance, (2) in the first of these published refutations, a clear and deliberate misrepresentation was exposed (along with the fallaciousness of the idea), and (3) after publishing these two refutations, Phy Lett A did not publish any rebuttal from Van Flandern. (Normally a journal offers to publish an author's response to published comments on his paper.) I believe all of these claims are accurate, and taken together they constitute a clear repudiation of the paper by Phy Lett A.

In view of this, I think it would be misleading to cite this paper as an example of "peer reviewed science". If the paper is going to be mentioned, the subsequent revelations and repudiations must also be presented. It has been my feeling that such an elaborate discussion would be disproportionate for this article, and that the net effect would be simply to further discredit the ideas presented in that paper.

As to the Found of Phys paper, I wouldn't mind knowing more about the circumstances of its refereeing and publication. I do know that Found of Phys has a reputation for liberal acceptance criteria, i.e., they go out of their way to say that the appearance of a paper in this journal does not imply that the editors or referees agree with its content. Also, coming so soon after the appearance of essentially the same content in Phy Lett A, followed by two clear refutations of that content, it seems like a very unusual editorial decision, even for Found of Phys, not at all representative of ordinary "peer reviewed science". I really think it's fair to say that the ideas described in those papers are not "peer reviewed science" in any ordinary sense of that phrase, and that there is essentially universal agreement among reputable scientists that those ideas have been known to be fallacious for over a century. (See Lorentz and Poincare circa 1900 on why forces do not exhibit Laplacian aberration.)

Here's the actual statement of policy of Foundations of Physics -

"There are controversies, differences of opinion, and sometimes even religious feelings which come into play. These should be discussed openly... Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything, but rather that the issues put forward by the author were considered to be of sufficient interest to our readership, and the exposition was clear enough that our readers, whom we assume to be competent enough, can judge for themselves."

So, they are saying that acceptance does not in any way imply endorsement of the correctness of a paper, but simply that the exposition is clear enough for readers to judge for themselves. Of course, this is the statement of current policy, which may not be identical to the policy in force when the Van Flandern / Vigier paper appeared. But I imagine it was comparable. So, again, to call this ordinary "peer reviewed science" is a bit of a stretch, especially in view of the repudiation the same material received at Phys Lett A.63.24.108.96 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick online search shows that contrary to your assertion, Physics Letters A did publish a rebuttal from Tom. After I dig up a copy and read his response I'll let you know what it said. But I'd say the "clear repudiation" is looking a little less clear. How is it that you knew about the two critical papers but not Tom's response? Reply to comment on: “The speed of gravity” Physics Letters A, Volume 262, Issues 2-3, 1 November 1999, Pages 261-263 Tom Van Flandern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to learn what that says. It is odd, because in all of Tom's subsequent rather lively discussions with Carlip et al, on newsgroups, he consistently said Carlip's objections had been answered in the Foundations of Physics paper, and never (to my knowledge) mentioned having addressed the issues in Phys Lett A. If he actually did present his reply there, then it's odd that he repeated it in the Foundations paper, and equally odd that he never mentioned it in later conversations. Perhaps the pro-forma rebuttal in Phys Lett A just said something like "Please see our forthcoming paper in Foundations of Physics"? 63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait... the rebuttal you are referring to appeared in the Nov 1999 issue, on the pages immediately following the refutation by March et al, but Carlip's refutation didn't appear until March 2000, so obviously it couldn't have been addressed in Tom's 1999 rebuttal, and no rebuttal to Carlip appeared in Phys Lett A. So the clear repudiation stands. Also, if Tom's rebuttal of March et al is the same as he repeated in the Foundations paper, it's totally vacuous. The only thing of interest it might contain is his explanation of the mis-representation of Eddington that March exposed. It will be entertaining to see what artful words were devised to explain that away.63.24.45.223 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read Tom's paper and the rebuttal and I must say March and Nissim-Sabat are not at all ad hominem, unlike your charge that Tom's "dishonest and incompetent". Further, Tom's quote prior to citing Eddington was "anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequenses of computed orbits introducing a delay into gravitational interactions". In other words he cited Eddington not to claim he supported FTL but rather to show that adding a delay doesn't work. Tom full well understood that GR works around this by supposing field momentum and he addressed this later in the article. So you've now engaged in an extreme ad hominem attack that is not supported by the facts. This is why this paper, the rebutals and follow up should be referenced. Why should this biography be limited to your very biased interpretation when the peer reviewed articles are available for wikipedia's audience to judge for themselves?Mikevf (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles vs Personal Opinion

There was an editor who pointed out that articles written by family members and those who seek to discredit an individual are patently biased. However, from reading the entire string, I have to give credit to the son of Dr. Van Flandern for answering the accusations and arguments about his father by the editors who favor the removal of this biography page. Moreover, it is difficult to give the same credit to those editors that favor removal. Of special note these editors fail to provide cited examples when asked to, continue to use inflamatory language in their articles, and avoid comming to a consensus with Dr. Van Flandern's son by instead opening new arguments (that again go un-cited and inflamatory). The original discussion of if Dr. Van Flandern was notable enough has been proven simply by this string that shows he was, if anything, a highly controversial figure who has sparked great debate within the scientific community.

Ultimately, this is a biography article, not a place for debate. If the editors are unwilling to set their personal biases aside and move their arguments away from the biography, they should respectfully leave the authoring to Dr. Van Flandern's son who, at least seems reasonable enough in his arguments to write a neutral article. Any other options, at this point, seem to validate what any editor can plainly read above, that some editors are exhibiting personal and subjective malice for Dr. Van Flandern and his views instead of allowing a simple biography to be authored. Akuvar (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Akuvar Feb 22, 2009

I'd say his son is one of the last people who should be editing the article. See what WP:COI has to say about close relationships. It's fine for him to make suggestions for the article here, but not to edit it. You also need to read WP:Civil and WP:AGF.

This article has always been somewhat problematical (as can be seen from the archived Discussion page for the past several years), mainly for the two reasons mentioned above (i.e., editing by family members and articles that discredit people). The subject of the article is an individual who is notable (marginally) for being a prominent advocate of certain highly unorthodox ideas, including ideas that by the subject's own admission are considered to be discredited by the scientific community. In other words, the espousal of discredited ideas constitutes the notability of the subject of this article. It's difficult to write an article about someone who was notable for advocating discredited ideas without mentioning that his ideas were discredited.

Adding to the difficulty is the fact that wikipedia articles on people who aren't public figures are supposed to focus strictly on the person's notability. The dilemma is obvious. If someone's notability consists of advocating discredited ideas, then the article is required to described this accurately, but in so doing, it can be argued that the article is discrediting the subject, by stating that his ideas were discredited. This connundrum is what has led some editors to suggest that maybe the article is simply not appropriate for wikipedia, although no one has recently proposed this article for deletion (as far as I know).

The latest round of discussions seems to be focused on the question of whether to retain the basic substance and content of the article as it has existed here on Wikipedia for the past several years (after much discussion), or whether it should be revised (by a family memeber, which is also problematic, as noted above) to obscure the extent to which the ideas of the subject were and are considered to be discredited.

In my opinion, the long-standing article had it about right: Simply state the ideas succinctly, giving priority to the most notable as judged by press conferences, video tapes, book, public talks, newsletters, etc., and then simply state that these ideas have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. This is not inflamatory at all (in my opinion), and it gives an accurate picture of the notability of the subject.

The question about how to handle the superluminal propagation issue, and the paper in Physics Letters A, has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere on this discussion page. Basically as soon as that paper appeared, the journal published not one but two follow-up notes, explaining that the paper was both fallacious and dishonest (I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it), and then declined to publish a rebuttal. So to present that paper as "peer reviewed science" is surely misleading. Any discussion of that paper would have to be accompanied by a discussion of the follow-up, which then goes beyond the scope of this article. So the decision was made to simply state, succinctly, the unorthodox views espoused by Van Flandern, and then state that they have not found acceptance within the scientific community. Is this really unreasonable or inflammatory?63.24.36.29 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it appears to be quite reasonable. dougweller (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to stating "succinctly, the unorthodox views espoused by Van Flandern, and then state that they have not found 'broad' acceptance within the scientific community." I've made several suggestions for how to make subjective and opinionated statements factual. All of my suggestions are ignored or reverted. At this point I'm asking the parties with an interest in the verbage of Tom's biography to participate in mediation. Please reply stating whether or not you are willing to participate.Mikevf (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any Evidence of Celestial Mechanics Expertise?

The article has stated for some time that Van Flandern "specialized in orbital mechanics", but this is an unverifiable statement, and from the available evidence appears false. None of Van Flanderns writings contain any orbital mechanics, nor any hint that he had any expertise in the subject. Orbital mechanics is a branch of mathematical physics, and involves sophisticated mathematical techniques, especially things like potential theory. In many of Van Flandern's writings he demonstrated that he not only didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic, but he wasn't even acquainted with rudimentary things like how to take the gradient of a potential field, and how this corresponds to a force, and so on. There is no mathematical content in any of his writings. Based on this, it seems to me that the claim that he ever specialized in orbital mechanics is not credible. What appears to be the case is that he specialized in reviewing observational orbital data (gathered by others), and using pre-exiting critera (developed by others) to evaluate such data. This is entirely consistent with the statement that his work at USNO involved the production of the annual almanac. It's also consistent with the fact that his college degree was from a liberal arts school, which doesn't even offer any scientific degrees, so he certainly didn't have a scientific degree of any kind for at least the first 6 years of his tenure at the USNO.

On a related point, if anyone knows the details of how, working at the USNO in Washington DC from 1963 to 1969, he managed at the same time to earn a doctorate from Yale University in New Haven Connecticut, and what precisely his thesis was, and who his advisor was, this would be useful information for the article. This shouldn't be too difficult to determine, since there were only 70 Phd's in astronomy granted in the entire United States in 1969, and only a handful of those would have been from Yale.63.24.46.34 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A search of Yale's online library catalog ([1]) turns up his PhD thesis. The title is "A Discussion of 1950-1968: Occultations of Stars by the Moon." -- BenRG (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I also notice that his web site provides the info:

B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.

Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship.

Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University, New Haven, CT, June 1969, specializing in Celestial Mechanics. Dissertation: "A discussion of 1950-1968 occultations of stars by the Moon". Adviser: G.M. Clemence.

I must say that I still find it remarkable that he had an undergraduate degree from Xavier in mathematics, and yet in all of his writings he displayed a complete lack of mathematical capability, and in discussions he showed himself to be completely unacquainted with even the most rudimentary mathematics. Also, a review of lunar occultations from 1950 to 1968 is not really "celestial mechanics". By the way, I found a copy of a 1970 paper co-authored by Van Flandern and someone named C. F. Martin (who also is listed as getting a Phd in Astronomy from Yale in 1969, apparently with the same specialty as Van Flandern), on the subject of "Secular variation in Lunar Occultations", but even this contains no real "celestial mechanics". I'm also still puzzled by the chronology, since his bio says he worked for 20 years, from 1963 to 1983, at the USNO in Washington DC, and yet he received a PhD from Yale, New Haven CT, in 1969. Was it some sort of remote program, where attendance at Yale was not actually required? Or did he commute between DC and New Haven? Not that it matters, but it might make the chronology hang together better if more details were available.63.24.112.67 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Posting anonymous insults and questioning Dr. Van Flandern's integrity do not help your claim to represent the NPOV. For the record, my father attended both Xavier and Yale on full scholarships. The Yale scholarship was sponsored by the US Naval Observatory. At the time that was unprecendented. Despite your assertion that he was an "unremarkable" scientist who "didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic", a lot of people who actually knew him seemed to think differently. Of course they probably just weren't a 'neutral' as you are.

Would you say the article should be corrected about the chronology? It currently indicates that he worked at the USNO in Washington DC for 20 years, but since he attended Yale in New Haven CT for some portion of that 20 years, perhaps that should be noted. By the way, from reading the biography of Clemence (his advisor, who left the USNO for Yale in 1963, the same year Van Flandern arrived at USNO), I don't think it's accurate to say this arrangement was unprecedented. It says in Clemences work at USNO he enlisted the help of many assistants to do the punch-card crunching, and arranged for a large number (40?) of those assistants to get PhDs from Yale, where Clemence became acting director for awhile.130.76.32.16 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct the above number... it wasn't 40 PhDs, it was 25, during the period from 1949 to 1970, so Van Flandern would have been at the tail end of this tsunami of astronomy PhDs produced by the colaboration of the USNO and Yale. Here's some interesting info on how this came about, and on Van Flandern's advisor, Gerald Clemence:

After graduation from high school he [Clemence] entered Brown University. Assuming his chief interest to be mathematics, he majored in that subject, with an additional year of graduate study, and earned the degree of Ph.B. in 1930. [Note that this is not a PhD, it was based on just one extra year of study, comparable to something less than a Master's degree. Also, it had nothing to do with astronomy or physics.]

“As a recreation,” he said later, he took a civil service examination for astronomer and upon passing with a high grade (he was first in a field of 50), he accepted an appointment to the U. S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., “attracted by the seemingly high salary of $2,000 per annum.” [This was 1930, when he was 22 years old. He worked with Eckert and Herget.]

In 1945, at the end of the war, Eckert resigned to become director of IBM’s Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory at Columbia University, Herget returned to Cincinnati as director of the Cincinnati Observatory, and Clemence was promoted to the post of director of the Nautical Almanac Office.

In 1947 the Office of Naval Research began a sustained period of support for research in celestial mechanics through a contract involving Yale, the Nautical Almanac Office, the Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory... and the Cincinnati Observatory ... [Was there any connection between Van Flandern and the Cincinnati Observatory, since he went to school in the area.] The research output of this coalition was prodigious and in the period between 1949 and 1970 resulted in 22 contributions to the Papers of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, as well as many shorter articles in scientific journals. In addition, over 25 Ph.D. dissertations were based on research carried out in this project.

With the onset of the space age and the launch of Sputnik in 1957 Clemence cooperated with Brouwer in launching the series of Yale Summer Institutes in Dynamical Astronomy aimed at meeting the burgeoning requirement for scientists trained in this subject.

This shows that Clemences academic history was almost identical to Van Flandern's, i.e., an undergraduate degree in mathematics, and then going straight to the USNO where they both apparently learned their astronomy and whatever physics they acquired along the way. Clemence apparently never received a PhD in astronomy (or anything else), but had risen administratively to a position where he served as an advisor.

I'm still curious to know whether Van Flandern actually attended classes in New Haven. Their current graduate program says a degree in astronomy takes about 6 years, which means for the first 6 years of Van Flandern's working at the USNO in Washington DC he would have had to be going to school full time in New Haven. If so, I think the article should be revised to state that after leaving Xavier he attended Yale from 1963 to 1969, on a scholarship from the USNO perhaps(?), and then went to work at the USNO for 14 years, from 1969 to 1983. But this is just speculation on my part. I'd be interested if anyone can supply the real facts.63.24.107.211 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked my mother about the details and she informed me that the USNO not only paid for Tom to attend Yale, they paid him a salary while he attended classes. He agreed to work at the USNO 3 years for every 1 year they paid for. Tom had received a full scholarship to Georgetown and took 1 year of classes there. However, after the USNO made their offer he left Georgetown and began attending Yale. Yes he attended classes in New Haven (where my sister was born). You are correct in noting the arrangement was not unique, my mother informed me that 3 of Tom's classmates were sponsored by the USNO.

User 63.24.xxx.xxx, is there any hope here of working toward a balanced biography? You've rejected every bit of feedback I've offered that could move this article toward improved accuracy and a more neutral perspective. In addition you've challenged my father's integrity and all of his credentials. Further you've asserted that a man with a PhD in Celestial Mechanics from Yale and a degree in mathematics from Xavier "didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic". I took a lot of math classes studying electrical engineering at U of MD before starting my career at Microsoft. Despite having several years of college math in an engineering program under my belt, my father's math knowledge dwarfed my own. So candidly, I absolutely know you're full of it on at least this point. Now you've made new accusations about my father's integrity. People who knew my father know he was honest to a fault, so given his and your track records there's no question who I believe. I'm willing to run down this latest allegation, but only if you're willing to participate in mediation. I did not agree with all of my father's theories, and I think many of the ideas he advocated can fairly be used to undermine his credibility. However, there are a lot of detractors that disliked my father's challenging the status quo used dishonest short cuts to try to discredit him. I'm going to insist that the presentation here be factual and free of opinion statements. And I will absolutely not accept unsubstantiated attacks on his character. These are serious allegations and frankly I think it's reprehensible that they are being made anonymously as there can be no reprecussion if/when they are proven to be false. I've asked you to talk with me directly. I've asked you to participate in mediation. One last time I'm asking you to participation in mediation on this biography. Will you?Mikevf (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize the inherently problematic nature of this article, since the notability of the subject (sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia web page) is due solely to his advocacy of scientifically discredited ideas. Even the idea that you seem to think was the most credible (the superluminal propagation of gravitational and electromagnetic forces) is a fallacy that was fully understood and discredited over a century ago. Indeed, the very next sentence from Eddington's 1920 book, from which Tom quoted the aberration paradox, says "The reasoning is fallacious, because...", and then goes on to explain the (by then) well known reasons that it is fallacious. And I must point out the title of the paper refers to gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields... in other words, everything. So I hope you can understand why I've been reluctant to summarize Tom's position by just saying "superluminal propagation of gravity", because he very explicitly maintained that ALL physical forces propagate superluminally. So, in a succinct summary of the notable features of Deep Reality Physics, I think it's fair to say it is characterized by a belief in faster than light travel, but they also said in their paper "communication". Now, if you think the article should say "faster than light communication and propagation of forces", then that might be okay, but my point is it can't focus just on gravity, because that just doesn't agree with what he wrote.

We've been over the issue of infinite free energy, and I cited his public lecture on the subject (after you insisted that he'd never espoused any such thing). I think it might also be good to mention gravitational shielding and the Le Sage theory of gravity... although notice that Vigier was not having any Le Sage in the Foundations paper.

On the subject of referencing the two papers, I've never said they absolutely should be excluded, I've simply said that IF they are included, it's essential for the context and subsequent history of rebuttals to be presented. It just would not be accurate to leave the readers with the impression that the views expressed by Tom and Vigier are in any way accepted as accurate or correct by the scientific community. This was discussed many times with Tom himself, when he argued that no rebuttals to his Foundations paper had ever appeared. Of course the answer is that the rebuttals to those ideas WERE published, in reputable journals, by Nobel prize winning physicists (e.g., Lorentz, Laue)... over a century ago. Today you can pick up a copy of Jackson's electrodynamics for undergraduates and read why the Coulomb gauge doesn't imply superluminal propagation speed for the electromagnetic force, and why in fact the propagation speed is unambiguously c, and how the electromagnetic field conveys both energy (Poynting's vector) and momentum, something which Tom never grasped. It's an undergraduate homework assignment. So it just would not be right for this article to give the impression that the claims in Tom's papers have any scientific validity. Or that they have gone un-answered. Or that there is an on-going controversy about them.

I'm open to suggestions on how exactly the article should be worded to make all this clear. I'm not saying the existing article is perfect, but I do oppose change that just tend to obscure the plain facts.63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the willingness to dialog and entertain inclusions of citations to published papers. Despite the history on the page I remain hopeful that we may reach a mutually acceptable compromise. The fundamental problem as I see it is that you don't really understand Tom's arguments and have prejudged his ideas to be kooky. Unfortunately this perspective is reflected in your attempts to briefly summarize his work. If you can acknowledge this bias in your perspective and be hypervigilant in not letting infect your writing I think we can start moving forward. I'm not opposed to succintly summarizig Tom's ideas, providing the citations and stating they are not accepted by the mainstream. If you can agree to keep it at that then I'll restate my objections to the current verbage and we can try to make progress. BTW, Tom understood full well the argument that electrodynamic and gravitational fields propagated at the speed of light and that the field conveys energy and momentum. Tom argued that momentum was insuffient when the mass was not traveling linearly (ex: an oscilating mass or binary star system). But I thought you didn't want to argue the merits of the ideas here. 67.183.85.221 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How many distinct individuals are behind these various anonymous IPs? It's very confusing. 63.24, your crusade against Tom seems a bit pathological. It would have been interesting if his PhD had been fabricated, but since it obviously wasn't it seems to me that that line of discussion is finished. "USNO 1963–1983" could just mean that he first worked there in 1963 and last worked there in 1983. His refusal to take the gradient of a field in a conversation with you could mean any number of things other than an inability to calculate. The article is never going to say "Tom lacked any understanding of the most basic mathematics", no matter how much you may want it to. Mike, I can't remember Wikipedia's exact policies about deletion, but if you requested that the article be deleted I think there's a good chance your wish would be honored. But if Wikipedia does have an article about Tom I don't think it can ever be significantly different from how it was before the recent spate of edits following his death. My preference would be to roll back to that version, make the minimal necessary changes, and leave it at that. -- BenRG (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. 130.76.32.145 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I reluctantly concur. Despite my asking serveral times 63.24 doesn't show any inclination toward compromise or accepting mediation, and I frankly have other things to do. I doubt this article is sufficiently important to merit arbitration given wikipedias extremely limited resources. I don't think the pre death article is entirely factually accurate however it's better than the current mess. Please revert. Also please remove the Salon link as non biographical per discussion. I'll submit a request to have the article deleted. Anyone know how to do that? Thanks -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I get this malicious article deleted from wikipedia. There's no longer any pretense of neutrality. User 63.23.xx.xx is a relativist and is dominating the content with a clear agenda (discredit Tom and prevent mentions of FTL gravity). My preferred solution would be prohibiting anonymous posts and mediating NPOV content. However failing that this article must be deleted. It's slanderous.Mikevf (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction... The article does prominently mention that van Flandern was known for the belief in "faster than light propagation of forces", which includes faster than light gravity. All forces must be included, as is clear from the title and content of the Foundation of Phys paper (which refers explicitly to "gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields").Agnon5 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You can go to WP:AfD but there aren't any grounds that I can think of to get it deleted by our criteria. I know BenRG thinks it would be, but I'd be very surprised if very many editors agreed. dougweller (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that he is best known for his eccentric ideas, which must thus be in the article. I can see why his family might not like this, but that is simply a fact. And there is no way to prohibit anonymous edits on Wikipedia. Also, I've deleted the misplaced template and your personal comment which was on the article, Mikevf. Please do not attempt to replace it. dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the particular words that are slanderous were identified, they could be removed. No one wants a slanderous article here. But, as Dougweller said, in order to be accurate, the article does need to make clear that the subject's notability was for advocating highly unorthodox ideas that were considered untenable by the scientific community. I don't think this, in itself, can be considered slanderous, since the subject himself freely acknowledged that his beliefs were rejected by the scientific community. Regarding deletion of the article, I don't actually see a reason to delete it, but on the other hand, if the family wants it to be deleted, and considering that it was always a marginal "keep", I personally wouldn't object to deletion, just out of courtesy.Agnon5 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the article simply said that Tom advocated highly unorthodox ideas that were considered untenable by the majority of the scientific community I'd have no objection. I agree that's true. However what he advocated has been misrepresented and distorted to discredit. I'm ameanable to mediating this content or deleting. But while a libelous article is posted it must be marked as such until the problem is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the Article Libelous?

One editor has stated that he (and other family members) believes the article is "slanderous" in its present form. Most likely he mean libelous, because slander refers to things that are spoken, whereas libel refers to written statements. I suggest that he identify the statements that he believes to be libelous. If other (non-family) editors agree that the article contains libelous statements, I think there would be general agreement to remove them. No one wants the article to be libelous.Agnon5 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As impressive as your denotational knowledge may be, it is obvious that what is intended to be conveyed is the belief that the article contains defamatory statements. I too urge Mikevf to identify what parts of the article Flandern's family finds troubling. Once that is clear, I believe we can work from there. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no intent to make a gratuitous display of denotational knowledge (one of those phrases that is what it describes). I just thought it might help to avoid misunderstanding if I explained why I was using the word "libel" rather than the original poster's word "slander".Agnon5 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote slanderous as libelous can carry legal implications. But I accept the use of the word libelous is appropriate here as defined by Webster:

Li"bel*ous\ (l[imac]"b[e^]l*[u^]s), a. Containing or involving a libel; defamatory; containing that which exposes some person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; as, a libelous pamphlet. [Written also libellous.] -- Li"bel*ous*ly, adv..

li⋅bel   /ˈlaɪbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-buhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -beled, -bel⋅ing or (especially British) -belled, -bel⋅ling.

–noun 1. Law. a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

b. the act or crime of publishing it.

c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

I'll identify the defamatory and damaging misrepresentations explicitly here within the next day or two (need time to compose the list). I think maliciousness is clear if you read all the comments on this page however it's subjective and therefore probably not productive to debate. Mikevf (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent place to begin, although, as I'm sure you already know, it is possible that not all of the changes you want will occur. Any actual misrepresentations of fact should be easy to remove, however. My condolences on your recent loss. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I endorse all of ClovisPt's comments above. Please read some of the links I've put on your talk page. dougweller (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tossing around terms such as "slander" and "libel" should be done cautiously in light of WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally chose the word slander which does not carry a legal implication. However, libel as defined above is also appropriate and not used lightly. For example, ScienceApologist you placed a post on wikipedia (outside of this article) asking for additional editors to help edit this biography claiming Tom advocated PseudoScience. That's an example of a libelous statement. It is defamatory and damagingly misrepresentsMikevf (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of displaying any denotational knowledge, your explanation for why you chose the word slanderous over libelous is a non-sequitur, because slanderous has essentially the same legal implications as libelous. From a legal standpoint, they are both forms of defamation, the only difference being that slander is spoken whereas libel is written. Either one can be grounds for legal action. But I agree with someone else's comment that accusations of libel or slander aren't very productive here. The important thing is to be sure the article is NPOV and verifiable from reputable sources.Agnon5 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, individuals can be sued for slander as well. I concede libel is the correct term. Guys I am fully in favor of deescalating the tone of the dialog here. However I would point out that user 64.24.xx.xx previously stated that my father was "dishonest and incompetent". That combined with terms like "PseudoScience" has led me to believe that a few editors are coming to the table with a bias and agenda that is reflected in the article as currently written. I think you will find I'm actually a reasonable fellow and I'm not looking for an article that praises my father or a whitewashing of the ideas he advocated. I agree the important thing "is to be sure the article is NPOV and verifiable from reputable sources".

As a relative and admirer of Tom's work I acknowledge that I come to the table with some bias. I think a quick read of ScienceApologists personal page shows he's pretty upfront about his bias. And editor 63.24.xx.xx, having participated in extensive usenet debates with Tom about the speed of gravity also brings a particular bias. My request is that all editors acknowledge the bias they're bringing to the table and then engage in real discussion intended to find a neutral perspective. Give other editors (me included) the benefit of the doubt regarding our intentions and give Tom the benefit of the doubt as well. Thanks Mikevf (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Edits of Csv2009

Several recent edits were proposed by Csv2009, but I think they are not appropriate for the article (except for mentioning the big bang as noted below). Taking them one by one:

(1) Csv2009 suggests that the 14 years from 1969 to 1983 are "additional" years that Tom worked at the USNO in Washington DC, but this disagrees with the family's recollection that he attended Yale in New Haven CT during the years leading up to his PhD in 1969. We don't know exactly how long he took to get his PhD, but the Yale Astronomy Dept says it takes an average of six years to get a PhD in Astronomy from Yale, so it seems reasonable to say Tom was at Yale for most if not all of the time 1963 to 1969. Family members have confirmed that he did indeed live in New Haven CT for at least some of this time, and a daughter was born there. Considering all this, it's hard to support the claim that he worked at the USNO in Washiington DC during those six years. Rather than saying he worked an "additional" 14 years at the USNO beginning in 1969, it seems more accurate to say he worked for 14 years at the USNO, from 1969 to 1983.

If someone can find verifiable information that he spent less time at Yale and more at USNO, it would be fine to adjust the article, but I don't think it should imply he was in both places at once for those six years. (By the same token, we know he attended Xavier for four years on a GM scholarship, but we shouldn't say he worked at GM in Detroit for those four years too!)

(2) Csv2009 suggested saying that, after leaving USNO, Tom "developed a privately funded research organization, META Research". Csv also suggests deleting the information about organizing eclipse viewing tours. This has been discussed here previosly. It is abundantly clear that Metaresearch was purely a vanity organization, set up by Tom to promote Tom's ideas and to enable him to say he was affiliated with some "research" organization. The most accurate description of his activities after leaving USNO is that he organized eclipse viewing tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas. Any mention of his vanity organization would have to be accompanied by an explanation of exactly who and what the organization consisted of. This would make it perfectly clear that this "research organization" consisted entirely of Tom (with family and friends on the "board" to qualify for incorporation).

(3) Csv suggests saying that Tom was known for advocating the replacement of some contemporary theories of physics, i.e., Black Holes and the Big Bang. This is not an accurate representation. As has been disussed at length here previously, Tom's views entailed the rejection of all mainstream theories of physics, not just contemporary theories, and was not focused on just black holes and the big bang. The beliefs for which he was noted and notable were the Mars faces, and faster than light propagation of ALL forces (not just gravity and electromagnetism), and for gravitational shielding as in Lesage gravity and ultramundane particles, and for exploding planets (closely associated with the Lesage belief). The article already summarizes the salient beliefs. He also was known for his espousal of infinite free energy, as has been discussed here and verified by reference to his talk at the Infinite Free Energy conference. I think it would be okay to add mention of black holes and the big bang to the list of "prevailing notions" that Tom challenged, but they certainly should not be presented as his most notable beliefs.

(4) Csv wants to say Tom espoused a "revision" of Olber's theory that the asteroids are remnants of an exploded former planet, which is exactly what Tom espoused, so it's silly to say it was revised. Also, Csv wants to delete the word discredited when referring to this theory, but Tom's own book describes how, when he presented this to a large gathering of his peers, the conference chairman arranged for three experts to debunk Tom's presentation, and then he was hooted from the hall. If this doesn't qualify as "discredited", I don't know what does. In fact, a stronger word could be used, but I think "discredited" is appropriate.6324xxxx (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(5) I forgot to mention CSv's proposed removal of the information describing the publisher of Tom's book. It consists of a brief phrase, and the rationale for including this information has been explained at length on this Discussion page. It is a notable aspect of the publication, consistent with the fact that it is being cited here, not as a source of scientific information (it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of "reputable sources"), but as something relevant to the subject of the article. No one disputes that the statement is factual, and for anyone striving so mightily to remove it, it's hard to argue that it's not relevant.6324xxxx (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you've taken a quote out of context, list just a few of the catagories of books they publish. Here's another from the publishers web site "North Atlantic Books was incorporated in 1980 within the Society for the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The Society's goals are to develop an educational and cross-cultural perspective that links scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to publish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature."

I agree there's been a good deal of discussion on this and general concensus that 1) it should be made clear the book is not published by a mainstream source of scientific information and 2) that it shouldn't be implied that the book has anything to do with spirituality or other non scientific topics. Mikevf (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your sentiments here. I'll go ahead and voice my take on your points, numbering my responses accordingly.

(1) Without knowing the specifics of Flandern's case, in the United States it is fairly normal for a government agency to fund a given individual's graduate studies, with the understanding that this individual will work for the agency for a set number of years following the completion of the degree. While graduate studies are ongoing, the individual is typically considered to be associated with the agency, often in the capacity of employee. So, baring a reliable source that suggests otherwise, I see nothing inherently suspicious about the statement that Flandern was formally considered to retain his position at the USNO while attending Yale.

(2) Metaresearch is certainly a private organization which existed/exists to promote Flandern's fringe astronomy. Additionally, the eclipse (and other astronomical events) viewing tours were important enough to Flandern's work to be listed on his resume. So I think that both of these things should certainly be mentioned, although the exact wording could be changed around somewhat.

(3) Exactly which of Flandern fringe theories is most well known for is difficult to determine. I might be incorrect on this, but I believe that to avoid creating a synthesis of his beliefs, we shouldn't add in content that makes an argument for the rejection of all physics if Flandern himself never made that statement. A good way to go might be looking at the sources that refutes Flandern's hypothesis and seeing what arguments they make.

(4) I find this wording to be somewhat problematic. Why is this the only one of Flandern's unorthodox views to be singled out as "discredited"? A statement that all of these ideas have been rejected, or refuted, or ignored (as the case may be) by the prevailing consensus among professional astronomers would be more to the point.

(5) The information about the publisher is pertinent, and should stay in the article in some form, unless anyone can make a convincing argument against doing so.

Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ClovisPt, I think your comments are resonable. On point 5 I suggest simply noting that the book was 'not published by a traditional science publisher'. Randomly selecting other catagories of titles published by NA seems intended to unfairly deminish the work by association but Tom's book was not about martial arts or spirituality. Mikevf (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The description of the publisher is not a random selection of other categories of titles, it is a direct quote from the web site of the publisher describing themselves. We can't get any more authoritive and verifiable than that. Their self-proclaimed mission statement is

"to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service".

This is the publisher's own description of themselves and their mission. I deleted this mission statement from the article, because I thought it's excessive, but I don't agree with deleting the simple declarative self-description of the publisher. I think your proposed alternative is clearly less informative and intentionally obscure.6324xxxx (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is authoritative and verifiable and doesn't misrepresent. "North Atlantic Books was incorporated in 1980 within the Society for the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The Society's goals are to develop an educational and cross-cultural perspective that links scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to publish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature." Mikevf (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Objective Text, Integrity of Wikipedia

Based on author 6324's revisions of this article on VF, and that authors subsequent arguments to keep in very subjective language that might be considered inflammatory (and certainly not in the best interest of objectivity or the advancement of science), I suggest that author 6324 might be too emotionally involved and may want to recuse themselves from further edits. This article may not even warrant a Wikipedia page. Certainly VF's eclipse viewing trips are not relevant to discussion about him, nor is his specific retirement age (a date is sufficient). It is subjective to state what he is "best" known for or to suggest one knows VF's intentions were to "replace modern Physics". Perhaps deletion of this page would be in the best interest of Wikipedia since the non-subjective material in the article seems insubstantial. In other words, this article is a flimsy 2 paragraphs packed with obvious prejudice. Once the hostile jargon is removed, VF may not be noteworthy enough to support a Wiki page at the present time. Csv2009 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Csv2009

I think you may not be familiar with Tom's writings, if you take offense at the suggestion that he advocated the replacement of existing scientic theory. He explicitly used the phrases, "replacement theories" and "replacement science". This was his stated (indeed, his broadcasted) belief. I suggest you read his book or his web page.

You comment that his age (42) at the time of retirement is not relevant to the discussion about him, i.e., to his borgraphy, but it's hard to see how you can defend this position. First, it is obviously an objective fact, not in the least subjective, so your complaint obviously is unrelated to your advertised goal of limiting the article to purely objective text. Second, I would venture to say that Tom's departure from the USNO (he refers to it as his "separation from the USNO" in his book) at the age of 42, with a wife and four children, was probably one of the most momentous events of his life. (If astronomers make enough to retire at 42, I must be in the wrong business.) For you to say that this event, and his age at the time, is not relevant to his biography strikes me as odd.

You also say Tom's eclipse viewing tours are not relevant to a discussion about him. Again, considering what a large part these activities played in his professional life (after separating from the USNO), this strikes me as an odd point of view. It was just about the only notable function of his corporation, and dominates his post-USNO resume.

You object to the phrase "best known for", arguing that it is subjective. Well, it's hard to say with precision what someone is best known for, but the items listed have not been chosen entirely subjectively. If you do a google search on Tom Van Flandern the top hits are video talks about Mars, and I honestly think the Martian faces, along with faster than light propagation of forces, the exploding planet, and perhaps anti-big-bang (which I just added to the article) are the things for which he is most notable. Having said that, if most editors think the word "best" is unjustified and should be deleted, I wouldn't object. I think it would reduce slightly the clarity of the article, but not too much.

You mention that the article contains "inflamatory" language, but you didn't actually cite any. What language do you consider to be inflammatory? This is a real question. Earlier there were charges that the article was libelous, but when the accusor was asked to cite the libelous text, he chose not to do so. This makes it hard to assess and correct, if those making the accusations can never be persuaded to actually say specifically what is inflammatory or libelous.

Lastly, you suggest that the best course of action might be to simply delete the article. I am not opposed to that idea. Several others have suggested it as well. If you want to propose it for deletion, go right ahead. I for one will support you.6324xxxx (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Politics of Science

I was drawn to the Tom Van Flandern page as someone interested in and working on a project having to do with the politics of science. The project involves researching - historically - the establishment of mainstream scientific questions and the subsequent marginalization of thinkers or theories whose ideas do not conform to the resulting parameters of mainstream inquiry, and in some cases, the rediscovery of those formerly "on the outs.". Interestingly, I was looking up Dr. Van Flandern as an example of a scientist who has occupied both positions in their career but I was drawn in to a careful reading of the voluminous talk and history pages. I felt compelled to add to the fray not as a judge of Van Flandern (I am not an astronomer), but to point out that this talk page represents exactly the sort of thing I caution my students about: much of what we come to know as knowledge is deeply influenced by the protracted battles over scientific positions long before any certainty can be reached about their objective validity. This talk page is about as subjective, emotional and biased as you can get. It seems somewhat understandable coming from those who seem to be family members but the comments and constant revisions by 6324 indicate extreme prejudice based, it appears on a crusading mentality to protect the public from something (I'm not sure what...). I am not against passion or displays of emotion, indeed I feel they are unavoidable even in science. But they should not be disguised as fact-finding. I must say, this experience has been enormously profitable for my research, but if Wikipedia wants a standard article on Van Flandern, this would not be it. I would suggest removing the essay altogether. Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.Helmswolf (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As I just mentioned to Csv2009, it's difficult to assess the validity of your complaints and accusations unless you cite the specific offending words. Hopefully you remember to mention this simple methodological principle to your students, along with pointing out the obvious fallacies of relativism, i.e., the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense.63.24.101.173 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that you see this forum as a place to separate "sense and nonsense" (which, by the way is NOT the definition of relativism as you indicate when you say that relativism is in other words "the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense". Relativism is any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. Indeed, that definition I DO teach my students, whether they agree with it or not is up to them.

But, back to the "sense and nonsense" issue. Do you mean, in this case Van Flandern's ideas? If you mean to say that Van Flandern's ideas were nonsense that seems to disqualify you (I would think) from authoring the bio page on him. It would not disqualify you from voicing opinions about him in the appropriate venue of course. But let me, if I may, refer to the exchange with Csv2009 regarding using either his age or the date to indicate the time when Van Flandern retired. If there is indeed no difference (they are both objective facts right?) then why not use the date? If the difference is that citing his age indicates a momentous occasion at which he sought to expose his family to financial duress to pursue his commitment to his research (whatever one thinks of it) could that not be cast as an honorable endeavor? I do not get the sense you mean it that way, I only get the sense that you feel citing his age communicates something more. Arguing for one "fact" over another indicates to me that these are not simply neutral bits of information in the long run. Is that a distinction betwen sense and nonsense? No, I think it is deciding between two kinds of "sense." I think the key issue here is whether this biographical page of Van Flandern should remain. You seem to support removing it which would indicate that you do not feel Van Flandern is notable enough to deserve an entry at all. But if that's the case I am not sure why, instead of re-writing the bio you did not just lobby for it's removal in the first place sticking to the argument that simply his notability was in question? Re-writing is not about setting the record straight, it's about setting the record "different" which would be irrelevant if there was no page to begin with. Anyway, I have enjoyed this exchange.Helmswolf (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Helmswolf: I feel that you see this forum as a place to separate "sense and nonsense"

No, this is a place to present information on various subjects in accord with the policies of Wikipedia, such as verifiability from reputable sources, where the term “reputable sources” has a clear and explicit definition. My comment about sense and nonsense was simply in response to your quaint little discourse advocating relativism, which is not one of the principles on which Wikipedia is based.

Helmswolf: which, by the way is NOT the definition of relativism as you indicate when you say that relativism is in other words "the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense". Relativism is any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

You might want to ponder the distinction between sense and nonsense – or honesty and dishonesty - in the context of relativism. If Mr X tells you that “Eddington explained why gravity must propagate much faster than light as follows….[insert quote from Eddington]”, but then you discover that the next sentence from Eddington was “but this reasoning is fallacious, because… [insert explanation]”, would you say that Mr X had been honest with you? Does your conclusion depend on your social conditioning? Will there come a time when scientists regard that sort of intentional misrepresentation as intellectually honest? I would say no. That sort of behavior has always been, and will always be considered intellectually dishonest.

Helmswolf: But, back to the "sense and nonsense" issue. Do you mean, in this case Van Flandern's ideas? If you mean to say that Van Flandern's ideas were nonsense that seems to disqualify you (I would think) from authoring the bio page on him.

You would be wrong. You seem to be unacquainted with Wikipedia policies and practices (not to mention rational thought). Believing that someone’s ideas were nonsense does not in any way disqualify someone from editing a Wikipedia article on that person. If it did, an article on Yuri Geller could only be edited by people who believe Geller has telekinetic powers, and an article on Nostradamus could only be edited by people who are convinced that the world will end in 2012. Needless to say (or so one would have thought), your understanding of the editing policy at Wikipedia has, shall we say, not yet found the political context in which it can be deemed to make sense.

Helmswolf: But let me, if I may, refer to the exchange with Csv2009 regarding using either his age or the date to indicate the time when Van Flandern retired… If the difference is that citing his age indicates a momentous occasion at which he sought to expose his family to financial duress to pursue his commitment to his research (whatever one thinks of it) could that not be cast as an honorable endeavor?

Of course. How else could it be cast?

Helmswolf: I do not get the sense you mean it that way, I only get the sense that you feel citing his age communicates something more.

Citing his age communicates something more than not citing his age. (Duh) If you tell me someone retired in 1983 and thereafter organized eclipse tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas, you convey the idea of someone at age 65, collecting his gold watch for 40 years of faithful service, and heading off to his retirement. But if you tell me someone retired in 1983 at the age of 42 and thereafter organized eclipse tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas, you have added another significant aspect of the events. This communicates something more, and it is factual, and it is relevant to the subject of the article. As you said, it was an act of great courage and commitment to science, and it would be obscured by omitting the man’s age and referring to it as retirement. As noted before, Tom himself referred to this as “my separation from the USNO”, so it might be better (and more in accord with Wikipedia verifiability policy) to say he left or resigned from (rather than retired from) the USNO in 1983. We don’t know the circumstances of this separation, so characterizing it as retirement is potentially misleading. It is unusual for a person in any line of work (except professional sports) to “retire” at 42. But you know all this. The question is why you feel the need to suppress or obscure the facts by representing it as a typical retirement rather than a very atypical resignation? Remember, we’re not here to praise or condemn anyone, we’re here to give an accurate and informative representation of what happenned, as it can be gathered from reputable sources. I really believe that noting the age, and/or changing retire to resign, helps to do this.

Helmswolf: I think the key issue here is whether this biographical page of Van Flandern should remain. You seem to support removing it which would indicate that you do not feel Van Flandern is notable enough to deserve an entry at all.

I don’t feel too strongly about it, one way or the other. I wouldn’t mind seeing the article deleted for insufficient notability. I also wouldn’t mind having an accurate NPOV article that conforms with Wikipedia policy. The only thing I’d object to is having a POV article that does not conform to Wikipedia policy.

Helmswolf: But if that's the case I am not sure why, instead of re-writing the bio you did not just lobby for it's removal in the first place…

You’re misinformed. I did not re-write the article, and I have consistently said, from my very first post, that I would support removal. Back then I was strongly criticized by family members for suggesting that removal might be the best course of action. Now I’m being criticized for not suggesting removal. Sheesh…

Helmswolf: Re-writing is not about setting the record straight, it's about setting the record "different".

Uh huh. There is no right or wrong. There is no sense or nonsense. There are only different kinds of sense. We each have our own truth. The prevailing beliefs are only what happens to be politically correct at the current moment, in the context of our current social conditioning… Yes, we know. Fortunately moral and intellectual relativism are not among the principles of science.6324xxxx (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's a link the an article published by Farrellmedia (I say this with tounge in cheek, to illustrate that organizations consisting of just one individual are not too uncommon). http://www.farrellmedia.com/2006_01_01_BlogArchive.html

I don't favor inclusion of this link in the article, because we've already heard from Farrell in the salon story, but it does support the idea that TVF was primarily notable for ideas that are widely regarded as kooky. It also gives examples of an unfortunate tendency toward name-dropping and resume-padding, which ultimately has the opposite effect from what was intended, since it leads people to doubt and question everything. This contributes to the difficulty of editing an article like this, where reputable sources of information are very sparse.6324xxxx (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think a fair read of this would be that Van Flandern was clearly most noted for his papers on the speed of gravity and that when someone brings them up they're quickly directed to Tom's claims about the 'face on mars' by reltivists defending the status quo. No need to actually discuss the merits of Tom's peer reviewed papers. And for good measure Farrell claims Tom never answered Carlip's rebuttal, but anyone familiar with this saga knows that's clearly false. Farrell claims that Van Flandern was reckless in publishing claims about Cydonia, and it's one of the few points on which I agree with him. Not that Tom's claims weren't scientific, he clearly articulated the evidence and offered a falsifiable hypothesis. Rather, his argument was radical and in my opinion not persuasive. And it clearly did irrepairable harm to his reputation as critics no longer addressed the merits of his ideas but rather simply point to this single claim and then ridicule him. Not very scientific of his critics, but understandable. The rest of the article is unsubstantiated defamation similar to the discussion on this page. Tom was a prolific writer and there are no shortage material to draw quotes from. Instead Farrell says, that Bethell said that Tom said that Dirac said. Yeesh, and Farrell's critical of Bethell's sources? Here's the bottom line, Tom's been accused of dishonesty, of inflating his resume, of name dropping, of falsifying his degree, yet none of this, not one bit as been proven. The best evidence presented is a fourth hand statement and a quote taken out of context from one of Tom's papers. Yes, Tom supported unorthodox theories. That does not justify sullying his reputation like this. And for the record there are a lot of people who feel equally strongly that at least some of Tom's ideas had merit. You can find them via google put I won't post any links because it's clear anyone associated with Van Flandern gets disparaged here (Vigier, Xavier, Yale, Tom's graduate advisor, editors on this page, etc). Mikevf (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there are some additional voices on this page. I for one have been dismayed by the lack of civility by some users. Phrases like "duh" and the idea that one is not acquainted with "rational thought" seem counterproductive and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.234.243 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense and Nonsense - Tom's Challenge to Dark Matter

Rather than talking in vague philosophical generalities, it may be illuminating to consider a specific example. The article mentions that Tom challenged prevailing notions concerning dark matter. This is true, but it's also true that his "challenge" was nonsense. For those not familiar with the issue, let me explain.

The basic observational fact, which no one disputes, is that each galaxy appears to have too little mass to hold itself together by gravity, given its observed rotation rate. This leads to the supposition that there is more matter present than we can see (the so-called dark matter), to produce the extra gravitational force necessary to hold the rotating galaxy together. Now, various other explanations have been considered, and they are legitimate ideas, but Tom's explanation is regarded as nonsense. Why is this?

Well, Tom's explanation was that, in a Lesage model of gravity, the force of gravity gets weaker at great distances than the pure inverse-square law would predict, because the ultramundane particles collide and smear out the shadows, until they completely disappear, i.e., the flux is completely uniform, at great distances. Thus, gravity has only a limited range. Tom contended that this reduction in the strength of gravity at great distances accounts for the coherence of galaxies. The response of any scientist (or indeed, any rational person) is to point out that what is needed to account for galactic coherence is more gravity, not less gravity. Therefore, a theory which predicts a limited range of gravity is in the opposite direction from what is needed to explain the observed facts. This was repeatedly explained to Tom. His response was always "That is just your unsubstantiated opinion."

Citation please. User 63.24 casts aspirsions without citations. When citations are provided the claims have not proved out.Mikevf (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do we conclude from this? Is there some politically motivated conspiracy to suppress brilliant ideas of maverick thinkers who have succeeded in resisting peer pressure and who offer us enlightenment? Or is this simply someone speaking nonsense? More to the point, should the Wikipedia article on this person treat his ideas as if they are serious contributions to science?6324xxxx (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be no question that there are a few critics, most notably a student at UW created a web page attacking Van Flandern (and is cited in the Salon article). Rather than speculate about their motivations, we can simply acknowledge some people are willing to engage in ad hominem attacks and therefore all claims in a biography must be backed with citations.Mikevf (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific misrepresentations, etc.

I've been asked to identify specific parts of the article that are defamatory and damagingly misrepresent. In reviewing the article there are inaccurate statements as well as well as factual statements that imply false and defaming messages. I's like to focus on implicit messages first as they are more pervasive in this article.

An editor previously argued a statement must be false to be libelous. Let me offer a contrary example: "Born in pre Nazi Germany, Einstein lobbied for the creation of a weapon during WWII that was ultimately used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people." While this sentence is a fact, it carries several implications that are not only false, they convey exactly the opposite of what Einstein's views and positions were.

If I can interject a comment here, I think your statement about Einstein is perfectly accurate, and in fact I've seen nearly verbatim statements in respectful published biographies. Furthermore, I don't think it conveys a false impression. Einstein was known to have said some shockingly bloodthirsty-sounding things about the German people. Of course, there was an irony, because he had formly been a devout pacifist, so for him to have lobied for the production of the atomic bomb is quite a remarkable fact. I really think most bios of Einstein include a statement like the one you presented above. The facts are the facts, whether they are flattering or not. Something to keep in mind.Agnon5 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what is happening with this article. Negative opinions and claims without citation are given preference to numerous legitimate and well documented scientific achievements.

In the article about Tom, it's been repeatedly written "at the age of 42 (with a wife a family of four children) he retired from the civil service, and thereafter organized eclipse-viewing tours and promoted his unorthodox views on various topics". The implicit messages here are that Tom was self indulgent, irresponsible and neglected his obligations to his family. There's no evidence to support these implications (and a great deal to contradict them) and there's no valid reason to word the article so as to make these implications.

Another comment here: I don't think the article mentions his wife and family of four children, it just says he retired from the USNO at the age of 42. I don't think it will be productive to argue about obsolete versions of the article said. As to the existing article, I think a reasonable justification for noting his age at retirement has been given, so I think it should stay.Agnon5 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Next the article claims "Van Flandern was best known for his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings. This contains both factual and implicit errors. I note it is somewhat ironic that user 63.24 participated in extensive Usenet debates with Tom about the speed of gravity, a topic on which Tom is well published in peer reviewed journals, yet the same user is insistent that ‘faces on mars’ topic is what Tom is most noted for. Tom has no peer reviewed papers Cydonia. As I've pointed out previously, a Google search of "van flandern 'speed of gravity'" produces twice the results of "van flandern 'face on mars'". The Google results include many reprints of the wiki article and because user 63.23 has consistently removed the term 'speed of gravity' from this article, the relative popularity to the 'face on mars' results for Van Flandern have been falsely inflated. Even so, it’s clear Tom is not best known (or even well know) for his arguments about faces on Mars.

I've edited the article to remove the statement about "was best known for", since everyone agrees that it's difficult to establish what someone was "best known for".6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom did argue the evidence suggests that ONE object on Mars was artificial. He went on to say that if a reader accepts his arguments for artificiality that there are other objects that merit investigation, but he was very clear that no definitive conclusions could be drawn about other objects without additional data.

I don't think the claim of ONE artificial structure on Mars is appreciably less outlandish than the claim of two or more. I suppose the article could be changed to say just one, but as you said, once we have accepted one, why not more? And he did think several features were candidates. So I think the current article referring to plural is fairly reasonable for a top level summary.6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom also asserted that the structure in question was ancient and his arguments regarding artificiality were not limited to the appearance of the object. The sentence in the article falsely implies that Tom believed there were multiple faces on mars, that they were created by modern day ETs and that he reached these conclusions because he saw objects that looked like faces, none of which is true.

Hmmm... Aside from the plural versus singlaur, I don't get those implications from the article. It says he held that certain features of the Martian terrain are artificial sculptures of faces. Maybe it should say "one or more". But I don't see anything in the article suggesting they were created by "modern", nor does it imply that he reached his conclusions based on how the objects look. If your point is that he didn't think they were in the shape of "faces", then I think we could agree to just say "artificial structures".6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the editor has consistently imposed his biased interpretation of Tom's position while deleting citations that actually spell out Tom's position. If this claim is to remain in the article it requires a credible 3rd party citation. User 64.23 refuses to include links to Tom’s paper on this topic, citing Wiki policy against using self published papers as sources. But this creates a dilemma, since there isn’t a credible 3rd party citation. If we cannot accept Tom’s actual words and a reference to them then it seems inappropriate to accept a biased interpretation of Tom’s words with no references.

I think most editors, mindful of the Wikipedia policy about verifiability from reputable sources, feel that this isn't an appropriate forum for a defense of Tom's unorthodox views on Martian artificial structure(s), because there are no reputable sources on this. But still this was among his most notable beliefs, without which this article probably wouldn't even be here, so it seems like the best course of action is the way it's currently treated in the article. Just give an accurate top level statement of the fact that he espoused the belief that one (and perhaps more) features of the Martian terrain are artificial structures created by extraterestrial beings.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Next the article reads "advocating the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "Deep Reality Physics," Here the author erroneously implies Van Flandern did not accept any modern physics and arrogantly thought he could rewrite the whole field with a presumptuously titled replacement theory. However, as I've pointed out before Tom's paper "Physic has its principles" is simply a proposed set of principles which all theories should comply with. Deep reality physics is ANY theory which complies with these principles and there are many modern theories of physics that DO comply with DPR including use of the field interpretation of GR (as Einstein favored) over the curved time space interpretation.

Here I disagree very strongly, and I believe there are ample reputable and verifiable sources to support the fact that recognized experts in the field unanimously contend that Tom simply did not understand general relativity, and his belief that his views were consistent with the field interpretation of general relativity was erroneous, just as was his belief that his views were consistent with the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. Furthermore, it was shown many times, including in discussions on the Metaresearch board, that Tom's beliefs were inconsistent with classical physics just as much as they were with more modern theories. But again, this article is not the appropriate place to discuss the details of ideas that have been deemed by all reputable and verifiable sources to be erroneous.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has again used a biased interpretation of Tom's work rather than quotations from Tom, has failed to provide 3rd party citations and has removed citations to the actual papers. Supporting credible citations for each for idea Tom challenged should be presented (and for the definition of DRP) should be included or the claims deleted from the article.

Next the article claims "the main features of which were his beliefs in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy." The implication here is that Tom's belief's are outlandish (an opinion) and not scientific (another opinion). Again a biased opinions should not be accepted in place of actual quotes with citations.

If you're not prepared to acknowledge that Tom's beliefs were outlandish, then I'm afraid there's little hope that you will ever be happy with the article, because the only reason this article exists is the outlandishness and unscientificness of his views. If you think his views (such as the infinite heirarchy of nothingness) were scientific and not outlandish, then I think you should petition to have the article removed. But I doubt that many people share that view.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Later the article read “and advocated the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet.” Ok, are we discussing the merits of the idea here or not? If editors are not permitted to argue the merits of the ideas here (in a biography) then it seems inappropriate to slide in this remark about Olbers theory having been discredited. It’s been stated that Tom’s ideas have not achieved majority acceptance in the scientific community, that should be sufficient.

The article has a structural problem, because it listed some views, said they had not found acceptance, and then listed some more views, so the "discredited" was to cover those as well. But I've tried to fix this problem, eliminating the word "discredited", by moving the "not found acceptance" phrase to the end of the article, where it can cover everything.6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The net result is that is an article that closely approximates the UW's students ad hominem characterization of Van Flandern on his personal web site (later inherited by John Baez). There are many articles about Van Flandern on the web but it seems completely inappropriate that a wiki article resembles the most ad hominem.

I don't know which of the online comments you've read, but I can tell you with certainty that this article is very very far from the most disparaging. Compared to many of the publicly available assessments, this article reads like an homage.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrast this article with the citation for the recent renaming of asteroid 52266 as “Van Flandern”. The following citation is from MPC 65123: (52266) Van Flandern = 1986 AD Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas.Mikevf (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the problems you see with the article. There's a lot of stuff here to go over, as well as points raised by other users on this talk page, so kindly be patient as various editors try and sort through it all. I'll have more to say later on, but let me make a few quick comments.

(1) Your point about implicit messages seems to ring true for this article. Reviewing the extensive discussion on this page, a fair amount of back and forth arguing and editing seems to be more focused on implicit than explicit meaning.

(2) As I said in another thread on this page, figuring out what Flandern is most well known for is challenging. It does seem that his fringe beliefs, while perhaps not the only things he is known for, are among the most prominent. It is clear that they will have to be mentioned in this article; luckily, Wikipedia has some guidelines for dealing with fringe subjects.

(3) The naming of the asteroid is interesting, and constitutes decent evidence that Flandern was notable as more than a promoter of "kooky" ideas, as you say. Regardless, this information seems like it would make a good addition to the article.

Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the asteriod naming. There is a business that sells asteroid names, sort of like selling internet domain names. I could name an asteriod after you for your birthday, and send in the associated nomination words, such as "ClovisPt invented the microprocessor, the laser, the cesium clock, and founded Wikipedia, and was secretry general of the United Nations while simultaneously studying for his PhD at Yale, and discovered the double helix structure of DNA, and the polio vaccine". Since such honoraria are purchaseable, I think some caution would be wise.Agnon5 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. I must say, however, that while I was unaware of this service, and although you chose to mention only a few of my accomplishments, I find your proposal to be an excellent one. ClovisPt (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ClovisPt, your attention to this problem is much appreciated. Also Agnon5 raises a good point, I expect citations for user 63.24’s claims, so it’s only reasonable that I provide citations for my own. The the naming of asteroid "Van Flandern" was published in the Minor Planet Circulars, and I’m not aware of any service selling these names. You can check the citation by going to the Minor Planet & Comet Ephemeris Service and requesting the ephemerides for object 52266. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/MPEph/MPEph.html User 63.24 also suggested that Van Flandern’s thesis at Yale was simply a catalog of occultations. On it’s face, this assertion seems improbable, Yale would not grant PhDs in celestial mechanics without requiring a thesis that demonstrated both competency and that ability to make meaningful contributions to the field. However since the claim has been made I feel compelled cite the abstract for this paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969BAAS....1Q.367V “A Discussion of 1950-1968 Occultations of Stars by the Moon. Occultation observations during one nodal period of the moon are analyzed utilizing Atomic Time, Watt’s limb corrections, an improved lunar theory, star positions on the FK4 system, and analytical partial derivatives in observational equations. Corrections are derived to lunar orbital elements. Corrections are derived to lunar orbital elements and to other astronomical constants. In all, 26 parameters are solved for. Two somewhat tentative conclusions of this discussion are a correction of -10 seconds of arc per century squared to the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean longitude; and a difference of perhaps 1 seconds of arc along the moon’s orbit between its geometrical center and its center of mass. Further, the solution indicates the Watt’s limb correction datum is slightly elliptical, the amplitude of the ellipticity being about 0.10 sec of arc, and that the average correction to Watt’s position angle around the entire limb is +0.1degrees.” It should be clear from the abstract that Tom both has a solid grasp of celestial mechanics and mathematics. If necessary I can produce segments of the thesis that clearly demonstrate 63.24’s assertion Van Flandern “didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic” was at best specious.Mikevf (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the asteroid naming thing, there are thousands and thousands of asteroids that have yet to be named. According to the web site I found, "After 10 years have elapsed (from the time of discovery), it's fair game and almost anybody can propose a name". For example, we have FrankZappa, Clapton, Ringo, Elvis, and various cartoon characters. It's not uncommon to name them after friends and family members. The justification statements are often somwhat whimsical. For example, "The official argument for putting Ringo on the list goes like this:

"He's a Liverpudlian of lively personality and deadpan humor who occasionally sat in as drummer with The Beatles during their early days in Hamburg."

So I'm just saying we should be cautious about taking an asteroid naming nomination as some kind of solomn and prestegious thing. My guess is, everyone who ever worked at the USNO, in any capacity, has an asteroid named after them.

About the purchase of a name, it turned out I was remembering the services that sell the naming of stars. As far as I know, asteroid names are free, but can only be gotten by asking the 11-member board. Apparently this has not been widely known before. One article I read talked about "the likely flood of e-mail requests that will come now that the real truth behind the asteroid naming convention is out of the bag."Agnon5 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I say go for it Agnon5. I understand from this discussion that Yale is giving out PhDs indiscriminately so you ought to email for one of those as well.

Done! DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know when you have your asteroid.

Will do.DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, neither Tom nor any of his family members asked for this honor on his behalf (though we are very appreciative).Mikevf (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2009 (

Speedy deletion declined

I've removed a speedy deletion tag suggesting that the article is an attack page, since my assessment is that it doesn't meet any of the criteria. I suggest that if this sort of process is desired, either a PROD tag or an articles for deletion process would be somewhat more appropriate; I don't think either would pass, but opinions vary. If anyone has any questions or problems, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Credentials Conflated

It’s been suggested that Tom was notable for being an impeccably credentialed scientist who came to challenge prevailing views, but this doesn't square with the verifiable facts. The basis of Tom's beliefs, even those related to astronomy proper, was his "replacement theories" of fundamental physics, based on Lesage ultramundane corpuscles, an infinite heirarchy of nothingness, and so on. He said in his book that these ideas on theoretical physics were the basis for even his early "mainstream" work, and that he concealed this basis so that his papers wouldn't be rejected. Unfortunately Tom had no credentials or education in theoretical physics. I would venture to say that he never even took a class in electromagnetism, general relativity, or quantum mechanics. In the field of theoretical physics, he was purely an amateur, so it would be wrong to portray him as an impeccably credentialed scientist for the areas in which he held unorthodox views.

63.24 it's clear you think Tom's a kook so you read everything he said or did with that filter on. You need to provide citations because... to put in simply you frequently misrepresent Tom's views. Tom's first published work on the Exploded Planet Hypothesis directly resulted from tracing the orbits of first entry comets. It predate's any of his thinking on the Meta Model and it's a direct product of his area of expertise, celectial mechanics. I would agree that Tom was not an expert on electromagnitism which is why he wrote about gravity. Since you've read the papers you know that Tom only made claims about the speed of gravity in the paper published in Physics Letter's A. That's why the relevant paper's are titled the way they are: The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say - Van Flandern in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998) Comment of the speed of gravity - Marsh & Nissim-Sabat in Physics Letters A 202:257-269 (1999) Reply to Comment of the speed of gravity - Van Flandern in Physics Letters A (I could not find this online and would appreciate a link)

Tom's reply was in Physics Letters A 262 1999 261–263. You can purchase a copy online.6324xxxx (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Abberation and the Speed of Gravity - Carlip in Physics Letters A missing volume reference(1999)

Carlip's paper was in Physics Letters A 267 2000 81–87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6324xxxx (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Gravity - Repeal the Speed Limit - Van Flandern & Vigier in Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002)Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The paper by Tom and Vigier published in Foundations of Physics was entitled "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", and the text covers all of these claims, so it isn't correct to say that Tom's published papers were specifically or even mainly focused on gravity. The edited versions of these papers that he placed on his web site are not representative in this regard of the actual published papers.

63.23 You are correct in noting that the last paper was titled "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions" and this paper alone covered claims beyond the speed of gravity. I believe this reflects Vigier's input in joining tom on the topic as Vigier was a Physicist and Tom's specialty was celestial mechanics. Tom limited his reprint to the portion of the paper he was an expert on, namely celectial mechanics and the speed of gravity.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, his first paper (in Phys Lett A) focused on gravity alone, but only because Tom was unaware at that time that the electromagnetic force does not exhibit Laplacian aberration. He for some reason had thought that gravity was unique in that regard. The published refutations pointed this out, i.e., they noted that Tom's 'reasoning' when applied to electromagnetism leads to exactly the same conclusion: the electromagnetic force must propagate far faster than the speed of light, which of course is absurd, because as every freshman physics student knows, the electromagnetic potential at any given time and place is fully and explicitly determined by the charges on the past light cone of the event. Nevertheless, the electric force on each of two uniformly moving charges always points directly toward the instantaneous position (not the retarded position) of the other particle. According to Tom, this is categorically impossible - despite the awkward fact that it is demonstrated trillions of times each day for electromagnetic interactions.

63.24 Are you deliberately using the words misusing electromagnetic and electrodynamic interchangably? Tom did not it was imposible rather for an object to act nearly instantaneously on a distant object rather he simply argued it required an agent of causality. The traditional explanation if field momentum which is indistinguishable mathematically from a FTL propagating causal agent, that is until acceleration is introduced. Hence the discussion of binary stars and black holes.

No, a field mechanism is not indistinguishable mathematically from faster than light propagation. Just the opposite. Given two initially stationary charged particles at a distance D from each other, if one of them is moved, there is no effect at all on the force experienced by the other until a time D/c later. Tom's entire world view rested on the denial of this well known fact.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Tom didn't understand (and didn't want to understand) how Lorentz invariant field theories (like Maxwell's equations or general relativity) work. He mistakenly believed that the only energy and momentum carried by fields is in the form of radiation. He never grasped that two uniformly moving charges emit no radiation, and yet there is a flux of energy and momentum in the field, and this flux is of the amount and direction at each point such that energy and momentum are everywhere and always conserved. If he had just taken March's advice and studied the Trouton-Nobel experiment, he could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment. All these phenomena take place in accord with the fact that the potential at each point depends only on the charges on the past light cone of that point, which is to say, the force explicitly propagates at the speed of light.

There is no magic here, and no miracles. And the only one who was confused about the distinction between forces and waves was Tom himself. This was clear even when discussing pressure and waves in air or water. He insisted that pressure is propagated through a gas almost instantaneously, much faster than the speed of sound in the medium, which of course is ridiculous. He simply didn't know what he was talking about, which isn't overly surprising, since he had no credentials in theoretical physics.

By the time of the Foundations paper, he had learned from the comments on his first paper that he now had to defend the (preposterous) proposition that electromagnetism and quantum fields also propagate superluminally, because they too are Lorentz covariant fields and therefore do not exhibit Laplacian aberration. And please note that this in no way violates causality. Quite the contrary. There is a well-defined causal flow of energy and momentum at each and every event. I know for a fact that Tom knew nothing about electromagnetism, just as he knew nothing about general relativity. Vigier, on the other hand, at the age of nearly 80, was still trying to promote his nutty stochastic quantum mechanics, which needed superluminal effects, so the two of them, each for his own reasons, launched that silly Foundations paper, which no real scientist can take seriously.

You are correct that Tom and Vigier assert that electrodynamic (not electromagnetic) forces propagate faster than light in the Foundations paper. However your characterization of the paper is derogatory without substantiation and your characterization of Tom and Vigier's motives is derogatory without evidence. Wiki policy is perferential treatment of verifiable third party sources. Tom's theories were published in 3 peer reviewed publications and the last was not answered. It's clear you think the paper was 'silly'. Get your opinion published in a peer reviewed journal and only then will it meet the criterial for a verifiable source. Until then, I point out it's a derogatory subjective opinion that's not verifiable and therefore posting it here violates wiki policy on several grounds.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing criteria for inclusion of material in articles with criteria for acceptable discussion on Talk pages. For the latter, just about the only things that are violations of policy (besides obscenities, etc.) are things like threatening legal action. There have been threats and recommendations of legal action on this discussion page, but not by me.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I confess I'm not an expert on wiki policy but I find it implausible that anything goes so long as there are no threats of legal action. Certainly there's a note at the top of this page regarding civility. Do you really think compliance with those directives is optional?Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion hasn't been particularly uncivil, as Wiki discussions go, especially for articles involving topics that are regarded by mainstream science as kooky (e.g., artificial face on Mars, faster than light communication, infinite free energy, etc.). It's quite common for a variety of strong views on the subject of the article to be expressed in the Discussion page. I think this particular situation is somewhat unusual, because one of the editors is a close family member of the subject of the article, so the free expression of views on that subject may strike that editor as uncivil. But usually the prohibition against incivility relates to the editors themselves, rather than to the subject. For example, if we were editing an article on Yuri Geller, and you wrote in the Discussion page that you think Geller does not really have telekenetic powers, and that his claims to such powers are false, this would not be considered uncivil discussion. On the other hand, if you wrote on the discussion page that one of your fellow editors (me, for example) is a disgrace to the human race, or that my mother wore army boots, then that would be considered uncivil. Most of the discussion here that you regard as uncivil has been focused on the subject of the ariticle, rather than impunging the competence or motives of other editors. Unfortunately, when the subject of the article is also a close family member, the comments on the subject may strike you as uncivil.

The main exception to the general focus on the subject here has been the ocassional charges of libel and threats of legal action against certain editors. I agree that such incivility is inappropriate, per Wikipedia policy.6324xxxx (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't refrain from pointing out the quality of Tom's rebuttal to the paper of March, et al. He says (among other hilarious things) "Hayden and Beckmann (via Beckmann’s book, Einstein Plus Two, and a series of articles in Galilean Electrodynamics) have been successful in convincing the physics community that the local gravitational field must entrain the hypothetical aether..." Anyone reading that must immediately have checked the date of the paper, to see if it was the April 1 edition. Honestly, I can say with great confidence that Hayden and Beckmann were never successful in convincing the physics community of any such thing. And THIS was what Tom's defense was based on... Beckmann's "Einstein Plus Two" and Hayden's articles in Galilean Electrodynamics!??? Please. And I haven't even scratched the surface of all the ludicrous statements... 6324xxxx (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Publish your paper in a peer reviewed journal and we'll add it to the references. Until then I'm frankly not impressed by your attacks.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. The explanation for why Lorentz invariant forces don't (and can't) exhibit Laplacian aberration, even though they propagate at the speed of light, was published in peer reviewed journals... over a century ago. For a slightly more recent review of this explanation, see Eddington's 1920s book, beginning with the words "but [the reasoning espoused by Tom] is fallacious, because...". Today this topic is to be found only in elementary text books and expository articles. If you'd like, we can add about 1000 of these reputable references to the article, all refuting the fallacy of Tom's reasoning. There is no need for any of these to specifically mention Tom by name, because he did not invent the fallacy that he espoused. They are all well known fallacies, and all have been thoroughly explained in the literature.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the relevant chapter in eddington's book and after reading it I have to say I agree with Marsh and Nissin-Sabat's assessment in their "Comment on 'the speed of gravity'". They wrote "Eddington's comments as to why the argument is fallacious are cursory at best...". That's a far cry from the slam dunk you present it as. I am familiar enough with wiki policy to know that verifiable sources are permitted in articles while editors opinions of those sources are not. Tom's papers on gravity were printed in many peer reviewed journals and they merit citation here. The rebuttal papers should be included as well. I don't think you and I are going to agree on the merits on the papers, but fortunately we don't need to. In fact you don't even need to keep expressing them here. Perhaps a more appropriate forum for that debate is the discussion page on the speed of gravity article.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. By the time Eddington wrote that book, the explanation for why Lorentz covariant forces do not (and can not) exhibit Laplacian aberration was already two decades old, and he merely needed to point this out. For the convenience of readers not familiar with the explanation, Marsh and Nissin-Sabat give it in more detail than Eddington did. The point is that TVF's claims were wrong, and well known to be wrong for over a century. Read Poincare and Lorentz on this subject, circa 1900-1904. The secondary point is that TVF intentionally misrepresented Eddington by omitting the fact that he followed the summary of the reasoning employed by Tom to assert superliminal propagation with the words "but the reasoning is fallacious, because...". As to your opinion that TVF's views on this subject were anything other than rejected by the scientific community, you're certainly free to hold that opinion, but the verifiable facts are to the contrary. If you really want to insist on adding 1000 references to published explanations of the fallacy of TVF's reasoning, I think it will make the article unreadable. Can't we just agree that the scientific community rejected the claim that the lack of Laplacian aberration implies superluminal propagation? 6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's unclear what sort of credentials would even qualify someone to assert that terrain features on Mars are artificial. "Artificiality recognition" isn't part of astronomy (as far as I know). Even his rejection of dark matter, and his advocacy of exploding planets, which might seem to be astronomical topics, were firmly based on his “replacement physics” ideas. (For example, planets explode because of the heat generated by the ultramundane corpuscles bombarding them at super-light speeds. Dark matter doesn’t exist because galaxy cohesion can be explained by the limited range of gravity as the ultramundane corpuscles interact, etc.) So, to suggest that he was a credentialed expert on the subjects he wrote about is verifiably wrong. (Also, see the Wikipedia policy about conflating credentials in different fields.)6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom offered a theory on why planets might explode long after the celestial mechanics evidence led him to conclude some have exploded.

Just a comment here - You suggest that Tom's adoption of Lesage gravity came subsequent to his adoption of the exploded planet hypothesis, which may be true, but it's interesting that his 1998 Phys Let A paper began with the recollection -

"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptble... mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagating at infinite speeds..."

So one could infer from this that he was already fixated on "the speed of gravity" while a student in the 60s. It would be interesting to know at what point he first heard about Lesage gravity, and adopted it.Agnon5 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Tom predicted based on the EPH that asteroids would have satellites and irregularly shaped asteroids without any stable orbits would have "landed" satellites with roll marks on their surface. Tom was ridiculed for this hypothesis as an astronomical meeting and at the time made a very public wager about what would be found in the next 2 years. The fact is that both orbiting and landed satellited of asteroids have been discovered since, in defiance of the mainstream models. Tom only developed his theory about the cause of planetary explosions later and he was by no means certain of it. This seems like a notable prediction, except for the fact that Tom's source for the prediction still challenges the prevailing theory.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor has offered to see if he can find a report written by someone who worked in Tom's group at the USNO, to see if possibly this report lists Tom's job title. Hmmm... As the previous discussion of this issue made clear, the reason this administrative job title is not in the article is that it was deemed not sufficiently notable - which seems to be confirmed by the difficulty of even verifying the title (whose significance is, in any case, ambiguous).

This is nonsense, there are no branch chiefs listed on the USNO website because any information on the site is extremely sparse. Being chief of the celestial almanac division is of course by itself not noteworthy, however it is relevant to this biography since editor 63.24 has repeatedly challenged Van Flandern's credentails and expertise. I ask again, will user 63.24 accept a copy of a signed government document as evidence of the title and competency?

This Discussion sub-section is entitled "Credentials Conflated" because there has been a tendency to suggest that, for example, an administrative title in the Naval Almanac Office constitutes credentials (or evidency of competency) in the field of theoretical physics. It doesn't. And since we are in agreement that the title is not by itself noteworthy, and since it has no bearing on the competency of the individual in the field of theoretical physics (nor in the field of artificial face sculpture recognition), it has no place in the article.

I see. So your assertion is that, although you don't know any details of the job description for chief of the celestial almanac division, it must be an administrative title, doesn't imply competency in celestial mechanics and is irrelevant to a biography. Let's just say we'll have to disagree on this point as well.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, a more careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that I said such a title is not evidence of expertise in [please note] theoretical physics and artificial face recognition, which are the only notable subjects under discussion.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What WOULD be useful is a copy of Tom's PhD diploma, because the significance of that is not ambiguous. The article currently references his PhD thesis, but as any PhD candidate knows, writing a thesis and being granted a PhD are two different things. Given the conflicting information as to Tom's activities and whereabouts during the years leading up to 1969 (was he attending classes at New Haven, or working at the USNO in DC?), along with Tom's apparent lack of familiarity with the physics that even an astronomy student might be expected to know, some readers may welcome a confirmation of his actual diploma. It would also be helpful if someone can cite a paper in which there was any actual celestial mechanics.

I believe I can pull his diploma from his files. Since I'll need to make a trip to his home it may take a week. Similarly you can easily find lots of his papers with actual celestial mechanics in them on the metaresearch.org site. The reference I already provided for his thesis abstract makes it clear celestial mechanics expertise was demonstrated (and that your characterization of the thesis was misleading).Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It’s also been suggested that Tom was a mainstream astronomer during his years at the USNO (69 to 83), but this seems contrary to verifiable facts. His first work after getting his doctorate in the early 70s was a review of lunar data for evidence to support the rather radical and highly speculative idea that the gravitational constant is variable. His conclusion (later shown to be wrong) was that the evidence supported this hypothesis. This can probably be called mainstream, but on the speculative end of the spectrum. Then, already in 1976 (the mid point of his supposedly mainstream career as an astronomer) he tells in his book of being hooted down (literally) at a conference where he presented his ideas on an exploding planet. As mentioned above, the exploding planet idea hinged on Lesage gravity and faster than light propagation of forces, because this was his proposed mechanism for making planets explode. This is really in the category of theoretical physics, a field in which he had no credentials or educational background. (Oddly enough, Tom's advisor himself had no doctorate in any field, not even astronomy, and he too was a product of the USNO.)

This has been discussed. Tom was employed by the USNO and paid a salary while he attended Yale.

I don't think we have achieved complete clarity about this, either in our understanding or in the article's wording. Someone mentioned an agreement to work at USNO for 3 years for every year of attending college, but does the 3 years include the year of college? In other words, assuming Tom attended Yale for the average time it takes to get a PhD in Astronomy at Yale (6 years), was his agreement to then work a minimum of 18 years at the USNO once he received his doctorate? Or did the agreement only require him to work a minimum of 12 years after getting his doctorate (allowing him to count the 6 years of study as part of the 18 total)? It would seem that the latter must be the case, because he retired just 13 years after getting his doctorate. Another point of ambiguity is what exactly it means to say he was "employed by" the USNO while he attended Yale? Needless to say, it isn't uncommon for people to be formally employees of a company while attending school, but the question is whether, in a resume of one's experience, those years are to be counted as years of scholastic study, or years of employment at the USNO, or BOTH. If I'm a human resources manager reading someone's resume, and I see that they list 6 years and school AND years of work experience for the same six year period, it would raise a question in my mind about double-bookkeeping.6324xxxx (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tom was at the USNO before attending Yale. He started his degee at Georgetown and left that program at the USNO's request. He was employed by the USNO while he attended classes at Yale (they paid him a salary in addition to a full scholarship), so if your concern is double bookkeeping your beef is with the USNO.

Again, you miss the point. The article is striving to present an accurate picture of TVF's background and experience. We're not here to decide if the USNO spent its money wisely (although if people wish to talk about that, they are free to do so), we're just trying to decide if it's accurate to say he worked at the USNO for 20 years, or if it's more accurate to say he attented Yale University for 6 years and worked at the USNO for 14 years. Some might argue that he did both, and he accomplished this in just 20 years total time, because he served the 6 years at Yale and the first 6 years at the USNO concurrently, for a total of 26 years experience in just 20 years... but I don't think it's reasonable to make such a claim. I'm just trying to establish a reasonable chronology, and avoid padding the resume.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom's invalid conclusion on the changing gravitational constant were based on errors in the oberservational data which Tom readily acknowedged. The EPH was a product of comet celestial mechanics contrary to your claim.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about what I've claimed. I have never suggested that Tom's belief in exploding planets originated from his belief in Lesage gravity. I would think it much more likely to be the reverse, i.e., he was driven to adopt Lesage gravity in an attempt to defend Olber's exploding planet hypothesis against the charge that there is no physical mechanism for making a planet spontaneously explode.6324xxxx (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adopting pushing gravity to support the EPH would be more feasible as it at least matches the chronology but Tom published papers on the EPH and speed of gravity long before trying to tie the two ideas together. The simpler explanation is Tom learned that one of Feynmen's criticism of pushing gravity is that it ought to cause planets to over heat. The EPH had long been criticized for lacking any model to explain the cause of planetary explosions. Linking the two ideas at that point doesn't seem like a stretch. But I'm speculating.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of this speculation, the point remains that TVF himself acknowledged that the exploding planet and Lesage gravity ideas were linked, and in fact Lesage gravity was routinely invoked by him as what he regarded as a plausible mechanism for causing planets to explode. Needless to say, his ideas in this area make absolutely no scientific sense, since Lesage gravity doesn't just add a bit of excess heat, it would be sufficient to vaporize any object like the Earth in a fraction of a second, as Poincare, et al, showed over a century ago.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In summary, Tom was not an example of a highly credentialed scientist who came to challenge the prevailing views. He was an amateur in the field of physics, and knew no more (and no less) about physics than the typical individual who promotes the kind of ideas that he promoted.6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning. You think Tom was an incompetent kook because he question curved time space. Convinced he was a kook you misinterpret and misrepresent everything he's done and then conclude based on your misrepresentations that you've proven he's a kook.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't pointed out any circularity. Assessments of Tom's writings are based on those writings. What else would they be based on?6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than base an assessment of Tom's writings on your opinion, how about looking at what the scholarly journals think of Tom's writing. In 1974 he won second prize from the gravity foundation for his paper "A Determination of the Rate of G". Or in 1976 he wrote a 15 page paper for Scientific American at their invitation on the same topic. He's written and is cited in literally hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals as easily evidenced here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=van+flandern&hl=en&lr= and here http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/TVF%20papers%20online.asp. You've implied Tom's papers on gravity in 'Phylics Letters A' and 'Foundations of Physics' were an anomally somehow due to incompetent editors but as you can see, Tom published extensively on gravity and relativity in other peer reviewed jounals as well. According to scholar.google Tom's paper on the speed of gravity is cited more than Carlips rebuttal (though it's close). Wikipedia is pretty clear that articles must use verifiable sources. Your opinion doesn't qualify. And since it's really offensive I'm politely asking you to stop expressing it. You've said repeatedly that you thought Tom was incompetant and dishonest and at this point I think everyone's heard you. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The view of Tom's ideas about superluminal propagation, etc., in the theoretical physics community are clear and unambiguous. Those ideas have no merit. As to the determination of varying G, you've already acknowledged that Tom's original conclusion about this was shown to be mistaken. I don't think you can successfully argue that Tom's notable views, which are the basis of his notability, are anything other than strenuously rejected by the scientific community. This is not to say that every single word he ever wrote was wrong. It is just to say that the views for which he was notable were (and are) regared as (very) wrong by the scientific community. Also, he had no credentials in theoretical physics. We shouldn't conflate different fields of study.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone asked why the exploding planet hypothesis was specifically said to be “discredited”. I think the article tries to note, for each set of unorthodox ideas, the level of acceptance. The first set is said to have not found acceptance, and the second set is said to be challenges to mainstream ideas. Then we come to Olber’s exploding planet hypothesis, the discreditedness of which is vividly described in Tom’s book, as well as in the reputable scientific literature. If people think the word "discredited" is too strong, maybe we could say "this hypothesis is not considered viable by mainstream scientists".6324xxxx (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Olber's theory was discredited. Tom's revision to the theory was not. We're not going to argue the merits of the theory in this article and it's unfair to make false implications. It should be sufficient to say that the idea is not accepted by the mainstream or the majority of experts in the field.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

TVF did not revise Olber's theory. Olber's theory was that the asteroids are the remains of an exploded planet. TVF's theory was that the asteriods are the remains of an exploded planet. As to whether this idea has been discredited, we can cite Tom's own book:

"...at an International Astronomical Union Colloquium in Lyon, France, in 1976 ... I first spoke to my peers about the exploding planet hypothesis. I had widely circulated lengthy preprints for comment prior to that talk. Unbeknownst to me, a number of colleagues arranged with the meeting chairperson for three specialists to be called on in the discussion period after my talk to give prepared rebuttal remarks2. Afterwards, the chairperson tried to cut off further discussion, although dozens of additional attendees still wished to ask questions or make comments. So one prominent specialist stood up and declared, “Based on what we have just heard, this paper is surely without merit and can be dismissed!” The response was emotional applause and cheers (without precedent for that scientific body) and the immediate adjournment of the session, postponing the remaining scheduled presentations."

This obviously shows that Tom's theory was discredited among professional qualified astronomers, the world's experts in the field.6324xxxx (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom's point was that some people are willing to violate professional protocol and behave in a political manner in a scientific forum. Tom had no idea that critics would be allowed to present after his presentation, was given no opportunity to see their arguments in advance despite the fact they were given preprints of his paper, and Tom was given no oppotunity to respond to their arguments. Frankly there are some compelling parallels to that story and the discussions about the speed of gravity. I think this article speaks poorly of the indivuals involved in the ambush but I understand you see it as an indictment of Tom and an appropriate response from the professionals. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. I am not asserting that the community of professional astronomers was right in their emphatic rejection of Tom's ideas. I am merely asserting that they emphatically rejected his ideas. I think there can be no doubt about this from the quoted incident... and this was already in 1976, the mid-point of Tom's "mainstream" career. Wikipedia policy is clear. We cannot decide what is true or false, we can only state the verifiable view of reputable sources, such as recognized scholarly organizations like the group of astronomers that Tom addressed. They represent the mainstream scientific community, and they rejected Tom's ideas. I know your opinion of the merit of Tom's ideas is different, but that has no bearing on how the article should be written.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Salon Article

Someone has placed a header in the article calling for some verifiable secondary sources. Just about the only such source is the Salon article, but when I add it back, someone keeps removing it. This seems counter-productive. We could also list Tom Bethell's article, but then I think we would be obligated to list the follow-up by Farrell, pointing out Bethell's retreat. DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the papers on the speed of gravity (and their rebuttals)are preferable sources since they're published in peer reviewed journals. I personally don't favor inclusion of the the Salon opinion piece as part of a biography however because a few editors that feel it's important I recommend it only be included with the rebuttal opinion which was also published in Salon http://archive.salon.com/people/letters/2001/07/23/hughes/index.html)Mikevf (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Are you really suggesting that you'd like a letter to the editor from Robert Sungenis(!) to represent the rebuttal to the Salon article? Do you not see any irony in a specialist in celestial mechanics of orbits being defended by a geocentrist? Copernicus was wrong! Galileo was wrong! (For readers not familiar with Sungenis, please see the Wikipedia article about him. Enough said.)6324xxxx (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I have to give you this point. I had no idea who Sungenis was and I certainly agree a citing a geocentrist is not helpful. Again I don't think linking opinion pieces to a biography is at all appropriate. Farrell's attempts to link Tom with creationists is equally absurd. And he brands Tom a kook while completely misrepresenting his perspective on relativity. He acts like Tom completely dismissed relativity which surely even 63.24 doesn't beleive at this point. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that Tom had a misunderstanding of relativity (actually several of them), and he rejected this misunderstood imaginary theory. At the same time, he worked hard to present this rejection in a way that he hoped would enable him to lay claim to the empirical successes of relativity while rejecting it. But the view of the scientific community is that Tom simply did not understand relativity (nor electromagnetism, nor quantum mechanics, nor thermodynamics, nor...)6324xxxx (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Press Conferences, Public Lectures, Video Tapes, Etc

One editor has removed several proposed references to things like Tom's 2001 Press Conference in New York City on the subject of artificial structures on Mars, and to the web site of the Infinite Energy Conference where Tom presented his views related to that subject. I'm not certain about this. On one hand, I agree that these are not reputable sources of scientific information, per Wikipedia guidelines, but on the other hand, if such things are not notable and citeable, then there is very little that can be said. In the earlier discussions about possible deletion of this article, for non-notability, one of the cited reasons for the marginal "keep" decision was precisely these press conferences and public lectures, etc. If we are now placing these off limits, the earlier keep decision may need to be re-considered.

Perhaps what's needed is some references to the actual press coverage of the press conferences, etc. Unfortunately, I did some searching online, and wasn't able to find any actual press coverage... which seems odd. What's the point of a press conference if it doesn't result in any press coverage? There must be some, but perhaps it's not easily accessible on line. If anyone can cite some actual press coverage of Tom's activities, that might be useful.63.24.61.69 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lot's of Tom's papers on gravity, the big bang, relativity, improvements to the model for predicting asteroid showers and even his paper on "physics has its principles" which defines deep reality physics, have all been publsihed in 3rd party journals. That stuff is easy to find and it's what he's really notible for anyway. Wiki policy requires adding citations for that stuff. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, his only publications in (arguably) reputable venues on the subjects for which he is notable are the Phys Lett A paper (which was soundly repudiated) and the joint Vigier paper on electromagnetism (which Tom knew nothing about), quantum field theory (which Tom knew nothing about), and gravity (about which Tom's knowledge was limited to Newtonian theory) in Foundations of Physics, which does not endorse the correctness of material that it publishes. He also had publications in "dissident" literature, but those are not reputable sources per Wikipedia policy.6324xxxx (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability 2

It seems to me that the productive focus at this time, at least for any editors who believe that Wikipedia should have an article on Tom Van Flandern, would be an effort to locate and add reliable sources about Flandern which help establish his notability. I'm no expert on this matter, but I think a good starting place would be articles, especially in peer-reviewed journals, by other authors dealing specifically with Flandern and/or his arguments. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural Philosophy Alliance  ??

This article mentions the Natural Philosophy Alliance as "an organization intensely critical of relativity, etc", but a review of their web site raises some (for me at least) about how this "organization" should be cited, if at all. The first thing that jumps out at me is that their list of "members", as well as their "member memorials" for deceased members, includes a large number of individuals who died several decades before this "organization" was founded. It's as if I claimed that George Washington and Mother Theresa were former members of the Agnon Benevolent Society (which I just founded while typing this). This is clearly not a reputable organization.

On the other hand, I don't dispute that the "NPA" actually has a number (perhaps several dozen) of real living "members", and that the group has get-togethers, etc. But at the same time it is self-evidently not a reputable scientific organization, so the article should avoid giving a false impression. I notice that there is no Wikipedia article about the group. I think it would be more appropriate for this TVF article to say something like "a group known as the Natural Philsophy Alliance, consisting of individuals strongly opposed to various aspects of modern science, especially relativity and quantum theory."Agnon5 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Recent Biography of Dr. Van Flandern (3/15/2009)

I was very happy to see the new biography of Dr. Van Flandern. Thanks to the Wikipedia people for doing some edits. I am concerned about two points, perhaps someone can make these changes.

1) The bio is supposed to be about notable people, and paraphrasing Dr. Van Flandern's ideas or reducing them to statements like, "having unorthodox views" rather than mentioning those views seems to defeat the notability aspect. Specifically, his view that gravity was a particle and traveled many times faster than the speed of light was at the forefront of his book, his research, his papers, his newsletters, his website, and ultimately shaped his beliefs of how the universe worked. The fact that this theory went against general relativity is also why Dr. Van Flandern became highly notable, as many antagonistic posts and edits to this bio have been by supporters of GR and prove the point.

Tom's espousal of superluminal propagation of forces (not just gravity, but electromagnetism and quantum fields, i.e., ALL forces) is already prominently noted in the article, along with his belief in gravitational shielding. His belief in the discredited particle theory of gravity, first proposed and rejected in 1692, was completely excluded from the Foundations opinion piece with Vigier, and it leads directly to perpetual motion machines and infinite free energy, as explained by Lord Kelvin in the 1870s. Your desire to place more emphasis on this in the article seems to conflict with your proposal below, to remove all references to infinite free energy. Also, Tom's version of Lesage as presented in his book actually involves an infinite heirarcy of nothingness. Other editors here have tried to downplay the more outlandish ideas in his book and on his web site, prefering instead to focus on just the Fountations paper with Vigier as the "unanswered" claims. Your proposals seem to be going in the opposite direction, trying to highlight his more outlandish claims.6324xxxx (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If Dr. Van Flandern was building on the theories of 17th century mathmeticians, one would think he would apply the 1st Rule of Thermodynamics, a 19th century theory. To say that Dr. Van Flandern's work was equivalent to Le Sage's removes almost 300 years of theories and work that he incorporated into his writings. The bio saying "..his belief in faster-than-light propagation of forces, gravitational shielding, and limitless free energy." does not, as you say, adequately represent his belief that gravity was a super-luminous particle. The "gravitational shielding" was a side belief of his that stemmed from his particle theory and the "limitless free energy" is a fabrication of assumptions on your part with no citations from you from any of Dr. Van Flandern's writings. Akuvar (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom didn't "build" on the theory, he merely espoused it. There were no significant improvements or enhancements of the theory subsequent to Fatio's account of it in the 1690s. The facts that falsify the theory are the same today as they were then. Kelvin's explanation of why the theory implies the possibility of infinite free energy was based on the theory as it stood in the 1870s, which is the same as it stood in 1692, and the same as it stands today. Even the infinite hierarchy of nothingness was not original with Tom. The idea goes back centuries - as does the refutation of it.

You are incorrect and ignoring my above arguments. Also, as you have been accused of doing so elsewhere in this article, you are including information and paraphrasing only to suit your current argument. Kelvin's original paper where he mentioned a perpetual motion machine (although he did dismiss the theory later) was in support of Le Sage and tried to further explain it. Kelvin came upon the notion of the perpetual motion machine as a result of his studying Le Sage's work, and felt that it was possible, although his reasoning was flawed. You make it sound as if Kelvin discredited Le Sage's work because it could lead to a perpetual motion machine. Regardless, this discussion of theories, old, new, or discredited has nothing to do with Dr. Van Flandern's notoriety in regard to his belief in them. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I should point out your proposed edits go directly against the wishes of the Tom's family, who had asked that the article not focus on the ideas presented on his web site and press releases, and video tapes, etc. They asked that the focus be placed on the Phys Lett A paper (which was soundly repudiated) and the Foundations paper with Vigier, which made no mention at all of Lesage gravity (because Vigier didn't believe in it), and which explicitly was concerned with the propagation speed of ALL forces, including electromagnetism and quantum fields. According to Vigier such forces are actually propagated not just superluminally, but instantaneously, which of course was anathema to Tom, but this is what Vigier needed to support his kooky Stochastic quantum mechanics. And so it goes.6324xxxx (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you now concerned with the desires of the Van Flandern family and what they wish/do not wish in this biography? This statement on your part is indicative of your argument style in this discussion where you resort to using any angle - including ones you have argued against - to rationalize your current argument. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have made one additional point. I suggest caution when referring to Doctor Van Flandern in the context of theoretical physics (such as theory of the fundamental forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields), because this is conflating credentials, which we are supposed to avoid in Wikipedia. As discussed previously, Tom had no credentials in theoretical physics, the very subject that you wish to emphasize. In this field he was purely an amateur, so referring to him as "Dr" in this context is misleading.6324xxxx (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So, if I help my Dentist, Dr. Brown install a new air conditioner in his home, I should refer to him only as Mr. Brown during our endeavors because his credentials are in Dental Surgery and not Mechanical Engineering? Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how you should refer to your dentist when installing his air conditioner. You're on your own with that.6324xxxx (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2) the statement that Dr. Van Flandern was a supporter of "limitless free energy" is based only on his appearance at a conference on future energy, not on any cited references to his papers, newsletters, website or his book. On the first page of the review of the conference (http://users.erols.com/iri/COFEReview.htm) it lists his presentation "on the physics of gravity, with a possible energy conversion modality" But the title of his presentation is the physics of gravity and does not include the energy conversion part. Clicking on the list of speakers lists Dr. Van Flandern and a different title for his presentation, "complete gravity model and free energy." So, at best, the only reference to Dr. Van Flandern's supposed link to free energy contradicts itself as to what the title of his presentation was. And for this we are labeling him as a proponent of Free Energy? And deciding that this association is so notable as to place it in his bio?

Your view seems inconsistent. In your item 1 you advocated giving more attention to things in his book and web site and newsletter, etc., and this presumably includes his press conferences, press releases, and public lectures and videos, and in particular you want to stress his belief in Lesage and gravitational shielding. But now you want to suppress his belief in infinite free energy, which is a direct consequence of gravitational shielding, as Lord Kelvin explain over a century ago, and as Tom clearly espoused. I don't think your proposed edits are valid.6324xxxx (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to stress any belief in Le Sage or gravitational shielding. I want to stress what Dr. Van Flandern was most noted for. Regardless if theories are right or wrong, or based on theories right or wrong, this bio is supposed to list why individuals are noteworthy. if a person held that the sun was a giant red balloon, went on talk shows, got media attention, wrote papers, became famous for their discredited theory about the sun being a big red balloon, then it should be listed in their bio. The work of 17th century mathematicians, and anyone else for that matter, is irrelevant in deciding if a person was noteworthy for their beliefs. In fact, the Wikipedia page on Ptolemy's Almagest goes into great detail about his notable, yet discredited theories. (please refrain from blasting me for comparing Dr. Van Flandern to Ptolemy) Akuvar (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the earlier discussion on this page, where the question of notability of material from non-reputable sources (talk shows, "media attention") has been discussed at length. It's true that Tom's notability was due to these non-reputable activities, and to his espousal of the Mars face and faster than light communication, and Lesage gravity, etc., but some editors here have rejected all citations of press conferences and talks at Infinite Energy conferences and web pages and newsletters and things of that nature. So this poses a dilemma. TVF was notable for espousing kooky ideas that had been discredited for centuries. How can this be presented in a reputable way, when there is almost no reputable coverage of it?6324xxxx (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no dilemma. You are the one that brought up limitless free energy by connecting him with speaking at a conference towards the beginning of this discussion page. Although I pointed this out, and asked that it be removed unless you could present any citations from Dr. Van Flandern on limitless free energy, you continue to argue without citations. This is also indicative of your arguing style throughout this discussion, making allegations based on circumstantial or associative statements and then ignoring requests to cite references. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to put a plea in to all the editors of this page to refrain from the use of subjective, abusive, belittling, and derogatory labels being placed on persons being discussed. In the last few paragraphs I have seen "kooky" "amateur" "stochastic" and "outlandish" all used not to improve our discussion, but simply to bash the subject of this biography. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to put a plea in to all editors of that page to consider the possibility that if they aren't acquainted with the term "stochastic quantum mechanics" perhaps they should familiarize themselves with it before suggesting that the term is a "derogatory label". Sheesh. As to the other words, it has already been established that TVF's notability was for promoting kooky ideas, and that he had no credentials as a theoretical physicist, and was entirely and amateur in the field. Also, there is not doubt that TVF's belief in the artificial sculpture of a face on Mars, created by extra-terrestrial beings, is "outlandish".

I assumed you were using stochastic as an adjective trying to infer that Dr. Van Flandern and his colleagues' work was random, unpredictable, and therefore easily dismissed. I was going to apologize for this but then I read your ridiculous attempts at justifying the use of the other derogatory terms you use and decided against it. Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is agreed by essentially every rational adult that the terrain at Cydonia is not an artificial sculpture of a face, and that the belief in the Cydonia Mars face is kooky and outlandish. Even TVF's friends and family members have acknowledged that his persistent espousal of such beliefs seriously undermined his credibility and makes it easy for people to dismiss him as a kook. Now, if someone's beliefs make it easy to dismiss him as a kook, it seems fair to say that those beliefs are regarded as kooky and outlandish. It's hard to see how a rational person can dispute any of this... unless you wish to contend that the terrain at Cydonia is in fact a sculpture of a face created by extra-terrestrial beings. As to the word amatuer, this is a plain fact. Tom was not educated in theoretical physics. I know this for a fact, and his educational background corroborates it. Your reasons for regarding these plain facts as ridiculous are, shall we say, somewhat obscure.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The above statement exposes 63.34's bias regarding Van Flandern but is not fact. Kooky is a subjective a derogatory term. The repeated ad hominem attacks are not helpful in building consensus or furthering the article.

You continue to miss the point. Tom is the SUBJECT of this article. Comments about Tom in this discussion are not "ad hominem attacks", they are comments about the SUBJECT of this article, and as was established in the Nomination for Deletion discussion, Tom's notability and therefore the whole reason for this article is due to his espousal of kooky and outlandish ideas. If you feel it is inappropriate or unkind to have such an article, then feel free to re-nominate for deletion on the grounds on non-notability. But the silly accusations of "ad hominem attacks" can be dispensed with.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, his espousal of ideas that were non-mainstream, unproven, and went against a majority of the scientific community is what the article could focus on. Kooky and outlandish are your childish, derogatory labels that you have continued to use throughout this discussion. Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you continue to miss the point. It isn't that TVF's ideas about the face on Mars or superluminal communication are "unproven", they are definitively proven wrong. This is what makes his espousal of them kooky.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the structures on Mars are artificial, however, I would be hesitant to say that I know with 100% certainty that they are in fact not artificial. I would tend to say that they are, in all probability, natural formations. But you say they are definitively proven to be natural, and I am curious about your definitive proof. Akuvar (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom's expertise in celestial mechanics and SR made him well qualified to point out the experimetal evidence supporting FTL propagation of gravity.

Tom had zero understanding of special relativity, let alone general relativity (which of course is necessary for a discussion of gravity), and his background in the study of Newtonian orbits obviously did not prepare him to understand even classical electrodynamics, which violates Laplacian aberration just as surely as does gravity. What's more, he not only didn't understand these things, he had active MISunderstandings... things that could have been cleared up in just a couple of hours if he had ever chosen to do so.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is supported by the fact that his papers were published in multiple peer reviewed journals and the debate between Van Flandern and Carlip was well documented, including in an article "The Great Gravity Debate" by Jeffery D Kooistra, in Analog magazine.

"Analog" is a venue for science fiction. If you wish to claim that TVF was a notable purveyor of science fiction, I might be inclined to agree with you. As noted before, the Phys Lett A paper was a soundly repudiated embarrassment, and the Found of Phys opinion piece in a magazine that goes out of its way to explain that it does not endorse the correctness of the opinion pieces it publishes was on the subject of electromagnetism (which Tom knew nothing about), quantum field theory (which Tom knew nothing about), and gravity (about which Tom's only knowledge was Newtonian theory. And the paper espouses not just superluminal but instantaneous propagation, which the octagenarian cold fusionist Vigier needed to support his kooky Stochastic quantum mechanics, but which was anathema to Tom. And so on. This does not constitute peer reviewed endorsement of any of TVF's ideas by ANY stretch of the imagination.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom's position was a minority position (though not without supporters), but it met wikipedia criteria for both notability and reliability. Wikipedia:fringe is clear that an acceptable bar for reliability is publication in credible peer reviewed journals. Merits of a paper are based on number of citations and again I point out that Tom's original paper is cited slightly more frequently than Carlips rebuttal. Auther 63.24, not suprisingly has ojections to each of the journal articles, but wiki policy does not permit an editor to elevate their personal views over reliable and verifiable sources.67.183.85.221 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The notability discussion concluded that TVF was marginally notable, primarily for his prominence as a pseudo-science crackpot. Having succeeded in enlisting another kook (Vigier) in helping a fellow superluminalist, first by having the 80-year-old cold fusion enthusiast Vigier endorse the paper for Phys Lett A (which was soundly repudiated when the editors woke up and realized the gaff they had committed) and then by having him co-author the embarrassing opinion piece in Found of Phys does not comprise the basis of a notable scientific career. Note, for example, that Carlip, who is to TVF as an elephant is to an ant, does not have a Wikipedia article, and yet he has DOZENS of well-respected and important papers in the most prestegious scientific journals in the world. Speaking of Carlip and what you call his well-documented "debate" with TVF, anyone who read those newsgroup postings can have no doubt about Carlip's estimation of TVF's qualifications and level of understanding.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the fundamental dilemma of this article, which you decline to recognize. According to all reputable verifiable sources (which are to form the basis of Wikipedia articles), the ideas espoused by TVF were not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong, and known to have been wrong for at least a century, and some for several centuries. But any accurate presentation of this fact is going to strike people like yourself as unwarranted. There's no easy way around this. I think the article does a fairly reasonable job of being accurate but restrained in presenting the verifiable facts. Strictly speaking, the final line (have not found acceptance) ought to be replaced with something like "have been scientifically refuted for centuries", but I think the more understated sentence is okay.6324xxxx (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So I am to assume, once and for all, that you do not believe in the evolution of science or that it is a body of work constantly under scrutiny and revision when new ideas and observations are made. That Galileo's support of Copernicus, Einstein's building on Plank, and countless other scientists who took previous work and built-on or advocated them, should all be summarily dismissed based on the questionability or discredited nature of the original work? Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Science thrives on new ideas. Unfortunately, in the entire Natural Philosophy Alliance there is not a single NEW idea. Physics cranks invariable adopt OLD ideas, and they espouse them naively, oblivious to the reasons why those old ideas were rejected. Then they pretend that they are "building on" those old ideas, but that is simply the fantasy. Invariably the modern crank's version of an ancient theory (like Le Sage gravity) is LESS sophisticated than the ancient versions. Ultimately the crank's only defense is to argue against ever distinguishing between sense and nonsense. They are led (ironically) to adopt the belief of relativism (not to be confused with relativity), according to which no ideas are right or wrong, they are just socially adapted to different communities. So they form their little societies like the NPA, within which they can pretend to be practicing science.

So Galileo, Einstein, and Kelvin were cranks. Got it. Akuvar (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But none of this is particuarly relevant to the editing of this article. I'd say the article is in reasonably good shape at the moment, except that there should be more on Cydonia, and perhaps a bit more on the view of the scientific community. A good case study would be the rings of Uranus episode, since it is well documented in the literature, and illustrates all the aspects of TVF's mode of operation, as well as the reaction of the scientific community.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that it still includes nonsense like limitless free energy and your mis-quotes of the NPA. Akuvar (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain any misquotes of the NPA. One editor here mistakenly claimed that the NPA specifically delineated "special relativity and general relativity" to distinguish them from "Lorenztian relativity", but a search of the NPA web site turns up ZERO hits for "Lorentzian relativity", although it does turn up hits for publications with such titled as "Goodbye Relativity, Hello Reality". Therefore, the afore mentioned editor's claim on behalf of the NPA is specious. Furthermore, Lorentzian relativity is a theory of relativistic phenomena (hence the name), whereas TVF espoused grossly non-relativistic phenomena, inconsistent with both empirical facts and with Lorentzian relativity. Hence, the afore mentioned editor's desire to insert into the article a claim that TVF espoused "relativity" is contradicted by the verifiable information available to us, and so it doesn't belong in the article.

By the way, regarding infinite energy, it's interesting that editor mikevf recently referred us to an article supposedly lending credence to TVF's ideas in the science fiction magazine called Analog (formerly called Astounding) written by Mr. Kooistra, who happens to be the associate editor of (wait for it...) Infinite Energy magazine.6324xxxx (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I once sat next to G. Gordon Liddy on a boat. I must have been (wait for it...) involved in Watergate! Akuvar (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you completely missed the point. Two individuals have been cited by editor mikevf as lending credence to TVF's ideas. One was Robert Sungenis and the other was Jeffrey Kooistra. Now, it so happens that Robert Sungenis is a well known anti-semitic geocentrist (Coperniucus was wrong! Galileo was wrong!), and Jefrey Kooistra is the editor of Infinite Energy magazine, which you evidently regard as disreputable, because you're enraged that TVF is mentioned as espousing it, despite the fact that TVF spoke at an Infinite Energy conference about how his theory of gravity makes possible infinite free energy. The point is that all the people you can think of who lend credence to TVF's views are people who - according to your OWN beliefs - are believers in loony and/or disreputable ideas. At the very least, I think you have to agree this is an interesting fact, one that would give most people pause.

As usual, you seem to rant on about anything that gives an impression that your discussing what is at hand. Your above statement rambles so far of course that you are actually combining MikeVF's arguments with mine and using that step-child to accuse me of thinking Kooistra is disreputable (I never said that), that I am enraged (am I enraged? how does one tell from a text stream?) and you reiterate your guilt-by-association belief about Tom attending a conference and is therefore a proponent of it (and you've been asked to provide a citation of this claim, ignored it, and now are doing it again). Akuvar (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You refer to guilt by association with the Infinite Energy crowd, and yet you claim that you do not regard the Infinite Energy crowd as disreputable. If infinite energy is not disreputable, then why does an association with it connote any kind of "guilt"?

Are you making this up as you go along? Guilt by association is a figure of speech, no one is implying that anyone is guilty of anything. It applies to your statements that Dr. Van Flandern believed in Infinite Free Energy because he was at a conference on that subject. This is circumstantial, or guilt by association. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you striving to exonerate TVF from any significant association with Infinite Energy, considering that you hold it in such high esteem?

I do? I have never written any comments on whether or not I support, don't support, like or dislike the Infinite Free Energy people or their ideas. Why do you make this stuff up? Why is it important to you to do that to other editors? Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you seeking to minimize and marginalize TVF by denying that he participated in such highly reputable groups as the Infinite Energy crowd? Not very generous of you, especially considering that the evidence falsifies your claims. You say TVF merely "attended a conference", and it is (you imply) unfair to infer from this attendence that he was a proponent of it. Well, as you've been told before, the magazine "Infinite Energy" reported on "The First International Conference on Future Energy (COFE) was held over three days, April 29-May 1, 1999...".

Actually, I've pointed out that I read the same article, actually a review, of that conference as you have. The same article that you are basing your false allegations on. And I've pointed out above, under this very topic, Item 2, I list the URL to go read this review, and I believe you are also referencing a similar one at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/cofe.html (see how easy it is to provide other editors with references?) and I encourage all editors to go read both. So I know, and have written, that he was a speaker there. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

After explaining that the conference got kicked out of multiple official venues (presumably because not everyone shares your high regard for the proponents of infinite free energy),

Presumably? So you read the article enough to blast Dr. Van Flandern, but not well enough to read that it got booted due to the black-eye cold fusion had recently received in the media and the DOE's efforts to distance itself from all cold fusion work. Not only do you fail to properly cite the article, you then interject your own erroneous, insulting comments. I actually believe this is in complete violation of NPOV because it is clear that you read the article and it is clear that you are misrepresenting it. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the article goes on to describe each of the talks, and when it gets to the key note speaker (apparently some happless attendee who did not in any way endorse or espouse infinite free energy, and just stood in the wrong line, somehow ending up at an Infinite Free Energy conference, and being forced, presumably against his will, to deliver the keynote address),

The keynote speaker was Mary Hutzler from DOE who didn't show. So the keynote speaker was neither Dr. Van Flandern nor "some hapless attendee." Again, you read the article, you misrepresent, you interject your insulting comments when you know what was actually written. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

saying

"The concluding speaker of the day was astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern of the Meta Research Institute [sic], who spoke on 'A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy' ... For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth."

I hope editors will go read the article. Editor 6324 has truncated three paragraphs of review using a "..." The first two paragraphs listing what Dr. Van Flandern spoke about, and the third paragraph, the one about free energy and the blocking shield, are the reviewer's speculative comments of what Dr. Van Flandern spoke abouit might imply "for the free energy enthusiast." Again, how misleading of editor 6324 to place this truncated abridgement of what the article actually said. I guess the bold lettering should be an alert to all editors, "This is fabricated by 6324!" Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you will stop repeating your false claim that TVF merely "attended" an infinite free energy conference. It's perfectly clear that TVF did not merely attend the conference, he spoke at the conference on how his deep reality physical theory of gravity implies the availability of infinite free energy. This is as notable as any other of his kooky ideas. Your persistent efforts to suppress this in the article are not appropriate. (Of course, since you hold Infinite Energy in such high regard... when you aren't considering any association with it to imply some kind of guilt ... you are presumably happy to have TVF credited with such advanced ideas... or maybe not.6324xxxx (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Never made that claim, thanks. Never tried to suppress this article, thanks. In fact, before you wrote these comments, I was the only editor to provide a URL to one of the reviews of the conference, although you are the first editor to "quote" (and I now use that term with you extremely loosely) the article. Therefore your statement that my comments are not appropriate is really turning into some kind of pathetic, ironic joke at this point in this discussion. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As to your involvement in Watergate, I have no comment. I also have no comment about your stated conclusion that Galileo, Einstein, and Kelvin were cranks, nor on your dilemma about what to call your dentist when installing his appliances. But please don't interpret this as indicating any lack of appreciation for your insightful and well thought out contributions to the discussion.6324xxxx (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment...thanks! Many editors, including myself, have made the mistake of writing long comments that give you a great deal of freedom to roam around Tom-Bashing Land without addressing the direct questions that were put to you. I have therefore taken to writing short analogies that succinctly expose your current statement as being ridiculous, without going on to discuss other topics that you could comment on rather than the issue at hand. Akuvar (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I would ask that a statement concerning his most notable and criticized view that gravity was a particle and traveled many times faster than the speed of light be added (and this can easily be the lead-in for the statements about unorthodox views and strong criticism), and that the reference to his support of free energy be removed. Akuvar (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NPA's Self Description

One editor has suggested that the so-called "Natural Philosophy Alliance" should be described in the article based on its own self-description from its web site. The reasons for not relying on that web site's descriptions of itself, verbatim, was explained previously on this Talk page. (See above). To repeat, the NPA is not a reputable source, as evidenced by the fact that they have no Wikipedia page, and moreover, their web page lists as "members" and "former members" people who died decades before the NPA was founded in the early 1990s by an engineer crank pseudo-scientist. This proves that the "organization" is dishonest and its self-descriptions are not reliable. Furthermore, even if one were to limit ones-self to quotes from NPA published material, there is hardly any limit to the crackpotism that one could present, in their own words. The description given in the article currently is quite moderate - in fact, it is overly charitable. I say leave it as is.6324xxxx (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor 63.24 is replacing the list of theories the NPA says they are critical of with the blanket statement that the NPA rejected most of modern physics. This proposed change is not backed by citation and adds a highly subjective statement to a controversial article. Further, quoting wikipedia:fringe "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on this subject. Mikevf wants the article to say the NPA "is intensely critical of" special relativity, general relativity, quantum theory, and the big bang". The proposed alternative wording says the NPA consists of individuals who reject most aspects of modern physics, especially relativity and quantum theory. (TFV's disapproval of the Big Bang is mentioned previously in the article.) Now, surely this is unobjectionable, because relativity and quantum theory, together, comprise essentially the entirety of modern physics. And Mikevf's own statement (taken from the NPA's web site) indicates that they oppose relativity and quantum theory, so what is the disagreement? We are relying on the fringe individuals to state what they believe, which is their opposition to relativity and quantum theory. On the other hand, fringe individuals are most definitely not good sources for accurately characterizing themselves or their activities. For example, if I make a web site claiming that The 6324xxxx HyperResearch Institute is the world's premier scientific research organization, Wikipedia is not obligated to describe my Institute in that way. It's entirely possible that my Institute is as bogus as, say, the Natural Philosophy Alliance.6324xxxx (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is what the NPA's welcome message says: "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity...." Now, we could quote this in the article, but I think it just serves to emphasize what a crackpot organization it is, and this really isn't the purpose of the present article. But the relevant question is how someone could read this, and then come to this page and dispute the fact that the NPA rejects most aspects of modern physics and cosmology. An editor here has expressed outrage that anyone would suggest anything so scurrilous, impugning the good name of the NPA... and yet the Welcome message on the NPA's home page actually states this very thing even more strongly. A broad ranging criticism, at the most fundamental levels, of the irrational doctrines of modern physics, aiming at the ultimate replacement of those doctrines. Can I really be criticized for misrepresenting them?? 6324xxxx (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User 64.24 wants to revise the article to read that NPA and Tom by extension reject most aspects of modern physics. However, this clearly misrepresents both the NPA's and Tom's views. As stated numerous times, Tom preferred Lorentzian relativity (LR) over Special Relativity (SR). Lorentz and Einstein were contemporaries so LR is a modern alternative to SR (LR is in accord with the all experimental evidence supporting SR but does not foreclose the possibility of FTL). Saying NPA and Tom "reject most aspects of modern physics" implies that both wanted to revert to a purely Newtonian view of the world (an assertion 63.24 has explicitly stated elsewhere) but that's clearly not a factual or accurate representation. Given a choice between 1) NPA members "reject most aspects of modern physics" or 2) NPA members are "intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, quantum theory, and the big bang", the latter is clearly more accurate. And it is supportable by citation (it's in their own words). 63.24 also suggests that quoting "Fringe" sources on their beliefs is not appropriate as they may be unreliable.

I suggest you re-read (or perhaps just read) what I wrote.6324xxxx (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

However fringe theory proponents are often the best source for their own beliefs and this is supported by wikipedia:fringe which states "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe". These beliefs should be appropriately contexted to preserve NPOV, and that's been done in this article.Mikevf (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the relevant comments and citation, so here they are again. For reference, here is what the NPA's welcome message on their home page says: "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity...." Now, we could quote this in the article, but I think it just serves to emphasize what a crackpot organization it is, and this really isn't the purpose of the present article. But the relevant question is how someone could read this, and then come to this page and dispute the fact that the NPA rejects most aspects of modern physics and cosmology. An editor here has expressed outrage that anyone would suggest anything so scurrilous, impugning the good name of the NPA... and yet the Welcome message on the NPA's home page actually states this very thing even more strongly. A broad ranging criticism, at the most fundamental levels, of the irrational doctrines of modern physics, aiming at the ultimate replacement of those doctrines. Can I really be criticized for saying they reject modern physics ?? Sheesh.

Regarding your other comments, I don't think this is an appropriate venue to discuss TVF's misunderstandings of Lorentzian relativity, nor of any other aspects of modern science.6324xxxx (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I hope no one fails to appreciate the hilarity of the statement: "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted to fully open-minded criticism of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines..." We intend to give the defendant a scrupulously fair and open-minded trial... prior to the hanging. Could they BE any more entertaining?6324xxxx (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to using their text, but please let's use all of it. You've truncated 'special relativity' and 'general relativity' to just 'relativity'. That's not accurate as many including Tom support Lorentzian relativty. I make the distinction because you earlier implied that rejection of SR and criticism of GR as currently accepted meant throwing out all science since Newton. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I assumed your comment meant that you were unfamiliar with the alternative interpretations of relativity. However since you claim to have read Tom's papers that doesn't really seem possible.Mikevf (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Tom profoundly misunderstood the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is abundantly clear from the relevant scientific literature over the past century, just as is the fact that he lacked any understanding at all of general relativity. This article isn't a suitable place to attempt to insert "unverifiable" and erroneous ideas into Wikipedia, nor should it be necessary for us to fill up this little article with the scientific refutations of those erroneous ideas. It suffices to say that TVF rejected and sought to "replace" the modern scientific theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, i.e., which constitutes essentially all of modern science. By the way, not that it matters, but it isn't accurate to say he rejected just the science since Newton. He rejected Newtonian science as well. The exploding planet and the rings of Uranus and Lesage gravity and superluminal gas pressure (as opposed to waves) are all refuted by Newtonian science. But, again, the article doesn't need to go into this in detail.6324xxxx (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing 63.24, you've been consistently trying to say that Tom (and NPA) rejected most of modern physics. Problem is what they actually said but is that they were critical of specific ideas in modern physics that needed to modified or replaced. Not to be deterred you've taken partial quotes and rewritten the balance to make Tom and the NPA appear kooky. Why use their words when yours do the job so much more effectively? The answer is 1) verifiabilitu and 2) NPOV. Also editor 63.24 you appear to be violating Wiki revision policy with 4 revisions in a 24 hour period in 4/1/09.67.183.85.221 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Three corrections: (1) The quotes in the description of the NPA are taken from the Welcome message on the organization's home page, so mikevf is mistaken in attributing them to me; (2) asserting from a "wide ranging" standpoint that the "doctrines of modern physics on the most fundamental level" are "irrational and unreasonable" and devoting oneself to "the replacement of those doctrines" would be interpreted by most people as constituting disapproval of modern physics; (3) editor mikevf is confusing revisions with reversions, which are two different things, although the words are somewhat similar. The wiki rule against more than three revERsions in 24 hours does not limit the number of revIsions; it is not uncommon for an individual editor to make numerous of revisions (i.e., edits) in a single session. Also, please note that each edit of mine has been accompanied by rationale both in the edit summary and on this Discussion page (unlike some perfunctory outright revERsions of some other editors). 6324xxxx (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Corrections of corrections 1) my objection is specifically to user 63.24's modification of the quotes (and he knows it), I have no objection to letting the intact quotes stand on their own

I think any objective person would agree that the characterization of the NPA in the article is accurate and based solidly on verifiable source (their own web site welcome message). The only real problem you seem to have with the current wording is that it doesn't embrace the neoligism of re-defining "relativity" to include a pseudo-theory that entails superluminal communication. The current wording is correct in avoiding that neoligism, and using words with their established and verifiable meanings.6324xxxx (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Relativity as defined by Lorentz was a consequence of an aether. Forces propagating beneath the aether need not be bound by c. Asserting FTL is a rejection of SR and curved time-space but not LR.Mikevf (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2) Tom and many NPA members support Lorentzian relativity, a fact user 63.24 seems determined to obscure and 3) user 63.24 engaged in 4 reversions (not revisions) between 13:28 on 4/1 and 5:08 on 4/2. He in reverted the edits of other editors 4 times removing references to SR & GR (don't take my word for it read the history).

I checked the history, and confirmed that you are mistaken. I also note that your original accusation said "revisions", which you've now changed to "reversions". Can I suggtest that you get your story straight before making any further accusations?6324xxxx (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On 4/1-4/2 user 63.24 violated the '3 revert rule'. {uw-3rr}

(cur) (prev) 05:08, 2 April 2009 6324xxxx (talk | contribs) (2,757 bytes) ("Copenhagen quantum physics" is a neoligism. "Relativity" covers both special and general, so no need for prolixity.) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:13, 1 April 2009 6324xxxx (talk | contribs) (2,756 bytes) (Edit to include npa self-appraisal) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 19:13, 1 April 2009 6324xxxx (talk | contribs) (2,650 bytes) (Correct the characterization of NPA. Please see Talk page.) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 13:28, 1 April 2009 6324xxxx (talk | contribs) (2,650 bytes) (suggested re-wording) (undo)

These 4 edits revert changes by intervening editors by deleting references to SR and GR. C

Clear enough?Mikevf (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed clear enough, demonstrating that your accusation is mistaken. As noted in the edit summary for 23:13, 1 April 2009, and as can be confirmed by reviewing the edit, this was not a revert to any previous version of the article, it was a change to the article at the direct request of other editors (including yourself) to replace my gloss of the NPA with actual words from the NPA's own web site, to "let them speak for themselves". This was the edit in which I introduced the quotations from the Welcome message of the NPA's home page. This was a change to the article in an attempt to respond to the requests of other editors. It was NOT, as everyone can plainly see, a reversion to any earlier version of the article.

I posted a link to the definition of the 3 revert rule on 6324's talk page. The rule reads in part "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The rule is written this way to prohibit disguising reverts as revisions. User 6324 replaced 'Special Relativity' & 'General Relativity' with 'relativity' 4 times. The fact that he made another edit at the same time does not immunize him from the 3 revert rule.Mikevf (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted previously, your original accusation was that I had made four REVISIONS, which is true, and I explained that the 3 REVERT rule does not limit the number of REVISIONS. You then changed your claim to say that there had been four REVERTS, which is obviously not true. I presume your mistake was made in good faith, and I accept your apology in advance.63.24.104.111 (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I mispoke when I initially objected to user 6324s 4 revisions, I should have objected to user 6324's 4 reversions. They are prohibited.Mikevf (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Every edit changes something that was there before, but not every edit is a "reversion". As explained before, the edit in question introduced (at the urging of other editors) quotations from the NPA web site describing themselves, their mission, and their objectives. My use of the word "relativity" to stand for "special relativity and general relativity" was honestly done merely to reduce excess verbiage. It frankly wasn't clear to me that THIS was what you were objecting to, because TVF's rejection of relativity is so self-evident. I see now that you are seriously laboring under the mistaken belief that, because he chose to call his ideas "Lorentzian relativity", that he espoused a form of relativity. I honestly didn't suspect that you could be so confused until reading your latest comments.

Once again, the word relativity has a meaning, and this meaning is consistent with both the Lorentzian and the Einsteinian interpretations. That's why they are both called interpretations of relativity... they are both relativistic, i.e., all phenomena are relativistic, according to any viable interpretation (because interpretations don't change phenomena). In contrast, TVF claimed the existence of grossly NON relativistic phenomena, and then in an attempt to disguise this fact (because any such phenomena are empirically ruled out) he adopted the habit of refering to his ideas as "Lorentzian relativity". He did not thereby render his ideas consistent with relativity. All of this is perfectly obvious to any objective and rational person (who is acquainted with the subject matter).

Furthermore, the quote in question refers to the NPA, and I promise you that the NPA web site provides abundant evidence of the rejection of relativity. So, your idea that the present article misrepresents the NPA's views is simply wrong, as is easily verifiable from their own web site. Your attempts to impose Tom's 1984 double-speak on the article are not helpful.6324xxxx (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many edits and a few editors of this article I've disagreed with but I've restrained myself from challenging many posts by authors working honestly toward a npov perspective. User 63.24 on the other hand seems intent on making the case in this article that Tom had kooky ideas non of which had any merit. That's not a valid agenda for a wiki article and has consistently led to revision wars. Please, let's stick to using the subject actual words and not user 63.24 interpretation. Specifically the current article reads 'He was a prominent member of a group called the Natural Philosophy Alliance, devoted to "open-minded criticism... of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology", relativity and quantum physics, "and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines".' The actual quotes are as follows: "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. The great majority of [NPA members] are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics." Two major differences are 1) ommision of the word OFTEN falsely leads readers of 63.24's quote to believe that the group rejects ALL modern physics and 2) replacement of SR and GR with the word relativity again leave readers with the false impression that the group rejects all relativity (ignoring Lorentzian relativity which is explicity discussed in Tom's peer reviewed papers). Is 63.23 violating the reversion rule simply because he belives relativity is more succinct than saying SR and GR? I submit it's far more likely he knows the difference (especially since he's read Tom's papers). If you accept that, then editor 63.23's changes are intended to change the meaning of these quotes and misrepresent both Tom's and NPA's views. I ask other editors to weigh in on this and support steering toward NPOV.Mikevf (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All your other comments are repetitions of complaints that have been addressed previously. Regarding Lorentzian relativity, see the new section below. Regarding to overall question of NPOV, I think the main aspect of the article that could be made more NPOV is to make it more clear how strongly the reputable sources reject TVF's ideas. For example, very little attention is given to the face on Mars. To be proportionate to its contribution to his notability (in accord with Wikipedia policy), the whole Cydonia thing should be given much more coverage. But there has been an attempt to minimize that aspect. I agree we should work toward rectifying that shortcoming.6324xxxx (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

TVF's Misunderstanding of Lorentzian Relativity

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Some editors have objected to the statement that TVF rejected relativity because (they say) he espoused "Lorentzian relativity". This objection is based on a fundamental misconception. Any number of quotes from reputable sources, including Lorentz himself, can be provided to explain that, according to Lorentzian relativity, all forces (including electromagnetism and gravity) are propagated at or below the characteristic speed c. Indeed, as Lorentz explicitly described, this is the foundational fact on which Lorentzian relativity is based, and from which all the relativistic consequences follow unambiguously. It is a necessary condition for relativity (in ANY interpretation) to hold good.

This just isn't accurate. Lorentzian relativity is based on the existance of an aether and the speed of light can reasonably be defined as the natural propagation speed of waves through the aether. If a medium exsited underneath the aether it needn't be bound by c. And that's the whole point. A lot of people take exception with SR and the geometric interpretation of GR while still accepting relativity. You're changing the quotation creates an inaccurate record of their views. You want everyone to believe that they 'rejected modern physics' but that's simply overreaching. Tom believed in Lorentzian relativity. You may not agree with his interpretation put you don't get to change quotes to misrepresent his views.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since TVF explicitly rejected and denied all this, he rejected relativity. He erroneously believed (or at least claimed) that, in Lorentzian relativity, because of the postulated absolute time, it somehow gives different predictions for (for example) the momentum and energy of a particle as it approaches the speed of light. The falsity of this is well known and verifiable from countless reputable sources.

Tom's view was that relativity equations held if you used energy from the aether for propagation. Similar to using a propeller in air, the closer you get to the speed of sound the less efficient your propulsion system becomes. It's easy to see how this correlates to observered behaviors when approaching the speed of light. However, other mediums (or aethers) needn't be bound by this limit and Tom argued that gravity was such a medium.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting on this before, but perhaps it will help some editors if I point out that this "propeller in air" argument occurs to every high school student when he first hears about relativity, and this well known canard is trivially falsified. The energy and momentum of a particle increases to infinity as it is accelerated toward the speed of light. This doesn't just mean that it becomes progressively more difficult to accelerate the particle, it means the particle actually acquires progressively more energy and momentum, which is proven by the fact that this energy and momentum can subsequently be taken back out of the particle when it is slowed back down (or collides with something). A single electron can be given titanic amounts of energy, which it can then subsequently impart to other objects. This is utterly inconsistent with the "propellor in air" concept, whereby less energy and momentum can be imparted to the object as approaches a certain speed.

Moreover (and this is the supreme irony for TVF's fantasies), the argument underlying this silly canard is that electrostatic particle accelerators are unable to accelerate particles faster than the speed of light because the electric force itself only propagates at the speed of light, and hence it can't push anything faster than this. But of course this flatly contradicts TVF's foundational premise that the electrostatic force (which doesn't exhibit Laplacian aberration) must be propagated millions of times faster than light, and hence there is no reason it should be incapable of accelerating things to speeds greater than c. Indeed TVF asserted that the static forces which he believed propagated superluminally could be used for superluminal travel. When it was pointed out to TVF (on his web site message board) that his two fundamental beliefs were mutually exclusive and self-contradictory, he simply denied that electro-static particle accelerators exist! When he was provided with detailed information about electrostatic (van de Graff) accelerators, utterly demolishing his specious claims, he terminated the discussion and it was deleted from his message board.

I personally don't favor presenting these verifiable facts in the article, but if other editors which to expand on TVF's ideas and mode of operation, these things could be brought out. My opinion is that it suffices to say that TVF's ideas have not found acceptance within the scientific community, and leave it at that.6324xxxx (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the Lorentzian and the Einsteinian interpretations of relativity give identical accounts, which is to say, they both predict that the energy and momentum of a material particle increases to infinity as the particle approaches the speed of light. Likewise they both are founded on the premise that all forces propagate at or below the characteristic speed c. Thousands of references from reputable sources can be presented here, if necessary, to demonstrate the verifiability of this, and zero reputable sources dispute it.

Again, no disputes on the absolute limit of c within the aether. However, Tom's paper identified 6 observations that demonstrated that gravity much propagates significantly faster than C. This isn't consistent with SR and the geometric interpretion of GR but it can be consistent with relativity and LR.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

TVF's mode of operation was to claim that he espoused Lorentzian relativity, which he admited gives exactly the same empirical consequences as Einsteinian relativity (they must, because they are not different theories, they are merely different interpretations of the same theory), and he did this because he knew if he espoused any theory that wasn't empirically indistinguishable from special relativity it would be empirically falsified. BUT, at the same time, his whole agenda was to promote his belief in hypothetical phenomena that blatently violate the principles of both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity. How to resolve this self-contradiction?

LR is distinguishable from SR in having a preferred frame of reference. However, you are correct in noting that there is no emperical evidence supporting SR over LR. Ironicly you have the order mixed up here. It's the theory of SR that borrowed from LR in a way so has to be empirically indistinguishable otherwise SR would have been empirically falsified. Tom's papers presented evidence that he believed falsified SR in favor of LR.Mikevf (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When confronted with these facts, TVF tried to claim that the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity somehow leads to empirically DIFFERENT physics than the Einsteinian interpretation. Needless to say, in so doing he was no longer espousing the real Lorentzian relativity; instead he had shifted to some imaginary pseudo-theory that he CALLED Lorentzian relativity in order to mislead people. But his imaginary version of Lorentzian relativity is inconsist with the empirical facts. See, he wanted to have it both ways, the empirical success of relativity, combined with completely different empirical predictions. Needless to say, this is an intellectual sham, a shell game.

Lorentzian relativity was based on an aether, which is an indisputable fact. Tom's assertion that gravity propagated in a sub aether is in no way incompatible with LR. The only "shell game" here is your attempt to present in the article the view that Tom "rejected modern physics" and "relativity", an assertion only supported by your alteration of NPA quotes.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, the meanings of the term "relativity" in modern science, and the meanings of the Lorentzian and Einsteinian interpretations of that theory, are very well established in the reputable literature. These are not controversial topics. Wikipedia is not the place to promote crackpot shell games, with neoligisms redefining the word relativity so that it can be said TVF agreed with some form of relativity. That would simply be blatently dishonest (not to mention ridiculous), and contrary to Wikipedia policy about introducing neoligisms and novel narratives.

Ok enough with the insults. Tom believed in Lorentzian relativity and you're changing a quote to represent that he did not beleive in relativity. Calling my arguments a "crackpot shell game", "ridiculous" and "blatently dishonest" does not further the conversation. I'm asking you to tone down your rhetoric. You have run off editors here with you snipes. When someone has a different perspective saying they must be "unacquainted with reason" is neither constructive nor appropriate.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The plain fact is that TVF utterly rejected Lorentzian relativity (as well as Einsteinian relativity), and he replaced it with an abundantly falsified pseudo-theory that he chose to dub "Lorentzian relativity" as a way of trying to divert newbies from realizing that his ideas were empirically falsified. All this can be presented with full documentation if needed, but I really don't think this is suitable material for this article. I really don't think any objective person would disagree that TVF rejected relativity.6324xxxx (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that you've modified quotes so that they support your perspective. You're entitled to your prespective but you don't get to put words into Tom's or the NPA's mouths. Your not even denying your modifications change the meaning of the quotations, rather your assertion is that your modified quote is a more accurate representation of what they meant. Sorry but you are not a reliable or verifiable source by wikipedia standards. The quotes must be returned to their original state.

Alternatively we could pull some quotes from Tom's paper that clearly articulate his views on Lorentzian relativty. We already have a disclaimer in the article that his ideas "have not found acceptance within the scientific community". For example we could legitimately say 'Van Flandern believed "faster-than-light force propagation is fully consistent with Lorentzian relativity, but is a test that special relativity cannot pass"' as this is a direct quote. This seems a much better representation of Tom's views anyway as this article is about him, not the NPA.Mikevf (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also user 6324's assertion that 'Copenhagen Quantum Physics' is a 'neoligism' is an argument best made in the wiki article titled 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics. However, here changing the quote clearly changes its meaning and misrepresents the views of the NPA. The NPA's original quote should be presented without user 6324's 'corrections'.Mikevf (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. The only sense in which the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity is more congenial to the possibility of superluminal communication is that it asserts relativity only provisionally, for each individual physical phenomena. (This is exacxtly analogous to someone claiming conservation of energy only provisionally for each kind of physical process, but always leaving open the possibility that some other, presently unknown, physical process may violate conservation of energy. Therefore, please accept my patent application for the following perpetual motion machine...) Hence if it should turn out that nature is NOT relativistic (i.e., if Lorentz invariance were found to be violated) it could more easily be modified into a NON-relativistic version of Lorentz's theory. But the key word here is NON-relativistic. If someone asserts (as TVF did) that Lorentz invariance is violated, he is asserting that physics is NON-relativistic, i.e., he is rejecting relativity. The Lorentzian interpretation does not give any support for this rejection, it is simply (by virtue of being a weaker and less falsifiable and hence less scientific framework) easier to change into a NON-relativistic theory, should the need ever arise.

Lorentzian relativity does indeed assert relativity is provisional, because it's a natural consequence of an aether (rather than curved time space). If gravity is a force operating beneath the aether it need not be bound by C. Tom cited the evidence that gravity propates faster than c in his peer reviewed and published papers. It's ironic that user 63.24 cites the lack of falsifiability as the reason SR is favored. Karl Popper, who introduced the requirement of falsifiability to the scientific method, specifically preffered LR over SR because SR failed to meet the falsibility requirement. Lorentz and Poincare too all preferred LR over SR, and believed relativity was a consequence of an aether. And Lorentz presented his ideas on relativity before Einstein. Bottom line, it's possible to accept FTL forces are possible and still believe in relativity. The NPA site makes it clear that many of their members beleive in an aether. The statement on their front page specifically states they are citical of SR and GR. User 63.24 has altered the quote to read they reject relativity, which isn't what they said or meant. But more importantly, Tom specifically said he favored replacing SR with LR. Implying that Tom rejected relativty, even if one disagrees with his interpretation of LR, is not accurate. And implying he rejected relativty by 1) association with the NPA and 2) use af an altered quote is definately not appropriate.Mikevf (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, the whole theory of relativity (both Lorentzian and Einsteinian) was derived from the phenomena of electromagnetism, which are KNOWN to be relativistic, so there is NO question about this, and furthermore electromagnetism is KNOWN not to exhibit Laplacian aberration, and it is well understood WHY Laplacian aberration is not to be expected, even though the electromagnetic force explicitly propagates at the speed c (which is why the Leniard-Weichert potential contracts to an ellipsoid for a uniformly moving charge, giving the Lorentzian account of length contraction.) TVF's entire argument was that the absense of Laplacian aberration implies superluminal propagation of force, but Lorentz himself was the among the first (along with Poincare) for explaining why this is NOT CORRECT. The absense of Laplacian aberration for a given force does NOT imply that the force propagates superluminally.

Poincare argued that momentum of the field could explain the lack of aberation. Tom's papers are not oblivious to this point and address it in detail.Mikevf (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite user 6324's claims about Lorentzian relativity, Tom's perspective on Lorentzian relativity was not unique. I quote Karl Popper "[W]e have to give up Einstein's interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz's interpretation and with it to … absolute space and time.... The reason for this assertion is that the mere existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity … would be the system at absolute rest – whether or not this system of absolute rest can be experimentally identified"Mikevf (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Karl Popper was not a physicist, and in any case, an endorsement of the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity does not constitute an endorsement of the non-relativistic beliefs that TVF chose to mis-label "Lorentzian relativity".

In summary, TVF rejected relativity. His appropriation of the term "Lorentzian relativity" for a set of explicitly non-relativistic ideas was simply a sham, and it is not appropriate to base the language of this article on his neoligism. If there is consensus among non-family member editors that this should be explained in detail in the article, I'd make a try at it, but I personally don't think it's suitable to fill up the article with century old explanations of basic physics. It suffices to say that TVF rejected what the scientific community regards as scientific reasoning - a fact which is explicitly confirmed in the NPA welcome message.6324xxxx (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom did not reject relativity, he rejected SR and wanted it replaced with LR. Use the actual quote on the NPA welcome page and we don't have an issue. The modified quote misrepresents Tom's and the NPA's viewsMikevf (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

TVF totally rejected relativity, because he contended that physical actions, including the forces of electromagnetism and gravity, propagate superluminally, which provides a means of detecting absolute rest, which is inconsistent with relativity. This is the very meaning of the word relativity, regardless of what interpretation one adopts. We can load up the article with reference to thousands of reputable sources that make this perfectly clear, but what is the point? No rational person disputes it. So my recommendation is the leave the article as is. Individuals who wish to re-define the word "relativity" to refer to non-relativistic theories should take their agendas elsewhere.6324xxxx (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom argued that electrodynamic forces (not electromagnetic) and gravity propagated faster than c and therefore were not carried by the aether that carried electromagnetic forces. It's possible to reconcile this with Lorentzian relativity but not with curved time space. User 6324 believes acceptance of faster than c by definition means a rejection of relativity, but it only means a rejection of SR and the curved time space. The view is reconcilable with an aether and LR.19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meanings of the words "electromagnetic" and "electrodynamic". I suggest you acquaint yourself with their meanings before you begin lecturing about them. The four known forces of nature are electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. (If you wish to challenge this, thousands of reputable reference can be supplied.) All of these forces have been found unequivocally to be Lorentz invariant (locally), which signifies that all phenomena are Lorentz covariant. One can interpret this as a miraculous conspiracy of coincidences (ala the Lorentzian interpretation) or as a expression of the fundamental structure of space and time (ala the Einsteinian interpretation), but regardless of which interpretation of relativity you espouse, all physical phenomena are relativistic, and no forces (or actions of any kind) propagate faster than c.

TVF claimed the existence of grossly non-relativistic phenomena, i.e., phenomena that give meaning to absolute rest, which constitutes the failure of relativity (under any interpretation). Mind you, he did not just assert the possibility that some presently unknown forces might be found to violate Lorentz covariance, he asserted (preposterously) that all the known forces of nature (electromagnetism, gravity, the nuclear forces) violate Lorentz covariance and propagate faster than light. This is empirically falsified trillions of times every day.

Now, TVF admitted that he knew nothing about the modern theories of any of these forces, and he didn't WANT to know anything about them. His entire and sole rationale was based on his contention that the speed of propagation of a force can be inferred from a Laplacian-style 18th century analysis of aberration of effect experienced by material particles, neglecting the energy and momentum inherent in relativistic fields. Needless to say (for anyone acquainted with science subsequent to Laplace's time) the attempt to found physics on those principles failed due to empirical facts that cannot be ignored (by intellectually honest people), but of which TVF was utterly oblivious.

You say TVF recognized and addressed the fact that the electromagnetic field (for example) possesses energy and momentum (and we're not just talking about radiation here... please acquaint yourself with the Trouton Noble experiment from 100 years ago), but that's not true, he did not "recognize" it, as is made clear from his claim that field theories violate causality. What he meant was, field theories are inconsistent with Laplacian materialism, but so is nature. As every real scientist knows (and as anyone who has taken and passed freshman physics knows), causality consisting of the strict conservation and contiguous flow of momentum at every time and place is precisely what the field laws represent.

Furthermore, even if one discards the field concept, it is perfectly possible to account for the lack of Laplacian aberration of forces that are conveyed in the very primitive what that Laplace himself envisioned. Even bright high school students are capable of figuring out how this can be done. The simple fact is that Laplace's aberration argument is not nearly as robust as he imagined... and this has been known and understood for centuries.

Look, this is pointless. You are obviously enmeshed in the web of the misconceptions that TVF promulgated, and your only hope of ever understanding anything about physics would be to study the subject... not in articles in Analog magazine, or the web pages of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, but in actual physics text books. I suggest you begin with the basics, like Halliday & Resnick's "Physics". You have SO much to learn, and it really isn't appropriate for you to try to use this venue to elicit free tutoring.

The only relevant fact here is that the article is correct in stating that TVF asserted the failure of relativity, by claiming the existence of grossly non-relativistic phenomena. The article could go on to explain that TVF attempted to disguise this fact by falsely claiming to espouse "Lorentzian relativity", but I don't see the need to describe in detail each and every one of his intellectually dishonest ploys. I think the current article gives the right amount of coverage.6324xxxx (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am of course familiar with the first year text that user 6324 has recommended. It disagrees with many of user 6324's assertions (for example LR fell out of favor because of the Michelson-Morley, not for any of the many reasons 6324 has suggested). Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue, as can be seen in countless reputable sources. The Lorentzian interpretation of relativity is perfectly consistent with Michelson-Morley... in fact, it was BASED on Michelson-Morley. The final version of Lorentzian relativity is empirically indistinguishable from special relativity. I'm honestly concerned that you're trying to edit this article based on a huge amount of disinformation (like what you just said).6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point I no longer believe user 6324 is acting in good faith or trying to build consensus. He continues to insult me and other users because we disagree and I think there's a clearly documented pattern here. Further, I believe he's deliberately trying to obfuscate simple issues by introducing technical arguments so as to intimidate away most editors. I'm therefore seeking mediation help.

The issue at hand is very simple. Altered quotes from the NPA web site are being used in the article to infer Tom's beliefs. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to present altered quotes that infer Tom rejected quantum physics and relativity. Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "imply", not "infer". Quotes can't be used to infer anything.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Tom clearly show he accepted Lorentzian Relativity.Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been fully explained, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Again, TVF espoused a set of grossly NON-relativistic phenomena (faster than light travel, etc), and then he adopted the practice of referring to his beliefs as "Lorentzian Relativity", but that term has a definite established meaning, and it signifies the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity, which is empirically indistinguishable from special relativity. The empirical indistinguishability means that all phenomena are relativistic, and no physical force propagates faster than light. Abundant quotes can be provided to show that TVF did NOT espouse this or any other form of relativity, because the hypothetical phenomena he believed in are grossly non-relativistic. He totally rejected relativity. The fact that he attempted to systematically conceal this by some Orwellian double-think doesn't change this. I don't think this article is the appropriate place to attempt to further promote TVF's self-evidently spurious neoligisms.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While it could be fairly said Tom favored replacing Special Relativity with Lorentzian relativity...Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that cannot be fairly said. TVF favored replacing relativity with grossly non-relativic hypothetical ideas, which he (for purposes of deception) chose to incorrectly label "Lorentzian relativity". Neoligisms should not be promulgated in Wikipedia.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...and Tom rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics, efforts to make this distinction have been edited out repeatedly, most recently 4 times within a 24 hour span by user 6324. Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TVF had very little to say about quantum physics, and freely admited he knew nothing about it, so this point really only has periferal relavence to this article, insofar as it characterizes the NPA. TVF did not espouse (nor did he even claim to espouse) any interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was entirely outside the scope of his thinking. Vigier espoused stochastic quantum mechanics, which entails not just faster than light propagation but actually instantaneous propagation of physical effects (in order to account for the non-local effect of quantum physics), but this was anathema to TVF. I don't think this article about TVF needs to put much emphasis on quantum mechanics, except to say that it was totally foreign to TVF's "deep reality physics". His rejection of quantum mechanics certainly was not limited to just the Copenhagen interpretation.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For context I've included the unadulterated quotes from the NPA site, the relevant text inserted in the article and relevant quotes from Tom Van Flandern:

Actual quotes from the NPA site "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. The great majority of us are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics."

Here's what user 6324 put in the article "He was a prominent member of a group called the Natural Philosophy Alliance, devoted to 'open-minded criticism... of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology', especially relativity and quantum physics, 'and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines'". Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your difficult here may be that most people, other than perhaps members of the NPA, would actually find the full quotation to be more damning and crackpotish than the abreviated gloss that I provided. It really is a hilarious quote, saying they are devoted to the open-minded criticism of modern physics... and to it ultimate replacement! As I said before, the defendant will receive a fair and open-minded trial, prior to the hanging. Most people could not read that NPA self-description without laughing out loud, and yet you seem to think it casts them in a good light.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's are some relevant direct quotes from Van Flandern "faster-than-light force propagation is fully consistent with Lorentzian relativity, but is a test that special relativity cannot pass", "Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories keep getting stranger and stranger. This is certainly true of physics, which has backed itself into apparent contradictions, leading directly to the dominant Copenhagen view that 'there is no deep reality to the world around us'.Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, TVF erroneously claimed that faster than light propagation of electromagnetic force (for example) is consistent with Lorentzian relativity... despite the fact that Lorentz himself could not have been more clear that his interpretation of relativity was based on the impossibility of faster-than-light propagation of all the forces of nature, including electromagnetism and gravity. Plenty of quotes from Lorentz himself can be provided, if any editors here are really unfamiliar with this. But I don't think this article should be filled up with quotes explaining all the spurious claims that TVF made. It suffices to say that his views have not found acceptance within the scientific community.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask moderators to review the above and help mediate a solution. I assert it's unfair and inaccurate to infer Tom rejected relativity or quantum physics. The editor's inference that Tom "rejected modern physics" is over reaching and not supported by citations.Mikevf (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain, TVF's publically promoted views were totally inconsistent with both relativity (in ANY interpretation) and quantum mechanics (in ANY interpretation). This is made perfectly clear from countless reputable sources of information on those subjects, and comparing them with what TVF wrote. But I don't think TVF's limited notability warrants a big article exposing his fallacious views in great detail. I frankly think the current article is reasonable and actually charitable. Many editors in the past have advocated making the scientific communities rejection of TVF's ideas much more prominent in the article, but as I said, the current restrained statement that his views "have not found acceptence within the scientific community" seems about right to me.6324xxxx (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The complaint about this article being "not supported by citations" has some validity, and indeed the article is currently tagged for lacking citations to reputable sources - as well as for possibly not meeting notability criteria. Previous versions have included citations to various reports of news conferences, press releases, the subject's web site, etc., but these were removed by some editors, apparently on the grounds that those were not reputable sources of scientific information. I tend to agree that those weren't reputable sources, but once all the unreputable sources have been removed, the article is left with almost no sources at all. This is one of the inherent difficulties with articles about (for lack of a better term) individuals such as TVF. The article obviously can't just accept his view of reality and how he conceived himself and how he wished to be portrayed. Ideally the article should rely on reputable secondary sources about TVF... but unfortunately there are none. So this presents us with a dilemma. My edits have been directed toward trying to give a brief account of TVF's notability (such as it is), mentioning the kinds of ideas he espoused, the organizations he was associated with, and then concluding with the statement that his ideas have not found acceptance within the scientific community, which I think is fair and even somewhat understated. The article gives very brief mention of TVF's "Cydonia" beliefs, and doesn't even mention at all some of his more outlandish beliefs in theoretical physics, such as that the universe consists of an infinite heirarchy of nothingness. I personally think it's okay not to go into these things in too much detail, since they are not covered in any reputable secondary sources.6324xxxx (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no desire to participate in this heated discussion, I want to comment on User:Mikevf's claims that Karl Popper "specifically preferred LR over SR because SR failed to meet the falsibility requirement." This is not true - on the contrary, Popper preferred SR over LR - he wrote in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1956)": "An example of an unsatisfactory auxiliary hypothesis would be the contraction hypothesis of Fitzgerald and Lorentz which had no falsifiable consequences but merely served to restore the agreement between theory and experiment—mainly the findings of Michelson and Morley. An advance was here achieved only by the theory of relativity which pre­dicted new consequences, new physical effects, and thereby opened up new possibili­ties for testing, and for falsifying, the theory." Later, Popper also stated that he only developed his philosophy because of the logical structure of Einstein's theory of relativity... --D.H (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User D.H. makes a valid point, on further investigation it's clear that Popper was at least for a time an admirer of STR and viewed the Fitzgerald Lorentz contraction hypothesis as ad hoc (in apparent contradiction to his later [quote]). I concede I'm not an expert on Popper's views so I retract my assertion. I think it's immaterial to my point, which is there's a difference between SR and LR as well as the Copenhagen Interpretation and quantum physics. The current article implies Tom rejected relativity and quantum physics (an assertion supported only by altered quotations) while Tom is clearly on the record asserting he favored replacing SR with LR and he rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation's conculsion that there is no deep reality.Mikevf (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The linked reference to an essay of Quentin Smith appears to be in error. It presents a "quote" from Popper's 1982 "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics", and gives the precise page number, but only the first sentence of that "quote" actually appears in Popper's book. The words beginning with "The reason for this assertion..." are evidently just Quentin Smith's attempt to paraphrase Popper's argument (as given in a footnote on page 20). Those words, which comprise the bulk of the alleged "quote", should actually be printed outside the quotation, and acknowledged as the words of Smith, not Popper.6324xxxx (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Until close to his 80th birthday, Popper was indeed an ardant admirer of Einstein's relativity. He didn't have a very sound grasp of it, but he definitely admired it, and considered it superior to the Lorentzian interpretation. However, Popper did not admire quantum mechanics at all (something he shared with Einstein), and he predicted that tests of the Bell inequalities would go against quantum mechanics. Of course, he was wrong about that, and it shocked him. In June of 1980 he first began to say that those results, which he still thought might be mistaken, would, if they are confirmed, imply instantaneous action at a distance, like Vigier espoused. The "quote" provided by one of the editors here was intentionally distorted to reverse Popper's intention. (This distortion of quotes is unfortunately characteristic of certain individuals, as witness the Eddington quote that figured so promimently in TVF's Phy Let A.) For the record, here is what Popper actually wrote, at the age of 80, in the 1982 edition of his "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics":

"What would be the position if our experiment (against my personal expectation) supported the Copenhagen interpretation - that is, if the particles whose y-position has been indirectly measured at B show an increased scatter? This could [Popper's emphasis] be interpreted as indicative of an action at a distance; and if so it would mean that we have to give up Einstein's interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz's interpretation and with it to Newton's absolute space and time."

The editor who quoted this from the octagenerian Popper somehow omitted the fact that Popper was hypothesizing on what we COULD (his emphasis) do in the event that experiments turned out in a way the he personally did not think possible, and told us that Popper simply asserted unequivocally that

"[W]e have to give up Einstein's interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz's interpretation".

We were also told by that editor that Popper's position was motivated by superior falsifiability, which of course is the exact opposite of the truth. It is well known (and abundantly verifiable from countless reputable references) that Popper's whole falsifiability doctrine originated largely from his assessment of the superiority of Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's, precisely because of the greater falsifiability of the former. Also, it's well known that Popper's views on the implications of quantum mechanics for relativity were wrong anyway (not surprisingly, since he wasn't a physicist). Violations of Bell's inequality do not entail any conflict with special relativity, as explained by countless reputable references, and in fact the Lorentzian interpretation is, if anything, actually LESS compatible with various more sophisticated versions of the EPR experiment, such as delayed choice, etc, not to mention the symmetry of electromagnetic interactions in quantum electrodynamics. Also, action at a distance was anathema to TVF, so... well, you get the idea. Taken all in all, the dishonesty of the editor's misrepresentation is rather breath-taking.6324xxxx (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before I no longer believe that user 6324 is acting in good faith. I think the allegations made here and prior ad hominem attacks are entirely inappropriate, especially coming from an anonymous user. Further, I've come to believe this user has a conflict on interest which can not be fully explored without exposing his identity. My efforts to move disputes from this discussion to user 6324's talk page have been deleted by user 6324 and labeled vandalism. I've asked for moderation and will continue to engage in productive discussion with other moderators but I don't believe further discussion with 6324 will be productive. Mikevf (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your grossly dishonet misquote of Popper is exposed, and in response you declare that the editor who exposed it is not acting in good faith? That's a strange assessment of the situation. Wouldn't it be more in accord with Wikipedia policy to assume that an error in your posting was detected, and other editors corrected it in good faith? Why should correcting one of your misrepresentations be considered acting in bad faith?

As to your allegations about conflict of interest, I'd be interested to hear exactly what conflict of interest you think I have. Please note that believing the subject of this article was notable for espousing scientifically untenable ideas does not constitute a conflict of interest. During the discussion over the possible deletion of this article, the conclusion to "keep" was based on TVF's notability for kooky ideas, so the whole reason for the article's existence is to describe this. If you believe TVF was not notable for this - and assuming you can't establish notability for anything else - then perhaps a nomination for deletion is the best course of action.

The bottom line is that, regardless of the personal views of the editors, all edits of the article must be in accord with Wikipedia policy, representing verifiable information from reputable sources. The difficulties of doing that in an article like this, where there are few if any reputable sources on the subject, has been discussed here previously, but the consensus seems to be that the current article is a reasonable attempt to comply with these policies.6324xxxx (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract my allegation of a conflict of interest. It is impossible to either support this allegation or for user 6324 to defend against it without violating the wiki outing policy. It was therefore inappropriate for me to make the allegation. I apologize and withdraw the allegation.Mikevf (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have done some research, and the result thereof is, seemingly, that "Lorentzian Relativity" is a misnomer (it redirects to "Lorentzian Ether Theory"). Therefore, I suggest that the article state that he did not agree with relativity, but agreed with Lorentzian ether theory. I hope this helps; I apologize for taking so long to get to mediating this (busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, busy, I think you probably get the idea :-)). Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ecw.technoid.dweeb. I think a statement alongs those lines in the article would be great. Would you mind drafting the change and revising the article? Thanks -MikeMikevf (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's good that everyone now agrees that (as Ecw put it) TVF (and the NPA) "did not agree with relativity". This is what the article presently indicates, so apparently it doesn't need any revision after all.

Please note that TVF did not agree with Lorentzian ether theory either, because the whole foundation of Lorentz's ether theory (as can be confirmed in countless reputable references) was that the electromagnetic force propagates at the speed c, a premise which TVF explicitly rejected. More fundamentally, Lorentz's ether theory explains why forces which propagate at the speed c do not exhibit Laplacian aberration, which is totally contrary to all of TVF's ideas. To state that TVF "agreed with Lorentzian ether theory" would be grossly inaccurate. TVF's ideas were the antithesis of Lorentz's ether theory. Also, TVF himself specifically disavowed Lorentz's ether theory, which he distinguished from what he called "Lorentzian relativity", which is simply a term he used to refer to blatently non-relativistic and non-Lorentzian beliefs.

I think the best approach, avoiding the introduction of misnomers, neoligisms, and novel narratives, is to simply state in plain terms what TVF espoused, which was the superluminal propagation of forces. The current article already does this. There's no need to apply dubious labels to this belief. It is what it is. The only real complaint that some editors had with the current article was that they thought it should state that TVF believed in "relativity" of some kind, but now that we all agree he didn't, I think the article is fine as it is.6324xxxx (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For context here, user 6324 has stated that Tom had a grade school understanding of mathematics despite the fact that Tom earned a mathematics degree from Xavier and a PhD in Celestial Mechanics from Yale. He further put forth an earlier draft that "asserted Tom rejected modern physics", a version that was rejected. The current version of the article only stands because user 6324 violated the 3 revert rule and other editors were unwilling to engage in an edit war with him. User 6324's opinions on Tom's beliefs are not a credible source for this article. I suggest all editors wanting to make assertions about Tom's beliefs provide quotes from Tom with links to the source. I've provided a quote from Tom clearly stating he favored replacing SR with LR. The Wiki article says "LET is often treated as some sort of 'Lorentzian or 'neo-Lorentzian' interpretation of special relativity." I think the mediator's suggestion is reasonable and request that he draft a revision. Mikevf (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that editor Ecw.technoid.dweeb has found good information and has provided a reasonable solution to this editing problem. I agree with editor MikeVF that it would benefit all editors if Ecw.technoid.dweeb would draft a revision to the article in regards to this topic. Akuvar (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long getting back to this (see my talk page); I am not quite sure where I should put that information in the article... —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Your original post showed that you had found Dr. Van Flandern did not agree with Relativity, but that he preferred Lorentzian Relativity. The issue is that editor 6324 took liberties to paraphrase the quote from the Natural Philosophy Alliance's website and make it appear that Dr. Van Flandern opposed all relativity. Editor MikeVF's argument was that there was no need to paraphrase the quote and that editor 6324 was being self-serving for doing so. Editor 6324 argued that Dr. Van Flandern rejected any relativity and therefore the paraphrasing should stand. You discovered that Dr. Van Flandern did indeed believe in a relativity, Lorentzian Relativity, confirming editor MikeVF's comments, and proving that the paraphrasing is incorrect. Of course, an editor has no business paraphrasing a quote from a website when the quote can easily be given in the first place - I believe that is wiki policy? For your reference, here is the quote in question directly off the NPA's website (www.worldnpa.org):

"The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself."

And here is the paraphrased quote entered by editor 6324 which currently is in the article:

"..Natural Philosophy Alliance, devoted to "open-minded criticism... of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology", especially relativity and quantum physics, "and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines". He issued newsletters and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the scientific community."

You can see that by paraphrasing, editor 6324 has only "saved" about 20 characters of space but has managed to insert ideas that are not representative of the NPA's actual views. As an editor, I believe the paraphrased quote should be replaced with the direct quote from the NPA's website that I have provided above. Again, thank you for mediating this article Akuvar (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Akuvar that the direct quote from NPA should be used. In addition, I think that a comment should be added to the effect that TVF agrees with Lorentzian Ether Theory, rather than 'relativity', which could be misleading. 6324's paraphrase seems to be non- NPOV, implying that NPA disagrees with all relativity, which is not in the original quote. I hope my input here is helpful... :-) Ⓔⓒⓦ.ⓣⓔⓒⓗⓝⓞⓘⓓ.ⓓⓦⓔⓔⓑ | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not state that TVF agreed with relativity, because it would be misleading. Unfortunately it would be equally misleading to say that he agreed with Lorentzian Ether Theory, because he never stated or wrote this. What he stated was that he espoused something which he called "Lorentzian Relativity", but he explicitly went on to state that by this he was not referring to what the mainstream physics community means by the term "Lorentzian Relativity". Instead, he stated that he used this term to refer to ideas prompted by a small number of individuals (including Tom Phipps, Petr Beckmann, etc), all of whom are regarded as notorious crackpots within the mainstream scientific community, writing in non-reputable journals such as Beckmann's own "Galilean Electrodynamics" and Apieron, etc.

Verbatim quotes from TVF's web site can be provided, in which he explicitly stated that he used the term "Lorentzian Relativity" in this neoligistic sense, i.e., not to represent Lorentz's view, but to represent the views of Beckmann, Phipps, and other pseudo-scientific crackpots. Wikipedia has already ruled many times that publications such as those do not qualify as "reputable sources", and also that neoligisms are to be avoided. So, the only way to characterize TVF's beliefs is to simply describe what he believed, e.g., faster than light propagation, and not place any inaccurate or misleading labels on those beliefs.

Regarding the description of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, their web page includes a list of their publications, including titles such as "Goodbye Relativity, Hello Reality", so they surely do not endorse relativity. Also, the NPA page does not distinguish between ordinary relativity and "Lorentzian relativity". In fact, it doesn't even mention "Lorentzian relativity" or "Lorentz's ether theory" at all, so it surely would not be accurate to say that the NPA endorses Lorentzian relativity. I think perhaps the best compromise would be to simply remove the interpolated words on relativity and quantum theory, and simply rely on the readers to understand that this is what the NPA is referring to when they talk about the cursed doctrines of modern physics.6324xxxx (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am not an expert on the subject, but I think I understand what you mean...  ;-) Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Ecw.technoid.dweeb that the entire, undistorted quote from the NPA's description should be used. I noticed that even though we are under mediation, an editor has gone forward with altering the article. Are we supposed to be doing this? or waiting for Ecw.technoid.dweeb to make alterations? Akuvar (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread started because user 63.24 inserted text asserting Tom rejected all modern physics in favor of his own ideas. Unable to substantiate that assertion with a quote from Tom, user 63.24 inserted a quote from the NPA and then modified the quote to imply that the organization rejects all modern physics in favor of their own ideas. An edit war followed as users tried to remove the misquote. I agree with Ecw... 63.24's edits seem inconsistent with NPOV. Why not state that "Tom believed that gravity propagated faster than light, a view that is rejected by most experts in the field and inconsistant with the theory of special relativity" and remove the NPA quote altogether? Readers can draw their own conclusions and wikipedia isn't being used to either promote Tom's ideas or misrepresent Tom's views.Mikevf (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy" - - - Guilt By Association?

One editor here has claimed (repeatedly) that there is no verifiable evidence that TVF espoused the possibility of infinite free energy based on the phenomenon of gravitational shielding implicit in Le Sage gravity. The editor acknowledges that TVF "was at a conference" devoted to the subject of infinite energy, but maintains that to cite this attendence as evidence that TVF himself espoused the possibility of infinite free energy is an assertion of "guilt by association". In response, it has been pointed out (repeatedly) that TVF did not merely "attend" the conference in question, he was actually one of the scheduled speakers, and he gave a presentation entitled "A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy". This confirms that TVF did indeed espouse (and speak publically on) "free energy" as an implication of Le Sage gravity. (Hopefully no one is going to claim that TVF included the words "Free Energy" in the title of his talk, but said nothing about it in the talk itself.) Of course, TVF wasn't the first to notice that Le Sage gravity implies the possibility of limitless free energy (see Kelvin in the 1870s), but he certainly presented this in a public conference, so I don't see any justification for removing the three words devoted to this verifiable fact in the article.6324xxxx (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that people normally don't use the phrase "guilt by association" unless they regard the association in question as disreputable. For example, if someone claims a airline pilot is skillful solely because the pilot once worked with Captain "Sully", no rational person would refer to this claim as an example of "guilt by association". Nevertheless, this is how the editor who introduced that phrase has asked us to interpret his remark. I think it would be uncharitable for anyone to question or examine his use of that phrase any further, let alone to suggest that it was a hiliarious Freudian slip on his part. In Wikipedia it's important to keep the discussion civil and to assume good faith.6324xxxx (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we were having this discussion in the above topic, Most Recent Biography of Dr. Van Flandern, and you state your reasons for thinking that Dr. Van Flandern believed in Free Energy. I write several paragraphs pointing out your errors - in fact your outright dishonest presentation and quotation of articles found on the internet. I go so far as to provide the web links to these articles for other editors to see how you manipulated and truncated the article to make it appear that Dr. Van Flandern spoke about the limitless free energy possibilities of gravity shielding. Rather than continue the discussion, or in hopes editors will forget that discussion, you open up this brand new topic and re-state your already-proven-wrong ideas about the free energy angle.

For other editors, the two articles cited are reviews/reports of the Conference on Free Energy (COFE) found here http://users.erols.com/iri/COFEReview.htm and here http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/cofe.html Both "Physics of Gravity" and "Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy" are listed as the title of his talk in the articles. Although editor 6324 wishes to infer from these titles and the title of the conference that Dr. Van Flandern was a proponent of free energy, the editor has failed to produce or cite a copy of Dr. Van Flandern's talk. In fact, it is possible that Dr. Van Flandern said in his talk that free energy was not possible - unlikely, but no one actually knows, especially editor 6324. However, based on editor 6324's explanation alone, we have included a reference to Dr. Van Flandern's promotion of free energy in the biography.

I do not appreciate my discussion on this topic being "swept under the table" by editor 6324 in this fashion. I am in agreement with editor MikeVF that nothing constructive is coming from the discussions with editor 6324. I am also tired of being insulted by editor 6324 and the insulting language he uses against other editors and the deceased person this biography is about. Further, I note that I am not the only person coming to this conclusion. Editor Csv2009 points out under the above topic "Objective Text, Integrity of Wikipedia" that, "I suggest that author 6324 might be too emotionally involved and may want to recuse themselves from further edits." I could not agree more. Akuvar (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap, TVF gave a presentation at a public conference on Infinite Free energy, and his talk was entitled "A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy", and the reviewer who reported on this talk described how "c-gravitons" (note, a TVF neoligism) can be blocked to allow the production of a perpetual motion machine and infinite free energy, which of course is a well known consequence of the Le Sage gravity model that TVF espoused. After carefully considering all this verifiable information, which I went to the trouble to provide to him (by the way, you're welcome), editor Akuvar asserts that I have given an

"...outright dishonest presentation and quotation of articles found on the internet... to make it appear that Dr. Van Flandern spoke about the limitless free energy possibilities of gravity shielding."

Editor Akuvar goes on to inform us that "it is possible that Dr. Van Flandern said in his talk that free energy was not possible - unlikely, but no one actually knows, especially editor 6324". (He doesn't explain why one particular editor, the one who pointed out the conference in the first place, should be especially ignorant of this, but never mind.) He then concludes by inviting me (yet again) to go away, on the grounds that my edits and comments are consistently misguided.

It's hard to know what to make of this. Let me just re-iterate that I think any rational person would agree that TVF spoke at the referenced conference about the infinite free energy implicit in the Le Sage gravity model. If a consensus of editors thinks it would be preferable, we could replace the three words in the article that currently mention this point with several sentences giving the Infinite Energy conference report, the title of TVF's talk, the reviewer's comment, and the background on how Le Sage gravity implies perpetual motion machines. Then we could even include a quote from Akuvar stating that, in his opinion, TVF may, for all we know, have spoken AGAINST the possibility of free energy from Le Sage gravity (which of course would have been erroneous, since it is known from reputable sources that Le Sage gravity DOES imply infinite free energy). Indeed, if Akuvar has any other "unlikely" speculations, totally at odds with the facts and rational thought (perhaps relating to unicorns, noodles, or the Apollo moon landings?), we could include those in the article as well... but only if a consensus of editors concludes that this would conform with Wikipedia policy. My view is that the existing article has it right, and Akuvar's comments can be safely set aside.

One more point: I hope no one is thinking that editor Akuvar regards a belief in infinite free energy and perpetual motion machines as disreputable. He has assured us that this is not the case. (Perish the thought!) Or rather, he has informed us that we don't know that this is the case. For all we know, he may be a proponent of infinite free energy himself... or he may not be. His focus on exonerating TVF from any association with "limitless free energy" does not in any way imply (or even infer) any particular attitude toward the subject. And when I say "exonerate", I hope no one infers (or even implies) that I think such an association would be disreputable if it did exist. I merely used the word "exonerate" in the same spirit that Akuvar used "guilt by association", i.e., not to be interpreted rationally.6324xxxx (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cessation of Non-Productive Dialogue

All editors please take note: because of editor 6324’s constant personal attacks, use of derogatory terms when referring to others, and the editor’s failure to enter into any meaningful dialogue, I am ceasing to acknowledge editor 6324’s comments on this page. This page is for dialogue and editor 6324 consistently fails to answer questions about statements made, provide citations, and usually resorts to changing the subject rather than continue a dialogue. When editor 6324's statements are shown to be false, rather than acknowledge that, the editor changes the subject, only to return to it later making the same false statements. I also feel that editor 6324 is deliberately misleading other editors when quoting outside sources, and I have provided the links and proofs of this in my dialogues. Based on my experiences, and having read editor 6324’s responses to other editors, I believe, as wiki-editor Csv2009 stated, “"…that author 6324 might be too emotionally involved and may want to recuse themselves from further edits." I have tried to be honest in my assessment and my opinion in writing this, however I know that editor 6324 will challenge it, but I will not be responding to any further posts from that editor. I am more than happy to discuss changes to the Tom Van Flandern biography with any other editor. Akuvar (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As editor Akuvar has declined to make any specific allegations, and has chosen not to identify any of the false statements that he claims I've made, his comment isn't very useful. I'll just say that Akuvar's participation here has been entirely focused on his contention that the article is incorrect when it states that TVF endorsed limitless free energy. In support of the article's statement, I've not only provided references (e.g., Kelvin) to the well known fact that Le Sage gravity theory (which everyone agrees TVF championed) implies the possibility of perpetual motion machines, I've also cited the Infinite Energy conference at which TVF spoke in 1999. The abstract for his talk is presented below:

Tom Van Flandern "Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy"

Propagation of gravity has been experimentally shown to exceed the speed of light (Phys. Lett A 250, #1-3, 1-11, 1999). This indicates that a flat-spacetime particle gravity interpretation (originally attributed to LeSage) may be the preferred model. The LeSage perspective also provides the best information for free energy sources since the sea of classical gravitons can in principle be used for propulsion as easily as a windmill.

Editor Akuvar contends that TVF might have said at this conference that free energy is NOT possible from Le Sage gravity, but as far as I can see there is no basis in verifiable fact for his contention. The above abstract explicitly refers to Le Sage gravity as providing the possibility of free energy sources. 6324xxxx (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this talk page still being used?

Is this talk page still being used? The last edit (that wasn't mine) was 16 April, 2009. It's getting big and, therefore, should it be blanked? Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What does Carlip's PLA paper really say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the article abstract:

Apparently, Lorentzian relativity better describes nature than special relativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again from Van Flandern's article abstract:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, as I said above this is not the adequate place to correct your misunderstandings on the issue, neither I need to correct your misreadings (e.g. I never wrote "superluminal travel"). This is a section devoted to explain what the papers cited in this talk really say and to correct some exagerated and unfair claims done against TvF. TVF was wrong in some issues (as said I do not support his theories), but this does not mean anything unacarate or unfair can be said about him.

The indisputable facts are that (1) TvF wrote in the abstract of his PLA paper:

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

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

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

[...]

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

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