Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

NPA's Self Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TVF's Misunderstanding of Lorentzian Relativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cessation of Non-Productive Dialogue

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

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

Tom Van Flandern "Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy"

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

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

Is this talk page still being used?

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