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
Archive 1 (2004–2008) Archive 2 (January–March 2009) Archive 3 (March–April 2009) Archive 4 (April–June 2009)

What does Carlip's PLA paper really say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the article abstract:

Apparently, Lorentzian relativity better describes nature than special relativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again from Van Flandern's article abstract:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meta Research website edits

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

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

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

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

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

New Section Formatting Seems Broken

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

Article revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Note to user 6324xxxx. This is not neither a forum for physics nor for discussion of the perceived quality or credentials of those scientists.) JuanR (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)