Maybe I can help, but I worry that I am entering a nasty food fight instead of an intelligent discussion. Personally, I like the current version, but would like it to be pushing "Pushing Gravity" a good bit less, so that it is not being implied LeSage gravity is suddenly being validated.
IMO, the business about Fabio is very POV and derogatory. I do not approve of LeSage gravity myself, but feel that if something is worth mentioning in WIkipeidia then it is worth being treated respectfully. The issues to be dealt with are ones of what LeSage gravity is, why it lacks mainstream support, and what the current versions of it are. In discussing any specific version, there needs to be a breif description of what is begin called for and the pros and cons associated with it. Also, there must be no question about its being made clear that the mainstream view of LeSage gravity is that it does not work and given the overall success to date of general relativity that it is not needed. (This is not to stifle the speculation about the Pioneer anomaly however, but even for that it is anticipated that there is a more mundane explanation.)
I hope I can be helpful, but as things stand now I am just as happy to see this page remain locked. --EMS | Talk02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I for one would welcome this and abide by the decision of the mediator. How about it? User talk:71.132.13.87
I hope that all will take advantage of this as keeping the page protected serves nobody. I would also suggest that you all take a few days off to stop and think and come back with without the argumentive stance that I see here. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for Resolving the Dispute: Follow Wikipedia Policy
I think all contributors to this article ought to adhere to the Wikipedia policy, and I believe that, if this is done, the dispute will be resolved. It would be helpful if each participant in this discussion would state now, for the record, whether they do or do not intend to adhere to Wikipedia policy. (Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but for some reason the participants in this particular discussion seems reluctant to endorse the policy. If the disagreement here is (as it seems) really over the basic principles of Wikipedia, then that should be made clear. For ease of reference, the relevant policy statements are shown below.
Begin Quote
Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
What counts as a reputable publication?
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
End quote
63.24.59.10613:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (63.24.39.xx, 63.24.59.xx etc. are apparently geolocated near Nashua, NH, and is apparently registered to UUNET Technologies, Inc. in Ashburn, VA)
Here is my proposal:
You both get Wikipedia user-IDs and use them.
You both state specifically how you want this page to editted.
You both leave off of ancillary issues.
On this business of "following Wikipedia policy", I am not amused. I keep seeing POV warriers blatantly misinterpreting the policy to suit themselves. In this situation, what is "reputable" is a good question. Oddly, in this context, "Pushing Gravity" is an acceptable primary source about current speculations regarding LeSage gravity and possibly also about the history of LeSage gravity. Note my emphasis, however. While acceptable in one context, "Pushing Gravity" does not give mainstream legitimacy to LeSage gravity or to any of its variations. That must occur as documented in mainstream scientific journals, and that just plain is not happenning.
With regards to the Wikipedia NPOV policy, it is important that this article
not endorse any opinion of LeSage gravity (including the mainstream one), and
be factually accurate.
The most important fact to me is that this is not a mainstream view. However, that is to be documented and made clear, but not shoved down people's throats. Secondarily is the current state of theorizing along these lines (including a mention of "Pushing Gravity"). I can accept a mention of the Pioneer anomaly as possible evidence for a LeSage-type mechanism at work, as long as it also mentioned that the prevailing mainstream opinion is that the explanation for it is expected to be much more mundane.
The Wiki policy wasn't posted for anyone's amusement, nor was it was posted for the purpose of misrepresenting it. It was posted, verbatim, along with a proposal that people adhere to it. As to the question of what is "reputable", the policy explicitly answers that question for sources of scientific material: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." You are perfectly correct that ANY document, including Pushing Gravity, is a valid primary source for itself. This has been pointed out several times already in this discussion. If someone wants to write a Wikipedia article on the book Pushing Gravity, then the book is certainly a valid primary source of information about what the book Pushing Gravity says. Even in an article on Lesage Gravity it could be cited as a primary source, but not by referring to it as "scientific research", because it doesn't qualify as that under the Wikipedia policy. It can be cited as evidence of continuing interest in the subject by individuals who find themselves dissatisfied with mainstream science. This is precisely what an earlier version of the article said, but it was objected to by a contributor and editor of that book.
Your proposal for people to post specific suggestions for how the page should be edited is a bit late. This discussion began with me posting two versions of the introduction, and trying to reconcile them. We got agree on EVERYTHING except for ONE single word ("individual" or "researcher"), so we were within INCHES of having the whole introduction agreed.... and then MRE entered the discussion, with a large number of objections to the agreed version... all based on references to his Pushing Gravity.... and so we end up where we are.
I can only repeat my request for people to agree that we ought to adhere to the Wikipedia policy. So far, not ONE other person in this discussion has indicated that he is willing to do so. All we have is Mr. Parallax telling us he is not amused by the policy. The policy wasn't designed to be amusing, it was designed to be followed, so that Wikipedia science articles would not be overrun by physics crackpots. The question of whether it will work in the long run remains in doubt. 130.76.32.2317:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, about calling me "Mr. Parallax": I thank you for acknowledging my own research. Now it would be nice if you would also acknowledge that I have made no attempt to place it in the article space per the original research policy. Personally I see a lot of "play" in that policy. For myself, I cannot see that original publication of my work as being sufficient to warrant mention here. However, LeSage gravity is way beyond that point. Indeed, the work of Halton Arp and Tom Van Flandern have attracted some reasonable amount of notice (not all of it good, however). Indeed, it is being noticed by the mainstream that makes things encyclopedic, not peer-review publication in and of itself. (However, most work like mine that has not achieved notice is not published in a peer-review journal either, which is why this rule as stated is in general a good one.)
Beyond that, I have an offer to make: If you and the other anon can come to terms, I will support the both of you against MRE. The admin who locked the page wants to unlock it, and I don't want to make this a 3-way battle even though I have my own POV on this. Look at it this way: A 3-to-1 edit war is an impossible proposition. --EMS | Talk01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I was willing to live with anom derogatory biasing statements in the introduction section as a compromise to resolve this issue. However, the one sentence that I proposed on keeping anom objected to. This told me that this anom had no real interest in resolving the bias issue and is only interested in getting his way. I believe that Matthew R. Edwards (MRE), like myself (and it seems perhaps you) only wants to see the LeSage article present this concept in a fair, factual, and unbiased manner. As you can see in the above passages I have offered compromises as have MRE, 63.24. ...etc. have not. I actually agree with MRE's comments and think they should be included, these would improve the quality of the section in question. This article should be brief presentation that accurately provides a description, history, specific distingushing features and predictions, and its current status of development in an accurate, neutral manner. This is the goal. The goal is not to bash or praise the model. It is not to claim the concept is true, proven or mainstream. It also not to claim the idea is fractured ceramics ... etc. Over the next few days I'll take up your offer above and work up specifically how I think introduction section should be presented. Unless otherwise stated I'll assume that the other sections are to be left alone. The one thing I hope will not happen is the moment the protection is lifted the edit war resumes. User talk:71.132.13.87 (apparently geolocated near Novato, CA, near San Rafael, CA, and apparently registered Southwestern Bell Internet Services)
Please craft your proposed text in accord with Wikipedia policy. This means it must consist of facts verifiable from reputable publications, meaning "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications". Also, please bear in mind that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Original research is not to be included. The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
There are several good reputable sources on the subject of Lesage gravity, and of course there are primary sources available, such as the writings of Fatio, Huygens, Newton, Lesage, and others. None of those sources presents or supports the claims you wish to make in this article. In fact, all of those sources contradict the claims you wish to make. So, I think it's extremely unlikely that the draft you come up with will comply with Wikipedia policy... but by all means, give it a try. By the way, you say "you'll assume the other sections are to be left alone". The other sections will not be left alone. All the sections need to comply with Wikipedia policy... which STILL no one in this discussion (other than me) can bring himself to acknowledge. 63.24.126.1206:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Given what 63.24.126.12 is writing, I will change my offer. If MRE and the other anon can come to an agreement, I am willing to support them. However, do be aware that I cannot and will not accept text that validates and/or endores LeSage gravity (or a similar theory) as an accepted or acceptable scientific theory. Given that MRE is very pro-LeSage-gravity, and given the recent presense of text in the article that is unacceptable under the above constraint, I have my doubts that this will work. At the least, you two may need to compromise with myself also.
To 63.24.126.12 - There is nothing more annoying to me than a "high priest" of mainstream physics. The mainstream view is not one that needs to be blindly and rigrously defended. After all, given the scientific method it got be the mainstream view by suriving being beaten on in all sorts of ways. As of now I do not want to hear you repeat Wikipedia policy again. Period! If something in the agreed upon compromise of the other two impresses you as improper under that policy, then you can state what it is and make your case that it is improper. I may well support you on it as I am suspiscious of the other two myself. However, if the others are willing to work within the constraint that LeSage gravity is not mainstream and this must be acknowledged and respected, then a workable article that I can also stand behind will result. If not, then I am not sure what I will do, as your Fatio comments are totally unacceptable and unencyclopedic; they are trivial, totally biased, and highly derogatory of LeSage gravity. Any subject in the encyclopedia must be treated with some basic respect, even one that you do not like. --EMS | Talk16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Let me make something else clear: Being published in a respoectable source is a necessary condition for something being presentable in Wikipedia, but it is not sufficient to justify it. --EMS | Talk16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
EMS, by the other anon do you mean #71__? I think an agreement there might be possible. #71, I would prefer taking out the specific citations to one article in PG that are in the current version. It would be better to state in a more genaral way that there are some people working on LeSage gravity, as in the December 31 version. I am willing to attempt an edit that would bring the article close to where everyone, except maybe one, might accept it. A concern I have though is how the article won't quickly fall apart again, by injudicious edits from both pro- and contra-LeSage sides?MRE19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
MRE - #71___ is the anon that I am refering to. I have just looked at the December 31 version, and that certainly represents to me a good state for this article. Here is a link for you: User:MRE/LeSage gravity. Feel free to copy this article there and start doing edits there. The process is:
Click on the "article" tab here.
Click on the "view source" tab for the article.
Click in the source and select it all (CRTL/A) and then copy it (CRTL/C).
Come back to this page and click on the link.
Paste the source into the edit window that appears and get to work.
We will know that something is there when the link turns blue. Do be aware that even in the user space, anyone can edit an article. Even so, it is expected that others will respect an article in another's user space. (This is to say that it won't be touched, but rather that any edits are intended to help you achieve your goals for the article. Most often others will fix typos and grammar unless permission is given to do more.)
As for your concern about the article "falling apart" again: We will just have to see if we can get a group of the physics editors together to watch this page and keep the nutcases at bay. However, before we can get to that stage, we need to have our act together with respect to how we want the article to look. I remain worried about how you will approach it, but so far your words are those of a conscientious editor who has a sense of where LeSage gravity fits and what its level of acceptance is. Remember that once the page is unlocked, anything goes. Users (even anons) can be blocked, but overall the most discrouraging thing for an editor is for their edits to just plain not stick. --EMS | Talk04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I just discovered another option: Semi-protection, whereby only registered users can edit a page. That is a possibility here. --EMS | Talk04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ed, do you know who David Gregory was? Do you know anything about Nicolas Fatio and his relationship with Newton? Have you read Fatio's writings? Have you read Lesage's writings? Do you know that the comment to which you so vehemently object is among the most famous (and well-documented) quotes about Newton's view of Fatio's ideas? Are you familiar with the other famous quote ("He did not scruple to say...")? Do you know how and when Lesage said he himself came up with his model of gravity? Have you even taken 10 minutes to do a little browsing on the web and learn something about all this? Or could it be that you are trying to make judgements about a subject you know nothing about? My suggestion to you is the same as it has always been... LEARN something about a subject BEFORE you begin imagining that you're qualified to form meaningful judgements about it. 63.24.114.5104:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to be an expert of the topic to know a derogatory edit when I see it. This is about tone more than substance at this time. I don't know who you are, but I can tell that you have made a study of this. Even so, you are not the first expert that I have run across who is an absolutely horrible editor. You need to look at the NPOV policy, and look closely. It may sound odd to you, but expert opinions are rarely neutral ones. If you are to edit here, you have to respect both the medium that you are using (Wikipedia) and the subject itself. I don't see LeSage gravity as having any scientific validity either, but I will not let you paint it as a pale imitation of Fatio's silliness (which is the best way of describing the tone of your edits). The facts about the theory itself (as opposed to Newton's opinions of Fatio) are what matter here. --EMS | Talk04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"A pale imitation of Fatio's silliness"?? Ed, what in the world are you talking about? Are you saying Fatio's conception of gravity was silly? If you had read the writings of Fatio and Lesage, you would know that Fatio's theory and Lesage's theory are identical, with the exception that Fatio actually had a more sophisticated appreciation of some of the subtle aspects of the model. How in the world can you say Fatio's model of gravity was "silly" while at the same time saying that Lesage's model (which is identical to Fatio's) must be treated with respect? Ed, on the surface of it, it appears that you don't have a hint of a clue of what you are talking about. And what's worse, you've now placed yourself under the guidance of two other crackpots, both members of the Pushing Gravity cadre. So we now have an alliance of three recognized physics crackpots, openly scheming to commandeer a Wikipedia article. This is really sad.
The point that I was trying to make is that Fatio's work being "silly" is the tone of your edits. "Newton smiled at Fatio", for instance. The placement and wording of your edits reek of insinuation and a put-down of the theory. if you do not see it that way, then go to the history, look again, and explain to me just what you are trying to express.
Ed, I know this goes against every grain of your natural crackpot parallax mentality, but I seriously urge you to at least acquaint yourself with the subject before you undertake to write an encyclopedia article about it. 63.24.108.6813:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for you encouraging words, EMS. I'll be happy to attempt a reworking of the article. Anon #71, I had a look at your revision on your talk page and find that, while the citation to the PG paper has been removed, the ideas in the paper are still all there. I don't think that is sufficient. Also, the chapter headings are not the best. I think the original ones, including "Objections to the Theory", spell things out better for the reader. EMS, I think that semi-protection could be needed here, or the article will spiral out of control again.
I don't know how 63.24.108.68's behaviour can be tolerated in Wikipedia. He's like the worst of the physics discussion boards. He feels free to insult people by name, while himself remaining anonymous. As for his claiming expertise on Fatio/Le Sage, this doesn't wash. I suspect he's gotten everything directly from the web. For a historical subject like this one really does need to use original sources. As an example, I've just had a closer look at the link "Lesage's shadows" accompanying the article and see that (1) there is no author and (2) there are the same kind of slights towards Le Sage as 63.24.108.68 uses. Le Sage's theory is referred to as childish in one section, and in another it accuses Le Sage of not acknowledging Fatio, even though he had Fatio's papers. In other words, a bit of academic mischief-making. Perhaps 63.24.108.68 never got farther than this article. I would suggest taking out the link to "Lesage's shadows". It has some correct info, but it's tainted.MRE16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
MRE - On the issue of 63.24.108.68's level of expertise, you don't know what you are talking about. That anon is reading my level of expertise just about right, and it gives me some reason to respect him. I strongly suspect that he has read extensively on this, including having read writing of Fatio and LeSage which I am only now becoming aware of. However, on the issue of behavior and tone, you are right on. On the other hand, to quote a comment of 63.24.108.68 to me:
And what's worse, you've now placed yourself under the guidance of two other crackpots, both members of the Pushing Gravity cadre. ... This is really sad.
To be blunt about it, I actually agree with 63.24.108.68 on this point. It really is sad that I am unable to work with him to create a good article on this topic, as he does appear to me to be a genuine expert. However, if you at all share my ability to set aside biases (as I have been careful to do in the general relativity page in spite of my personally feeling that GR is not totally correct), then you may well be the better editor.
To 63.24.108.68 - I don't trust you to edit this page, and I would rather not do it myself since I indeed am not well-aquainted with the topic. However, I can moderate if you will let me. I am quite happy to listen to any complaint that you have about MRE's edits. However, you will need to be specific in your criticisms and tell me very specifically where to find the appropriate source material so that I can verify it should MRE disagree with your suggestion. Also be advised that tone is every bit as important as content in this case. --EMS | Talk16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the Wikipedia policy (remember, that thing you don't want to hear about, and you refuse to accept as the governing principle of editing Wikipedia) is that _trust_ is not involved. Science articles are supposed to consist ONLY of material that is verifiable from reputable publications, and what constitutes a reputable publication is clearly defined in the policy. So, if somone adds something you think is fishy (assuming you are knowledgable enough to have an informed opinion as to what is fishy), you would challenge them to provide a reference to a reputable source. If no such reference if forthcoming, the item is deleted. This is the only way to protect Wiki science articles from being over-run by what the Wiki policy refers to as "physics cranks". That's not my term, that is the term used in the Wiki policy. You may feel that the founders of Wikipedia were not being "respectful" to people such as Paul and Matt when they described the anti-crank policy, but your feelings are irrelevant. This is Wikipedia policy. As a case in point, you will find that Paul insists on including unverifiable crap about "fling" and Pioneer explanations and mild planetary heating, all of which is, shall we say, "original research". None of it is verifiable from a reputable source. None of it belongs in Wikipedia under the heading of scientific research. If you want to identify the fact that Lesage Gravity, like perpetual motion machines, continues to attract interest among individuals who find themselves dissatisfied with mainstream science, that's fine, and you can cite Pushing Gravity as an example. But this is never going to satisfy Paul. His SOLE purpose here is to inject his crank ideas into Wikipedia in a way that suggests those ideas are scientific research. You will either have to be an accomplice, or an opponent of his campaign. 63.24.45.13513:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
63.24.45.135 - You are now being sensible and even somewhat polite. For both I thank you. The "sensible" part is in your concern that I may end up as an "accomplice" of the pro-LeSage campaign. That is legitimate and is why I would like you to continue to participate here. I assure you that I have no intention of letting LeSage gravity be presented as a mainstream or even a potentially mainstream view, but I am willing to let some of the Pushing Gravity assertion be listed as long as the whole is properly bottled up and labelled as non-mainstream. As I see it, the pro-LeSage forces have garnered a small but significant amount and lay interest and support, and so deserve a small but significant amount of coverage here. I request that you help me to sqeeze a reasonable article out of the others, and then if you feel that the article has too much pro-LeSage content to file a Request for Comment. Because of the a recent precedent and the subject of this article, I feel that "Pushing Gravity" is somewhat relevant here, but I would happily respect an administrative decision that this is being too liberal. --EMS | Talk17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have created a draft for this article at User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/LeSage gravity. 63.24.45.135 - You are welcome to place a description of the history of LeSage gravity in the article in the now empty section "History". Kindly do me a favor and use the <ref> and <reference/> tags as described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. I would also love to have the assertion of the problems with LeSage gravity similarly documented. I assure you that I am happy to use your expertise and orientation in crafting a versison of this article. --EMS | Talk18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
71.132.13.87's version
OK, my first draft at a total revision of this page can be found on my sig. Note, I have removed all references to Pushing Gravity. User talk:71.132.13.87
Thanks, but no thanks. It may be a start, but it is very pro-LeSage gravity even though it is also fairly well-written. Let's see how MRE wants to edit it. --EMS | Talk16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have looked at your edits some more. The big thing that bugs me is your replacing the "Interaction with modern physics" section with the "Characteristics of LeSage gravity" section that makes all the pro-LeSage gravity points that you want, but without mentioning "Pushing Gravity".
I'm sorry and mean no offense (please believe that) but the title of the section was proposed because it is factually that. Indeed I doubt even 63.24. ... would dispute that LeSage's model predicts (therefore has) these following characteristics,
1. Induction heating due to power dissipation passing through matter
2. A dynamically induced drag when in motion relative to the isotropic frame of the field
3. An aberration (outward directed fling) due to the retarded potential resulting from any finite speed ¢
4. A reference frame dragging effect due to field interaction in a rotating body
5. An occultation effect when multiple bodies are aligned
6. Finite range in propagation of effects if the field is at all has any self attenuation property
That is actually less accetable since you are not documenting your source and are avoiding the detailed listing of specific problems with the theory.
Isn't that the problem when trying to walk a tightrope. I prefer referencing (as I discussed earlier) but I thought staying with a general overview presentation would be sufficent to convey the information about these aspects of the actual model, and, I did not avoid listing the problems. They are all included in the list (above), and are in that section. Heating, drag, fling, ... etc. In other words, the things that are the very characteristics of the model are also exactly that which makes the model contentious. Maxwell is mentioned about the problem with heat. The drag and aberration are both usually separately cited as elements that disprove the theory because of the spiral deaths each alone predicts.
I would much rather that the "Interactions ..." section be retained, but the Pushing Gravity references be removed from that section.
I retained the section and tried to change the title to more closely match what it was doing. However, I am not married to any single element however.
However, if they could be gathered together in the "recent ... revival" section and with some edits to make the tone neutral (using wording like "it is claimed" instead of "it has been shown") then they may become acceptable. Even then, be aware that the "recent revival" is a strongly minority view, and it therefore only deserves a minority of the article in coverage.
The other thing that bugs me in your assertion that LeSage's work was independent of Fatio's. Unless you can produce a scholarly source for this assertion, I must consider it to be false. On issues of historical fact I would sooner use the views of the other anon, although I would appreciate his Citing sources also. --EMS | Talk18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I do not wish to debate dueling sources. I have reworded that section. Finally, as I mentioned up above this was meant to be a draft, a proposal. I did not, not should any of us expect to get their version in completely unaltered. User talk:71.132.13.87
Well at least you have a good intro/lead now. Now that you are not longer fighting #73__ on the issue of the relationship between Fatio and LeSage, it is quite nice. I will still quibble with the overall structure and orientation. I really feel that the problems with LeSage gravity and how they disqualify LeSage gravity from the mainstream viewpoint need to be described on their own. The refuatations of people like yourself as you attempt to tune the threory (or theories) to fit observation belong in the "recent attempts at a revival" section. The problem is that you are mixing mainstream concerns and -uh- "minority viewpoint" rebuttals together, creating the impression of mainstream acceptance (or at least mainstream consideration) of those rebuttals. So your version is quite misleading and lacking in NPOV becuase of its overwhelming support for a minority viewpoint. --EMS | Talk03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've attempted to add your suggested objection section, see what you think User talk:71.132.13.87
You don't get it. You have to restore the current "Interactions with modern physics" section and remove the pro-LeSage content from it.
If I don't get it perhaps its because I cannot read your mind. Comments like pro-LeSage don't explain your specific issue(s). My approach was to present first a brief overview (40,000 ft level), then a basic description of the overall process (1000 ft level), then all the main characterisitics of the physical model, then attempts at revival etc. As far as I'm aware, both the overview section and the characteristics section do not contain any subjective topics. Energy deposition, drag, aberrational fling, occultation, and even rotational field dragging are actual physical aspects inherent to the concept. By reading your version I get a clue as to what you perceive as pro. You removed the sentence on the mention of heating resolution (that's fine), removed all mention of aberration and the undisputed fact that this acts in opposition to drag in orbital dynamics (that's not). I suppose that perhaps you were/are unaware of this but it is common knowledge, and even Dr. Steve Carlip will tell you so. See [[1]] or see Lightman et al., Problem book in relativity and gravitation_, problem 12.4.
Your "objections" section is an attempt to bottle up the objection to the theory, whereas IMO it is yopr pro-LeSage view that needs to be isolated. I once again repeat my view that I would prefer to see what MRE would like to do with this article. You are trying, but have not succeeded in setting aside your biases. Let me see if MRE can. In the meantime, I will try an edit of my own. --EMS | Talk17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well MRE has put his initial draft up. My intention was not to bottle up the objections but give them clarity by referencing back to the specific characteristics of the model. In fact, I expected to increase this section as specific comments came in. The intent was to emphasize, not bottle up. User talk:71.132.13.87
For EMS's information I have now placed the mathematical derivation of the energy input for a weak LeSage attenuator. It is easy to show from this expression that the predicted extreme heating does not occur. User talk:71.132.13.87
This only demonstrates that overall problem with your editing: You are trying to promote LeSage gravity instead of merely describing it. That looks like an OK calculation to me, but unless you can give me a mainstream reference for it, it also qualifies as original research. Let me put it to you this way: The #63__ anon is not totally wet behind the ears with his insistance that Wikipedia policy be adhered to. I feel that some interpretation of the policy is involved, and in the case of this article it is unfair to the readers to use Wikipedia policy to remove any reference to the current work on the topic. However, this article must be neutral in tone and firmly grounded in its content. The bext I can do for you is to permit a few important and well documented claims such as this to be presented in the "current status" section in the draft currently at User:MRE/LeSage gravity. Note however, that the description of such this must begin with "It is claimed", and not "It is known" or "It has been shown". (Note that "Pushing Gravity" is an acceptable source for such a claim when placed in the "Current Status" section however.) EMS | Talk 14:09, April 8, 2006 (EDT) (or oops! I fogot to sign this eariler.)
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. This was on my discussion page and not incorporated in the proposed article section because it was for your information only. And yes, it is original research and thus could not be directly referenced as vetted. But, as you can see, it is a simple, straight forward proof that excessive heating will not occur from this process. The devil is always in the details and not in back of the envelope handwaving estimations. Those of the past have alway tried to start from Newton's gravitational equation. So yes, I agree that mention as claimed should be in the Current Status section.
First of all, you need to sign all of your talk-page postings. This is best done by using 4 tildes (~~~~) whcih when not in a nowiki block will be automatically translated into your user-ID along with a timestamp. You should also be using the user-ID that you just got for yourself. You should also contact an administrator about having your user page and and user-talk page moved to your user-ID's user space. BTW, the third button from the right above the edit window when you are logged in will give you the signature code prefixed with two dashes.
As for your research, I am glad to see that you recognize it as such. Now please be aware that I do not personally accept or approve of LeSage gravity. I am here to help moderate the discussion and create an agreement. I am also here as someone who has scrupulously refused to deacribe his own original research in the article space (but you can see a description of it on my user page if you have not done so already). So I am not going to be sympathetic towards the attempts of others to place original research into the article space. I will do my utmost to be fair and reasonable in my use of Wikipedia policy, and am willing to be flexible in this situation. But while I may be able to bend the rules, I will not break them. So I am willing to work with you as best I can, but you need to be aware of the fact that you are quite biased on this issue. If you are to be a good editor, you need be able to distinguish between your own beliefs and the overall world view on this topic which you as an editor are expected to document.
So while I thank you for sharing that calculation with me, you are none-the-less advised that I am not about to support your views, and that anything of the sort that you present me will be examined with the question "should this be included in WIkipedia?" in the back on my mind. --EMS | Talk03:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, my second draft of this page can be found on my sig. Note, I attempted to incorporate MRE edits and come up with a composite to be considered. I do not expect that any of the text is cast in concrete but please make specific comments that can be directly addressed. If something is perceived as POV or biased then say what, specifically it is about the text is creating this impression. I'm taking the liberty to chop this section down. If there are objections I will restore the edited out sections. User talk:LeSagian April 8, 2006
I must object. The talk pages are running blogs, and only in rare cases should text be removed from them. What is usually done when a talk page gets too big is that the older threads are archived. What is usually done when a thread gets too big is that a new thread (under its own heading) is started. For the sake of future editors who may wish to see the full discussion history of this page, please restore the deleted text. Thank you. --EMS | Talk02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you much. As for the your version vs. MRE's: I have just got done looking at both. Your current version is an improvement over the previous one. However, MRE's version has a much better organization is still less POV than your version. As I see MRE's version as already being "ready for prime time", and I prefer that you work with him to flesh out the "current status" section as I requested in the talk page. In the meantime, I am about to request that this article be unlocked so that MRE can more his version over. However, I do that you for you efforts. They sure beat the actions of the mainstream anon who was too busy looking down his nose at the rest to us and could not be bothered with learning how to edit in Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I happen to think it important to describe the main characterisitics of the model. I do not see this as POV any more that it would be to provide this same information of any other, like General Relativity. If I were to write an article for that theory (model) I would provide this same section mentioning frame-draggihg, Mercury's Perihelion advance, gravitational radiation and binary decay, ... etc. As for the current status I agree with what you told MRE. I will work with him on this. What POV do you still see in my present version that isn't contained in the Current Status section? User talk:LeSagian April 8, 2006
As for anon 63.24 ... I strongly suspect that he will resurface once this page is unlocked. I would strongly suggest trying semi-protection for the near term. User talk:LeSagian April 8, 2006
Suggestions for 63.24.108.68
I have been giving some thought to how to use this anon's edits here, and I am beginning to see some parts of the puzzle here. The big problem with his business of "Newton smiled at Fatio's theory" is that it is being placed in the lead! 63.24.108.68 needs to see the article Wikipedia:The perfect article. The first part is the lead section, and should only be a brief expression of the subject, explaining in as quick and concise a way as possible with the article it about. Historical details can be placed in the article, but they should be in a section on the history of the subject!
Secondly, 63.24.108.68 needs to see that policies on civility and wikiquette. I realize that this editor is experiencing stress and frustration in dealing with the rest of us, but it goes both ways in this case. --EMS | Talk04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have one other suggestion: Contact Chris Hillman and ask him if he considers my work in Wikipedia to be "crackpot". I believe that you will be amazed at the response you get. --EMS | Talk04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I am not sure if the postscript was in response to a comment here--- did the uu.net anon (who has used 63.24.108.68 and several other IP addresses) actually claim that Ed's contribs connected with WikiProject GTR have been "cranky"? If so, I missed that. In any case, for the record, I am pleased to report that so far as I am aware, Ed has been very careful to avoid POV-pushing edits to the WP, despite his personal objections to the notion of a black hole as treated in gtr, which he mentions on his user page. (I don't share those particular objections, but I do recognize that there are viable theoretical objections to gtr--- I should immediately add that at present it is not clear whether one can claim that experiments/observations disagree with gtr, although the Pioneer anomaly may eventually lead to widespread recognition of a genuine problem.) I think it redounds to his credit that we have been able to work together despite this individual difference of opinion. And I think his good behavior in this respect should be emulated by all Wikipedians who happen to hold some dissident viewpoint. (Probably almost every Wikipedian holds some dissident viewpoint!) As Ed understands, the only method of overturning an established paradigm which is acceptable to scholars, while not for the impatient, the ignorant, the incompetent, or the faint of heart, is still the traditional approach, which is pretty much the only approach with any chance of success. To wit: publish papers which make such cogent criticism, and offer an alternative which is so attractive, that others gradually begin to change their methods as working astrophysicists engaged in scholarly research, ideally by carefully comparing the interpretion of observations/experiments using both gtr and the proposed alternative theory.---CH23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, uu.net anon, aka 63.24.108.68 and similar IPs: while I have not studied your many comments here in detail, my sense is that I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I am concerned by how you are saying it! Please try to moderate your comments as per WP:CIV and all other widely accepted standards of behavior here. TIA ---CH23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
MRE's version
EMS, I've been thinking that one problem with the current version is that's too short, has almost no refs and doesn't really discuss the history well enough. I looked at the very first version and it was barely a paragraph. If it's okay I'd like to extend the article a bit at this point and address some of these weaknesses. It won't take me very long to do this, maybe a day or so. I think a more solid article could be more robust against inappropriate edits. I would put the new version up at the link you gave me. Alternatively, I could do the more basic edit we discussed earlier. MRE17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This direction is quite suitable so far. I think that everyone else should go to User:MRE/LeSage_gravity, set a watch on it, and comment on it in its discussion page (at User_talk:MRE/LeSage_gravity). To the #63___ anon: I very much would like to see your comments on this page, as I am not going to research this myself. However, please do not edit it without MRE's consent. (This is part of MRE's user space after all.) BTW - My hunch that MRE could set his biases aside is panning out so far IMO. It is nice to see another -uh- "independent researcher" (as I prefer to call our ilk) who can do that. --EMS | Talk03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. To the anons: If you don't know what I mean by "setting a watch", that is because anonymous users do not have watchlists. With a watch, you know when a page has been changed. If you want that ability, then you need to become a registered user. --EMS | Talk03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
MRE's version is as bad as it could possibly be. From top to bottom it is filled with historical inaccuracies and scientific falsehoods. It is pure crackpot mythology. So we have the self-admittedly clueless Ed posing as an editor of a subject he can't be bothered to learn anything about, and Matt and Paul, two Pushing Gravity cranks, all joining forces to perpetrate this bogus article. Sadly typical. Wikipedia gets what it deserves. 63.24.39.6405:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks EMS. I'll continue on with the draft. Not to worry about anon #63. He has his own odd agenda here. To #63, if you care to challenge a single point in my draft be my guest. My own historical paper about Le Sage in PG was read by other historians on the topic and no one claimed any inaccuracies.MRE14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that #63__ has an odd agenda. What is see over and over again is contempt for the rest of us. He knows my USENET history (but not my Wikipedia history), and he seems to know who you and the other anon are FWIW. However, in this venue, you have to work with people especially if they are willing to work with you. I am happy to work with him, and I hope that you would be willing to also, but without specifics his critique of your edits is itself "as bad as it could possibly be". --EMS | Talk16:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This response of #63__ is all but useless to me. What is sad is that this anon seem to be less capable of making its case than the pro-LeSage people are. I have chosen to be a mainstream editor, but if the mainstream voice here cannot provide usable input into this process, then it is abdicating its power to affect this article to the other editors.
#63__: Both of the other anons have proposed a version. So far I have nothing from you. I have offerred you a chance to edit a version of the article in my user space. You have not touched it. You claim that MRE's version is full of inaccuracies, but you refuse to list them or to give me references. I am willing to take a evening off in the next week or two to go to a university library and review relevant documents. However, I need to walk into there knowing what to ask for. Citing sources means that a reader of the article should be able to use the references to verify the content themselves. If you are the expert that you claim to be, then you should be able to provide such references.
The choice is now yours. Either you start to work within this process or you can take your carping elsewhere. If MRE's version is really as bad as you say, then I do want it changed, but your just saying that it is bad proves nothing to me. In a sense, you seem to be engaged in a digital McCarthyism here, in which you happily make allegations but never substantiate them. So either get to work on giving the me support and material I need to ensure that this becomes a properly balanced article, or just plain shut up! --EMS | Talk14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The uu.net anon, aka User:63.24.39.64, complained about the comments of a Wikipedian whom he describes (absurdly and quite unfairly) as the "self-admittedly clueless Ed posing as an editor of a subject he can't be bothered to learn anything about". Whoa! This comment is verging on self-parody, uu.net anon, but I don't find it amusing. Please review WP:CIV and govern your behavior accordingly. If you continue to issue gratituous abuse to all and sundry, sooner or later your various incarnations here will be blocked. Is that really what you want?
Since this article has been hijacked by three dedicated physics cranks, working together and in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, determined to produce an article based on the fruits of their own "original research", and there is not enough interest from other editors at the present time to hold them in check, it seems the only sensible thing to do is to keep the article locked (or else delete it entirely). This is not an ideal solution, because the current locked article is quite bad, but it pales in comparison to what the three cranks are composing. It's a shame, because the topic itself (Fatio-Lesage gravity) has an interesting history, and it highlights some important issues involved in physical theories in general. Also, the theory did make one very impressive prediction that turned out to be correct (which, of course, is not even mentioned at all in the present article). I think the lesson here is that the Wikipedia anti-physics-crank policy can only work when an article has enough attention from a broad enough group of people that can prevent the cranks from forming a working alliance to block any attempts to enforce Wikipedia policy. 63.24.106.14613:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This article will not stay locked, and I am debating when to ask that it be reduced to partial protection. This anon is advised that I have dealt with "cranks" and blatant "crackpots" in Wikipedia many times before. There are easily identified by their shrill insistance on having exactly their own way and their inability to collaborate with others. I find it to be most intriguing that that pro-LeSage editors here are the ones who are calm and collected and trying to be helpful, while the self-declared "mainstream" editor with whom I would prefer to ally myself is acting like a crank. I do not find the views of such a person to be worthy of much respect.
I ask this anon to review my other response above and act on it. Either he provides specific, usable input or he lets MRE's developing version become the status quo by virtue of his own incompetence in this venue. --EMS | Talk14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. There are two other signs of a "crank" in Wikipedia:
being an anonymous editor, and
the inability to cite external sources that validate their case when challenged.
This page has been unlocked per my request. I think that the main "food fight" is now over, and it is time to see when ensues. In response to my plan to do have this done, User:LeSagian wrote:
As for anon 63.24 ... I strongly suspect that he will resurface once this page is unlocked. I would strongly suggest trying semi-protection for the near term.
I do not see much need for this. That anon seems to be properly chastenned at this time. Also,
Partial protection only means that this anon gets a Wikipedia userID. That still would be nice, but it can still be a mask that this person hides behind.
The anon cannot win a 3-to-1 edit war.
I think that the structure of MRE's article may help us to create more focussed changes and complaints even by this anon.
(I actually would not mind this anon reappearing, if he/she is willing to behave and be constructive in their editing and commentary. BTW: Both Lesagain and MRE are advised that it takes two to tango -- If this anon should become willing to work with you, you will then have to work with him/her. I hope that your willingness to work with me does carry over in that [admitedly unlikely] case.) --EMS | Talk16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Le Saigan's edits
Le Saigan - I found your recent edits to the "Current Status of the Theory" section to be very disturbing. First of all, you removed the names of Mingst and Stowe from the paragraph on their work, leaving its source unidentified. This is highly improper. In a case like this, the attribution is very important.
Yes I removed the names. I thought that the Ref tag 21 & 22 should be suffice.
The next disturbing thing was that you called their mechanism a "Le Saigan flux". On this matter, please see WP:AUTO. You should never write about yourself in the article space or unilaterally place your name in a position like that. If there is reason why you feel that you deserve credit instead of Mingst and Stowe, then please say so here, and let myself and MRE rule on your case. In the meantime, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --EMS | Talk03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Also something unique to the theory of Le Sage is usually called Le Sagian... Just like someone from Athens would be known as an Athenian. It certainly was not meant as self promotion. My choosen handle is LeSagian for rather obvious reasons but certainly not not as self promotion. The purpose, as always, was explanatory not promotion?
OK, now I understand your handle. My apologies on the self-promotion bit, but what you were doing is more than a bit subtle. Since I did not know your real last name, I mistook your handle for being it. As for the names: They should be given in that position, with a link to their Wikipedia article (if they should be at all notable like Halton Arp): Who is doing what is notable and encyclopedic. It is the full article references that would otherwise clutter the article that are better placed in the footnotes. As for the use of the term "Le Sagian": I think that it is too subtle and looks too much like a genuine name to be useful. It also is a neologism, and therefore its use in the article sapce is technically a violation of the No original research policy.
P.S. To the #63__ anon: Note how I am being very specific about how Wikipedia policy is being violated and not verbatim quoting the policy. This is an example that you should follow. --EMS | Talk05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this: Paul Stowe - who is to Lesage gravity as Ed Schafer is to parallax gravity - created a user ID of "Lesagian" to edit an article on Lesage theory, and you (Ed) thought "Lesagian" was his real name? Honestly? What would you think of the mental competence of someone who thought YOUR real name was Ed Parallaxian? Do you think Archimedes Plutonium was the given name of the guy who says the whole universe is a plutonium atom? I can see that I owe the clueless people of the world an apology for calling you clueless.
Anon - Kindly show me where in the article space there in a reference to parallactic gravity or to flat background general relativity (as I now call it). You can even check my edit history to see whether I have ever created any such article. I have not. Now stop and think about what that means about my attitude towards the No original research policy. So let me put it to you this way: If you want to keep treating me as your enemy, then I will be your enemy. However, if you are at all willing to treat me as a fellow editor who is also interested in keeping a lid on improper content in Wikipedia, then I may be able to help you. I would love to go down the article section by section, and get your feedback. I would love to have you be a part of this process. Instead all I get is put-downs and name-calling. Once again, either cut it out, or get out of here. I can't put it any plainer. --EMS | Talk15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No, what's really disturbing is that Parallax Ed joined forces with Matt Edwards and Paul Stowe to hijack this Wikipedia article, permitting them to use it as a soapbox to promote their Pushing Gravity pseudo-science book, citing themselves throughout the article, calling themselves "researchers" when they have zero qualifications and zero published papers in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of theoretical physics, in flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental Wikipedia policies, the policy against self-promotion. For those not familiar with it, here's the gist of it:
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, YOUR PUBLICATIONS, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [2]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing.
Ed, your performance here has been disgraceful. One can understand Matt and Paul, because they are straight-forwardly involved in shameless self-promotion, but they could have been restrained by the usual Wikipedia process if YOU had not come along to help them block the upholding of Wikipedia policy. And now, to top it all off, you claim to be disturbed to discover that Paul is writing about himself, just as Matt is doing, citing themselves in support of their own crank ideas. 63.24.125.2603:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What is disgraceful here is your seeming to think that you can achieve anything good here by calling people names, impugning thir motives (both of which are prohibited by the Wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL), and refusing to provide specifics. I have over and over again asked you for specifics. I have over and over again asked you to show me how Matt is wrong. All that I have gotten is this silly wining. You can
give me the feedback that I keep asking for, or
add your own content to the page (but please make it at least as well documented as Matt's text is, and be ready to defend it here if the others contest it), or
You have the power to improve this article if you are willing to use it. Matt has been willing to work with me, and seems genuinely willing and able to create an article about Le Sage's theory and its variants instead of wantonly promoting it. He may also be willing to work with you, but as I keep noting, this goes both ways. Kindly be polite and specific, and you may well get your way here. The other option is to ask for administrative help here through the request for comment. However, at this point you need to do something other than quote policy and complain. --EMS | Talk05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Quoting policy and pointing out that you, Matt, and Paul are flagrantly violating it, is doing something. There is no point in any serious person presenting corrections to the falsehoods and general nonsense permeating the present article so long as the cabal of crackpots that has hijacked this article refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia standards and policies in writing the article.
All that you are doing is sitting there fuming. If that is what you want to do, then so be it. However, Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures. It is your fault if you refuse to use them. It is your fault if this truly is a bad article and your bad attitude keeps you from doing anything constructive to make is better.
For you to say "at least as well-documented as Matt's" simply proves (yet again) how utterly clueless you are, since his "documentation" is self-evidently a load of crap, much of it self-citing.
IMO, you are the one who is acting clueless. This is a request to list your sources in your edits. I am asking to to use the style that Matt is using, since that is how a Wikipedia artile is supposed to be written. I realize that you disagree with the substance.
Ed, the basic point has been made over and over: Pushing Gravity is not a reputable source.
Then tell me how the historical translations in that book are wrong. IMO, Pushing Gravity is acceptable as a secondary source on the history of LeSage gravity, and as a primary source on the current state of research into it. (However I do acknowledge that such reesearch is highly fringe, and I hope that this point is well made in the article as it now stands.) According to Matt, this book has been reviewed favorably in the mainstream literature (at least for its historical content).
You have the editor and a contributor of that hobbyist book here trying to legitimize their nonsense because they were unable to get it published in any reputable publication. The basic Wikipedia policy was designed precisely to handle situations such as this.
I don't see where Le Sage's theory is original given that it has been around for hundreds of year, or where the modern variants deserve to be squashed as there is a small but measurable amount of mainstream awareness of them. I would rather let people know what is out there, and how it is seen by the mainstream, instead of acting like this is a dead theory (as opposed to a dead-end one).
It says this is not the place to hash out someone's novel physics theory. (Translation: It is pointless arguing with physics crackpots like Edwards, Stowe, and Schafer.) Wikipedia science articles are to contain ONLY material verifiable in reputable publications. This is the only policy that allows serious people to contribute without getting drawn in to endless and pointless interaction with physics cranks. Here is my concrete suggestion, Ed. Remove from the article everything that is not verifiable from reputable published sources. In other words, follow Wikipedia policy. 63.24.33.5005:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My opinion of Pushing Gravity is given in the comments inserted above. I am willing to respect an administrative opinion that I am wrong on that count, but you need to take on the job of making the case that I am wrong to them. This No original research business is not totally cut-and-dried here. This is an encyclopedic subject, and the modern work is known to the mainsteam and to lay people even if it is not accepted. Remember the cold fusion work of Pons and Fleischman: It was totally wrong and never got published in a respectable journal, but got so much press that it is encyclopedic for that reason. Furthermore, both Tom Van Flandern and Halton Arp have achieved publication and debate of their views in mainstream journals anyway. Overall, if someone can reasonably be expected to come here looking for info on the topic, it is encyclopedic. I see that as being the case here with the modern variants. --EMS | Talk14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No one disputes the legitimacy of having an article on Lesage's theory. At issue is whether the article should be entirely biased toward the physics crank view presented in the hobbyist book "Pushing Gravity". As it stands, the article is based almost entirely on citations to that book, which is not a reputable scientific publication. It was put together by a group of well-known crackpots. It is pure crackpot mythology. 63.24.107.18904:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Of the 29 references in the article how many are solely published in PG? I count five. There is also one reprinted article in PG. If ELQ22 a.k.a 63.24 anon's bigotry wasn't so bad he'd realize that less than 18% is not and does not constitute being "based almost entirely on citations to that book". But it seems to be simply impossible for this anon to behave in a civil or rational manner. User:LeSagian
The six (not five) direct Pushing Gravity references are 6, 7, 22, 23, 24, and 27. In addition there three more contributions from contributors to that volume, 21, 25, and 26 from Apeiron. The bulk of the current article is based on these nine bogus "references". The rest are just window dressing, like including Poincare's Palermo paper - while NOT including the Poincare reference that is actually relevant, in which he definitively demolished Le Sage theory. The Pushing Gravity crowd is simply engaged in a transparent attempt to promote their crank ideas and their crank book, in flagrant violation of Wikipedia etiquite against promoting your own work in articles here. If your writings are valuable, someone else will cite them. You should not cite them yourself in articles that you write here. Or at the very least, if you insist on doing so, you cannot object to having a tag notifying the reader that this article was written by the person whose work is being praised and dignified in the article. This is valid information that should not be kept from the reader.ELQ2207:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Poincare's critique could be added IMO. It didn't add much to the history of the theory, since by the time Poincare wrote it the Le Sage/Kelvin model was already long gone. Also, Poincare merely reiterates problems of the model, that had been known by Kelvin and Le Sage, relating to the heating effect of corpuscles striking ordinary matter. Any model of Le Sage gravity needs to address this point, as I've stressed throughout the newer version. But Poincare's critique should be mentioned and I'll add it.
As for the refs to PG, it was EMS who okayed this, saying that PG was a good source for the modern day versions (and I agree!). However, if there is consensus that there are too many there now, I could remove a few. I'll ignore the swipe at Apeiron.MRE16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
MRE wrote:
[I]f there is consensus that there are too many [rerefences to PG] now, I could remove a few.
Let me put it to you this way: I expect you to use good judgement and caution in citing PG. At this point, my feeling is that if you are using material from PG, it should be cited if only so that when questions are raised people know what the source is. So the real issue is not the citations IMO but instead your using PG in the first place.
Remember that since you are the editor of PG, your using it is subject to concerns under WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. It is therefore better if you can cite the background material referred to in PG instead of PG itself, but please do not do so unless you have personally reviewed that material. (If you have not reviewed the material, then PG is the real source and therefore must be cited as such.)
The bottom line here is that I have chosen to trust you on the use of PG. Obviously I would not be pleased if I became convinced that my trust had been betrayed. In any case, at this time I will stick to my position that PG materal is admissible but impeachable. --EMS | Talk03:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken two PG refs out. The ref to my own paper does make the article look like I'm trying to promote it here, so it's gone. I also took out the ref to Mingst & Stowe (1st paper), since the material referred to is more in the paper by Stowe alone. Also added mention of Poincare's critique, since ELQ22 felt it should be there and I agree.MRE14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, both for backing off of a self-reference and for conceding a point to ELQ22. That later is especially nice since ELQ22's finding that you are willing to respect his views eases the tension here and give him reason both to relax a bit and to realize that he can have his way here if he makes a good case for it. So thank you for having an open mind here: If ELQ22 will also be somewhat open-minded, I may not be needed here much longer. --EMS | Talk02:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Fatio/LeSage Historic Dispute
There is no need to rehash an old dispute over subjective interpretation of the Fatio & LeSage's history. Just quote from documented sources here and summarize in the article.
The details relating to Le Sage's conceptualization of his theory and how he reacted to the discovery of Fatio's work are all clearly laid out in J.C. Evans' paper in PG. Evans even supplies the manuscript number of Le Sage's biography materials on Fatio. If someone wishes to challenge this info, could they back it up with a ref please? It's no use just to say "read Le Sage's writings".MRE21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No one disputes that Lesage collected Fatio's writings. The point at issue is whether Lesage EVER ONCE cited Fatio in any of his published writings. The answer is no, he did not. Therefore, claims that he did so are false, and should not included in the article. The fact that your fellow crank Evans got it wrong proves only that he is, well, a crank. ELQ2222:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you dispute published sources also, quote:
That we know anything of the work of men such as Fatio is largely due to Le Sage's scrupulous and commendable habit of giving full recognition to the accomplishments of his precursors.3 Per [[2]] User:LeSagian
My advice is to leave the contested wording out. That Le Sage gave credit for priority to Fatio seems to be well established,
It isn't well established, it's false. Lesage did NOT give credit to Fatio. Lesage's published writings are all available for you (and everyone else) to read. He published these writings decades after he began collecting Fatio's papers. He does not mention Fatio ONCE in any of these writings. In fact, if you read his papers, he actually implies that he is not aware of anyone having thought of particle gravity before, although he acknowledges the possibility that someone might have. This is decades after he began collecting Fatio's papers. Draw your own conclusions. The idea that he scrupulously gave credit to Fatio is classical crackpot mythology, based on the bogus "scholarship" of crackpots who publish in places like "Pushing Gravity" that perpetuate these myths. You see up above Paul Stowe regurgitating the bogus claim, that crackpot pseudo-scholars echo back and forth to each other, when of course all he needs to do to refute me is to quote ONE SINGLE example of Lesage uttering the name Fatio. He cannot do so.
but that also seems to have been done after the fact. Matt and Paul - There is no need to inflate the reputation of Le Sage in this matter. Unless you can show that Le Sage in his published writings on the subject of gravitation gave credit for priority to Fatio, I think that it is best to let ELQ22's point stand. (I cannot give much credit to Pauls's link. A primary source trumps a secondary source. Also, I do not interpret that quote as saying that Le Sage cited Fatio in his articles on gravitation, but only that he did sooner or later credit him.) --EMS | Talk03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
EMS, are you acting as mediator on this again? ELQ22 (previously anon #63) is just muddying the waters, for reasons quite unknown. Let us first consider, should Le Sage have cited Fatio in his published works? Le Sage made his dramatic 'discovery' when he was 23 (not when he was a boy, as ELQ22 states). This is clearly established in a ltter he sent to his father the very night he made it. Soon after that one of Le Sage's teachers informed him of Fatio's work and Le Sage then tried to gather everything about Fatio and write a biography on Fatio. Le Sage's published works appeared quite a bit later, but there weren't many of these, maybe two or three altogether. Fatio is not mentioned in Lucrece Newtonien, but if you take a look at it (it's in the links to the article, use the tab +1 to turn pages) you'll see this is an unusual paper by today's standards. It is sort of an imaginary piece about how Lucretius could have gotten at gravity early if he had the knowledge that Kepler and Newton did. It is full of references to the Atomists, Epicureans, etc. The actual details of Le Sage's theory are in the appendix! Now this could have been a place to cite Fatio, but what exactly should he have cited, given that Fatio did not publish anything on this? I can't say about the other published works by Le Sage, except that one of them was published long after his death by his friend Prevost, so surely we can't blame Le Sage for not mentioning Fatio there. It is important to note that Le Sage's main impact was probably not in his published papers in any case. Le Sage corresponded with most of the leading lights of the day, including Laplace and D. Bernoulli, and it is there where he had his impact. Not many agreed with him on his theory, but it registered. One would have to check these letters to see what Le Sage said about Fatio. In Evans paper in PG, he says that Le Sage gave credit to Fatio in "all his writings". Whether that includes the other published works of Le Sage or not I can't say. Evans has been to the library in Geneva where Le Sage's papers are kept and must have based this on firsthand reading. In his paper, Evans lists the manuscript number for the Fatio biogarphy materials that Le Sage planned. To sum up, ELQ22 is attempting to smear Le Sage by suggesting that he knew about Fatio's work but didn't cite him. It is just the opposite - he knew about it and tried to spread knowledge of Fatio's little-known contribution. All of this info is too much obviously to go into the article. I think a brief mention of Fatio would do, as I had in my most recent edit. We can change the words "all his writings" to "many of his writings", since it is obviously missed in Lucrece Newtonien.
There is another larger issue here. I don't have huge amounts of time to devote to making sure the Le Sage article is not repeatedly trashed. ELQ22 does seemingly have this much time. What can Wikipedia do to protect genuine history here, such as what Evans and van Lunteren write in PG, from the chaff that ELQ22 puts out? I think that full protection of the article might be needed soon.MRE14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Matt, but you seem to be acknowledging that Le Sage did not publicly credit Fatio in his writings, which is the crux of the issue here. If that is the case, then ELQ22's edit is indeed more correct. As for the identity of ELQ22: If this really is the former anon, then I thank him for having gotten an ID, gotten specific, and at least somewhat toned down the rhetoric. Kindly realize that your edits are subject to concerns under WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:NOR. I don't see that these concerns disqualify you or Paul as editors, but given a conflict on a specific point like this the burden of proof falls on yourself to make your case. So can you or Paul cite an example where Le Sage publicly gave priority credit to Fatio on the issue of this model of gravitation? I so, then present it. I not, then kindly concede the point. As I noted above, it is your job to work with a mainstream editor if they should be willing to work with you.
P.S. I will not support full protection of this article at this time, and especially not to "protect" your work. As it says below the edit window "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". I also see PG as a being a weak but acceptable secondary source, such that given a conflict between PG and another source my preference will be the other source.
P.P.S. It is very important that everyone in this discussion treat it like a scolarly discourse, and not make insuations about the motives of the other side. I can easily bring an admin back into this mix, including their ability to block a user if that should be needed.
P.P.P.S. Might it be fair to say that Le Sage credited Fatio in "many of his private writings"? (Note that this is a suggestion. I am not about to head out to Geneva to check out Fatio's letters.) --EMS | Talk15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
EMS, I have it from James Evans that Le Sage mentioned Fatio in his writings. As mentioned above, I don't know if that includes his few public papers. (I could ask which papers on Le Sage ELQ22 has read, in the spirit of sharing information here). That Le Sage started a biography on Fatio is true. The biography materials are in the Bibliotheque Publique at Universitaire de Geneve, BPU, MS 2043. I have the e-mail address of the librarian there if you wish to confirm. So ELQ22 is wrong to change that wording. Keep in mind that the article is about Le Sage's theory, not Fatio's. It was only by coincidence that Le Sage found out about Fatio's unpublished work. The article as it stands gives the reader the impression that Le Sage stole from Fatio. This is a slander on Le Sage.
EQL22's wording about Le Sage inventing his theory "when he was a little boy" is also a distortion. If you read Lesage's shadows, you'll see that the author is trying to make Le Sage look childish. The date of the origin of the theory is clear - January 1747, when Le Sage was 23. This is in a letter Le Sage wrote to his father. EQL22 should provide a reference here if he wishes to maintain otherwise.
All in all, the business about Fatio is detracting from the article, especially as it appears now. I would like to move as much of it as possible to a footnote.MRE18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There definintely is a strong anti-Le Sage bias to ELQ22's writing. All that I can say is that normally an educated mainstream editor is not so emotional. I do support your wanting to place details in the footnotes. Those that I see (like about where Fatio's paper are) do belong there. I also support your asking this editor what he has read. I would be much happier if the two of you could resolve these issues yourselves. I suspect that given an open and thoughtful discourse both of you would learn things, but you both are going to have to be considerate and polite to the other for that to happen. (MRE - I will admit that this is less of a problem for you, but you still need to be careful.) --EMS | Talk21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
ELQ22 took all the material that was in the footnote and put it in the main text, leaving the ref tag still there. He's mangled this section. Also, if he's insisting that Le Sage never mentioned Fatio in any of his published work, he should be able to at least say what works he's read to conclude this. He should be able to give citations here. I think the issue is being overplayed to the detriment of the article.MRE22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the issue with the footnote was a lost <ref> tag, which is easy enough to do with a careless edit. I took a guess at where it belonged, and have done a correction. Feel free to correct it further if needed. As for citations, it goes both ways: Can you cite at least two cases where Le Sage gave credit to Fatio, preferably in material that could be found in a university library or in the worst case in the Library of Congress? Thanks much, --EMS | Talk02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If we use the citation rule here, I think my citation of Evans' statement that "Le Sage mentioned Fatio in all his writings" beats out ELQ22's statement, since ELQ22 is not providing a listing of Le Sage papers he has read. His statement is pure speculation. Now clearly Evans statement is not totally correct, since Fatio is not mentioned in "Lucrece Newtonien", but I think Evans was intending this statement to be a sort of general statement. He was covering Le Sage's interest in and promotion of Fatio's work. So unless ELQ22 can say he's read the published works and found no mention of Fatio, I think we should just cancel the line of Le Sage mentioning or not mentioning Fatio. By the way, the other works by Le Sage are held at only a very few libraries in the world and I would be surprised, but quite impressed, if ELQ22 has actually been able to put his hands on them. Quite honestly, I doubt that he has.MRE16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Evan's statement is at best a secondary source, and I am looking for primary source material here: Either the actual letters or a published book reproducing them. Given that you cannot name a specific source in which Fatio is cited or credited by Le Sage and given that this is a fairly minor point IMO, I suggest that you give way on it. My opinion is that the article should be neutral on this issue at this time, neither claiming that Le Sage gave Fatio credit, nor saying that Le Sage failed to do so. In the meantime, I suggest that you contact Evans and get some specifics that either myself (or preferably ELQ22) could use to verify your claim.
I very kindly counsel you to let there be some give and take on issues like this in this venue. This has to be a independent article on the subject of Le Sage gravitation, not a rehashing of PG's view of it. Towards that end, I am going to hold you to the same standards as I will hold ELQ22: I expect specifics (which you have been very good about providing BTW), and when challenged I will expect supporting citations. --EMS | Talk17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I live in the D. C. area, so I can go down to the Library of Congress to view relevant material. After all, "a very few libraries" often includes the Library of Congress. --EMS | Talk17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to find out from Evans what the story is here. In the meantime I've found a good historical reference by Rowlinson to add. I think you can access it online at [3]. On p. 2 you can clearly see quoted parts of Le Sage's letter to his father where he describes his discovery. This should put to rest ELQ22's claim that Le Sage came up with his theory "when he was a little boy", which is meant to demean Le Sage. It also shows clearly that he got his ideas independently. Someone removed that point from the article and it should be restored.MRE16:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Lesage came up with the idea when he was a little boy comes directly from Lesage himself in Lucretius. The only way to "put this to rest" is to prove that Lesage was lying when he wrote that. Is this what you are claiming? If you can substantiate that claim, then it would be okay to say so in the article, but please note that Lesage's letter to his father does not constitute proof that he was lying in Lucretius about having first conceived of the idea as a child, because he also says he didn't realize the importance of the idea at the time.63.24.109.1903:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. One of Le Sage's published writings was his "Physique Mecanique", which was assembled after his death by Pierre Prevost. It appears in Prevost's book "Deux traités de physique mécanique" (1818). It's only listed in 8 libraries in Worldcat, but one of them is the Smithsonian! So if your ever looking for an evening to kill, you could check G.-L. out on this.MRE21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So, you haven't read the account in Prevost? Why am I not surprised? Especially considering that you apparently haven't even read Lucretius Newtonian.63.24.109.1903:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Now perhaps you can see why I appreciate your input even if I do not appreciate your tone. Perhaps you can give me a good reference so that I can find Newtonian Lucretius (as it seems to be known on the web) somewhere? In the meantime this is another assertion that I advise leaving out of the article at this time. --EMS | Talk04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
We have the full-text "Lucrece Newtonien" linked to in the article. I see no basis for #63/ELQ22's claim. He does mention on p. 426 that he studied Lucretius as a boy. He received that instruction from his father. Please show me where I've missed it or drop your silly claim. And I notice that you did not mention that you had yourself read Prevost. You have nothing to base your claim on.
EMS, if you can't see the online version of Rowlinson's paper (the link did not work for me just now), the relevant part of the letter to Le Sage's father is also reprinted in Evans' paper in PG. Point is, I can back my assertion with a reference and #63/ELQ22 can't.MRE14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at the Rowlinson paper. I can't say that it impressed me much, as it talked more about chemistry than gravitation. Perhaps I should head down to the Smithsonian sometime, but first I think that I will call them and try to determine where that report may be found. --EMS | Talk02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
But the letter to his father does give the impression of when Le Sage felt he invented his theory, doesn't it?MRE18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just dug up the English translation of Lucrece Newtonien from our library stacks. ("The Newtonian Lucretius", Annual Report of the Board of Regents, Smithsonian Institution, for the year ending June 30, 1898, pp. 139-160.) On p. 157, sect. XXIX, it says "I did not take undue credit to myself when as a child a I rectified the system taught by Lucretius and drew from it immediately its most important consequences, for this was extremely easy or rather entirely natural". He goes on to say that many others have thought of trying to "explain natural phenomena by the aid of a subtle fluid vigorously agitated in every direction". In the original French version, p. 426, it says "d'avoir ainsi rectifie, dans ma premiere jeunesse, le systeme enseigne par Lucrece..". The phrase "dans ma premiere jeunesse" would translate more correctly as “in my early youth” than as “while a little boy”. A better date for when Le Sage conceptualized his full-blown theory is from his letter to his father, written at age 23. It starts off with “Eureka! Eureka!”, and goes on to describe his new theory. Perhaps EMS can suggest a compromise here so we can move on.MRE16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to changing "while a little boy" to "in his early youth". Just for the record, the full quote is
I did not take undue credit to myself when as a child I rectified the system taught by Lucretius and drew from it immediately its most important consequences, for this was extremely easy or rather entirely natural. Besides, I knew but little more the value and solidity of my little views than the child ordinarily knows the wit or sense which we find in its repartees and sallies.
Maybe we should translate that as "I knew but little more the value and solidity of my EARLY views than the PERSON IN HIS EARLY YOUTH knows the wit or sense which we find in HIS repartees and sallies". Regardless, there is simply no disputing the fact that Lesage claims here, in the most polished and complete exposition of his theory, that he conceived of it ("and its most important consequences) when he was a child. Now, MRE would have us believe that Lesage was lying, because (so reasons MRE) Lesage wrote an excited letter to his father on the subject. MRE slyly refers to the idea discussed in the letter as his "new theory". In point of fact, Lesage had been obsessed with the idea of "pushing gravity" since he was... in his early youth... and continued to write excitedly about it until his death at the age of nearly 80. People rarely shout Eureka! Eureka! just out of the blue. Rather, they shout Eureka when they have solved something that they have been puzzling over for a LONG time. What prompted Lesage's Eureka in that letter was not suddenly conceiving of the idea of pushing gravity, but of having rationalized away yet another of the untoward aspects of that idea that had plagued him for so long. Look, if you want to say Lesage continued to work on, develop, and refine the idea into adulthood (and even into old age), that's fine. But it's simply wrong to say that he first conceived of the idea ("and its most important consequences") at 23. On his own testimony, he first conceived of the idea as a child - and it obsessed him for the rest of his life.
On a larger issue, it's worth noting that you JUST NOW have located a copy of that English translation of Lesage's most famous publication. You edited and co-authored an English language book on the subject of Lesage and pushing gravity, and you came here representing yourself as someone qualified to write an encyclopedia article on the subject... and yet you never had ocassion until JUST NOW to actually read Lucrece Newtonien. This highlights the importance of not treating hobbyist publications as a reputable sources. The Wikipedia policy for suppressing physics cranks is very wise, and should be followed scrupulously. ELQ2220:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's cover your "larger issue" first. I first read the English article "Newtonian Lucretius" about 25 years ago. I've been working on Le Sage gravity since about that time.
Compromise is not likely between us two, but maybe EMS can help out. I suggest something like: "Le Sage conceptualized his theory in his youth and worked on it his whole life." To me it is not clear what age "premiere jeunesse" implies (boy, adolescent, young adult). Also, there is ambiguity in how much of what we now call his "theory" he actually had in hand when he was in his "premiere jeunesse". The portions of the theory which he covers in his letter to his father seem to be critical; so "Le Sage's theory" was not there until Le Sage was 23.MRE21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not care to suggest a compromise at this time. It seems to me that the two of you are engaged in a constructive discussion centered on a document that I have not read and will not get a chance to read in the near future. I would prefer that the two of you carry this discussion forward and try to reach some sane conclusion on the likely meaning (or maybe a reasonable range of possibility) for what is being quoted here. It seems to me that it would be nice if additional original material on the genesis of Le Sage's theory was available. Often other letters/writings can describe the same events from a different angle and lend more clarity to the events.
MRE - Recall that for Einstein, the initial seeds of relativity were sown when he as a teenager did a though experiment on what it would be like to ride a photon. That fact has no bearing on Einstein's reputation (unless it shows that he was a genius even as a teenager), or on the acceptability of relativity. So I fail to see how ELQ22's pointing out the Le Sage may have originated this idea when he was very young is inately a put-down of Le Sage or his theory of gravitation.
ELQ22 - It seems the me that MRE is more well-read and knowledgable than you are giving him credit for. However, he has placed a very different "spin" on Le Sage's writings than yourself.
To both of you - You each impress me an intelligent and capable people. You each have strong opinions but you also each want this to be as correct and accurate an article as possible. It is important that you both assume good faith and strive to make your case in as polite a manner as possible. In the meantime, I would advise being as conservative as possible in writing on a contentious point like this until the matter is resolved to your mutual satisfaction. --EMS | Talk02:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought we had already agreed on this. MRE thinks a better interpretation of Le Sage's published statement about when he first conceived of the theory is "in his early youth", rather than "as a little boy", and I said okay, change it to "in his early youth".
The only other reasonable alternative I can see is to explicitly describe the sequence of events as they can be gathered from Lesage's published and private writings. This would go against the idea that he arrived at the theory "independently" though, because it was surely not independent of Lucretius. He became fascinated with Lucretius' ideas at the age of 13, and this seems to be the period he has in mind when he wrote in Newtonian Lucretius that he didn't take undue credit to himself for, in his early youth (or childhood, as in the published English translation) rectifying Lucretius' theory and drawing from it the major consequences. Dating this reference to the age of 13 is consistent with his statement that "I knew but little more the value and solidity of my little views than the child ordinarily knows the wit or sense which we find in its repartees and sallies." We also have his statement in a private letter, written at 23, that he had his theory four years earlier, which puts it at 19. However, proudly shouting "Eureka!" is not at all consistent with not knowing "the value and solidity of my little views". Clearly he was talking about an earlier time in the passage in Newtonian Lucretius. The only remarkable thing about this chronology is how long it took him to realize the obvious inverse-square relation. ELQ2201:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
On the issue if whether Le Sage mentioned Fatio in print, Jim Evans has kindly provided some references. It is easier just to quote the relevant parts of Jim's e-mail to me:
"An easy reference to find, in which Le Sage mentions Fatio by name is the very first thing that Le Sage published on his gravity theory. This was a letter to Mercure de France, published in the issue for May, 1756, pp. 153-171.
An earlier issue (February 1756, pp. 180-192) contained a report of a public meeting of the Academy of Dijon, at which one of the members presented a theory explaining gravity by the impulsion of light.
Le Sage complimented him for realizing that rectilinear impulsion was the right way to approach the problem, but he criticized the academician for not being aware of other people's work. Le Sage writes, "I won't set forth for you here what M. Fatio de Duillier thought on this matter a long time ago, which moreover I am only informed of by tradition, nor what two great men, also my compatriots, printed and publicly defended on the subject in 1731, nor what was published about it in 1736 by a German doctor, who seemed to me to have come closer to the mark than anyone, but who lacked the supports necessary for developing his system with .. geometrical rigor.... " (p. 155). Le Sage goes on to say that these three systems all differ somewhat from one another, although they all conform to the idea of rectilinear impulsion. He goes on also to cite Jean Bernoulli the father as the originator of a theory attributing gravity to the impulsion of light, which is the theory most colsely related to the one proposed by the academician.
The reference to events in Geneva in 1731 concerns the theses on the cause of weight set by Gabriel Cramer and defended by his student Jalabert (mentioned in my article, pp. 20-21). Jalabert's theses included some material about Fatio, without, however, mentioning him by name. The German doctor is Franz Albert Redeker, who plublished a "Meditation on the cause on gravity." (See my article, p. 21 and note 29.) Le Sage says he is only informed of Fatio's theory "by tradition," because Fatio had never published it, and he only knew what his teachers and friends in Geneva were able to tell him about it."
I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE quote of Le Sage crediting Fatio for developing a particle theory of gravity. Just ONE. In the above, Jim alludes to some obscure publication wherein he says Le Sage "referred to Fatio by name". Why not tell us what he said? Could it be because what he actually said does not support your claims? Next Jim tells us that in the minutes from a meeting, someone reported that Le Sage mentioned the name of Fatio (verbally), but only to say that he wasn't going to tell them what Fatio thought on this matter! This is not published writing of Le Sage, and even if it was, it would hardly be considered crediting Fatio with developing a particle theory of gravity. He was just using the name to diss the other people at the meeting. Lastly, Jim passes along the information that someone else (not Le Sage) wrote a thesis containing some material about Fatio, but doesn't mention Fatio by name. So, putting this all togehter, I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE quote of Le Sage crediting Fatio for developing a particle theory of gravity.
But it's worse than that. It isn't just that we have an absence of evidence for Le Sage crediting Fatio, we have POSITIVE evidence of him specifically NOT crediting Fatio. And this evidence is not from early in his life before he knew of Fatio, or when he knew of Fatio only through "tradition". No, this is in 1782 when he composed Newtonian Lucretius, commonly regarded as his fullest and most polished exposition of his theory, and long after he had collected (and presumably read) all of Fatio's papers. Is he silent on the subject of precursors? No, not at all. Here is what Le Sage says
...the extremely simple idea of trying to explain the principal natural phenomena by the aid of a subtle fluid vigorously agitated in every direction has come to many writers who have before presented it in a vague and ill-assured fashion, not to mention that there has been without doubt a still greater number who have not even deigned to communicate at all... How is it that none of these physicists have pushed these consequences to their conclusion and communicated the research? Doubtless because the most of them having no clear view of this chaos (of which the first glance is, I admit, frightful) they have not known how to disentangle it and subject it to their calculations. Or not having firmly grasped the principles of the theory, they have allowed themselves to be seduced by specious sophisms, by which men have pretended to refute in advance all imaginable explanations of gravitation. Or they will have had the foible of bowing to the authority of great names, when it is alleged (whether justly or falsely) that they have pronounced upon the impossibility of this or upon the uselessness of that branch of knowledge. Or they have lacked sufficient love of truth or courage of their convictions to abandon easy pleasures and exterior advantages in order to devote themselves simply to researches at the time difficult and little welcome. Or, finally, they have failed to become impressed with the strength and fecundity of this beautiful system so distinctly as to lead them, in their enthusiasm, to sacrifice to it their other views and projects.
Is this what you regard as "generously acknowledging your predecessors"??? You see, MRE, we have here Le Sage's own testimony as to how he views (and would have us view) all the un-named souls who one can only presume had thought of particle gravity before him. We don't have to speculate about what Le Sage wanted to pass on to us. And this was written in 1782. There is no mention of Fatio, and no acknowledgement that anyone before him (Le Sage) had even pursued the idea seriously... whereas he knew full well that Fatio labored over his treasured theory over the course of many decades, and had even composed poems about it, etc.
Sorry, MRE, but there is simply no denying these facts. And your repeated claim that LeSage intended a biography of Fatio is hot air. It is more commonly said that he embarked on writing a history of theories of gravity, which he never finished. But regardless, this is speculation about what someone might have published but didn't. It's pointless and impossible to substantiate. There is simply no evidence to support the mythology that Le Sage scrupulously credited Fatio. To claim otherwise is simply wrong.
Given this, and what we seems to have been agreed on above, I suggest this slightly rearranged version to lead off the section "Early developments of the theory:
In his early youth Le Sage was strongly influenced by the writings of the Roman poet Lucretius. He soon incorporated some of Lucretius’ ideas into a theory of gravity, which he subsequently worked on throughout his life. One of the clearest expositions of his theory is in his Lucrece Newtonien (“Newtonian Lucretius”), wherein the analogy with Lucretius’ concepts is highlighted. Early on Le Sage learned that Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a close friend of Newton's, had proposed a very similar theory in the 1690s. Subsequently, Le Sage gave credit to Fatio in his writings and collected Fatio’s papers for preservation. (footnote)Le Sage also started a biography of Fatio. Fatio's papers and Le Sage’s historical materials were deposited in the university library in Geneva after Le Sage's death and are still there.(end footnote) For historical accounts of Fatio's and Le Sage's theories, see references …
You still don't have your facts right. First, Lesage didn't just say he was "influenced" by Lucretius in his early youth, he said he "rectified" Lucretius, and drew the most important consequences. Second, Le Sage did NOT "give credit to Fatio in his writings", and he did NOT start a biography of Fatio. Aside from these three major historical inaccuracies that you've managed to cram into a single paragraph, you've got a good start. ELQ2200:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that "Netwonian Lucretius" is your one and only source of information. I have given references of letters to Mercure de France where Le Sage does mention Fatio. There are also other writings of Le Sage and Prevost which need to be consulted on this point. At present my statement that he gave credit to Fatio is more accurate than yours that he never did. Can you accept that you have misled us here? Also, that Le Sage started a biography on Fatio is a definite. I already gave you the manuscript number and the library in Geneva where it is. You can e-mail them if you wish to verify. It is you who are blowing all the hot air here. But aside from that, let's try to finish the paragraph. How about this?
"In his early youth Le Sage was strongly influenced by the writings of the Roman poet Lucretius. He soon incorporated some of Lucretius’ ideas into a theory of gravity, which he subsequently worked on throughout his life. One of the clearest expositions of his theory is in his Lucrece Newtonien (“Newtonian Lucretius”), wherein the analogy with Lucretius’ concepts is highlighted. Another precursor to Le Sage's theory was a very similar theory advanced in the 1690s by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a close friend of Newton's. (footnote) When Le Sage learned of Fatio's work, he collected Fatio's papers for preservation and also started a biography of Fatio. Fatio's papers and Le Sage's historical papers were deposited in the university library in Geneva after Le Sage's death and are still there.(end footnote) For historical accounts of Fatio's and Le Sage's theories, see references …" MRE18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have read the Prevost writings, and there is no mention of Fatio. As to your "references", you seem to have overlooked my detailed response, in which I explained why your "references" are not pertinent. In summary, I'm still waiting for ONE SINGLE quote of Le Sage crediting Fatio for developing a particle theory of gravity. Just ONE. And I'm still waiting for someone to reconcile Le Sage's presentation in Newtonian Lucretius with the idea that he credited Fatio (or anyone else) with having a particle theory of gravity. As to the definite biography of Fatio that Lesage never wrote, how precisely do you definitely determine what an unwritten book would have been if it had been written? And how do you account for the fact that historians report that he was preparing to write a history of theories of gravity, going back to Lucretius and even earlier, and extending to his own time? Are you claimng that Le Sage's papers consist ONLY of Fatio's papers, and not materials related to any of the rest of the history of gravitational theories?
A more accurate paragraph would be:
"In his early youth Le Sage was strongly influenced by the writings of the Roman poet Lucretius, and incorporated some of Lucretius’ ideas into a theory of gravity, which he subsequently worked on and defended throughout his life. One of the clearest expositions of his theory is in his Lucrece Newtonien (“Newtonian Lucretius”), wherein the correspondence with Lucretius’ concepts is highlighted. Essentially the same theory had been advanced in the 1690s by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a close friend of Newton's. (footnote) When Le Sage learned of Fatio's work, he acquired all of Fatio's personal papers that he could locate. At one time Le Sage planned to write a history of theories of gravity, but never completed it. Fatio's papers and Le Sage's other historical papers were deposited in the university library in Geneva after Le Sage's death and are still there.(end footnote) For historical accounts of Fatio's and Le Sage's theories, see references …"
The letter provided by James Evans does constitute a proof of Le Sage citing Fatio's work. As for the biography materials on Fatio, I've given you the reference. Here it is again: Bibliotheque Publique at Universitaire de Geneve, Manuscript 2043. If you're disputing this, I suggest you use something more than your assumptions. I suggest you contact the librarian in Geneva. I can't accept your change of wording, because it again feeds into your notion of Le Sage stealing others ideas as his own. The historical record does not support you and I don't think you could find a single historian of science who will support you. I think we're at an impasse here and perhaps EMS can try to make a suggestion. If not I will substitute my wording as is.MRE22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I approve of the NPOV tag, but both of the contents that each of you put into it was totally inappropriate. ELQ22 - You impune the motives of the other editors with your in violation of WP:CITE. (You may well be correct, but you are still obliged to be polite in your concerns and to assume good faith.) Paul - I am as much self-appointed as anything else, and I see this as an ongoing moderation. Nothing that I have decided is final. Also, ELQ22 has as much a right to edit this article as yourself. (I you want a firm decision from me, that will be it.) BTW - I thank CambridgeBayWeather for his compromise on this issue.
Secondly, both of you have violated the 3RR rule on reverting edits. I don't know if User:CambridgeBayWeather has chosen to block you both for it, but I would highly approve of it if he did. (I am not an admin, or I would block you both myself.) ELQ22 - You are warned that you are once again taking yourself out of the picture with your actions. The last time you acted up the result was that MRE had free reign over this article. Calm down, be patient, be polite, be specific. "Cranks" rarely end up being effective editors because of how they act here, and you are starting to act like a crank again. "Le Sagian" - Your cause is not helped by your responding in kind either.
As you said, and I agree (which was my sole issue), ELQ's contents were totally inappropriate, and yes, I finally got a little annoyed. I took your April 12's comments and your removal of the dispute tag to mean that, as to the issue of MRE's version, the dispute was considered settled. That is what I wrote, and specifically referenced back to this discussion. It was I who contacted the administator because of this issue. I am quite satisfied with the current tag even though no one else, so far, has objected.
Thirdly, I once again emphasize to both ELQ22 and Paul that this is a collegiate endeavour in which all editors have to work with each other. I don't care all that much about who is who here: I am more going to side with whoever is willing to behave and treat the others with respect. However, Paul is warned that his and Matt's participation is subject to several Wikipedia policy concerns while ELQ22 only has to worry about being NPOV in his edits.
I suggest you go back and review all that I have done, not done, and have written here during this whole affair. I have bent over backward, taken a back seat on editing, and have avoided any editing since the dispute was settled (the tag issue aside). Not once have I been snide, uncivil, condescending, or insistent on any given phrasing or particular edits. My interest is solely on presenting this topic in a factual NPOV manner. That means describing the history, idea, characteristics, predictions, and current status completely. Not shying away from perceived issues or avoid mentioning or presenting dissenting views. I advocate NPOV! The only one here acting in a crabby crankish manner using derogatory name calliong and tactics is ELQ22/63.24 anon.
You are happy to get into edit wars with ELQ22, and match his labels of "POV", "biased", etc. 3RR exists to avoid such situations. If you are getting up to your 3 reverts, stop and contact myself, MRE, and CambridgeBayWeather. ELQ22 cannot win a 3-on-1 edit war, and an admin can shut him down (or at least his account). Be aware that you have shown yourself to be IMO biased towards Le Sage gravitation in your edits. The only reason that you are able to stand toe-to-toe with ELQ22 in a dispute is that he is just as biased (if not more) against Le Sage gravity.
Finally, let me try once again to place PG in it's place here: I see it as an admissible but impeachable source. It certainly documents the current thinking of the pro-Le Sage-gravitation crowd, and that makes it instantly relevant to this article. However, its strength is also its weakness as it is not a mainstream publication, and therefore any statements in it are subject to refutation by mainstream sources. That is why I am being patient with ELQ22: I want the overall orientation of this article to be mainstream, but with the current research into this model being noted in an appropriate manner and amount of coverage. --EMS | Talk19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am quite willing to do so. However, I have serious doubts that ELQ22/63.24 will, or even can, act as you request. I really wish I understood your concept of mainstream. The topic is about a concept and all that the concept entails. NPOV says all that it entails, including references to both sides of the issue. If I sound annoyed now I am. I may have technically overstepped the 3RR and probably should have fired of the message to the Admin sooner. I will next time for sure. But if you cannot see provocation and understand human reactions to it the I guess blocking me is OK by me. I have not done anything except try to see that this article factual reflects the topic at hand. User: LeSagian
I certainly admit that there is provocation, but as I have noted before "it takes two to Tango". ELQ22 obviously sees yourself as being just as provocative as you see that editor as being. Nothing good is gained by rising to the provocation for either of the two of you. BTW - By "mainstream" I mean a view wherein Le Sage-style theories are not considered to be the next great wave in gravitational theory. I am looking for historical accuracy in terms of the history of the theory, and not an article that either promotes this type of model or blatantly denigrates it. What yourself and ELQ22 seem to offer are the extremes instead of a considered compromise in the middle. --EMS | Talk01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
edits to the "Current status of the theory" section
I have done some tweking in this section. First of all, I removed much of the material about the idead of Paul Stowe (who is reputedly editing here as "LeSagian"). The business on orbital instability is not worth mentioning without also mentioning it as a being hypotheisized as a cause of the Titus-Bode law. Also, this and the frame dragging business impress me as being very much original research. I strongly suspect that PG is the most authoritative source for this material. In that case, it is original research since PG is not an acceptable source for the introduction of new theoretical concepts. (PG is admissible mostly as a seconday source for this article, and can be a primary source only when it is updating information presented in other, acceptable sources.)
The issue of so-called frame dragging has nothing to do with the author (Stowe or Feynman, or any other), it has to do with whether the Le Sage process would create such an effect. So I ask you, if you have a passage of Le Sage particles through a rotating body that is, by definition, actively interacting with some will conservation of momentum occur. You can easily visualize several mechanistic analogies, so do the ultra-mundane particles get deflected with a biased in the direction of rotation or not? Further is this not a artifact of the model itself or not? It certainly is not just an aspect of an author.
I also am wondering whether the Pioneer anomaly business that I kept is appropriate. Paul is not a notable person to the extent of having an article in Wikipedia, and I wonder if he is all that notable within the community of Le Sage gavitation supporters. In other words, even the text I kept may not be appropriate, but I am willing to leave this issue on the table and see what consensus arises about it.
Are you going to insist that all material in the article be vetted. If so, many other issues become debatable, including all mention of gravitating energy since, to my knowledge, no reputable published peer-reviewed document has been written on this topic in regards to Le Sage's theory. You cannot allow speculation as to what the model itself must contain on the one hand yet not the other. User: LeSagian
There does need to be some vetting here. The issue here is not one of whether Le Sage gravitation would create one effect or the other, but of whether it is known that Le Sage gravitation would create such an effect. To quote from WP:NPOV and Jimbo Wales:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
The goal of the current research section is to give people some sense of what is currently being done along those line and a chance to find relevant resources. It is not to announce novel findings. To be admissible here, the item in question must either
be commonly accepted within the Le Sage gravitation community,
have (or have had) a non-trivial level of awareness in the physics community, or
have (or have had) a non-trivial level of awareness in the general public.
This allows for items that are not published in a peer reviewed journal to be presented here, but they must be of demonstratable significance. In short, the issue is not the speculation itself, but whether the speculation is notable. --EMS | Talk14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Beyond that, ELQ22 had added some -uh- interesting edits to this page. ELQ22 is kindly advised that the article space is not for the discussions of these ideas. Also, the edits were very much demeaning and POV, and therefore inappropriate. To top it off, they were also totally without supporting citations. You cannot say that a view has been refuted in a well-documented article like this without a supporting citation. Also, I see those edits as being part of an onging food fight between ELQ222 and LeSagian. ELQ22 is warned that I may seek administrative sanction against him is he acts to initiate an edit war with LeSagian again.
Along the lines of citations, I added an {{uncited}} tag to the refuatation of some of Tom Van Flandern's hypotheses. Once again, this needs to be either have its source documented or be removed. If needed, the pages speed of gravity and Tom Van Flandern can be used to obtain relevant material and citations. --EMS | Talk04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Dramatis personae
It may be amusing to tabulate some of the more or less identifiable entities which have contributed to this discussion (I suspect there is some duplication, which some of our anons may or may not be willing to confirm). In this list, geolocation refers to the IP address, not the company to which it is registered:
Registered non-anonymous users:
CH, in real life Chris Hillman, WikiProject GTR, a skeptic, and a mathematician by training, who doesn't edit anonymously.
EMS, in real life Ed Schaeffer, WikiProject GTR, a moderate skeptic, who doesn't edit anonymously.
User:MRE, in real life Matthew Edwards, a passionate defender, editor of Pushing Gravity, a pro-LeSage book published by Apeiron Press of Montreal, Canada, which is apparently owned by C. Roy Keyes (not "Keys"), and which is not to be confused with dialog.net:85/homepage/apeiron.htm, another Apeiron Press apparently run by Kent Palmer in Orange, California, USA. Before registering, MRE apparently posted as anon 128.100.121.28 (University of Toronto Library System). After registering, MRE apparently once forgot to log in as his WP user and commented as IP anon 142.150.128.251 (University of Toronto dialup access).
User:Pjacobi, in real life Peter Jacobi, a physicist by training.
User:Barry Mingst, a defender and allegedly a frequent poster in the UseNet newsgroup sci.physics.relativity as greywolf42.
Alun Anderson, a defender, has used 172.200.200.127 (AOL; apparently geolocated near East Elmhurst, Queens, a borough of New York City).
Unregistered and anonymous:
pacbell.net anon, aka User:71.132.13.87, a defender, has used 71.131.203.157, 71.131.243.124, 71.132.13.87, 71.131.197.36 (Southwestern Bell Internet Services; apparently geolocated near Novato, CA, in the Marin County portion of the Bay area).
atgi.net anon, a defender, who signs himself "lurker", who apparently doesn't care for the uu.net anon, whom he calls "Mr. 63", and who appears to behave in a manipulative and even deceptive manner here, has used 216.210.134.1 (Eschelon Telecom, Minneopolis, MN; apparently geolocated near Mill Valley, CA, in the Marin County portion of the Bay area).
uu.net anon, a skeptic, accused of socking for User:ELQ22 and User:SneltCatNoc, has used 63.24.58.50, 63.24.59.83, 63.24.46.162, 63.24.45.199, 63.24.42.237, 63.24.101.238 (UUNET Technologies, Inc.; apparently geolocated near Nashua, NH).
ntli.net anon, a defender, has used 62.253.48.43 (NTL Internet Ltd; apparently geolocated near Peterborough, England).
ihug.co.nz anon, a defender, has used 203.109.254.40 (Jiva Online Pty Ltd; apparently geolocated near Auckland, NZ).
Boeing anon, a skeptic, has used 130.76.32.23 (Boeing, Inc.; apparently geolocated near Seattle, WA).
Mentioned by name:
User:Tomvf, in real life Tom Van Flandern, is or was an active poster (has been called cranky), apparently sits on the Editorial Board of Apeiron Press (Montreal) and apparently contributed one chapter to Pushing Gravity.
Paul Stowe, a defender, is or was an active poster in sci.physics.relativity (has been called cranky).
Jim Evans, a sympathetic observer, allegedly a historian at the University of Puget Sound, who apparently emailed something to User:MRE.
Thanks for drawing this up Chris. You should add SneltCatNoc, who is probably also ELQ22. Also, Jim Evans is a historian of Le Sage who is also in the physics department at the University of Puget Sound. It would not be accurate to place him simply as "defender" here. That implies he is actively supporting the current wave of Le Sage research and I think he is just watching with interest. Secondly, it is "Keys" not "Keyes". The actual publisher name is "C. Roy Keys, Inc.". "Apeiron" is the imprint. Tom VF does sit on the editorial board of the journal named "Apeiron", as does Halton Arp.
I have a few questions Chris. Does the article and discussion above seem anywhere near normal in the Wikipedia world? I can't believe the amount of insulting in the discussion, mostly directed at me. I would have guessed that such things aren't allowed in Wikipedia, but apparently I would have been wrong. I would suggest a better model is that used in the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today (BAUT) Forum at http://www.bautforum.com/ . Note that in the "Against the Mainstream" section, there are topics discussed in an orderly fashion. Anyone casting insults is soon banned by the moderators. The moderators here in Wikipedia have insufficient powers IMO. I sort of feel that EMS has had to wade through a lot here and we still are nowhere close to resolution. Also, sock puppets are also not allowed in BAUT. I think ELQ22 has two going at the moment, his #63 and SneltCatNoc. Could I make a suggestion? Try using the BAUT rules here in this article as a Wiki-experiment.MRE14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
PS. I noticed among the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia rules this one:
Re Keys, I gave the spelling of his name as given in ARIN, so if the name is spelled wrong, Keyes/Keys should correct that. Re Jim Evans, I relabled him a "sympathetic observer". Re BAUT (I take it that is a blog), there are no "moderators" at WP. This is a wiki, not a blog, whcih may explain some technical differences. Here we have "admins", who have somewhat elevated priviliges. Typical functions of admins include dealing with anons, articles for deletion (AfD) votes, etc. Er... I may or may not comment later on your other questions. ---CH20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what ARIN is, but the name is Keys. BAUT is not what I would call a blog, but an astronomy discussion board. It has rules to keep conversation polite and on track. People can be banned from it. ELQ22 and his variants would have been long gone.MRE15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Beyond sceptic, this one is a foul-mouth rabid cynic and probable author of the highly negatively biased POV Lesage's Shadows piece. The geolocation is more likely to be Amherst Mass, not Nashua, NH... User: LeSagian
User:LeSagian, I moved your comment here. I couldn't tell whether it refers to User:MRE (?!!) or someone else. And I did say take it in good fun; let's all try to bear in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. About geolocation, note that this gives the apparent location of the machine from which the edits are transmitted to WP, not the apparent location of a person using that machine, who may be remotely logged in from the other side of the world. ---CH20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Then I think you're not paying much attention to what has transpired here. I was and am referring to anon 63.24... and his apparents socks(ELQ22, SneltCatNoc, RundAudio, ... and I'm sure, more to come). And, the fun leaves when personal attacks and incivility begins... User:LeSagian
Regrettably, there has been incivility on both sides here, but by no means all contributors have been less than civil, so you shouldn't let someone else's bad behavior (real or perceived) impel you to respond in kind. Just saying...---CH02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As an interested lurker here I've followed this for awhile now. Can you show or point out a section of comments and/or in the article where any other contributor has been uncivil or rude that was not responding to Mr. 63 anonymous since the locking of the article occurred? Lurker 11 May 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.134.1 (talk • contribs)
Several things trouble me about your comment, atgi.net anon, aka "Lurker" [sic]:
Your contribs show that you are not in fact a lurker at all. Since you cited the WP article, presumably you do know what this word means, in which case you were being disingenous in describing yourself inaccurately. (Also rather foolish, since the deception is so easily uncovered.)
The cite says but rarely participates not never participates. I've 2 minor changes to the article and one rollback attempt due to a misunderstanding of the Evan's reference, period!
It seems to me that your comment implies that you believe that it is appropriate to respond to previous comments which you consider to be rude with rude comments of your own. IMO, that is not only a childish attitude, it is in violation of WP:CIV.
Now where do I say or even imply this? I simply asked you to demonstrate that this whole mess isn't solely due to Mr. 63?
I would like to WP:AGF here, but this is sometimes difficult when dealing with anons in the context of charges of socking and so forth. First things first: why don't you come clean about your own identity in the list above? Even better, can you clarify your own agenda in posting here? TIA.
Fine I'll go back to solely lurking, I don't need the aggravation. Sorry that this simply question seemed to annoy you, bye all. Lurker
If atgi.net anon does not respond constructively to my challenge, it is probably time to add a troll warning to this talk page.---CH21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Poincare and Kelvin
I've made some edits to ELQ22's (Sneltcat's) changes. ELQ22 aimed to discredit the Kelvin model by using the argument for a perpetual motion machine, which appears in the appendix of Kelvin's paper. On this point, Kelvin himself made an elementary error, failing to take into account the greater attenuation of the force along the the length of the bar as opposed to the width. ELQ22 also argues that Poincare discredited Kelvin. I've reviewed this paper and there is no mention of Kelvin. The version that ELQ22 had was inaccurate, as it failed to account for the fact that Kelvin had solved the thermodynamic problem, the resistance problem and the aberration problem (since he was using very high speeds for the corpuscles). Poincare's critique was a more general critique of Lesage gravity. So I've moved it down to the "Electromagnetic" section.MRE18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Kelvin did not solve the thermodynamic problem, he simply replaced a gross violation of the first law of thermodynamics with an even more gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics. His concept of re-radiation was addressed by Poincare in terms of a wave theory, but the same argument applies to mechanical particles with internal energy modes. It's also false to say Kelvin "solved" the drag and aberration problems.... those were solved by Fatio.SneltCatNoc19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me. Please point out how Kelvin did not solve the thermodynamic problem. He was using a particle model and the balance between translational and rotational kinetic energies in these particles was totally satisfactory, even to Maxwell. Maxwell's critique rested on a different point. Poincare never addressed Kelvin's model. And stop your Fatio silliness.MRE19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I won't excuse you. Maxwell's critique was specifically directed to Kelvin's attempt to solve the thermodynamic problem. Kelvin claimed the excess energy could be carried away by vibratory and/or rotational modes of kinetic energy, but Maxwell pointed out that energy always flows from the particles with higher kinetic energy to those with lower kinetic energy, and this includes the vibratory and rotational modes, as well as the translational. This is a fundamental theorem (maybe THE fundamental theorem) of kinetic theory. The temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy (ALL modes) of the particles, and heat always flows from hot to cold, not the reverse (unless you believe in Maxwell's demon, i.e., you can violate the second law of thermodynamics). If the ultramundane particles don't lose ENERGY in their interaction with mundane matter, then there will be no gravitation, and there is a definite ratio of energy to momentum conveyance that depends only on the difference between the initial kinetic energies of the ultra-mundane particles and the mundane particles. As Poincare showed (in the analysis you keep trying to delete from this article), in order to produce the force of gravity, the energy lost must be enormous... enough to vaproize the Earth in a fraction of a second. The ONLY "solution" of the thermal problem is as Poincare stated, i.e., you must postulate that after their first interaction with mundane matter, the ultra-mundane particles are magically converged into an even MORE fantastically penetrating form, so that essentially the energy just disappears from our universe (because it has become totally uncoupled from any interactions with mundane or ultra-mundane matter).
I will also point out that you are falsifying your references (as seems to be your habit). For example, the Aronson article refutes your claims, and concludes that LeSage theory is definitively falsified. The mythology that Preston undermined Maxwell's argument and supported Kelvin is ridiculous. Preston simply tried to argue that by making the individual ultra-mundane particles small enough, you could avoid the tremendous heat transfer... which of course is true, but unfortunately you also weaken the gravitational force accordingly. As Roseveare (1982) says, Preston's argument "is not convincing without a quantitative reassurance that the gravitative action would remain sufficient". He goes on to say of Le Sage's theory that "it was Poincare who finally laid it to rest. This he did by putting on a quantitative basis the old objection that gravitating bodies would receive too much heat". Among other things, this falsifies your claim that historians think "Maxwell had the last word". According to the historian Roseveare, it was Poincare who had the last word, with the very analysis that you keep deleting from the article.
I suggest MRE stop deleting the correct historical record, as is contained in Aronson and Roseveare (and Poincare, and qualitatively in Maxwell). It isn't right for MRE to be allowed to substitute his own obvious misunderstandings for the conclusions of scientists as found in reputable sources. Also, the fact that he cites Aronson (1964) in support of his claims, when in fact Aronson's conclusion is totally contrary to MRE's claims, should give all other editors pause. This shows clearly that the only "references" which actually support MRE's novel views are the ones from his own hobbyist publication.
As to MRE's comment about my "Fatio silliness", what on earth could he be talking about? I pointed out that Fatio had explicitly solved the drag problem, which he did by explaining that if the gravific particles had high enough speeds compared with the speeds of ordinary matter, the drag would be negligible, which Newton acknowledged. And of course if the speed of the gravific particles is sufficiently high, there is no time delay (hence no aberration), so you reproduce Newton's instantaneous force at a distance. Why does MRE call this silliness? Do he also think it is silly that Fatio explicity made gravity proportional to mass (rather than size), and explicitly avoided the saturation and shielding problems, by making ordinary matter sufficiently sparse? And does he find it silly that while it took Le Sage 10 years to recognize that particle gravity gives an inverse-square force, it took Fatio about 10 seconds? SneltCatNoc06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It is considered rude to revert an entire version. Especially if what is in contention is one paragraph. I put MRE's version back WITH a version of your Poincare topic. Try working this area out with MRE... April 28, 2006 User: LeSagian
I don't care to discuss the Fatio thing further. We've done enough of that. On Kelvin's model, you've totally missed the point. Kelvin's model was based on elastic collisions between ultramundane corpuscles and ordinary matter. The heating problem disappears with elastic collisions. However, elastic collisions are normally disallowed in Le Sage gravity because the attraction effect is ruined by rebounding corpuscles. Kelvin's model avoids that since the rebounds are essentially stopped in their tracks, with the translational energy going over to rotational energy. Maxwell tried to argue that Kelvin's model would not work since the ultramundane corpuscles would have to have higher kinetic energy than the units of ordinary matter. This was a questionable premise, as even Aronson noted. (Aronson attempted his own correction of Maxwell's argument, but not too successfully - this is one of the external links at the bottom of the article). Preston merely pointed out that the kinetic energies of corpuscles and ordinary units of matter could be in equilibrium if we suppose that the corpuscles are very, very small. Poincare's argument was based on the classical absorption model of Le Sage (e.g., the corpuscles "stick to the bars of the cages"). So he doesn't touch Kelvin. Now you could suggest, as I did in PG, that Kelvin's model was faulty on other grounds, but it was not on the point you mention, the thermodynamic one. I actually don't like Kelvin's model too much. I just want to have accuracy here. I'm with Lesagian in that it would be better if we don't just revert back and forth between our versions - that is tiresome and pointless. I'll leave your argument on Kelvin's model there until we can come to agreement.MRE13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kelvin, Maxwell, Clausius, Preston and Poincare
Three distinct arguments - Kelvin's internal energy modes, Kelvin’s use of Clausius, and Preston's answer to Maxwell - are being discussed here. Take the easy one first: Preston didn't invoke Kelvin's hypothesis about internal energy modes, he simply argued, within the context of Maxwell's own analysis, that the heat problem could be circumvented by making the individual corpuscles (and their kinetic energies) arbitrarily small. He was mistaken, as clarified by Poincare, who quantified Maxwell's analysis, showing that the heat transfer cannot be eliminated without also eliminating the requisite gravitational attraction.
Regarding Kelvin's "solution" of the heat problem by endowing the ultra-mundane corpuscles with internal energy modes, Maxwell noted that “for this purpose the corpuscles must be material systems, not mere points”. Maxwell didn’t emphasize it, but this is a damning observation, because the internal energy modes imply the existence of primitive forces of attraction (within the corpuscles) - the very thing Lesage theory was invented to avoid. As Maxwell said in his discussion of attempts to explain forces of attraction by mechanical means, “…all that we have done is to substitute for a single action at a great distance a series of actions at smaller distances… so that we cannot even thus get rid of action at a distance.” Moreover, both Maxwell and Poincare make it clear that Kelvin’s proposal doesn’t avoid the production of inconceivably enormous amounts of heat as a by-product of the exertion of gravitational force. Kelvin’s proposal to “solve” this problem is essentially by hypothesizing that the heat simply disappears. You see, it makes no difference whether you postulate that the colossal amount of energy is tucked away in ultra-internal energy modes of the ultra-mundane particles, never to be seen again, or ejected from the region in a much more highly penetrating form, never to be seen again. In either case, this titanic amount of energy produced each second simply vanishes from the mundane world.
Kelvin’s hypothesis is that the energy is somehow converted on impact into a form that does not couple with the knowable universe, so for all practical purposes it ceases to exist. This unimaginably enormous amount of energy streams in silently from the ultra-mundane regions and, having done it’s small task, returns to the ultra-mundane realm from which it came. Maxwell wrote “According to such hypotheses we must regard the processes of nature not as illustrations of the great principle of the conservation of energy, but as instances in which, by a nice adjustment of powerful agencies not subject to this principle, an apparent conservation of energy is maintained. Hence we are forced to conclude that the explanation of the cause of gravitation is not to be found in any of these hypotheses.” This verdict applies to all forms of Le Sage theory, including Kelvin’s, as well as to the aether source and sink models. In addition, Poincare emphasized the unphysicality of Kelvin’s hypothesis that the interaction of the flux with ordinary matter conveys momentum (force) but absorbs all the excess energy into a form that thereafter doesn’t interact with ordinary matter. The process he described derisively is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics, requiring zillions of Maxwell’s demons to make it work. This leads into the argument about whether the second law is an absolute law of nature or merely a statistical artifact that could, with some stretch of the imagination, be violated by ultra-mundane corpuscles (which, of course, can do anything we say, since they are undetectable). With admirable understatement, Poincare concludes dryly “Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Lesage’s theory tenable.”
The third argument lurking here is Kelvin’s suggestion that a corpuscle, after interacting with ordinary matter “regains it swiftness and loses part of its vibratory agitation by communion with its kindred corpuscles in infinite space” (as Maxwell put it). Again, this is a clear perpetual motion machine of the second kind, i.e., it violates the second law of thermodynamics, as can be seen most concretely by combining it with Kelvin’s own process for extracting limitless energy using saturated configurations of matter. This is also illustrated nicely by Poincare, when he points out that if our eyes were sensible to the ultra-mundane flux, the whole sky would have to be far brighter than the Sun. Maxwell was obviously right when he said “We have devoted more space to this theory than it seems to deserve…”. And none of this even mentions the much simpler argument of Poincare in 1909, which is that consideration of aberration requires the corpuscles be superluminal by many orders of magnitude, in direct conflict with all the evidence that no information or energy propagates faster than light. This is what modern historians regard as “the last word on the subject.” SneltCatNoc03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You've identified the sources here, but I just have to repeat that you've mixed them up. This is illustrated in your first argument. Again you've blended Maxwell and Poincare. Poincare did not discuss Kelvin. He discussed Le Sage. In Le Sage's model, which uses absorption, you have a heating problem which must be dealt with. Poincare covered that adequately enough. (If you want you include Poincare's analysis in the first section which discusses Le Sage exclusively; Le Sage himself recognized the problem.) In Kelvin's model, which uses elastic collisions, this problem disappears, provided that his mechanism would still work. Maxwell's criticism dealt with the sharing of kinetic energy between corpuscles and ordinary matter, not as you suggest with the force of attraction per se. This is the point which Preston quickly showed was wrong.
Now in your last paragraph you imply that Kelvin's model had a thermodynamic imbalance to it. That is not the case. And it is not so mysterious as you imply. He merely stated that the translational kinetic energy of corpuscles gets converted to rotational and vibratory modes after collision and that later on, with interaction between corpuscles, the translational kinetic energy is restored. Nothing is entering or leaving the system. This is the critical point. Preston praised this feature since, unlike Le Sage's model, there was no need for a continuing expenditure of energy "from the outside". It created a universe in balance.
You could argue that Kelvin's model was defective in some respects. For instance, the loss of translational energy in the vicinity of matter would mean that corpuscles pile up there. Would gravity still work then? I don't think so, but this is not a point that historians picked up on. We could make it here in this article. I'm wondering if you've misinterpreted Kelvin's perpetual motion machine here. It might be worth adding a sidebar or a subpage on this, to help clear things up. Kelvin's "machine" wouldn't work if you applied a Majorana-type analysis to it.
In your middle paragraphs, you've got it all wrong. Again you cite Poincare as critiquing Kelvin. I don't find this. Kelvin's model was already off the table by then. And Kelvin never has to make heat "disappear" since it doesn't appear in his model (remember, ELASTIC COLLISIONS!). Basically, what you've done is blend the models of Le Sage and Kelvin into one and blended the analyses of Maxwell and Poincare into one, while reading Preston wrong. You obviously have some of the references. I would urge you to reread them.MRE16:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Roseveare's account has been mentioned a few times. It is interesting and covers more of Le Sage than usual. At the same time it is confusing in spots, especially as regards the present discussion. It's best to use the original sources here IMO.MRE20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Roseveare was mentioned primarily to falsify your claim that "most historians concluded Maxwell had the last word". In addition, you have based many of your claims on Aronson (although misrepresenting his conclusions), so you can hardly claim to be relying on original sources. It appears to me that what you meant to say is "It's best to confine ourselves to sources that don't falsify my claims". I, for one, decline your kind invitation.SneltCatNoc21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Most historians do say Maxwell had the last word re Kelvin’s model. Poincare disn't discuss it. Aronson’s account is not bad – he just messed up on Kelvin a bit. He does acknowledge Maxwell was offbase in his critique.MRE18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion just illustrates the wisdom of the basic Wikipedia policy, which was drafted in full recognition of the futility of trying to "reason" with self-promoting physics cranks. Once the Wikipedia anti-crank policy is jetisoned, it becomes possible for the cranks to extort a remedial education in physics by simply threatening to fill up Wikipedia with their crackpot nonsense unless someone explains things to them. But of course trying to explain physics to a physics crank is an exercise is futility.
Nevertheless, just in case anyone else should happen by and read this, here's what's wrong with MRE's latest comments. First, there is simply no doubt about what Preston said, he was addressing Maxwell's formula p = NMu^2, where N is the number of corpuscles in a unit volume, M is the mass and u is the speed of a corpuscle, and p is the pressure exerted on a totally opaque barries. Maxwell argued that p is enormous but N is less than the number of mundane particles in a unit volume of matter, so Mu^2 for the corpuscles must be huge, so thjey would incinerate ordinay matter. Preston said we could make N arbitrarily large, and therefore Mu^2 arbitrarily small, so the effective temperature of the ultramundane flux can be as low as we like, and hence there is no heating problem. This is an invalid argument because, as Poincare explains in detail, the temperature of the gravitational flux must exceed the temperature of mundane matter, and by a very large amount, because otherwise it will not produce the requisite net gravitational attraction. Preston did not invoke Kelvin's internal energy modes, so that is not at issue here. Preston's challenge to Maxwell's argument was simply ill-founded.
As to Kelvin's internal energy modes, it's well to remember that the basic laws of thermodynamics and their consequences were still be elaborated at the time Kelvin wrote, and in particular the full meaning and importance of the second law was still a subject of lively debate (and still is today), as witness the correspondence between Maxwell and Kelvin on what Kelvin called "Maxwell's demom". Now, we need a few basic facts from kinetic theory: The thermodynamic temperature of a gas depends only on the translational kinetic energy of the molecules, so a monotonic gas has a simple specific heat relationship, but for compound molecules with internal energy modes of rotation and vibration the specific heats differ, because as energy is added to the gas, some of it goes into translational energy, which manifests itself as an increase in temperature, whereas some of it goes into internal energy modes of the molecules (which does not directly give an increased temperature). For a given gas at equilibrium the proportions of energy in these three modes (translation, rotation, vibration) approach fixed ratios, which is why gases have definite specific heats. If we began with a gas at a certain temperature, and someone gave each of the molecules some rotational energy, without change their translational speeds, the temperature would be unchanged at that instant, but gradually the molecules would work their way back to the equilibrium ratios of rotational and translational energy, so the temperature would rise to a definite level proportional to the energy that was added.
Now, for Kelvin's model, we have the ultramundane "gas" necessarily much hotter than the mundane matter on which it is impinging, because if it wasn't we wouldn't get the requisite force. In order to produce this force, the translational kinetic energy of the ultramundane particles must be drastically reduced, which makes sense, because this is what happens when a hot gas passes among some cold objects. Heat flows from hot to cold. But ordinarily the cold object absorbs this heat. Kelvin suggests that something quite different happens in the case of the ultramundane gas passing though the Earth (for example). His suggestion amounts to saying that the gas cools down, but the cold Earth doesn't heat up correspondingly. Instead, the translational kinetic energy is spontaneously converted to internal energy modes, thereby reducding the temperature and entropy of the gas... but with no corresponding increase in the temperature and entropy of the Earth. In other words, Kelvin's proposal amounts to a gigantic violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is the reason Kelvin's proposal is not taken seriously as a "solution" of the heating problem.
In response to MRE's claim that Poincare doesn't address this point, we need only read Poincare to confirm that MRE is (as usual) mistaken. It so happens that Poincare discusses the "secondary re-radiation" mechanism (which is another name for Kelvin's proposal) in the second on wave theories, because it is marginally more plausible in this context (since the absorption and re-emission of electromagnetic radiation at different frequencies and energy levels presents more possibilities than simple kinetic interactions), but the same objections apply. We are asked to accept that the X' rays (which are incredibly hot) strick the Earth, and then are spontaneously converted to X" rays with far more internal energy (and less entropy). In response to MRE's claim that no one has ever commented on the problem of accumulation of the energy-soaked secondary entities interfering with the subsequent operation of gravity, we note that once again MRE is mistaken. Poincare mentions that we must postulate a way for this secondary radiation to escape from the system without interacting with mundane matter, so it must be even more penetrating than the primary radiation.
As it says in the Wikipedia anti-crank policy, Wikipedia is not really the right place to resolve or debate scientific questions. All we can do, in order to maintain a decent level of integrity in the science articles, is insist on limiting the content of the articles to things that are verifiable in reputable sources, and we need to enforce the strict definition of what constitutes a reputable source. There is no point at all trying to convince a physics crank that he really doesn't understand science, and that he has squandered his one and only life in the service of a delusion. All the reputable physics sources agree that Le Sage theory is untenable. The article should reflect that fact.SneltCatNoc21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, for the third time at least, you say that Poincare was discussing Kelvin. He wasn’t. He was talking about Le Sage’s theory which uses inelastic collisions. You just can’t take the arguments against inelastic collisions and apply them against elastic collisions.
You write: "Now, for Kelvin's model, we have the ultramundane "gas" necessarily much hotter than the mundane matter on which it is impinging, because if it wasn't we wouldn't get the requisite force." Once again, you are ignoring Preston’s argument here and falling back on Poincare’s inelastic collision argument, which is totally inappropriate.
You write: "In other words, Kelvin's proposal amounts to a gigantic violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is the reason Kelvin's proposal is not taken seriously as a "solution" of the heating problem." Total kinetic energy of corpuscles is unchanged and total kinetic energy of ordinary matter is unchanged in Kelvin's model. Therefore there is no problem on that front.
You again bring in the electromagnetic models into the picture. Poincare’s analysis applies well here, but this is not relevant to Kelvin’s model.
You write: "In response to MRE's claim that no one has ever commented on the problem of accumulation of the energy-soaked secondary entities interfering with the subsequent operation of gravity, we note that once again MRE is mistaken. Poincare mentions that we must postulate a way for this secondary radiation to escape from the system without interacting with mundane matter, so it must be even more penetrating than the primary radiation." Of course I was referring to Kelvin’s model. Poincare didn’t discuss that. End of story. To me it seems you want to minimize Kelvin's contribution in the same way you wanted to minimize Le Sage's, even though this article is about Le Sage's theory.MRE18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again MRE has illustrated the futility of trying to reason with a physics crank. He obviously is unable to understand what Poincare was talking about, because he doesn't have a clue about entropy or the virial theorem or the 2nd law or ANY of the relevant physics here. Kelvin's model has been described and explained in excruciating detail here, as has the reason that it violates the 2nd law. The specific passages in Poincare that address this, as well as the passages that address Preston's argument, have been noted. MRE's response is to simply cover his ears and repeat his misunderstandings.
The bottom line is this: It is not possible to reason with a hard core physics crank. MRE and Lesagian are physics cranks, attempting to infiltrate their misunderstandings into this Wikipedia article, as a way of dignifying their own crackpot ideas. I'm really not sure how to prevent it. I think the only option is to try to attract some more non-crackpots to participate in the editing. The only other saving grace is this Talk page and the Bias tag on the article, which hopefully will alert any possible readers to what is going on with this article. Anyone wanting an accurate and well-reasoned appraisal of this topic will simply have to look elsewhere.SneltCatNoc01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're back to name-calling again. No surprise there. What surprises me is how you could have read many of the papers I have and come away with the wrong impressions. You just can't get it that Poincare was discussing Le Sage's inelastic collision model. Poincare dismissed elastic collisions entirely due to the rebound problem. He didn't think Kelvin's idea was significant and - I repeat - did not discuss it. All your stuff about the virial equation, etc., does not affect the general argument. Because you can't seem to get the idea here, and maybe others are in the same camp, I'm thinking maybe the section on Kelvin should be retitled "Kelvin's elastic collision model" or something like that. I'm not trying to bolster Kelvin's model here. But we shouldn't twist around the history. In fact Kelvin abandoned his own model, because he couldn't get it to explain other electromagnetic phenomena. While we shouldn't spend too much time on Kelvin, he needs to be mentioned as the "highwater mark".
Perhaps going to others could help you resolve these issues. I'll be surprised if you can find anyone to support your interpretation on Kelvin's model.MRE16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confused about the distinction between elastic and inelastic collisions. At the level of classical elementary particles, all interactions are elastic. When we refer to inelastic collisions, we mean that the coherent translational energy of compound objects is driven down into random incoherent kinetic energy modes, such as vibrations and/or rotations of the individual constituient particles of the objects. "Heat" is really just a chaotic form of kinetic energy. (This distinction is blurred in the context of a Lesagean flux, because it isn't a gas at equilibrium, it is actually what Crookes called a distinct state of matter, more properly called radiative matter.)
At the level of elementary irreducible elements, both Lesage's and Kelvin's theories are perfectly elastic, but on the level of compound objects they are both inelastic (as they must be, in order to give a gravitational force). In both theories, the energy of the collisions is soaked up by internal energy modes. The only difference between Kelvin and Lesage is in which objects soak up the energy. Lesage stayed true to his objective - he was trying to explain attractive forces by pure impact forces of primitive irreducible particles, which have no internal energy modes. Their only energy mode is translational. That's the whole point of a kinetic theory of attraction, to explain attraction without postulating primitive attractive forces. But since Lesage's ultramundane corpuscles have no internal modes, the energy from the collisions can only be absorbed by the mundane matter, which quickly reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, and is thereby incinerated. This is the basic problem, and it is not soluable within the Lesage program of trying to explain attractive force purely by repulsive impact forces.
Now, contrary to Lesage, Kelvin decided to endow the gravitational corpuscles with internal energy modes, so THEY (rather than mundane matter) can soak up the energy of the collisions. But this merely moves the heat problem from the mundane matter to the ultra-mundane matter. Granted, the ultra-mundane flux is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but the corpuscles must now be exploded into their elementary constituients and re-radiated away without hitting any mundane matter (read Poincare's X" rays) unless thay are held together by fantastically strong force of attraction. But if we posit a force of attraction, we forfeit the very feature that motivated the theory in the first place. Remember, Lesage was trying to eliminate attractive force as a primitive element in physics (or at least from gravitation), replacing it with purely repulsive contact forces, which he regarded as more intelligible. But in an effort to salvage Lesage's theory, Thomson posits an elementary attractive force! Even Tom "faces on mars" van Flandern recognizes that this leads to an infinite regress, so Tom claims that there is a meta-flux of even smaller and faster-moving particles to provide the force that holds the first-order flux corpuscles together. Then he posits a meta-meta flux to hold the meta-flux corpuscles together, and so on, ad infinitum. He seriously believes this. It's turtles all the way down. The sad thing is, as clueless as Tom is, he has seen more clearly than you have in this regard. He at least admits that Kelvin's solution, without an infinite regress, is no solution at all.ELQ2222:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to see where you've gone off the track. I would agree more or less with your first two paragraphs above. In the last paragraph, however, you introduce elements which are not in Kelvin's model. Then you use Poincare's analysis out of its proper context (which is in Le Sage's inelastic model, where it is material objects which heat up). You rightly say that translational energy of corpuscles goes into other modes of energy in the corpuscles, chiefly rotational and vibrational modes. And I would agree this robs Le Sage's theory of some of its attractiveness, since we've made the corpuscles more complex. However, you've got it wrong when you state that the corpuscles after collision "must now be exploded into their elementary constituients and re-radiated away without hitting any mundane matter (read Poincare's X" rays)". This is not so. We don't need to suppose that ALL the translational energy is converted to the other energy modes after collision. Remember that they are moving at many times the speed of light in Kelvin's model. The corpuscles leave the masses and corresponding galaxies entirely. Subsequently, translational energy is regained by the corpuscles in collisions amongst themselves in the depths of space. So the stock of corpuscular translational kinetic energy is not changed over time. This is all written clearly in Kelvin's and Preston's papers. The Kelvin model had flaws, but the one you describe was not one of them. As for Tom's model, I think you've added one too many wrinkles there.MRE13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You misread my comments. In rational arguments there are things called “conditional statements”. I stated that, once the corpuscles have absorbed the huge amount of energy that is necessary, given their huge initial speeds, to produce the requisite force of gravity on more or less stationary objects, they must explode (fly apart) OR ELSE be held together by some fantastically strong force of attraction. IF we agree that it makes no sense to posit a force of attraction in a theory whose whole reason for existing is to eliminate forces of attraction (duh!), THEN the compound corpuscles must fly apart. IN THIS CASE, we need those fragments of corpuscles to be even more penetrating than the original corpuscles, because otherwise they will interact with mundane matter and there will be no net gravitational force. IF, on the other hand, we give up trying to eliminate elementary forces of attraction from our model, THEN the super-energized corpuscles could hold together, and their time-averaged translational speeds would be somewhat reduced from their original speeds. (No one has claimed that ALL the translational energy is converted to internal modes... except for you, when you worried about accumulating spent corpuscles loitering in the vicinity of gravitating bodies.) This alternative is idiotic, because if we’re willing to posit an elementary force of attraction, we can just as well posit the force of gravity! As Maxwell said, all we’ve done (in this case) is replace one big force of attraction at a distance with a large number of much stronger forces of attraction at smaller distances.
As to Kelvin’s suggestion that Clausius’ theorem will restore the agitated slow-moving corpuscles to calm fast-moving corpuscles, thereby completing his perpetual motion machine, that is a flagrant violation of the 2nd law UNLESS you posit infinite space with an infinite supply of calm-fast corpuscles, because any finite system would necessarily run down. In fact, Clausius’ theorem itself assures that, at equilibrium, the kinetic energy of the corpuscles would be equally distributed between the available modes, i.e., translational, rotational, and vibrational (UNLESS you posit a variable specific heat). The hypothesis of a supply of calm-fast corpuscles represents a condition that is FAR from equilibrium, and the only way to argue that it wouldn’t approach equilibrium is to posit that God has provided an infinite supply of non-equilibrium, which will stream inwards and surround us forever in a perpetual bath of low-entropy manna from heaven. But on this basis Clausius’ theorem is irrelevant. There’s no need to talk about restoring spent corpuscles if there are infinitely many unspent corpuscles, because the fraction of spent to unspent corpuscles is always zero. BUT, remember, these are ULTRA-MUNDANE corpuscles, meaning they come from “beyond the world” of ordinary matter. This is a necessary condition for the source of the corpuscles, because if they just came from other regions of space where there is as much ordinary matter as there is here, then they would necessarily run down to equilibrium. In other words, Kelvin needs the ratio of fresh ultra-mundane matter divided by mundane matter to be infinite, so the whole Calusius argument is at best a pointless red herring.SneltCatNoc15:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see your argument now (actually two arguments). I would disagree with the first but you are partly right on the second. In your first argument, you're being far too restrictive on Kelvin's use of the gas analogy. Gas molecules under ordinary terrestrial conditions don't fly apart if their translational kinetic energy is converted upon collision to rotational or vibration energy. Kelvin tacitly assumes that this condition holds for his gravitational corpuscles as well. That is, it's a premise. Now if you're saying that it is an unreasonable premise, given what we now know, that too is questionable. We need only look at the atomic nucleus, with the strong force holding it together, for another analogy which could cover this. You're being at the very least curmudgeonly in not allowing the analogy of the gas to be fully employed. Also, yours is the first account I've read of concern on this matter of Le Sage corpuscles exploding. To me it seems somewhat like "original research" and unsuitable for the article. If you can produce references from others who have raised this concern don't hesitate to reveal them!
On your argument re Clausius' theorem, Kelvin makes it a fundamental assumption that translational energy in the corpuscles tends to be converted to rotational and vibratory energy after collisions with ordinary matter. These particles then move off to intergalactic space and there collide with other Le Sage corpuscles. There is then a second assumption that the latter collisions tend to convert rotational/vibrational energy back to translational kinetic energy. In this case there would be a continuous system possible with no need of an endless supply of ultramundane particles. I would agree that if we just go with Clausius here the system would break down. So to a certain degree these special assumptions of partitioning of energy after collisions have an arbitrary appearance and this point could be stressed in the article.MRE00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If you've read Poincare, then mine is NOT the first explanation you've seen of the "exploding corpuscle" model. The reason you don't recognize it is because you haven't read with comprehension, and you've been distracted by inessential variations. When Poincare talks about a primary ray striking ordinary matter, and then being radiated away IN ALL DIRECTIONS as secondary rays much more penetrating than the primary, this is nothing other than the exploding corpuscle model. You see, the primary corpuscle has momentum in one specific direction, and it has kinetic energy, and when it strikes the mundane object it must scatter uniformly in all directions, so the net momentum of the secondary radiation is zero (having imparted its original momentum to the mundane object), but the fragments carry away all the original kinetic energy. But these fragments must be much more penetrating than the primary corpuscles (which, for other reasons, cannot really be the case), in order to give a net force of gravity.
Your comment about how gas molecules don't fly apart when they collide makes me question your attention span. First, just as we've been discussing, the constituent particles comprising a gas molecule are held together by elementary non-Lesagean attractive forces, so they falsify the Lesagean premise by their very existence (as do macroscopic mundane bodies). Second, such molecules DO fly part if enough energy is imparted to them. In fact, the "heat problem" is actually much worse than Maxwell or Poincare imagined, because if the ultramundane molecules undergo fission, they might actually liberate even more enormous quantities of energy. (Hell, they might even set off a chain reaction in the ultramundane flux, resulting in the entire universe being consumed in a flash - but this just shows the foolishness of the whole premise.)
Your comments about the Clausius argument are exceedingly dumb and ill-informed. The whole point was (supposedly) to devise a kinetic theory that explains the attractive force of gravity. In other words, by invoking just the simple contact forces between particles obeying the ordinary laws of kinetic theory, we are supposed to get gravity. But then at each step of the way you admit that Kelvin has made assumptions about the particle behavior that directly conflict with the laws of kinetic theory. And to top it all off, you end up convincing yourself that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind can actually be constructed, no problem at all. Look, the process you are describing, by which the ultra-mundane molecules move toward thermodynamic equilibrium and then later move back AWAY from thermodynamic equilibrium, and then toward it again, and so on, is a prima facie violation of the 2nd law. Stop and think. You see, another reason that you are unable to recognize how Maxwell and Poincare have addressed these issues is that you simply don't understand enough basic physics to be able to read their remarks with comprehension. When Maxwell makes his general comments about the overall thermodynamic non-intelligibility of these schemes, this is what he's talking about. But since you don't understand the physics, you conclude that he's just blowing hot air, or better yet, that HE doesn't understand the physics. Your conclusions are ill-founded, and should not be the basis of this Wikipedia article.63.24.101.23803:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
For sure I've read Poincare and you are just being an idiot by using his analysis for an electromagnetic Lesage model to describe a corpuscular model. Just drop this argument - it's retarded. No one has ever talked of exploding Le Sage corpuscles EVER, EXCEPT YOU. Your introducing your own oddball spin here on a serious topic and it's really gone too far. Then you suggest that Kelvin's corpuscles can't possibly hold together. On what basis? Did Kelvin ever say it was electromagnetic forces holding them together? What he actually says is that the corpuscles are perfectly elastic globules. He makes no statement whatsoever as to the inner workings of these globules, except that they can carry vibrational energy. His assumption is not unreasonable.
Kelvin states that while the corpuscles are elastic they can be assumed to be much less rigid than the bars of the cage-atoms of ordinary matter. Therefore, it is totally reasonable that they carry away less translational kinetic energy than they had before the colisions. As for Clausius part, here is Kelvin's exact quote:
"Further, it is clear that the value of β (beta), for a set of equal and similar corpuscles, will not be the same after colision with molecules different from them in form or in elastic rigidity as after collision with molecules only of their own kind. All that is necessary to complete Le Sage's theory of gravity in accordance with modern science, is to assume that the ratio of the whole energy of the corpuscles to the translational part of the energy is greater, on the average, after collisions with mundane matter than after intercollisions of only ultramundane corpuscles. This supposition is neither more nor less questionable than that of Clausius for gases, which is now admitted as one of the generally recognized truths of science. The corpuscular theory of gravity is no more difficult in allowance of its fundamental assumptions than the kinetic theory of gases as present received."
On this basis I withdraw my comment in my last post here that a note be added to the article on a possible supposed deficiency.
To sum up, don't look to Maxwell as the crucifier of Kelvin's model. He failed, as Preston showed. And don't look to Poincare, as he only considered the inelastic Le Sage model and did not address Kelvin. There are shortcomings to Kelvin's model, but you haven't touched on these. I'm not trying to hold up Kelvin's model as one we should follow nowadays. I'm just presenting accurate history here. Your repeated attempts to rewrite history are pathetic.MRE16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's rich... the editor of Pushing Gravity accusing someone else of pathetic attempts to re-write history. As to the technical facts, let's just re-cap why you are wrong on every point: (1) The existence of internal energy modes necessarily implies a force of attraction. As Maxwell explained, those are just two different ways of describing the same thing. It matters not one bit whether the corpuscles are wiggly balloons, soap bubbles, spinning tops, or anything else. (2) Kelvin himself admits - in the very quote you gave - that he assumes behavior contrary to Clausius' theorem, which is at the foundation of all kinetic theory. At the time, Clausius' theorem was just a hypothesis, but it's foundation was subsequently established. Kelvin's contrary hypothesis is grossly unphysical and inconsistent with kinetic theory. (3) The essential flow of momentum and energy in any process is independent of the mechanism, whether by particles or waves, as Maxwell repeatedly stressed. The fact that Poincare chose to illustrate the primary/secondary radiation model in terms of waves rather than corpuscles doesn't entitle you to disregard the argument or its implications. (4) As has already been explained repeatedly, Preston didn't invoke Kelvin's internal energy modes, he argued (incorrectly) purely in the context of Maxwell's equation from kinetic theory.ELQ2220:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The accusation stands. Let's just review your points above. (1) Maxwell's critique was based on the assumption that the mean kinetic energy of a Le Sage corpuscle is the same as a unit of ordinary matter. He then supposed that the number density of the former was much less than the latter. This was a wrong assumption, as Preston pointed out and Aronson noted. (2) No, in collisions between different kinds of entities, different ratios of resultant translational to total energy can be expected. You haven't dealt with Kelvin's argument here. (3) Don't try to claim that Poincare could just have easily used corpuscles as waves in his argument. That is preposterous. His analysis is divided into logical sections. The electromagnetic part is in a separate section. The whole bit on X-rays, X' rays etc applies to em radiation. It's only you who are exploding Le Sage particles. (4) Preston LIKED Kelvin's model. He liked it a lot. He invoked Kelvin's reasoning and made his own additions to the model. His disproof of Maxwell dealt with arguments under point (1).MRE21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The bare facts are these:
(1) All Lesagean-type theories (including Kelvin’s) are ruled out by the observed lack of aberration, because this could only be achieved in a Lesagean theory by positing super-luminal speeds for the corpuscles. Any scientific interest in these theories, other than purely historical, stops right here. (The physics crank van Flandern argues for superluminal propagation of not only gravity, but of electromagnetic forces as well, thereby placing himself in contradiction with all of modern science. The cranks Mingst/Stowe argue for a swirling Lesagean flux, sweeping the planets around ala Descartes, utterly inconsistent with the basic mode of Lesagean theory which is radiative and not fluidic, and clearly falsified by countless commonplace observations, e.g., retrograde orbits, thereby placing themselves in contradiction to all rational thought.)
(2) Lesage’s basic theory based on simple kinetic particles has an insoluable problem with heat transfer, because the simple particles have no internal energy modes, so the excess energy of the inelastic collisions can only be absorbed by ordinary matter, thereby incinerating it (assuming the flux is energetic enough to yield the requisite gravitational force).
(3) Kelvin’s modification is self-defeating, because endowing the gravitational corpuscles with internal energy modes implies that they are systems rather than simple kinetic particles, and these systems must be held together by a force (or forces) of attraction in order to be able to store energy. Thus Kelvin simply replaces one attractive force for another, with a gigantic “Rube Goldberg” contraption in between. Furthermore, Kelvin’s modification requires a stratified “specific heat” for the corpuscles, meaning that it effectively has a different set of excitable internal energy modes depending on which type of collision takes place. This can avoid violating the second law only by postulating that there is an infinite supply of low entropy streaming in from the other-worldly (ultra-mundane) regions… the kind of assumption that makes a mockery of rational scientific reasoning.
(4) Maxwell’s arguments in "Atom" and "Attraction" against the rational Lesage theory can be seen as inconclusive, because he didn’t (explicitly) relate the energy flow to the momentum flow. He referred only to the pressure on an opaque surface, which isn’t an adaquate basis for quantifying the thermal effects. Preston’s answer to Maxwell was equally inconclusive, for the same reason. Poincare performed a more complete quantitative assessment, pointing out the fundamental aberration problem which requires superluminal speeds (which by itself is enough to rule out the theory), and then just for fun working out the thermal consequences assuming such speeds were possible. He also analyzed the case of light-speed particles, which still gives ruinous heat transfer as well as unacceptable drag. He then considered the wave variants, again showing the thermal problem and unacceptable drag. Then, in an effort to bend over backwards and try to conceive of ANY way that a Lesage-type theory could be made to work, he considers what amounts to a Kelvin-type argument, where the excess energy is not absorbed by the mundane matter, but instead is driven back into the gravitational flux elements themselves, and carried off in some manner and form by those elements. But in order to do this without introducing a force of attraction (which is the very thing we are trying to do without), it is necessary for this secondary radiation to be emitted uniformly in all directions, and in a form much more penetrating than the primary radiation. This concept applies equally to a particle or a wave theory. (In particle form, this is what I described as the exploding corpuscle model.) But it has so many problems, and is so convoluted and ad hoc, that the whole idea is clearly discredited. Hence most historians think Poincare had the last word on this type of theory.SneltCatNoc06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You're nicely pointing out some of the notable problems encountered in Le Sage-type theories, problems that even Le Sage knew of for the most part. What you're not generally recognizing is that those who are invoking Le Sage anew see these problems as constraints which necessarily shape any new Le Sage model being presented. You're seeing it as a finished story. What history tells us is that this story is not over yet. Le Sage models are regularly reinvented and the pace is quickening. When you can say Le Sage is finished is when they've got a complete theory of quantum gravity that is consistent with GR and solves unanswered problems (eg, concerning dark matter, dark energy).
At the same time some of your assertions are on weaker ground. Let's review them:
(1)You're being way too dismissive of FTL gravity. This is being presently debated by Tom VF, Carlip and others. The jury is still out. Tom does not argue for FTL electromagnetism. Mingst & Stowe don't have a whirling Descartes model, at least in the versions I've seen.
(2) This is just the classic problem, nothing new.
(3) I think you're relying on Maxwell's description of Kelvin's corpuscles as "vortex atoms". Thta is not how Kelvin described them himself. He only posits elastic globules able to sustain vibratory energy. Hardly a Rube Goldberg machine! As to your statement that a supply of low entropy corpuscles is needed, I don't see where Kelvin'a argument in my previous post here fails. Entropy would decrease in corpuscle-matter collisions, but is restored in corpuscle-corpuscle collisions. He's building this in as an assumption.
(4) I think Maxwell did have it as a pressure, but he also talks about the kinetic energy of corpuscles and units of ordinary matter having to be the same. The rest of this point is more or less accurate, but again you're looking at it as a failed theory, wheras I just see that there are these problems to be solved. For example, in the Brush model, the corpuscles are replaced by em waves of very long wavelength, which easily pass through matter. We merely need to suppose that a little of the enrgy is transferred to matter in this process. Now the amount of energy transfer is going to be related to the time interval during which the wave interacts with the ordinary matter. This interval can be shown to be less when the mass is moving towards the source of the wave than when it is at rest. So the first order Doppler shift in the radiation can be cancelled. I'm just mentioning this as an example.MRE21:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
My advice with respect to all of this is to get the history right, including the physics of the notable Le Sage-style models through the early 20th century. As for the current status of the theory: To MRE I call on you to very much keep in mind that general relativity is the "gold standard" of gravitation theory at this time, and that even if the story is not over that interest in this type of model has very, very much waned. To ELQ22 I call for you to realize that the study of Le Sage gravitation is going to be an ongoing effort even if a viable quantum gravity theory is created. I don't see it as being worthy of much respect, but MRE is right in that the current efforts deserve mention. Once again I remind you that the major players in current Le Sage gravitation theories, such as Halton Arp and Tom Van Flandern are currently judged as being notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles which also mention their Le Sage gravitation work. It therefore is inappropriate not to recipricate by also mentioning it here. --EMS | Talk02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think MRE has not got it right in either the history or physics at least be specific on the points you think are wrong. As for general relativity, it does not even offer a reason for gravity but just describes how matter/energy affects motion. Le Sage's model is not incompatible with it. As MRE has mentioned the concept is constantly being rediscovered independently by many. This model is not in general even mentioned in science course work. Thus many have also mistakenly believed that they have independently discovered a great idea. At least now this is less likely to occur. Science is not, nor should it ever be a religion. The behavior of many in the mainstream act as if those that dare challenge their beliefs are heathen/heritics/infidels/cranks/crackpots (take your pick). You yourself stated "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. While supposely science is all about truth & proof. If one can prove or demonstrate truth then it seems to me that fact is the ultimate vetting of science. Science does not need a priesthood of Cardinals to approve and sanction its scriptures. Mathematics is the discriptive language of science and it is not arbitrary. I think that we may have a different definition of proof & truth here. User: LeSagian April 5, 2006
I don't know that MRE has gotten anything wrong, but I don't know that he has everything right either. ELQ22, when he cares to make his case, often has MRE yield to ihim. So I want the focus to be on areas of the past where those two may be able to find common ground. As for GR and Le Sage gravitation: GR explains gravitation fully in its own way. The same can be said for Le Sage gravitation. So in terms of mechanisms, these two theories are incompatible. However, there is a connection on another level: To be successful, a Le Sage-style theory must fully account for everything that GR does, and even more importantly must account for things that GR does not. As for the mainstream view: Please realize that people with alternate ideas often do not know what they are doing (and I do include myself in that crowd). In this case, there is good reason to believe that Le Sage gravitation will never become dominant amongsts theorists in gravitation. However, that does not excuse the conduct of ELQ22. --EMS | Talk04:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I would put it another way. When a successful Le Sage theory is found, it will be found that it can reproduce GR in a non-ad hoc way. This would distinguish it from, say, recent attempts to add on to MOND, already an ad hoc theory, to get it to explain gravitational lensing for instance. It may be odd to say, but after 300 years Le Sage's theory is still in its infancy. Regarding the present debate in this section, which runs to several pages already, I'm just trying to get the history right in the Kelvin section in the article. The version ELQ22 put at the end of the section is wrong.MRE19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That should not be a problem even now. Le Sage's model is a kinetic model involving two types of interactions. These are some form of inelastic interactions within material systems and possibly perfectly elastic point-like interactions with themselves. The latter (perfectly elastic interactions), not being dispersive (i.e. not resulting in any incoherrent scattering) cannot affect or diminish the vector magnitude of momentum along any straight line ray-path no matter how many of these perfectly elastic collisions occur between point A and point B and thus factor out as if they don't occur. In other words, Le Sage's medium of ultra-mundane particles, with respect to themselves, could be a perfect fluid. General Relativity models a hydrodynamic system and Le Sage's model is nothing if not hydrodynamic at its very core. So, as to mechanism I don't see any dissimilarity. What I do see is a totally different perspective. User: LeSagian April 7, 2006
Gosh, is it any surprise that I couldn't muster the interest to study the above comments in detail? It is probably time to archive at least some of the discussion on this page.
User:SneltCatNoc said: Wikipedia is not really the right place to resolve or debate scientific questions. All we can do, in order to maintain a decent level of integrity in the science articles, is insist on limiting the content of the articles to things that are verifiable in reputable sources, and we need to enforce the strict definition of what constitutes a reputable source. I strongly agree with that. Ed and others made a plea for civility by all participants in the discussion, and I strongly agree with that too.
I would agree that information contained should be independently verifiable however, reputable sources do not guarantee factual accuracy. If someone writes x is proportional to b it is verifiable by the fact that this means that every x is related to b by some fixed constant. This can be verifed by anyone by simply by putting pen to paper and knowing what x & b represent. Having the formula published will not change whether it is or is not a correct statement, that remains with the expression itself. This fact is the cornerstone of science itself. User: LeSagian
Maybe everyone should take a break until tempers cool, eh?
Perhaps you can objectively demonstate a loss of temper or incivility that was not provoked by anon 63.24 and his shills... User:LeSagian
I will be glad to do as you request just as soon as anon 63.24... and his socks provide verifiable evidence to his (their) identity. You have a better chance of hell freezing over than that occuring. User:LeSagian
User:LeSagian, you seem to be saying that you think it is acceptable to yourself use socks on a talk page as long as you think some other user is doing likewise, which would be not only childish but in clear violation of WP policy. Specifically, you (1) stipulate a condition for good behavior by yourself which involves, not something within your control (your own behavior here), but something not within your control (the behavior of another party to this "discussion"), (2) say that you see no chance of your condition being met. Don't you see how silly and unproductive that kind of attitude is? Please reread WP:CIV. ---CH21:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Length of the Article
When editing this article, a note appears, saying it may be "longer than desirable". I agree that it has become too long, partly due to inclusion of only marginally related material. For example, the section on Geology and expanding Earth theories is a bit of a tangent, and could be spun off into a separate article if anyone cares to do that. It is also connected to the current article only by the [false and/or unverifiable] claim that the heating problem can be solved by having the excess energy spontaneously congeal into matter. I suggest replacing that Geology section with (at most) a sentence or reference to some other article devoted to that subject. Then the four "references" for that topic can also be deleted from this article, saving more space.
In addition, I think there is considerable repetition in the other parts of the article, especially in the "Predictions of the Theory" section, and also between the "Basic Lesage Theory" section and the "Early Development" section. It is wearying to read essentially the same things multiple times. So I suggest economizing these sections.SneltCatNoc15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If you follow the links to article size, it says there is a preferred maximum of about 32 kb and we're at 30 kb now, so no need to take heavy action yet. There could be some economization, but you can see there is potential to confuse Le Sage's theory with Kelvin's, as you yourself have done. So I would proceed cautiously here.
As for the Earth expansion part, that should be left alone. Lesage gravity had a part to play in the development of that theory, which itself was part of the history of geology, and so it is germane to this article. I would also say it is one of the more interesting sections of the article. We still want an interesting article, don't we?MRE17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
06:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) revert
I've noticed this edit by Barry Mingst (talk·contribs) on my watchlists. USENET posts are unsuitable sources (with a narrow set of exceptions), see WP:RS. Unfortunately reverting only this edit would look like approving the previous edit by Barry, so I deciced to err on the side of caution and reverted both edits. I don't have the time to look into the issue, so please discuss that edit here. Or if Barry feels bold, he just can re-revert to his version (without the USENET source). --Pjacobi06:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The two edits are not related to one another. Removing the first, because of the second seems odd. The USENET link was the same verifiability of the prior two links (also unpublished and unverifiable). I have no problem with the deletion, if the prior two links are also removed. Which I will do on my next edit. I will move the summary info from that link to the text. I had been trying to keep the size of the main post down, per request of several commenters. I will return the substantive edit in a slightly altered form. This edit primarily adds the explicit references for allusions made in the existing text. I've also removed some redundant phrases (some prior contributor has a habit of repeating themselves).
With the appearance of a THIRD Pushing Gravity crackpot, Barry Mingst, who is now embarked on a campaign to delete all content from the article that doesn't conform to his POV, I think there is no choice but to fall back on the strict Wikipedia policy of allowing only citations and material from reputable sources, i.e., recognized peer-reviewed journals and established academic publishing houses. In addition, we need to be mindful of the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion and self-referencing. We have here THREE contributors to the hopbbyist publication "Pushing Gravity", all touting their own POVs. That book does not qualify as a reputable source under Wikipedia policy. When people were willing to allow contrary views to also be linked, it might have been marginally justifiable to allow the Pushing Gravity links, but now that Barry is expunging all other content, I really think there is no reasonable alternative but to strictly uphold Wikipedia policy, and trim the article down to just the verifiable facts from reputable sources.ELQ2214:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Crackpot is, as crackpot does. One edit, and David Semon (ELQ22 and other sock puppets) sees a "campaign." My one deletion of content (not counting rewrite to include explicit citations of material already in the text) was the removal of a long section on experimental support for Special Relativity. But this is a page on LeSage gravity. Interesting and venerable as SR is, it has nothing to do with gravitation -- Lesagian or otherwise. My deletion of this irrelevant section had nothing to do with my POV. It was in response to comments that the page was too long, made IIRC by ELQ22. David is explicit that he wants to remove "Pushing Gravity" references, because of "contrary views" -- a violation of Wiki policy.
The external references section had a newsgroup post (Carlip), and a link to the "Lesages Shadows" site. I wanted to add a comparison of various theories of kinetic gravity. But, because of complaints that the page was too long, I instead added a link to a post containing the table ... which also addressed the Lesages Shadows site. I was chastised for posting the link, as a violation of verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS. Since both of the prior links are explicitly unverifiable under that policy, I removed those too. It is not the "contrary view" that made the links unacceptable. The "reputable sources" argument was already resolved, accepted by David, and was a red herring in the first place (as Wiki seems to emphasize Reliable and Verifiable, not "reputable"). Obviously, a peer-reviewed book on the immediate subject of Lesagian and kinetic theories of gravity is both relevant and verifiable. Regardless of David / ELQ22's POV issues, and his attempt to hijack the page for his own purposes.Barry Mingst19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
IMHO Evans fits perfectly well under the Stormfront clause of WP:V and WP:RS:
Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic.
This is "Le Sage's theory" and not "Evans' theory", so better not to use Evans as source.
Regarding USENET, the case is even more clear:
Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
I seem to have embroiled myself in this accidentally, so I have a question for MRE: Is there material in this article (such a original translations of Le Sage's work) which are germane and are not otherwise available? If so, then please give us some details. Given that it is one of four references, I am not certain that the use of PG is required here, and think that the onus may be best left with you to demonstrate why the above does not impeach the reference. --EMS | Talk21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS, the comments above concerning Evans make absolutely no sense to me. Evans is a historian (also a physicist) at the U. of Puget Sound. He has written other articles on Le Sage. He is also Associate Editor of the Journal for the History of Astronomy. His paper in PG was highly praised by the history of science journal reviews. Note that no specific point he makes in the paper is being challenged here. The person most likely has not read Evans' paper. This is just another nonsense intrusion, possibly by the same individual. There is some new material in Evans' paper, of course. Would any academic bother to publish only old stuff? He has a lot of interesting biographical material on Le Sage, material not available elsewhere. I can e-mail you the PDF of this paper if you like. In short, this is just another attempt to slander everyone associated with PG.MRE19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I humbly apologize for my first-shoot-then-ask-questions action. This specific point ("Evans") was a reflex trained in other painful discussions. I was thinking of a completely different Evans. --Pjacobi19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed a quite different Evans! I'm sorry for assuming that you're the same person as ELQ22. With him having so many guises it's hard to tell.MRE21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Revert of ELQ22 edits
I have little use for POV edits, even if the orientation is mainstream. In Wikipedia, better is expected. My revert took care of two issues:
Removing detailed references to general relativity: That gravitation gravitates is a GR concept, and is not germane to Le Sage gravitation.
Restoring information on current research: IMO, if the topic is notable and the researchers are notable, then what the researchers are doing in this are is notable. (However, I will not say that they deserve much coverage, and IMO they are not getting much coverage.) If ELQ22 doe not agree with this, then he can seek an RfC.
I'd like to specifically direct the attention of all the defenders to my strongly positive comment above regarding the notably good behavior here at WP of someone I regard as a model dissident. And once again I entreat every contributor to respect WP:CIV.---CH00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to Delete Majoranna Shielding Discussion
I think the extensive discussion of gravitational shielding and related experiments in the present version of this article is not actually relevant to Le Sage gravity. Any viable Le Sage theory requires that ordinary matter is so sparse that there is no appreciable shileding for an amount of mass at least equal to the mass of Jupiter, because
otherwise the orbits of Jupiter's moons would be totally messed up, being periodically shielding from the Sun's gravity. (The Jovian system is actually an excellent "Evotos" type experiment, demonstrating that Jupiter and all its moons respond identically to the Sun's gravity.) Since Jupiter is over 300 times as massive as the Earth, it's quite clear that a tiny little mass like the Earth's moon cannot give any appreciable shileding.
Moreover, if anyone thinks the presence of the moon blocks the Sun's gravity to any appreciable extent, then how much more should the presence of the Earth? The Sun's gravity at high noon should be appreciably stronger than the Sun's gravity at midnight, because we have a daily TOTAL eclipse of the Sun when the Earth is positioned between us and the Sun. The effect should be gigantic compared with any shileding effect given by our tiny Moon. And yet there is absolutely no sign of the slightest such shielding effect.
The current article correctly notes that Majoranna's experiments were intended to detect shielding in the context of his own theory, which was quite different from Le Sage's theory. Majoranna's idea involved gravitational carriers emanating from mass itself,
I believe you are confused. Laplace assumed that bodies emitted gravitational particles (their density dropped off as 1/r^2). Yet no one argues that Laplace's work is irrelevant. Marjorana made no explicit assumption of where the graviating particles originated. He was testing for absorption *by* mass. Which works regardless of where particles originate.Barry Mingst04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point. Le Sage theory relies on nearly perfect transparency of ordinary matter in order to give the nearly perfect proportionality of gravity to mass (rather than to volume). Actually the argument I'm making is the same as Russell's, which is that shielding of anything near the magnitude of what Majorana claimed (or of what could possible be detected by the means he employed) would be at least four orders of magnitude greater than what could possibly be consistent with orbital stability, tides, and so on. The article even alludes to this, and on this basis, mainstream physics lost interest. The problem is that, from the standpoint of this article, the whole thing is then just a pointless diversion.
so the proportionality with mass was automatically assured, and thus (unlike Le Sage) he didn't have to posit a nearly perfect absence of shielding in order to account for this proportionality. If Majoranna had actually detected genuine gravitational shielding of the magnitude he reported, it would have been a strong DISproof of Le Sage's theory.
Whether or not shielding during solar eclipses makes sense in the context of Majoranna's theory, it certainly is not consistent with a Le Sage theory. So, if the discussion of all these shielding experiments is going to remain, it should be re-written to make it clear that the discovery of any appreciable shielding of the magnitude sought and claimed by Majoranna (and others) would actually DISprove Le Sage. But frankly, since no good evidence of gravitational shileding has ever been found, and since there is an abundance of evidence for NO shielding, the whole section is really irrelevant and pointless. The whole discussion should either be deleted or else moved to an article on Majoranna's theory of gravity, which was quite different from Le Sage's theory.
Admittedly my comments above are "original research" in the sense that I cannot point to any reputable published source. However, any claim that Majoranna's experiments ARE relevant to Le Sage (in a positive sense) is also "original research". I don't know of any reputable source that links Le Sage theory with Majoranna-type shielding experiments... and for good reason, because (as explained above) they are not rationally linked. Therefore, unless someone can provide a reference to a reputable source stating that Majoranna-type shielding would be confirmatory (rather than refuting) of Le Sage theory, I think it should be deleted as both irrelevant and "original research". Fixwiki18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet another sock puppet by David Semon/ELQ22/snelt, etc. Kindly spare us the long-winded excuses for trying to hijack the page once again. As you admit, your disucssion above is "original research." Since everyone here admits that LeSagian gravitation has the potential for gravitational shielding, then experimental tests for gravitational shielding is both relevant and appropriate. It does not matter if the theory that Majorana is "different" from LeSage's theory. A "point" for which you have only your unsubstantiated claim.Barry Mingst04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point. It isn't just that MY comments are "original research", it's that the comments in the article are also "original research", and therefore not appropriate. Also, my claim that Majorana's theory was different from Le Sage's is hardly unsubstantiated. The article itself contains the following statements:
an alternative theory of gravitation, also involving shading effects, proposed by Quirino Majorana... His view thus differed sharply from Le Sage’s, in that matter itself, rather than the remote regions of space, is the source of the gravitational fluxes.
So, clearly, your claim that my claim is unsubstantiated is unstantiated. If your point is that the existing article is bogus in its discussion of Majorana, then I agree. The whole discussion is a bogus and pointless diversion into a tangentially related (at best) episode in the history of fringe science. This article is devoted to one such episode (Le Sage gravity), but it shouldn't have to dredge up every other such episode along the way. As it stands, this article could be re-named "miscellaneous fringe science ideas", including Le Sage gravity, Majorana and Allias effects, and expanding Earth. For a Wikipedia article on Le Sage gravity it ought to be more focused. Fixwiki05:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I did a poor job of explaining why I think this section (on Majorana) should either be significantly changed, deleted, or moved to a separate article. So let me try again: My basic complaint is that the section is entitled "Predictions of Le Sage's Theory", whereas the effect claimed by Majorana is grossly INconsistent with Le Sage's theory, just as it is inconsistent with ANY theory of gravity that conforms to the observed facts of gravitation, such as stable orbits and tides, etc. And I shouldn't have said my comments were original research, because this is exactly the point made by Russell, as cited in the article. So the section is written exactly backwards. If Majorana's results actually represented genuine gravitational shielding, then it would DISprove Le Sage - and every other nominally viable theory. This is why I don't think it is sensible to include this elaborate discussion in a Le Sage article, especially not entitled "Predictions of Le Sage Theory", because it is exactly the opposite. Fixwiki13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
fixwiki's multitudinous POV edits and removal of references
Rather than simply revert this long string of POV edits and deletion of references made by the latest sock puppet, I'm going to try to go through these dozen-plus changes one-by-one and include anything of value.
First and second edits, moving Laplace's calculations ahead of discussion of LeSage's own activities is inappropriate historically (50 to 75 years out of sequence). It also breaks the flow of the article into the 19th century revival. Moved back to it's original (historical) location.
The flow is better in the earlier version. Strictly speaking, Laplace would be in the 19th century (or the turn of the century), but conceptually it allows a complete discussion of the speed, which is needed to fill out the basics.
Third edit was editorial. However, the second half of the first (now runon) sentence is strictly POV, and unsubstantiated. Second half of sentence deleted.
Disagree with this change. The edit is accurate and appropriate.
Fourth edit was pure POV. Cages are not identical hard spheres. The theories are similar, but not the same. LeSage's matter was not opaque. Change reverted. Difference is explicit in reference. I've tried a slight rewording to try to compromise without sacrificing reality.
Strongly disagree. Darwin's macroscopic matter was not opaque, but the microscopic matter of both Darwin and LeSage is opaque. Everyone other than Barry Minsk understands this.
Fifth edit was pure POV. Unsubstantiated. There are *no* experimental tests that "energy ... gravitates and ... is also a source of gravitation". But such doesn't exist in Ohanian and Rufinn. fixwiki is welcome to provide page number and explicit citation to show me wrong.
Strongly disagree. Chapter 1.6 lists the experimental references.
The sixth edit was by Ems57fcva. He has a good point. The whole paragraph is primarily POV, unrelated to LeSagian graviation. I'm willing to see it back in -- so long as it's clear that this is merely theory. Not experiment. So, this paragraph went away. Perhaps some more discussion to see if anyone else thinks GR theory is appropriate in an article on LeSage.
This change was already justified in previous discussion.
The seventh edit replaced the GR paragraph. While it may be that Dr. Carlip believes that GR is a superior theory, this is an encyclopediac page. Not a debate about the merits of one theory over another. Once again, fixwiki is welcome to provide an explicit source for this claim. Including page number, please.
Change already justified in previous discussion. This is not related to GR, see Rufinni and Ohanian, chapter 1.6, for discussion. For another reference to the experimental evidence that kinetic energy gravitates, see S. Carlip's paper in Am J Phys, 65, (1998), p409-413.
The eighth edit was further editing to the GR paragraph. Which is moot at this point.
Leave as is, see above. Also, see the Nordvedt effect, which has been experimentally checked to high accuracy from lunar ranging measurements, proving that gravitational energy gravitates. The fact that general relativity is the only known theory consistent with this experimental fact is beside the point. The point for this article is that Lesage theory is not compatible with this experimental fact.
The ninth edit was by LeSagian, modifying the predictions section.
This change should be reverted.
The tenth edit (by fixwiki) removed some of the prior mods. Fixwiki claimed it was "original research" this is a false claim. However, let's leave his deletion, pending a reference.
The eleventh edit removed some explicit historical references. Completely inappropriate and POV. Replaced. It doesn't matter if fixwiki likes Poincare better that Radzievskii.
Change already justified and explained.
The twelfth edit corrected the date of Poincare's orignal work, referencing the French version, instead of the English translation. However the basis for the rest of POV edits done by fixwiki were not supported. Reverted to original, except for date correction, and resulting paragraph order swap.
No, the previous version made a point of saying Poincare wrote his critique in 1918, shortly AFTER general relativity was published, which was in 1915. I pointed out that Poincare died in 1912, and he actually wrote Science and Method in 1908. My change was correct and appropriate.
The thirteenth edit removed the explict reference to famous argument. Replaced. It isn't redundant, until someone provides the page numbers from the 1929 version. Editorial word changes kept.
Incorrect. The fameous statement quoted is from the 1908 article.
I've protected this until you sort it out by consensus. I need to see it in an easy to read format and not spread out all over the talk page coupled with personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's my proposal.
1. Rollback the page to EMS's version dated 20:58, 4 May 2006
2. Keep this article locked for the near foreseeable future. The topic isn't a rapidly (or even a currently) changing one and as the posting history demonstrates, isn't being edited except for MRE, EMS, Mingst, and myself. I think we can find a compromise concensus by these but not 63.24 and all of his Socks. And furthermore, most of the editing activity is in response to 63.24 & socks activity.
3. Revisit this again in three months.
4. Or have a moderator (like EMS) that is willing to review proposed edits here, and barring any significant objections, then only he can post them to the site.
Other editors please state your preferences. BTW, a more recent version I can also live with can be found on my page. User:LeSagian
I am not going to get into the middle of this again. It has gotten to the point where my lack of expertise here makes details like these difficult to judge, and I now have other things on my plate. A rollback to a May 4 version sounds fine to me, but then edit proposals need to be hashed out here as long as the page remains protected. Once again, I will not be involved.
I have not looked at these latest edits enough to tell who is who here. Ideally a throughtful but open-minded mainstream person would oversee this page, but it seems that most mainstream editors are either uninterested in this topic or bring a strong anti-Le Sage POV of their own here.
One point on which I will make clear: That gravity gravitates in general relativity is totally irrelevant here. Le Sage gravitation would replace general relativity, thereby mooting such theoretical effects. So I see this argument as being tantamount to saying that special relativity is invalid beacuse its rule for kinetic energy is instead of . Just as special relativity is not classical mechanics, Le Sage gravitation is not general relativity, and that should be respected. --EMS | Talk02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the problem here is rooted in the "enthusiam" of the poster who-would-remain-anonymous, currently going by the ID "fixwiki". The issue is not so much one of the apparent cycling of sock puppets, but that the individual involved cannot seem to compromise, or let well enough alone. Even if this poster were to hold by his current promise to post only as "fixwiki" on this page, it doesn't address the main problem.
Fundamentally, this page is an overview of LeSagian gravitation. It is not a discussion group dedicated to proving the theory right or wrong. Certainly some mention of why the "mainstream" prefers General Relativity to LeSage is required. Some history of those who worked on the theory -- or opposed it -- is also appropriate. However, I agree that the more GR-specific claims (i.e. claims for Special Relativity, the Nordvedt effect and energy gravitation) are inappropriate to this page.
Perhaps this page could be unlocked only for a few predetermined individuals. For example, Chris Hillman is a clear partisan against LeSagian theory. I dare say, that if someone like Chris and someone like Matt Edwards could come up with a compromise wording, that should suffice for months to years. Just require that any modification be agreed to by at least one each of the "pro" and "anti" (LeSage) crowd.
I think a temporary rollback to the May 4th version is acceptable. And I'd be willing to volunteer as one of the "pro" group.Barry Mingst18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The latest series of edits began when Barry Mingst inserted a lot of erroneous material into the article, such as the statement that "soon after the announcement of general relativity (1915), Poincare published a critique of Le Sage's theory in the book Science and Method (1918)". I corrected this, because the book in question was actually written in 1908, and in fact Poincare died pre-maturely in 1912, so he obviously didn't write anything "after the announcement of general relativity". Is this really controversial? (One might ask why Barry wanted to link the timing of Poincare's critique of Le Sage theory to a presumably unrelated event, namely, the anouncement of general relativity... but I won't belabor the obvious point.)
Let's be clear about the situation here. Three collaborators to a hobbyist physics-crank polemic called "Pushing Gravity" (Matt, Paul, and Barry), a book that rejects every aspect of modern science, from quantum mechanics to relativity, have converged on this Wikipedia article and have been trying with all their combined might to make it reflect their own highly "original" views on the subject. (I'm using the word "original" not in the literal sense, but in the euphemistic sense, as it is used in the Wikipedia anti-crank policy statement.) To say that they can reach a consensus on this article is like saying that three ardant believers in moon landing hoax theories can reach a consensus that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. This doesn't mean that a Wikipedia article on the Apollo moon landings should be written from the point of view that those landings were a hoax.
The bottom line is, these three individuals are violating two very basic and very wise Wikipedia policies:
(1) Anti-Crank Policy: all material should be verifiable from reputable sources, defined as papers in scholarly peer-reviewed journals and books from established academic publishing houses, and
(2) Anti-Self-Promotion Policy: Wikipedia editors should not write articles about themselves or their own works.
No one can reasonably claim that "Pushing Gravity" is a reputable source (either for historical or for scientific information) according to the Wikipedia anti-crank definition, and yet some early versions of this article look like reproductions of the Pushing Gravity book cover liner notes - which is not surprising, since they both originated with Edwards/Mingst/Stowe. It is blatent self-promotion by the authors of a book that clearly does not qualify as a reputable source. And to top it off, these individuals have the balls to delete all links to actual valid information (such as the newsgroup post from Steve Carlip, a recognized and distinguished expert in the field) on the grounds that they aren't reputable sources. Truly amazing.
As for Ed, he at least has the honesty to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about on this subject, and that he shouldn't really be involved. I applaud him for this. To illustrate his own point, he complains that the gravitation of gravitational energy is purely a general relativistic concept... which of course is totally incorrect, as has been explained to him several times now. The Nordtvedt effect has shown experimentally that gravitational energy gravitates, and this is NOT merely within the context of general relativity, it is an experimental fact that ANY viable theory of gravity must satisfy. This is not a controversial point. References to standard textbooks have been provided. So in the one specific point where Ed thinks he's qualified to make an edit, he is utterly wrong, a fact which can easily be verified by anyone who cares enough to check the references provided.
My proposal is to leave the article locked as is. If and when it is unlocked, Ed should take his own advice and stop kibitzing about things he admits he doesn't understand, and Matt/Paul/Barry should be told in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion of physics-crank ideas, and that "Pushing Gravity" can be purchased for $19.95 on amazon by anyone who wishes to do so, but it does not qualify as a reputable source for either historical or scientific information in a Wikipedia article, and it will not be accepted as the basis for the Wikipedia article on Le Sage gravity.
It would be nice if we could proceed differently, by taking each point, one at a time (Poincare didn't write anything in 1918, the Nordvedt effect is not a general relativistic concept, Darwin's opaque spheres correspond to Le Sages's opaque bars, and so on), but unfortunately that isn't possible. The only way of dealing effectively with physics cranks is by scrupulously adhering to Wikipedia policies. If it isn't in a reputable source, it doesn't belong in the article. 63.24.109.9206:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This is just more of the same rubbish. Only you could blow up a minor point as to when Poincare wrote his critique into a proof of us being physics cranks. Here's where I stand on this. I have no stomach to debate the details of Le Sage's theory with the likes of you any further, you who can't even be man enough to write under a single name. I took some time to argue other points with you such as on Fatio and Kelvin, but even on the most minor of details, and when you are clearly wrong, you do not budge. And none of the moderators/mediators have sufficient expertise in this area to tell who is correct.
Your memory is faulty on this point. In the discussion of Fatio being credited by Lesage, you tacitly admited that you were wrong, although you still refused to accept it, and this did not escape the notice of EMS (the guy you oddly call the moderator, even though he has pointed out that he has no special status here as a moderator), who wrote
"Excuse me Matt, but you seem to be acknowledging that Le Sage did not publicly credit Fatio in his writings, which is the crux of the issue here. If that is the case, then ELQ22's edit is indeed more correct."
So even your "moderator" recognized that my edit was more correct - and this is on a point that you've chosen to cite as an example of when you were clearly right! Simply amazing. Remember, you began by claiming that Le Sage "Never missed an opportunity in his published writings to credit Fatio", and ended by saying "Well, he mentioned the name Fatio in one paper early in his career, although I won't tell you what he exactly said". By the way, having now checked that ONE SINGLE reference, I've confirmed that it is exactly as I expected... Le Sage mentioned Fatio only to damn him by claiming falsely that he (Fatio) didn't realize the corpuscles must give up momentum, and didn't realize that objects must be mostly transparent, so he didn't have a force proportional to mass, and etc., and that Fatio basically knew nothing, so therefore (by implication) I (Lesage) am the true originator of the theory. The only charitable interpretation is that Lesage was simply not in possession (at that time) of Fatio's main paper - the one he had gotten Newton and Huygens to sign and date, attesting that they had seen it, and in which he fully describes "LeSage's theory" in more detailed and cogent terms than LeSage ever did. A less charitable interpretation is... well, never mind. The point is that I was perfectly correct in insisting that the howler about LeSage scrupulously crediting Fatio be removed. And this is a strong example of why even the historical (let along scientific) material in "Pushing Gravity" is not to be relied upon.
Give it up. Kelvin makes it clear in his paper that Le Sage was generous in his praise of Fatio's and other's work. The source Kelvin mentions is Prevost's book. You claim to have read Prevost, but you seem to have missed this. You are the only one who has ever made this claim about Le Sage. What you are saying is POV + "original research" and total garbage.MRE16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of debating all this with you to the end of time. Like EMS I'm busy on other projects and can't afford to be derailed into these fruitless exchanges. Let's face it. This theory is not well-known by the majority of working physicists. What is needed is a simple article which is not controversial and then lock it, so that all of us can turn our attention to more important things. Some sort of special note could be added to explain why it is locked. It's because no resolution of the debate is possible. It would be like trying to have an article about the West Bank that that would be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis. Let's not fool ourselves that this is possible anymore.
Now which version to lock? If you hadn't mutilated the section on Majorana shielding we could almost go with the present version with one or two other changes perhaps. But here you've left Majorana and Radzievskii out in the cold. You're again unaware of the twentieth century developments and an article about Le Sage's theory is incomplete without them. So I would either go back to the version that Paul suggested (May 6?) or else a recent version that did not mutilate the Radzievskii/Majorana part. Incidentally, it is clear you haven't read PG properly or you'd have known that Roberto Martins in his second paper proved that the shielding predictions of Le Sage's theory and Majorana's theory are mathematically the same. For me this was one of the most interesting things that came out of the book.
EMS, I'm unclear on one point. We could have avoided some of the present mess if the rules about sock puppets had been simply enforced. fixwiki is just another one of the same. Who enforces the rules here? I have to say as a newcomer to Wikipedia I'm a bit surprised that a simple rule like that can't be enforced.MRE14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This is actually the only complaint that any of the "Pushing Gravity + Ed" cadre have ever been able to lodge against my edits. They can't successfully argue against the substance of my edits (which have been mostly just corrections of out-and-out falsehoods and Pushing Gravity bias), so instead they complain about those edits appearing from more than one user name, something which is completely immaterial to the content of the article. I'd be interested to hear how Matt thinks "the present mess" could have been avoided if only I posted under a single user name.
In contrast, Matt and Barry and Lesagian (Paul) are flagrantly violating the two most important Wikipedia rules, and these are rules that crucially affect the integrity of article content. They violate the "no original research rule", and they violate the "don't reference yourself" rule. But oddly enough, when Matt laments that no one seems to be enforcing the rules, he neglects to mention these violations.
Okay, here's my proposal: I will henceforth post to the Discussion page under only a single user name (so the world will be saved from having comments from me under multiple names), and Matt, Barry and Paul will henceforth agree to uphold the rules against "no original research" and against self-promotion and referencing yourself in the actual article. So I always post as Fixwiki, and all reference to Pushing Gravity and Apeiron are deleted. How does that sound?
What makes you so qualified to be a one-man judge and jury on Pushing Gravity? PG has been reviewed by professional historians and scientists. Most of the reviews have been either favourable or mixed. Only one that I can think of was totally negative, and that reviewer confused Le Sage's theory with Descartes' vortex theory. You seem to feel you're so wonderfully qualified to dismiss PG, but your credentials, not to mention your attitude, are not up to it.MRE16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Should this page be protected?
It is bugging me more and more that this page was protected at the behest of Le Sagian, who is the one editor here (at least that I have dealt with) for whom I have less respect than Fixwiki. Perhaps a cooling-off period may be needed here again. Otherwise, it may be an idea to promptly unprotect this page and request that both "Fixwiki" and Le Sagian refrain from editing this article directly, but instead post suggestions here and let other editors rule on them. BTW - Do note that this page must be unprotected sooner or later, with Wikipedia being what it is. --EMS | Talk22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS, I am also asking for protection for some neutral version of the article. I feel that Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavour, but is it right that two warring parties should have to go on indefinitely? It's a bit like the Hatfields and the McCoys here. We can never come to an agreement. I can understand that it goes against the Wikipedia principle to lock an article, but there must be precedents for this.MRE16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I agree with MRE. Is there a way to lock the page against all but a selected few *identified* people (some pro- some anti-), to whom anyone could e-mail suggested modifications? Barry Mingst18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Nordtvedt effect
"Fixwiki" wrote:
As for Ed, ... he complains that the gravitation of gravitational energy is purely a general relativistic concept... which of course is totally incorrect, as has been explained to him several times now. The Nordtvedt effect has shown experimentally that gravitational energy gravitates, and this is NOT merely within the context of general relativity, it is an experimental fact that ANY viable theory of gravity must satisfy. This is not a controversial point. References to standard textbooks have been provided. So in the one specific point where Ed thinks he's qualified to make an edit, he is utterly wrong, a fact which can easily be verified by anyone who cares enough to check the references provided.
I have looked at the references, and find that the Nordtvedt effect is primarily a test of the strong equivalence principle (SEP). In essense, it is asking if an object is accelerated due to gravitation at a rate that differs based on how much of its mass-energy is due to gravitational self-potential. As such, it says nothing about whether gravitation gravitates, except in being an overall validation of general relativity. I will admit that the SEP creates an intersting constraint on the cross-sectional attributes of the Le Sage particles, however.
By the way - I don't see any reference in that paragraph to a published article talking about how SEP or the lack of the Nordvelt effect affects Le Sage type theories. Without a reference to such an article, your paragraph is itself original research, being a new conclusion created from existing sources. BTW - It is the newness of the conclusion that is the issue there not the quality of sources used to create it.
You scream about others being "cranks", but IMO if an anti-crank policy was to be enfoced here then you should be the first to go. I have never before seen a mainstream editor or USENET poster who so much fits the prototype of a crackpot! You have a very, very set view of this issue and you refuse to have any toleration for anything that goes against it. It is most unfortunate that the needed advocate for the mainstream view of this subject is someone who is narrow-minded, rude, and as POV as any other editor here. --EMS | Talk21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, here is the text (from Ohanian and Rufinni) that Ed tells us says nothing about whether gravitational energy gravitates:
"If gravitational self-energy does not contribute in the normal way to the gravitational mass, then the Earth and the Moon will fall at different rates in the gravitational field of the Sun... very precise measurements of the Earth-Moon distance have been carried out by the laser ranging technique... these experiments indicate the gravitational energy gravitates in the normal way."
Also for the record, in response to Ed's claim that the reference says nothing about the viability of any alternative theories, here is another quote:
"...we must impose a severe restriction on any putative theory of gravitation... the theory must make all forms of energy gravitate in the same way... so far, only one theory of gravitation has been able to fulfill this requirement: Einstein's theory of gravitation. All the other theories contrived to compete with Einstein fail to meet the fundamental requirement of universal free-fall. Until the inventors of these alternative theories discover some way of calculating the gravitational self-energies of electrons, protons, and neutrons, they cannot predict the rates of fall of these particles. Because of this serious defect of all the alternative theories of gravitation, we will ignore them in this book..."
I think the quality and accuracy of Ed's scholarship can be deduced from comparing his comments with these actual quotes. But look, this shouldn't be about any editor's qualifications or judgement. If Wikipedia had to rely on the scientific acumen and intellectual or its editors, it would be doomed. Fortunately, there are policies that ensure it is unnecessary for us to hash out the truth or falsity of this or that scientific or historical claim. The policies are (1) only include statements that are verifiable from reputable sources, meaning peer-reviewed scholarly journals and established academic publishing houses, and (2) no self-promotion of yourself or your works. If these policies are upheld, there's no need for any of us to worry about what will appear here... unless our purpose is to insert things into Wikipedia that don't comply with these standards. Unfortunately, this is indeed the purpose of Matt, Barry and Paul, supported by Ed. (All that's missing is Tom "faces on Mars" van Flandern.) That's the situation.
One more point. Ed says I "scream about others being cranks". He's mistaken. I don't scream at all. Wikipedia has an anti-physics-crank policy, and it specifically states that the policy is intended to thwart "physics cranks, of whom there are many on the web". Is the Wikipedia policy "screaming"? And how exactly can one invoke the anti-crank policy without saying - or at the very least implying - that someone is a crank? I submit that one cannot. By the same token, it is hardly possible to invoke Wikipedia's policy against self-promotion without making the case that someone is engaged in self-promotion. And by its very nature, this is necessarily an "ad hominem" objection, because it is an "ad hominem" offense. Now, when someone combines BOTH of these offenses simultaneously, by inserting content that is both un-verifiable and self-promotional, it simply is not possible to object in a manner that the violator will regard as polite and respectful of his views. If Wikipedia is going to survive, there have to be some people around who are willing to call a crank a crank.Fixwiki03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You have completely missed the boat on what Ohanian and Ruffini are saying. They are noting the the Nordvelt effect's absense shows that gravitational potential energy responds to gravitation in the same way as mass itself. That says nothing about how that energy contributes to gravitation. The Ohanian and Ruffini quote also makes reference to "theories contrived to compete with Einstein", which I read as meaning metric theories of gravitation. However, Le Sage gravitation is not a metric theory of gravitation. So it must stand or fall on its own terms, not those of GR.
All of this said, I am very much a fan of GR. (After all, my own original research is based on it. So if GR fails in a blatant fashion, my ideas would go down the drain with it.) So I certainly agree that the confirmed tests of general relativity create some interesting constraints under which any Le Sage gravitation theory must operate. I really think that the classical tests (the perihelion precession of Mercury, the bending of light by the Sun, and gravitational time dilation) create a much nastier environment for Le Sage gravitation than the Nodvelt effect result does.
I explicitly addressed your point, by pointing out that I am merely quoting from a reputable source, and this source says very directly that "gravitational energy gravitates". This doesn't just say gravitational energy falls, it says gravitational energy _gravitates_. (I suggest you look up the word if you don't know what it means. Also, by equal action and reaction, anything that is pulled must also pull.) Your claims to the contrary are simply false, and this has been explained to you over and over, with direct verbatim quotes from an eminently reputable source.
You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
You are no longer talking about the Nordvelt effect, which refers to gravitational potential energy alone
Gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity, which reduces the total mass-energy of the system. So it does not gravitate, it "anti-gravitates".
The source of the raw data that you are using here is not being questioned (and in spite of what I just wrote above I do agree that all energy gravitates), but rather I am saying that you are using that good data to say something that is novel (in that gravitational energy being a source of gravitation is a refutation of Le Sage gravitation). You may be completely correct, but the issue in original research is the use of Wikipedia to present a new conclusion to the world, not the correctness of that conclusion. --EMS | Talk14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the source goes on to say explicitly that "all the alternative theories of gravitation" fail to comply with this experimentally verified requirement. Again, this is q direct quote from a reputable source, and can in no way be construed as "original research". The only straw you are grasping at here is that Ohanian and Ruffini, quite naturally, referred to the alternative theories of gravity as "theories contrived to compete with Einstein". You would have us excuse Le Sage theory, and on this basis you claim that I have engaged in "original research" by applying Ohanian and Ruffini's comments to Le Sage theory. But this is plainly invalid, because Edwards/Mingst/Stowe do not conceed that Le Sage is merely a historical relic... their whole point is that some modern variation of Le Sage's idea can be contrived to be a viable competetor to general relativity. They contend that it is still being developed and "researched" today, and no one disputes that general relativity is the theory to beat. If the Pushing Gravity cadre were prepared to conceed that this is not the case, and that Le Sage's whole concept is dead and defunct, and that they are not contriving to make it a viable competetor to general relativity, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Section 1.6 of Ohanian and Ruffini is "The Empirical Evidence for the Equivalence Principle of m_G and m_I". The energy claims made in this section, deal explicitly and *exclusively* with the list of theories evaluated by Clifford Will, in his 1993 book. Obviously, O&R did not evaluate every theory that was ever proposed. The list does not include any variant of LeSagian theory. Will is the sole source given by O&R for the claims about energy gravitating. And the whole point of the energy gravitating claims is that m_g should equal m_I. And *in GR* if energy (of any sort) does not gravitate in the same manner as inertial mass, then m_g will not be strictly equal to m_I. But that is not where your "original research" lies. Your original research is your assertion that -- in some unstated manner -- LeSagian theories fail the test of m_g = m_I. You failed to notice that gravitation in a LeSage theory *IS* inertial force, and nothing more. A LeSagian theory is even more tied to m_g = m_I than GR is. Regardless of any component energies, m_g = m_I in a LeSagian theory. If an experiment ever was to find a violation of m_G = m_I, then GR has available outs by possibly declaring that gravity or kinetic energy doesn't gravitate. But LeSagian theory would be DOA. And that is why your claims are original research. The mere fact that a claim is made in a textbook does not make it true or even verifiable -- when you take it out of context, as you have done.Barry Mingst23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Barry - Any evidence that is very bad news for Einstein's GR. It becomes possible that another metric theory of gravitation can account for it, but Einstein's theory cannot. At the same time, Le Sage gravitation models can look to various forms of gravitational shielding and/or fancy absorbtion/scattering functions to achieve the same effect. It is one of the things about Le Sage gravitation that disturbs me in that the amount of force delivered is totally dependent on the mass of the object and not at all its size. That is just not necessarily a given for Le Sage gravitation theories, but instead is asserted just as the same was done for Newtonian gravity.
I'm not sure how you have come to the above understanding about LeSagian theory. The mass-dependence of LeSage's theory arises from the mathematics of the model, as a result of the essential transparency of mass to the LeSagian 'corpuscles'. It is not an assumption, and it *is* necessary to the theory. In addition to LeSage; Laplace, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Feynman (to name some of the most famous) all derived the mass-dependence with little difficulty. The reason that some of these didn't like the theory lay with conclusions about the instability of orbits and/or heating.
Perhaps you are confusing "pushing gravity" theories (not the book) with LeSagian theories. LeSagian theories are a subset of pushing gravity theories. For example, the theory of gravitation by visible light pressure is a pushing gravity theory. It *is* dependent upon the macroscopic cross-sectional area of the *opaque* bodies (but this is not LeSage's theory). Perhaps you could point me to a specific LeSagian theory that simply asserts mass dependence, instead of deriving it.Barry Mingst21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made my case. I will not debate you. I came here to ensure that there would be fairness in the treatment of Le Sage gravitation, which IMO means letting it and its history do the speaking for the most part. Modern variations are permissible in my view only to the extent that their creators and/or chief promoters are notable people (as evidence by their having their own articles in Wikipedia). Even then I leave that mention tucked away near the end of the article. I support your view of "Fixwiki", but please do not mistake myself for a supporter of Le Sage gravitation. What I would love to see is Fixwiki and MRE work together to improve the article, but if his alias ELQ22 is indeed his initials and his birth year, then "Fixwiki" is a professor emeritus who is very knowledgable on this topic but also very, very set in his ways and opinions. It is a shame that he sees fit to look down his nose at the rest of us. he should be a valuable resource for this page, not a distraction that gets it locked up. --EMS | Talk03:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you have not made your case, therein lies the problem. Also, it has nothing to do with modern variations either. Le Sage's model is clear, and its core aspect does not change. Regardless of whether Le Sage's model is dealing with a weak attenuators (ones strictly proportional to mass), strong attenuators (ones strictly proportional to physical cross-sectional area), or both, the observed behavior of the force is the same. Let's speak in the language of mathematics shall we, the familiar Newtonian expression written in Le Sage's model is,
Where = the corpuscular momentum flux and = the mass attenuation coefficient. Then the gravitational constant becomes G = . For strong attenuators (all impinging flux is blocked) the force equation becomes,
And of course, one of each is,
As you should be able to recognize from the form of the above expressions if one does not know the mass of the objects one can alway use the Newtonian formula to get values for masses, regardless of which of the above is actually in play. You simply cannot determine the mass of planets by any mean other than calculation! Perhaps you can tell us how to discriminate between these without independently determining the masses first.
Moreover, there is the more fundamental question of what is inertia? Its very definition is linked to a force response. In fact, this is how we define mass. For inertia, where that force response originates has never even been defined, much less identified. As is rather obvious, in Le Sage theory the gravitational force results from inelastic interactions with the corpuscular field. We have no reason to think that the force response of for inertia is somehow different. Unless some other causal agent for the inertial response can be clearly defined there exists no reason to say, or even think it must. In other words, in Le Sage theory if the mass is screened this is so for both gravitational and inertial response. In all Le Sage models the force response is solely a function of an attenuation cross-section. Massive becomes an emergent quantity, not a fundamental one, arrising from the LeSagian attenuation process itself. User: LeSagian
On the other hand, because of the equivalence principle, general relativity has no choice but to obey that rule.
Let me put it to you this way: I don't like "Fixwiki" either, but I am not going to tolerate your selling Le Sage gravitation as something that it is not, nor for you making blatantly false statements about GR either. --EMS | Talk04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
As to my "selling", my purpose in posting was to clarify the issue of m_G = m_I for LeSagian theory -- and therefore to point out that fixwiki's "energy gravitates" claims were simply "original research". Fixwiki misleads by taking a statement out of context from an otherwise-reputable source. O & R's reference (Will) did not evaluate LeSagian theory at all (excluding them in section 2.2, before he ever began analysis). Hence, fixwiki's claim is original research. Quite simply, fixwiki is trying to sell LeSagian theory as "something that it is not." And I'm calling him on it.
As to my statement on GR, I'm sorry to have stepped on your theoretical toes. At first, I could not understand the vehemence of your response. After reading the Wiki page on the EP (which you helped write), I see that you have a far different view of what constitutes "general relativity" than I do. For example, you state that "... general relativity (including the cosmological constant) is thought to be the only theory of gravity that satisfies the strong equivalence principle." I do not include Relativistic Cosmology (Einstein's 1917 work on cosmology, where the cosmological constant was first proposed) as part of General Relativity (Einstein's 1915-6 work). RC contains GR, but GR does not contain RC. I consider the two theories to be closely related, but not the same.
I wholeheartedly agree that "Although the equivalence principle helped to guide the development of general relativity, it is not a founding principle." The EP (weak, Einstein, or strong) does not enter into the equations of Einstein's 1916 paper. It is true that the modern "geometrical" interpretation cannot handle m_G <> m_I. But, I was not limiting my comments on GR to the geometrical interpretation. Einstein's GR can handle a weak or Einstein EP. GR is substantially different than LeSagian theory. But a Wiki page on LeSagian theory is not the place to try to determine which is right.Barry Mingst21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
So, in summary, I stand by my claim that the referenced source (and countless more could be cited saying the same things) fully supports the statements in the article to the effect that any viable theory of gravity must couple to ALL kinds of energy, including kinetic, potential, and even gravitational, and that NO known alternative theory of gravity (which certainly includes any modern theory based on Le Sage's concept) satisfies this requirement. None of this is original research, it is simply accurately reflecting the current scientific understanding as expressed in many reputable published sources. On the other hand, your objections to this are utterly false and self-evidently specious. Please cite ONE reputable source that even HINTS at the possibility that any variation of Le Sage's theory (ancient or modern) could couple with ANY kind of energy, let alone with gravitational energy. Lacking such a reference, you have no grounds for trying to insert your personal opinions on this subject into the article.Fixwiki07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Le Sage gravitation theories are tunanble, I find it hard to believe that one cannot created one that fits all existing observations, although I am quite certain that it would be a very convoluted and contrived theory. After all, you can describe the correct motions of the planets in the Ptolemaic system if you use enough epicycles and a complex enough equant. (And yes, I agree that a simple pass with Occam's razor will be more than adequate to remove that silliness from any serious scientific consideration.)
Overall, the issue is one of fairness IMO anyway. I think that Le Sage gravitation does a fine job of disqualifying itself. After all, the older variations have failed and the newer ones tend to contradict each other. So I do not see that you need to sacrifice Le Sage gravitation on the alter of general relativity. Just report the facts, and let them speak to the issue.
Beyond that, I am done with editing the article, but I will keep tabs on things here. Fixwiki - On issues like the Poincare dispute you do show a depth of knowledge and perspective that this article sorely needs. My gripe with you is less that you don't know what you are talking about than that you don't know what you are doing here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is no need to for you to fight fire with fire by pushing a blatantly anti-Le Sage agenda here. Stick to the facts, and help to make this one of the best-documented articles in Wikipedia. I do want "Pushing Gravity" to be kept in its proper place, which is as a source of information on current thinking on this subject. Beyond that, if there is not a mainstream survey and refutation of the current Le Sage variants, then maybe you should write one and get it published somewhere. Otherwise, the fact that noone has chosen to do so actually is worth mentioning in this article, as it indicates the lack of mainstream attention that this topic has received. (And yes, I do agree that said lack is deserved, although I strongly counsel against saying explicitly so in the article.)
In short, the nasitiest thing that you can do to this subject is to let the raw facts speck for themselves. (Assuming that is that you can.) --EMS | Talk14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to interrupt this exchange too much, but I did want to make just a few short points. First, a successful Le Sage theory will need to be compatible with GR and the strong equivalence principle. There has to be convergence at the end of the day. We just aren't there yet. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the book did get some favourable reviews, including a notable one by Sir Alan Cook in Contemporary Physics. The variety of points of view in PG also make it a hard target to critique. So I'm not sure it's accurate to say we have not gotten attention from the mainstream.MRE16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just showing the ignorance that has made it so that I can no longer safely edit this page (but it is good that this page has gotten into a shape that I am in this position, which was the goal of my original involvement anyway). However, I do not know of how much as been written about this topic in recent years amongst mainstream writers and in mainstream journals. Steve Carlip's critique on abberation is about the only thing that comes to mind, and even then its application is indirect as the article's subject is a criticism of existing theory used to justify the use of Le Sage gravitation models and not Le Sage gravitation itself. So it would be nice to know what else exists. I suspect that it is not a whole lot. (BTW - Don't overrate Pushing Gravity in this context. It may be a good book within its own context, but because of its orientation it is not an acceptable source of current mainstream thought. For that reason, "Fixwiki" is not totally wrong in his disdain for the book.) --EMS | Talk17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You're correct that not a lot has been written and much of what has been written is only superficial. To a certain extent that is the deficit that we were trying to correct with the book. As for the book itself, it is not right to view it as uniformly pro-Le Sage. The historical articles (Evans, van Lunteren, Martins, Borzeszkowski & Treder, Treder, Aiton (reprint)) certainly do not take that slant. They just cover the history. There is a review article by Gillies and Unnikrishnan on gravitational shielding that certainly does not. There are about a third of the articles which do take a pro-Le Sage stand, but there was an effort to provide balance. If there was not balance do you suppose the book would have over twenty reviews in history of science and science journals, many of them favourable? I recognize that PG may not be up your alley, but before you take Fitz's view hook, line and sinker you should really have a look at the book. I think you'll find that disdain is not the best reaction.MRE13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll e-mail you later. Maybe I should take you up on the offer of giving me a copy of that book. Certainly if there is any material in PG that documents the difficulties it now faces given the success of general relativity, it is reasonable to quote that here. (I find it hard to argue against inclusion of such text given the basic slant of PG.) Beyond that, be advised that Fixwiki raises some good issues here. However, he treat the answers as a given, and feels that this article should shove the impropriety of Le Sage gravitation down people's throats. My own view is that on a purely philosophical level, it is a reasonable alternative to other theories. (More to the point: If the question is "what could cause gravitation?", this is a possibility that deserves consideration.) However, I do agree that the current state of theory and experiment make it very, very unlikely that a Le Sage-style model will ever be accepted, and even that statement may be overly charitable. None the less, I would like to let the reader see that for themself, instead of having this article effectively "hold its nose" while describing it. --EMS | Talk14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The offer's certainly still there. I would be curious to know what you think makes Le Sage-type models so very unlikely. The field interpretation of GR would call for some sort of entity to carry the force. Le Sage just puts that idea in its simplest terms.MRE15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Gravitation is not due to a force in general relativity. As an object collapses, it leaves behind curved spacetime. Similarly, if objects are accelerated the information on changes to the field are propogated by gravitons, but once the gravitons have passed, what is left is the new curvature. No action is needed to propagate the curvature. It just sticks around. (That is one reason why a black hole can exist in Einstein's theory: The object may not longer be able to influence extenal events, but the curvature it left behind is a permanent fixture, at least until the black hole evaporates.) --EMS | Talk04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you're saying that the only interpretation of GR that is valid is the geometric one. I noticed that this is also expressed on the general relativity page. All I can say is that I am for the field interpretation of GR, which is the one that Einstein preferred. In that interpretation, gravity is a a force just like the other forces.MRE16:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
On the topic of what Le Sage gravity has to do with the Nordvedt effect, there is this point to consider. The Nordvedt effect has to do with the possible change in the gravitational force which may arise by virtue of the self-gravitational energy (internal gravitational potential energy). In Le Sage's theory and also Majorana's, the mass of an object will diminish somewhat if it is compacted into a smaller radius. Majorana discussed this in terms of the "apparent mass", what we measure, and the "true mass", what we would measure if the mass of an object were finely distributed in space. Since systems with higher gravitational potential energy have greater mass in Le Sage's theory or Majorana's theory, the possibility also arises that mass is just gravitational potential energy. This idea was stated long ago by Edward Tryon. In my opinion, all these points are too complex and unresolved to be presented in the article.MRE17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. I didn't have that quite right. In Le Sage/Majorana the apparent mass would decrease for the more compacted object. However, from Tryon's standpoint, since the compacted mass has a greater (more negative) amount of gravitational potential energy associated with it, its mass would correspondingly be greater. If that were true then the two effects might cancel and we would see no Nordvedt effect. (I've recently come up with some evidence that Tryon's model is correct, which will be published soon.)MRE20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing the protection
Let's use this page for what it is meant for: deciding how to edit this article. We need to make some decisions, and get the protections removed ASAP.
First issue: Revert to the May 4 version by ems57fcva. Kindly note if you support or oppose. A consensus (not a simple majority) will rule. Note that anonymous editors and sockpuppets will be disregarded.
Second issue: Removal of the last paragraph from the section "Developments in the 20th Century" for the May 4 version. This is the one that brings up the issue of gravity gravitating. Same rules as above.
After this, other editors are free to list other changes that they would like to see. Please start new thread to discuss these ideas, and leave this thread for determining if consensus exists, and if so what it is. Note that in the lack of a consensus, no action can be reqeusted of the admin, and this page may stay locked. (Note that not chosing not to change something is a legitimate action in this regard.) --EMS | Talk04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS, I think Barry, Paul and I are not too keen on getting into further disputes with Fixwiki. Don't be surprised if you don't get too many votes here. I would suggest, however, that as an interim measure you could revert to the May 4 page and leave that one protected. The present page has serious omissions in the section "Testing for Non-Newtonian Effects". Note that the reference to Majorana no longer makes sense, since the context was deleted. Also, Fixwiki deleted the ref to Radzievskii (for the second time). I think if we are to remove protection, we will need to get semi-protection for Radzievskii and Majorana, in the same way it was given to the "Current Status" section.MRE21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MRE that unless you can somehow gain control ELQ and ALL of his sockpuppets continued protection seems to be the only viable solution here. This is a sad state of affairs for a Wiki because I would think that there would exist other means. It's not like one cannot recognize the personality and intent behind those socks and I think you can also find the URL behind each registered sock. Further, one can see from each of the sock's history that they are created solely to circumvent the 3 revert rules of a single registered user. I stand by my original recommendations posted earlier unless an administrator is willing to continually monitor this page to shut down multiple socks from a single URL and quickly react to inflamatory edits? As Matt points out, most rational editors don't want to spend their lives constantly attempting to repair damage done by an irrational zealot personality. Such a zealot puts an undue effort on all involved. They depend upon this to ultimately get their way. User:LeSagian 06:48, 28 May 2006 (PDT)
I want this protection to end! There is an entire conflict resolution process here. Kindly start using it, and stop going crying to an admin for protection! Like it or not, Wikipedia is a living changing encyclopedia, and freezing an article in place in an anathema to it. Mind you, I have been through an Wikipedia:RfAr process before, and it is no fun. However, if it gets "Fixwiki" is banned on one account as a result, he his banned on all. IMO, either you all think that you have a leg to stand on with suich an action and commence it, or you don't and will have to live with "Fixwiki".
I will seek to have the protection removed by the end of this week, once there has been a fair chance for Fixwiki to register his disapproval. What I strongly suggest here is that both "Fixwiki" and Le Sagian refrain from directly editing this article, but instead post comments here with any suggestions and concerns. I will remain around to assist things a bit.
Le Sagian - If "Fixwiki" does not agree to this, then I would request that you limit you presense in the page to reverting thinngs that another editor has seen fit to revert. "Fixwiki" cannot will 2 or 3-to-one edit wars. However, I would prefer to avoid that.
MRE - If this happens, it would put you into a lead role. Please be very conscientious in that case, and treat Fixwiki fairly. Remember that he is a resource and is often right, especially on issues of raw historical fact. (Even on the "gravity gravitating" business he was factually correct. There are just legitimate editorial and Wikipedia-related reasons why that is inappropriate even though it is correct.)
In any case, I advise that people get their act together, because I will not let protection be a permanent state for this article. --EMS | Talk23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Since this is the second time you have elluded to (in an obvious insulting manner) that I went crying to an admin to beg for protection please provide rhe objective evidence. The actual fact is, I did exactly what you specifically said to do earlier (as can be seen in your own words) in the situation that arose. Further, the other editors were just as frustrated with FixWiki as I at that juncture. I did not expect, and was surprised to see, that protection was applied and nothing in my comments to the admin can be twisted into claiming that protection was mentioned or requested, much less cried for! So, I'll ask why are you being rude and demeaning in a targeted manner specifically toward me? As for editing, I will expect to be treated fairly and with the same respect as any other reasonable editor. I do not, and will not engage in preemptive personal insults and rude behavior. I will however, when pushed far enough by rude behavior of others, defend myself. So, I say to you, grow up, behave in a civil manner, and lose the insults and treat me with the same civility and manners that I have always shown you. User:LeSagian 21:15, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
EMS, I can't agree with you that Fixwiki is "often right". He was wrong about Le Sage not crediting Fatio. He was wrong about Preston's reply to Maxwell being disproved; no one disproved that. He is wrong that nothing of importance happened in the period after Poincare. He is ignorant about Radzievskii's contribution and the connection to Majorana, and thus wrong to delete this. The point about gravity gravitating is an open question and not sufficiently resolved to bear on the article. You have the notion that Fixwiki is a professor emeritus. This is most surely wrong. If Fixwiki has his way he will eventually reduce Le Sage's theory to a centuries-old fossil. Can you at least confer protection against his edits on the sections related to Radzievskii-Majorana and the geology section, as you did with the "current status" section? These sections after all are part of the "current status". If not, I'm reluctant to participate further.MRE17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
MRE - You and Barry and Le Sagian can stand pat against him, and call the administrators down on him on it whenever he violates the three-revert rule. Be aware that there is nothing more frustrating to an editor is to have thier edits not stick. A group can overwhelm an individual at all times. BTW - Do not worry about "Fixwiki's" sock puppets. If you read the policy that I just linked to, you will see that using sock puppets to get around the three-revert rule is a major abuse and can result in the puppeteer and all of the sock puppets being banned. In addition, I can also stay involved and mediate in these disputes, although I would prefer to not edit this article now.
One warning though - "Fixwiki" fears this article becoming a point of promotion for non-standard viewpoints, with the history being misrepresented and Le Sage gravitation being treated as an active area of scientific insterest instead of the "back water" area of research that it is. I do share that fear. On the other hand, I also see your fear that this article could become shallow and dismissive of Le Sage gravitation. To me, the answer is in the middle, and driven by the issue of what is fair for the readers to know. Some discussion on the history is legitimate, but beyond a certain point the details are trivial.
As for "Fixwiki" being right: He often seems to be. Certainly be had a point about Poincare dying in 1912 and that one article being published in 1908. Beyond that, I wish that "Fixwiki" would engage in an scolarly dialog here instead of treating the rest of us as ignorant fools. If something impresses him as wrong or trivial or OR, then he can make the point. Instead he wants us to accept him on blind faith and there is no need for that. --EMS | Talk20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That is somewhat encouraging. On the other hand, Fixwiki has already confessed to sock puppetting here and nothing happened to him. Can we take it that if he does do it again he will be banned this time? I should point out I'm not opposed to each and every edit he's made. In many instances, however, he has been wrong and refuses to admit it when confronted. The Fatio/Le Sage controversy is an example. On the Poincare date, he made a mountain out of a molehill. I had originally provided the citation to the English translation of his article, which came out some years after he died.MRE21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppetry is an issue primarily when it is used to get around an administrative action, or when used to "stuff the ballot" in a poll. Neither has occurred so far. I'm not sure what "Fixwiki" has been trying to do in this case. Perhaps he has been trying to fool us into thinking that the new persona is somehow acceptable, but his agenda and his attitude identify him as good as any signature. Let's just say that if he tries it again, you all should alert the admins about it, as noted under Wikipedia:sock puppetry, amd let them deal with the issue. Beyond that, if you want to "contain" "Fixwiki", you need to use the Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration mechanisms. I can tell you that nothing is going to happen without a complaint. So the future of this article is somewhat in your own hands. Either you fight for what you think is right, or you throw up your hands and let "Fixwiki" rule here. To be blunt about it, I don't care enough about this topic to do the work involved in starting those actions, but I may add my POV to such actions if you do. --EMS | Talk04:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Links to Kelvin and Darwin
I would like to add these Links in den Link-Section:
Lord Kelvin: "On the Ultramundane Corpuscles of Le Sage", 1905. Link: [4]
G.H. Darwin, "The Analogy between Le Sages Theorie of Gravitation und the Repulsion of Light", 1905. Link: [5]
I think that I can speak for the majority of the editors here when I say we are also truly sorry that protection became a necessity. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel. I recommend that upon reversion to the May 4 version these references be added in the appropriate places. Thank you for your contribution here, it is this type of contributions that Wiki is all about. User:LeSagian 08:10 (PDT) May 29, 2006
Followup: I noticed that D.H is a new Sock with not posting history. Given the recent history of these we could be looking at another incarnation of the very same 63.24... anon. I hope not. User:LeSagian 08:21 (PDT) May 29, 2006
No, I don't think so. I think this is Dietmar Hainz, who also clued me in on the online "Lucretius Newtonien". Thanks for the links, Dietmar. I hope we can add them in soon. Our problem at the momemt is that one of us (who has used the names ELQ22, Fixwiki, SneltCatNoc and others) is convinced that Le Sage's theory died out a hundred years ago, while others here think it is still very much alive. EMS has been trying to sort things out, but it's no simple task.MRE16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Matt, thrice burned alway shy. Welome Dietmar, and just in case you aren't aware, we've had an Anon poster from uu.net who has created multiple blank Socks (ELQ22, SneltCatNoc, RundAudio, FixWiki, ... etc) just to engage in a continous edit war. No offense was intented thus my comment, I hope not. User:LeSagian 10:36 (PDT) May 29, 2006
Yes, I am Dietmar Hainz - and thanks to Matt(Edwards?) and LeSagian for the friendly welcome. Of course, I have nothing to do with these "multiple blank Socks". I am very interested in the Le Sage-Theory and its History, because some time ago I read a book written by the german Science-Historic Horst Zehe, who described Fatio's(and Le Sage's) Theory very detailed in a more than 480-Pages-Book called "Die Gravitationstheorie des Nicolas Fatio de Dullier" (in German), 1981. Van Lunteren mentioned this book very often in his article in the book Pushing Gravity(edited by Matt Edwards) - see the footnotes there . Greetings, Dietmar Hainz. --D.H18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Dietmar, you'll notice further up on this page the section "Fatio/Le Sage historic dispute". One of Fixwiki's (ELQ22's) many odd claims is that Le Sage never gave Fatio any credit for his contributions. Of course, this is total rubbish, as you can see in the very same Kelvin article for which you gave the link. By the way, if you didn't notice, Zehe has also written an article on Le Sage, assisted by Wiard Hinrichs. It is in "Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Mathemat.-Physikal. Klasse, no. 1, 2003". It is also in German. Much of the interest in Le Sage comes from Germany and I hope there could be a German version of Pushing Gravity some day. Matt EdwardsMRE18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Maintaining NPOV
Paul (a.k.a. Le Sagian) -
Your recent edits had a very, very pro Le-Sage flavor. In one place, established reasons why Le Sage gravitation is suspect (due to appearently having a limited range) got replaced with what is obviously much more recent and mcuh more obscure specualation of how it can work. That is the kind of stuff that ELQ22 wanted rightfully to avoid. Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Let me make it very, very plain to you that for this article to be a good part of Wikiepdia that is must have a neutral point of view. I realize that you very much believe in Le Sage gravitation, but either you leave your biases "at the door" or you should not edit here.
You are specifically incorrect in this case. Notice that during the height of his editing FixWiki let that stand. I was being MORE clear as to how & why finite range comes about and it isn't a controversial. I was attempting to eliminate an inaccuracy. I do suggest you take a look at Volume II Chapter 40 of Feynman's Lectures. As he notes, if a perfect fluid (one with zero viscosity, thus dispersion) if the media is irrotational no rotation can ever be induced. This is regardless of the interaction mean free path and would you like to take a wild guess as to why this is? This is why he calls this state Dry Water You'll find that the whole issue isn't one of mean free path, its incoherrent scattering, which requires a non-zero vicosity. That means dispersion is the key, not mean free path. This is what that revision clearly reflects.
The current series of edits are intended to only improve words of already existing content, not to change that content. Rolling back is severe and I intent to revert this rollback unless you can cite specifics inacurracies, bias, or changes of content from the June 8 & 9 edits. I really don't think you actually really reading these specific article changes anyway. I think your bias against me is driving this. For example, did you actually read the 20th Century section where it says, quote, "A famous critique of LeSage's theory was producted by Poincaré.". producted? now really EMS? Also, how many times do we really need to reuse Poincare's name in a paragraph specific to the lead sentence? As for the issue above you could have edited that paragraph and come here for technical discussion. User: LeSagian 20:16 PST April 9, 2006
As a practical matter, I would like yourself and ELQ22 (shouid he ever return) to propose specific edits here and get a favorable community consensus here for them before placng them into the article. Whether you like my saying so or not, you are just as biased and disruptive to this article as ELQ22, and your being pro-Le Sage gravitation does not make your viewpoint any more acceptable. (In fact, since Le Sage gravitation is not accepted in the mainsteam, your POV is less acceptable.) --EMS | Talk03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the page is unlocked clearly the other editors can have their say. But, unless I see a concensus of these other editors requesting this (other than you since you seem to have a very clear specific bias here), no! If they all agree, then ok.
I would much rather let Matt have a say in these issues. I do not trust you any more than I trust ELQ22. I never saw ELQ22 as being the lone guilty party in the "food fights" you had with him. Instead I saw two POV warriers battling it out.
I will warn you now that if this page becomes dominated by the pro-Le Sage gravitation viewpoint, the result will be an article that needs to be either rewritten, reverted back to the 6/6/06 version again, or removed. Even your edits to the intro turned it from a carefully worded warning to the readers that this is not an accepted scientific theory to a portrayal of this topic as a potentially fruitful line of research. That was enough to set off my "bull-sh**" detector. --EMS | Talk05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's take this one sentence at a time, shall we?
In 1784 Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) of Geneva proposed a simple kinetic theory for gravity which mathematically produces Newton's equation.
Compared to,
In 1784 Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) of Geneva proposed a simple kinetic theory of gravitation.'
The main difference here is that the first sentence states that this model actually produces Newton's equation. Is that false, or somehow POV?
You are promoting the theory with that sentense. You are claiming that the actions of the theory are identical to that of Newton's theory, in spite of some of the criticisms raised about how it may differ from Newton's theory, and possibly in ways that are not observed. (i.e., gravitational shielding for example). --EMS | Talk23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This sentence can in no way be considered a POV "promotion" of LeSagian theory. It is a simple statement of fact, admitted by substantively every reference (pro- or anti-) utilized in this web page. It is true that many objections have been raised against LeSage's theory. But the duplication of Newton's force law is the main reason that Lesage has been repeatedly "discovered." As you lower down state you want both "the promise and refutations of Le Sage gravitation" as the core of this page, why do you try to remove the "promise" portion, here? I will replace the statement about recovering Newton's force law.Barry Mingst21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The theory reached a zenith of popularity in the late nineteenth century, when it was studied in the context of the then newly discovered kinetic theory of gases.
This sentence remains unchanged... Next,
By the early part of the twentieth century however the theory was generally considered discredited, most notably due to issues raised by James Clerk Maxwell and Henri Poincare.
Compared to,
By the turn of the twentieth century, however, the theory had been discredited, most notably due to issues raised by James Clerk Maxwell[3] and in the early twentieth century by Henri Poincare[4]
Well the first sentence speaks with a POV of absolutism, as if there exists no dissenting opinions and we know that this is false in any human topic or endeavor. My addition was simply to eliminate the absolutism, clean up the rather unnecessary wording of timing and add the proper reference. This edit is more NPOV than the former and they both clearly give the correct impression that the idea is considered discredited. Is this not so? We now come to the last sentence,
I prefer the original version as it is more concise. (Besides, it you were not changing the content, they why did you bother doing the edit?) --EMS | Talk23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
One often provides edits for purely editorial reasons. LeSagian's version is more concise than the original. One cannot accurately use the phrase "was discredited" without mentioning who considered who judged the "discrediting." I vote for LeSagian's revision.Barry Mingst21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
However, despite the fact that today it is generally not considered viable it is still being studied and developed by a small number of individual researchers.
as compared to,
Today it is still being studied by a small number of individuals but is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community.
They both state the same thing except that it make clear (truthfully) that the individual researchers must consider it still possibly viable if they are studing it. I wanted to say,
However, despite this, it is still being studied and developed by a small number of individual researchers.
which is less wordy and relies on the previous sentence but I thought that this would be more controversial.
I don't see that absolutism in the original version. More importantly, the original version makes that point directly and clearly that Le Sage gravitation is not considered to be viable by the scientific mainstream. OTOH, your version makes it seem like there is some limited support in the mainstream, which is not the case. The difference is subtle, but important. It effectively moves Le Sage gravitation from being generally discrected to being a fringe theory which is considered to have some potential. I know that you see it that way, but I do not. --EMS | Talk23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference, if subtle, cannot be of importance in this general overview of the theory. The use of terms like "fringe" is simply name-calling, and is used to support a POV. Barry Mingst21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no content change here and the rework is more accurate, renmoving an absolutism, which is definitely POV which should be obvious.
So, other than your tinted glasses, were's the beef? User:LeSagian 23:00 PDT April 9, 2006
The issue here is for me is fairness: What is fair to the readers, and to the subject, and to Wikipedia? For example, is it fair to write an article that over and over again portrays this type of theory as a piece of trash? Obviously not, as this subject has gotten some serious consideration from time to time and people like yourself are still trying to work it. However, is it then fair to treat this as an up-an-coming line of research which is a serious candidate to displace general relativity as the dominant theory of gravitation? Once again, the answer is "no" as the mainstream does not at all see it that way.
Your strawman charicature of Lesagian's position ("serious candidate to displace GR") bespeaks partisanship -- and is not fair in itself. Regardless of what the mainstream thinks about the theory -- the theory of Lesage should not be charicatured or demeaned in this page. The mainstream view is quite clear on this page, and "this subject has gotten some serious consideration from time to time and people are still trying to work it". Why spin a POV as an absolute?Barry Mingst21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the end, this article needs to record the salient facts, including both the promise and refutations of Le Sage gravitation, and let the readers decide what is what. I do not see your edits as being an accurate rendition of the facts, but instead a subtle twisting of the article to be more pro-Le Sage gravitation. IMO, you did not make the article more accurate, except in your own POV. That does not "cut it" for me. --EMS | Talk23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
A "subtle twisting of the facts" is about as POV as you can get. You have previously stated that you'd prefer "Fixwiki, etc's" view to "win" on merit. And that you've been disappointed that Fixwiki can't come up with substantive references to back his opinions -- shared by the mainstream as they are. Most "mainstreamers" don't like LeSagian gravity (especially when first exposed to it). But the "fairness" issue must be decided not by what the mainstream likes, but by what has been referenced. All the best and the brightest that have weighed in against LeSage are referenced in this page. Yet, your complaints against Lesagian's edits are non-specific and personal -- not based on the references in the page.Barry Mingst21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
At this point, all that I can do is to advise you and the others to be careful here. I am dealing with other issues. My hope is that Matt will reign in any obvious excesses. Otherwise myself and others will have to deal with the resultant mess some time in the future. I don't know where in the spectrum of editing abilities you lie. All that I know is that you are pro-Le Sage gravitation. As long as you respect the fact this Le Sage gravitation is not a view that is accepted in the mainstream, and that you cannot promote it here as being acceptable, becoming acceptable, or even will become acceptable, I will be happy. Beyond that, I do want the mainstream view to have an active voice here. However "Fixwiki" made a truly awful voice, being rabidly anti-Le Sage. NPOV does cut both ways, after all. LeSagian does not seem to be able to live within that constraint, however. That is why I would prefer that he not edit, but instead make suggestions on the talk page. --EMS | Talk04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been following the recent edits and discussion too closely, as they are fairly minor. I do feel that the article as a whole could be improved in various aspects and will probably attempt to do this in the not-so-distant future, vacations permitting. I am not thinking of changing the basic tone of the article, but rather to clean it up a bit. I would suggest not to make changes now which tip the balance of the article too much. The article is not bad now and I've even heard some quite favourable reaction to it. I'm also not anxious to renew the editing war with Fixwiki. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page, EMS. (One small point: the years on the archived part of the discussion are incorrect.)MRE16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Fixwiki is gone. I don't know is that helps or hurts the page in the long run (although I do admit that I will not miss his put-downs). Matt - A lot depends on your willingness and ability to moderate the desires of other editors to make this page more sympatheitic to Le Sage gravitation. If you do ensure that the tone is not changed much, then that will be very good. (There is no good reason what even a bunch of pro-Le Sage editors cannot create a good NPOV article and maintain it as such, but they have to be committed to doing just that.)
BTW - I have corrected the dates to the archive. (I may also do a second archive soon, as this page has gotten too big.) --EMS | Talk16:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Fixwiki" is back
Fixwiki -
You are not going to win an edit war. Remember the 3 revert rule. If you want things changed, then please state how you would like things changed and why. I would love to see your constructive participation in the editing of this page. Instead, you seem to want to steamroll over everyone else. That does not work here. You have two editors in Matt and myself who are willing to work with you, but you have to be polite (and do notice the this link references a Wikipedia policy) and respectful in dealing with us. Like it or not, the best articles in Wikipedia are the result of editors creating a consensus amongst themselves, and not of one editor dominating the page. Even in the cases where an editor has had a disproportionate influence (like I have had with the general relativity article), there is still a consensus supporting that editor's work.
So you are outnumbered four-to-one. I can tell you that you will not have your way on everything. For instance I will not accept your "improvement" of the "Current status" section, as there is some lay awareness of the work of Halton Arp and Tom Van Flandern. So I find it best to mention itheir work in a matter-of-fact way as another variation on a theme that the article shows has been historically unsuccessful. However, I probably should be getting rid of the business about the Pioneer anomaly since it is Paul Stowe's research and he has no such presense. (Sorry, Paul.) In any case, if you can make a thoughtful and well documented case for other changes, you may well find that we can support them. However, you have to be part of the group, and not a Lone Ranger.
I have wondered above if it would be good for this page to be without your input. However, you are not offering input here as much as you are saying "take it or leave it". In that case, my view is that we should leave it. Look at it this way: If you do not wish to work with us, then your input is as useful to us as if you were not here. Think about that. Like it or not, in NPOV "neutral" means neutral, not biased towards the mainstream view. So please think in Dragnet mode: "Just the facts ...", and do please present the evidence. --EMS | Talk04:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Revert Accounting
The time and date tags that get automatically attached to edits seem to be based on Greenwich Meridian time, so this can result in misleading indications of how many times "per day" a particular editor has reverted an article. To minimize confusion, I intend to note, by date, the number of reversions I've made for that date. This will help others assure themselves that I'm only reverting the article 3 times per day. I reverted the article three times yesterday (Tuesday), and I have reverted the article once today (Wednesday, June 21), and will revert it twice more today, and I'll denote these as rv #1, 2, 3. Fixwiki12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
current edit war
Let's see: I have reverted against Fixwiki three times now, and Le Sagian once. I am done now for at least several hours (if not longer) under WP:3RR. But now I have a problem: This is not my fight. I totally disapprove of Fixwiki's tactics, but if the rest of you don't care to fight for this page, then I most certainly should not be doing so.
I have asked user:CambridgeBayWeather to block Fixwiki for his blatant 3RR violation and his attempt to revise it to suit himself above. It would be better if someone could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and document this there, but I am too swamped with personal and work issues for this.
So what is the word from the rest of you? Will you back me up? Or are you all content to let Fixwiki do his thing without consulting with everyone else? --EMS | Talk18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! I've tried not to aggressively deal with 63.24... FixWiki edits this time since you have rebuked my attempts in the past. Perhaps now you see for yourself the problem that all of us other editors tried to warn you about. I for one suggest at this stage is to have user:CambridgeBayWeather block FixWiki and all of his socks and base IP. If arbitration is the next formal step to permanently quash this behavior I'll also agree with that. However, before I will step up again to take any lead I want to be clear as to perceived intent. Mine has always been to have a fair a actually neutral presentation, minus any hint of bias, regardless of your perception to the contrary. User:LeSagian
Le Sagian - Let me put it this way: I know that you are sincere about not wanting to inject bias into this article. However, you have not been very successful at it. Let's just say that your passion for this type of model shows. I do encourage you to place proposals for edits on the talk pages, and see how people respond. In that case, if there is no response after a week, you can post an item with a good faith belief that it is non-controversial. It also means that we do not lose any worthwhile editing ideas that you may have for fear of being reverted, and it also gives you a chance to negotiate an acceptable form for the desired content.
As for "Fixwiki", I do support requests for comment and requests for arbitration actions him. However, I will not initiate those actions as they are hard work and this is really your fight, but I will support any such initiation on the part of yourself or the others.
Overall, however, I still see Fixwiki's viewpoint as being valuable to this page. I just don't see Fixwiki himself as being the appropriate representative of that view. Also, I find that I tend to gravaitate towards the editors who are acting sane in a dispute, and that is you all, not "Fixwiki". BTW - "Fixwiki" has had the "riot act" read to him by user:CambridgeBayWeather over the 3RR business and being disruptive in general. --EMS | Talk01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have re-edited the section dealing with finite range again in another attempt to keep things technically accurate. LeSage theory aside, the interaction mean free path has nothing to do with finite range. I challenge anyone to take the following parameters and demonstrate that the momentum vector at some arbitrary point 2 separated from another arbitrary point 1 will be different, either in magnitude or direction.
1. Conservation of linear momentum
2. Perfect elasticity
3. Point-like collisions
4. Zero friction
In other words, assume zero viscosity and the conservation laws... Any two point-like perfectly elastic collisions can only exchange which particle follows the very same paths with the same total momentum. From the perspective of the momentum vector, nothingever changed. This is why, in a perfect fluid, if there is no rotation none can ever be induced! Also why a truly perfect fluid can be treated as a collisionless gas. The mean free path is meaningless. It is only when there exist imperfections such as surface friction & size, internal vibrational, rotational modes to the particles themselves (as in Kelvin's proposal) can there be any deviations in the initial momentum vectors related to individual collisions. This, as a bulk property is called viscosity (or momentum diffusivity). Thus the diffusive mean free path is solely a property of any departure from a perfect fluid state. User:LeSagian
I wasn't party to the earlier discussions on this, but it seems to me that you are inserting too much of your own theory here, which is based on elastic collisions. From the reader's point of view I think clarity will be lost. I would be inclined to revert to my wording, but let's hash it out a bit. You have a typo with "incoherrent".MRE03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, as I tried to emphasize above, this isn't related specifically to Le Sage's theory at all, it's just basic particle dynamics. You can very easily use ionizing (and non-ionizing ) radiation transport theory instead. However, the concept can be illustrated visually with mirrors instead. If two mirrors are perfectly smooth and reflective, when placed parallel facing each other you will get an inifinite repetition of perfectly focused images, visually trailing into the surfaces. However, real mirrors aren't perfect, either in smoothness or reflectivity, so, instead you get images that become faded and fuzzy as the apparent depth is increased. This is also true of the transparency of light traversing any optically transparent media. Ditto for ionizing radiation. When half of the initial incident energy (photons) are removed, you have the half value layer. This is mathematically related to this particular processes' mean-free path. It is not an interaction mean-free path but the average distance traveled before, on average, and event which results in the measuable dissipation/depletion of the incident photon flux. When specifically talking about such fading effects applied to Le Sage's theory, the very same rules apply. It has nothing to do with anyone's pet theory. User:LeSagian
The article states that
In Le Sage's corpuscular model as Kelvin proposed, gravity should have a finite range.
I must assume that this statement is correct within it's context or at least is commonly believed to be correct. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a research journal. An encyclopedia documents what has been done, instead presenting new and improved versions of theories. I have no doubt that by giving the Le Sage particles the appropriate characteristics and applying the appropriate rules of "particle dynamics" that you can alleviate the finite range problem. However, other problems may appear in its place when you do so. That is why Wikipedia has a No original research policy -- Issue like these are best resolved in a scientific setting, and that resolution later reported here. --EMS | Talk02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
One has to wonder about what is written verses what is interpreted by the reader, I agree!!! I am not arguing for infinite range! I state that Kelvin's type of model must have finite range. The reason, exactly due to his proposed internal modes which demand that such a model be imperfect, a.k.a. have momentum diffisivity. This is not original research hell ask any knowledgable fluid dynamicist. The paragraph state the process for this, accurately. User:LeSagian
There is a general problem here. The article is about Le Sage's theory, but of course it branches into other theories like Kelvin's and the electromagnetic analogues that have strong Le Sage components. So when we talk about "Predictions of Le Sage's theory", we have to be precise about which version we're talking about. I think the wording I had before was clearer, as it clearly applied mainly to the Le Sage and Kelvin models, which are the main focus of the article. To bring in "momentum diffusivity" at this point in the article does not help, especially as it seems to relate mainly to Paul's elastic collision model. As a compromise I could suggest moving the "momentum diffusivity" portion into a footnote.MRE17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well then Le Sage's model would have infinite range, not finite range. Quoting from the article "Le Sage proposed that the corpuscles were minuscule relative to their separation; that their motions were rectilinear; that they rarely if ever interacted;..." which suggests he envisioned a collisionless gas. As is well known a collisionless gas and a perfect fluid's observable behavior is identical and would not experience any finite range limitations. If you have a finite range limit you must have an diffusive process in play. Either way, the actual interactive mean free path is irrelevant, unless you have some sort inelastic component acting during particle to particle collisions, thus you're back to diffusivity. Thus perhap what needs quantification is the question Does Le Sage's theory have a finite range? Certainly the general modeled process most certainly can, an I expect does, since nothing in nature is perfectly perfect. However, why I expect is irrelevant, but if there is any finite range limitation it will be due solely such diffusive effects. User:LeSagian
I think that the real issue is one of whether this "momentum diffusivity" is well documented and is a notable part of Le Sage gravitation (or at least of Le Sage-type models). If it fails either test, then this article should not discuss it. --EMS | Talk23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is your question something on the order of, did I make up the term momentum diffusivity? You're not serious, are you? I have observed that there is usually a serious lack of knowledge for physicists when it comes to technical aspects of the field of fluid mechanics but you should be able to Google that answer. Here's just a few Refs, [[6]] page 6,[[7]] page 15, [[8]], and [[9]]. As to being a notable part of Le Sage gravitation, well unless you or others are proposing that Le Sage corpuscules do not and will not obey known basic dynamics processes how can it not be? By such logic, mean free path and finite range should not be mentioned at all. User:LeSagian
I think LeSagian is right about mean free path being not well-defined in Le Sage's own model. Le Sage imagined that his corpuscles were being supplied continuously "from outside" and so there is not a need for them to collide with each other and be retained within the system. They can simply pass through the whole universe unaffected. For Kelvin, however, mean free path is definitely there. He imagined a system in equilibrium and so the corpuscles have to be retained. There are subtleties here relating to the internal energy modes of the corpuscles. Now for the electromagnetic analogues, the range of gravity would seem to be infinite, unless one were to suppose (as I do, for instance) that light is being absorbed in space through some other mechanism. I know Tom VF's model has a finite range due to mean free path. LeSagian is saying something else again. All in all it seems like the best thing we can do would be to delete the paragraph on prediction of range of gravity, since there are too many possibilities.MRE17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, what I am saying is that the term mean-free path has several valid and well known and defined technical definitions, just like diffusivity does. There is a physical mean-free path (the actual mean distance traveled between corpuscular collisions) and there could be, an absorption mean free-path (the mean distance traveled before a corpuscule encounters an absorption event which removes it), an attenuation mean-free path (the mean distance traveled before a corpuscule encounters an event that results in reducing its momentum), or an incoherrent scattering mean-free path (one which causes a result that changes the exit angles relative to the entry angles of a collision). None of these need be the same value, just like the thermal diffusivity need not be the same value as the momentum diffusivity. Of these, the actual physical mean-free path is the one that is totally irrelevant to all of Le Sage type models. I'm saying that any range limitation in any Le Sage type model must be a result of one or more of the latter that ultimately results in incoherrent scattering. This isn't radical, new, or original research (See any text on ionizing radiation transport). In fact, there is a formula that says where a, b, c are differently identified interaction cross-sections, each having there own unique mean-free path. It is an important prediction of Le Sage type models that such a range limit could exist and I think the paragraph should be retained, just divorced of the idea that it somehow related to the physical separation of the particle population. The article isn't meant to be a lecture on the fine details of particle transport theory but should accurately state the process(es) that lead to the actual effect. BTW, as the author of several radiation transport computer codes that are utilized at national labs & nuclear utilities, and a expert in that field, I do know of what I'm talking about here. User:LeSagian
I think that you are missing my point. I don't doubt the diffusivity is an issue. However, where is its specific application to Le Sage gravitation documented? Even if it is corrent, you cannot describe a novel observation about a known pheonomenon or theory here. This diffusivity issue as it relates to Le Sage gravitation must be documented elsewhere. Otherwise it does not belong here. --EMS | Talk03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm in basic agreement with EMS here. The point about range of gravity has to be discussed within the context of the article that appears. I've edited that section in an attempt to make it clearer.MRE16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
