Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Julian/Gregorian conversion

The Fliegel and Van Flandern algorithm (1968)[1] for converting between Julian & Gregorian is still widely used, and doi:10.1007/PL00012819 (2000) says "the algorithms by Fliegel and Van Flandern were by far the fastest since they use only integer arithmetic." Has a faster algorithm been proposed since? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Article Tags on 31 Aug 2010

Some time ago the article consisted largely of auto-biographical material taken from the subject's self-published writings, and this was deemed inappropriate under Wikipedia policy, so a considerable amount of time and effort was put into improving the article, so that it was not so heavily based on the subject's self-published autobiography and resume, but was based on secondary independent and reputable sources.

Unfortunately, a number of recent edits have returned the article to it's former condition, relying heavily on the subject's self-published autobiography, for statements such as the claim to have improved the accuracy of the GPS system, and having been the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the USNO, etc., claims for which no independent reputable source can be found. In addition, the Honors and Awards section is inappropriate, for the reasons already discussed on this page.

It seems unlikely that these issues will be resolved quickly. I think much hard work will be needed to get this article back into compliance with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and NPOV. During this time, it seems appropriate to tag the article for "autobiography" and reliance on "self-published" works, and numerous other issues (all of which have been discussed in detail on this Discussion page).

By the way, all of the recent good-faith edits have, for whatever reason, been made with little or no edit summaries, and no discussion at all on this Discussion page. I suggest that, in order to resolve the issues with the current article, editors consider explaining their edits here on the Discussion page (or at least leaving edit summaries), and addressing some of the objections to those edits that have been raised previously.Urgent01 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous user Urgent01 continues showing the same kind of anti-tvf attitude than banned user 63.24.104.99 did. E.g. This is a extract from the discussion history:

"Can we have a reference for the statement that van Flandern was "Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of..."? Can someone find a solid source for his position as "Chief of celestial mechanics branch" ...

He was replied by another editor who even offered to him the next info:

"Failing that I'm not clear what evidence user 63.24 would find acceptable. I believe I can produce a signed a copy of a government document from one of Tom's direct reports with Tom's title. Would that be acceptable?"

Moreover, contrary to Urgent01 claims links to papers by tvf containing his USNO affiliation are easily found. E.g. Celestial Mechanics 1980: 22, 79-80[2] gives tvf affiliation at USNO. And bulletins as "Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., Vol. 4, p. 179 - 185"[3] and "AMER. ASTRON. SOC. BULLETIN V. 12, P. 401, 1980"[4] "Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., Vol. 7, p. 211 - 215"[5], "Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., Vol. 8, p. 257 - 262"[6], and many others report tvf work and activities at USNO. A search in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.es/scholar?q=%22Chief+of+the+Celestial+Mechanics+Branch%22) reports a reference with the next text:

"Title: Gravitation and the expansion of the Earth. Authors: van Flandern, TC. Affiliation: Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office, US Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Publication: Nature, Volume 278, Issue 5707, pp. 821 (1979)."

Also the term "Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch" is found at one astronomical society: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9701/vanflan.html

Finally Colin Keay, Assoc. Professor of Physics, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, wrote in Australian & New Zealand Physicist, Vol. 30 #9, Sept. 1993:

"Tom Van Flandern, a Yale graduate who for many years directed the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington.."

Once again, anonymous Urgent01 shows that his suggestions must be again ignored JuanR (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Most of your comments are not relevant, because they merely assert that TVF was associated with the USNO, which no one disputes, and which is plainly stated in all versions of the article. Another of your comments refers to an offer that TVF's son made to provide actual documentation, but it was never provided, so that too is irrelevant. In all but one of the remaining comments, the title of "Chief" does not appear, so they don't support your position. Of all your comments, the only one that could possibly be relevant is the title that TVF listed for himself in his communication (Letter to the Editor?) of Nature in 1979. But this is the whole problem, i.e., the ONLY source for this information is TVF himself. All the other items you listed are clearly just echoing the resume that he provided to them, and that they read on his web site. It's true that a lot of the information on this page has the same dubious pedigree, but we really have no choice, because there are almost no reputable secondary sources discussing TVF. But as explained at length previously, we have to draw the line somewhere. All we need is ONE SINGLE independent reputable source (not TVF) for the information, when it is self-serving and/or involves 3rd parties (such as the USNO). If a piece of information cannot be verified in even ONE independent reputable source, then it probably isn't notable. That is the Wikipedia policy. You may not approve of Wikipedia policy, but it is the policy nevertheless. Let's try to adhere to Wikipedia policy in editing this article. We need to remove all self-serving and unverifiable material, and novel narrative, and undue weight to trivialities designed to give a non-mainstream impression of the subject. Thanks for your good-faith efforts. I'm sure we will get there eventually.Urgent01 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor Urgent01 continues repeating the same kind of criticism than banned user 63.24.104.99 did without reading that other editors are saying.

First, the references that I added do not "merely assert that TVF was associated with the USNO" but assert that he "directed the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington".

Second, you are right that his son did an offer to banned user banned user 63.24.104.99 (It is remarkable that I did not name to his son here, but you seem to know the details of that talk very well); however, you omit to say that the banned user 63.24.104.99 did not reply to his offer.

Third, Google Scholar gives "Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office" from a reference to Nature journal. It is interesting that one of the top scientific journal had no problems with publishing that affiliation in their journal pages, whereas you start here a show because the same affiliation is being published in a Wikipedia biographical page. Also it is interesting that never nobody from USNO or from any other place (rival scientists, former USNO chiefs, etc.) refuted tvf claims about being chief albeit you continuously insist on saying us that he was a well-known crank.

Fourth, it is just false that I have provided references to tvf himself. For instance, I cited to Colin Keay (Professor of Physics) and more people can be found. Once again whereas Australian & New Zealand Physicist had no problem with publishing that affiliation, you continue here a show started by banned user 63.24.104.99.

Fiveth, you read some of the sources that I have provided and you automatically claim (again without any proof) that the authors are "just echoing the resume that he provided to them". This was also a typical attitude of banned user 63.24.104.99. He asked us for proofs, ignored them when we provided to him, and never gave us proofs for his own strong claims against tvf or against other editors.

Sixth, I have provided several third-party references where the affiliation to the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the USNO is stated in a clear and unambiguous way and Wikipedia policies accept as reputable sources those cited above.

Seven, again you appeal to Wikipedia policies are biased. For instance, the wikipedia page devoted to the USNO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNO) does several affirmations without citation to USNO archives (e.g., the paragraph that says who was his first superintendent; there is not citation to USNO sources) and if one goes to the page about Fontaine Maury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury) one find a paragraph where says that he "became the first superintendent of the United States Naval Observatory in 1842, holding that position until his resignation in April 1861" again without any citation to USNO sources or to any source. JuanR (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to use the online astrosociety.org article, as it is not independent; it is in the prose written by the subject.

I also wouldnt like to use Against the Tide for any contested fact, as the subject is a contributor to the book, and the book was published by Universal-Publishers without any obvious peer-review. Are the editors of that book well respected?

However, I checked Australian & New Zealand Physicist, and it is where JuanR said it would be. I didnt have time to scan the page, but I can do that tomorrow and email it to anyone who disputes this. If this source isn't a "independent reputable source", I hope Urgent01 will be prompt and concise in explaining why.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the affiliation "Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office, US Naval Observatory, Washington, DC." appears in the work published in Nature and cited above (which is not a letter to the editor as Urgent01 pretends). This work is cited by the own USNO in their report "U.S.NAVAL Observatory" published in AMER. ASTRON. SOC. BULLETIN V. 12, P. 401, 1980 (see the page 406 devoted to publications by USNO people). The fantastic point of view shared by anonymous editor Urgent01 and others is that tvf was a known crank who falsified his affiliation at USNO (this is why they continuously ask for the Chief stuff) but they never explained why nobody (including USNO people) never retracted the affiliation, indeed the own USNO cites references where tvf present himself as "Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office" JuanR (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Once again I have reverted Urgent01 because he reverted to his last version with mentioning that he was reverting (the e/s was The Colin Keay cite does not support the statement in the article. Colin does not say "Chief of Branch", he just says "directed". Still need proper cite. Favor bringing in scientific experts). I filled in the citation that I added last night, and added the Nature citation. The affiliation is provided by the subject, however it is not prose by the subject; the editors of Nature, and indexing & abstraction services, are responsible for that. Anyone contesting this fact, and removing this fact or these references from the article, needs to provide a very cogent explanation, which has not been forthcoming. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, your tagging of this article with {{Articleissues}}/{{Autobiography}}/{{Self-published|Source}} is surprisingly aggressive and unnecessarly, but I am happy to point out Wikipedia norms which are better ways to reach consensus quicker. The accusation that this article is heavily based on the autobiography is clearly false; I have been careful to introduce a lot of new sources, such as APS News; also note that I created Universal-Publishers as that source is less than ideal. I hope you can also appreciate that I have, in my changes, suggested that the Meta Research Bulletin is self-published, and lacked peer-review. I'm inclined to spell this out even more clearly, as was done with Ruggero Santilli, but I've not looked into that side of it sufficient yet.

However, you have raised a few specific issues, and the typical way to deal with specific problems is to tag them with {{cn}}. The title of 'Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the USNO' is uncited; I found it that way, and didn't touched it. I did not cite the bio on Meta Research; I was very careful to attach my citation to the beginning of the first phrase in that sentence. As you point out, the latter part of that sentence is uncited, and should be cited, so the appropriate way to tackle that is to add {{cn}} after the second phrase.

I also take exception to your assertion that the Awards and Honours section is inappropriate; the discussions about this have been far from conclusive or dispassionately discussed. These awards may be trivial in comparison to other more notable people, however they are useful to allow the reader to evaluate the notability. To that end, we need to frame them as points of limited notability, but that is a phrasing problem that we can collaborate on to come up with the best approach to provide the reader with the appropriate take away message.

Finally, this revert to your own version, removing many new sources, is not very collaborative, and is deceitful when you use an edit summary "Attempt as revising the article". If you are going to revert to another version of the article, please be honest in your edit summary and say what you are doing. However it is not advisable to revert, as it says that you found nothing useful in the subsequent contributions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have "reverted" the article multiple times (meaning you have introduced significant changes in an edit), so I'm not sure what to make of your objection to introducing significant changes. Is it your contention that your significant changes are legitimate edits, but when I make significant changes they are illegitimate (or, as you say, "aggressive") edits? I think it would be best to simply let the edits stand on their own, regardless of who makes them. For my edits, please assume that each of the changes I make is intentional. I am not carrying out wholesale reversions without considering each of the changes that are entailed in my edits. I'm considering each change, and I think my edits are in accord with Wikipedia policy, making the article better, removing POV and novel narrative and unverifiable or poorly sourced, self-serving, autobiographical material, and inserting mainstream verifiable and properly sourced material. If you disagree with any of my changes, you are natrually free to propose other changes. I would just ask that you refrain from labeling my edits as deceitful, aggressive, not collaborative, inadvisable, while you are making equally sweeping edits. I think we should assume good faith on the part of editors, and try not to cast aspersions on other people's motives. ThanksUrgent01 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When I revert, I say so in the edit summary. A WP:REVERT is not a 'significant change'. According to Wikipedia policy, you are allowed to revert, however it is not too much to ask that you clearly label them, so that others are aware of what you are doing. A significant change is adding new text to the article. When you do a revert, you need to consider the edits that other people have made. Please review my edits, and explain why you have reverted them, as opposed to improving upon them. If you do not quickly grasp the difference between my edits and your reverts, I fear you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia for much longer. I don't want this. I am sure you can bring value to this article, and discussions about it, should you wish to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, my edits have consisted of numerous changes, intended to remove POV and poorly sourced material and novel narrative, and replace it with well sourced verifiable mainstream material. Each of the specific changes in my edits (relative to the version I'm editing) has been explained and justified in detail on this discussion page, and my edit summaries state this clearly and point to the Discussion page. Hopefully this is helpful for other editors trying to understand what changes I've made, and the reasons for making them. Also, note that in the history tab, you can always click on the "prev" button to get a complete listing of what has changed in any given edit. This should enable "others to be aware of what I am doing".

As an aside, I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your comment "If you do not quickly grasp the difference between my edits and your reverts, I fear you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia for much longer" could be construed as a threat, which of course would not be appropriate. I know you are editing in good faith, and it isn't your intent to insult or threaten other editors. I'm also sure that you didn't intend any irony in referring to your changes as "edits" and calling my reciprocal changes "reverts", and suggesting that I cannot grasp this difference. I assume you were just injecting a little droll levity into the discussion, which is always welcome! I'm just hoping that we can all work hard to avoid even the appearance of threatening behavior. Thanks.Urgent01 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No sir, you can consider what I said as a threat. You have again "reverted" to your preferred version[7], ignoring the improvements made since then. Specifically, your current version omits the references which I added for him being the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.[8][9][10], and yet you have not contested these. Such careless reverting is uncooperative. Please show you understand this by reviewing my last revision[11], and incorporating the elements which you do not contest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my edit summary in which I specifically objected to the two references you proposed for "Chief of Branch". I pointed out that the first doesn't refer to the title "Chief of Branch", it simply says he "directed" the branch, which can mean a variety of things, and doesn't support the title of "Chief". The second reference you proposed is the strongest, but of course it was written by TVF himself, so it still is a low quality source per Wikipedia policy for self-serving statements. The only thing that gives it some strength is that it appeared publically, and so the USNO would have had the opportunity to object if it was false. However, for all we know, the USNO did object. This may be why the title does not appear in subsequent abstracts. In general, I think it's best to have at least one truly independent reference from a reputable source (other than the subject himself). We just don't have that. This raises the question, why is it so difficult to verify this fact from an independent reputable source? I was curious enough to inquire at the USNO if they could confirm TVF's title there, but I could get no confirmation. Considering that this seems to be an impossible thing to solidly verify, does it really meet the test of verifiability, and also, does it meet the test of notability?Urgent01 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) Your claim that the "Chief of the Branch" does not "directed the Branch" and that the word "directed" has other meanings is unverifiable because you give no reference showing us what the meaning was. Moreover Chief is an synonym for Director and the task of directors is evident.

(ii) The second reference points to top journal Nature. This is not "a low quality source per Wikipedia policy".

(iii) All the references are public doing that your appeal to strongness for only one of them was weak.

(iv) Your claim that "the USNO did object" is again unverifiable because you give no reference showing us that it did.

(v) "This may be why the title does not appear in subsequent abstracts" is another claim without real basis. First let me recall that affiliations do not appear in abstracts doing your remark trivial.

Moreover, it is rather usual in modern days than affiliations only contain the Dept/Branch/Office but not the position held at that Dept/Branch/Office. For instance, in a recent paper published in the "International Journal of Astrobiology" in 2007 by tvf, he gives as affiliation "Tom Van Flandern Meta Research, 994 Woolsey Ct, Saquim WA 98382-5058, USA). Urgent01 would do the ridiculous remark that he was not chief founder or president of Meta Research because none of those words appears in the affiliation given by him.

(vi) You claim that you inquired at the USNO if they could confirm TVF's title there, but you "could get no confirmation" but neither you show us confirmation from the USNO against the title not nor show us confirmation that you did the inquiry. The best that we can do is to assume that you did the inquiry and that they ignored you. JuanR (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Urgent01, I did not miss your edit summary; you obviously object to this factoid, but you have yet to provide an objection which is reasonable. As I said earlier, the Nature reference is not part of his article. If you consult the article, you will see that it is after the article, separated by a divider. It is a proper affiliation. While you may speculate that this is wrong, as you have speculated another other cases where this affiliation was published at the time, there has not been any retraction or commotion about it by anyone. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that the author affiliation statements attached to papers are provided by the author. I'm not aware that publishers do any fact-checking of an author's claimed affiliations. In any case, it is not (IMO) an independent source of information. As to whether there was a retraction or commotion, I don't really know, but I agree the apparent lack of any dispute from the USNO is circumstantial evidence that they didn't object to his claim.Urgent01 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In combination with the Colin Keay paper which says he 'directed' that branch, and bearing in mind that there are hundreds of other publications which mention this (e.g. Analog science fiction & fact, Volume 117, Issues 4-6, p 61; Against the Tide, etc.), it is obvious that you need some evidence before you can question his role in the branch. I will be the first to listen if you bring something to the table. However, I doubt we are going to find any source, reliable or otherwise, that refutes this affiliation. As a result, I this we need to tackle this from another angle.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Keay paper doesn't say Chief, and simply says "directed", which is more ambiguous, doesn't enhance my confidence in the title of Chief. I admit that I haven't checked any of the hundreds of other publications you mentioned, to see if they all say "Chief", or if after some date they changed the wording to "directed". I'll try to take a look.Urgent01 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the "Celestial Mechanics Branch"? It is also used in the affiliation for other journal articles by van Flandern, such as Science, New Series, Vol. 211, No. 4479 (Jan. 16, 1981), pp. 297-298[12] I've tried to figure out where it was in the USNO org structure, but haven't had much luck in pinning it down. It is possible that it is the This is the only source I can find for it. There was also a "Research Center for Celestial Mechanics", affiliated with Yale, ONR, etc., but this doesn't appear to be. I am guessing that has not been a formal part of the org structure, I am hoping that identifying this will likely help further inquiries, and may mean we can rephrase the 'Chief..'. The possibility that 'Chief..' isnt a very notable branch/position was raised at Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern/Archive_2#Request_for_Reference, and I can appreciate that is possible. However there is no use in arguing that it isn't mentioned on their website; Tom left before they even had a website. Their Orbital Mechanics Department also isn't mentioned on their website, yet it did exist as recently as 1994; see [13]. It also isn't surprising that you didn't have any luck asking USNO about van Flandern, but it was worth a shot. You may have more success if you inquire about the Celestial Mechanics Branch..? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the significance and notability of the Celestial Mechanics Branch (and its Chief) does not seem to be verifiable. Anyone who has read a lot of job resumes knows how easy (and common) it is to describe past positions in ways that sound prestigeous. Was that Assistant Manager, or Assistant TO THE Manager? And you were the Chief of a Committee that consisted of only one person, yourself. Etc. This is why I think there is wisdom in the Wikipedia policy calling for independent reputable sources for all self-serving statements. Unfortunately, we don't have many such sources for this article. What we have instead is a set of editors who are keen to basically present TVF's resume and autobiographry verbatim, which I don't think is consistent with Wikipedia policy of verifiability.Urgent01 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that whether he 'directed' or was Chief is not worth investing so much energy into discussion. We could use 'directed', in order to stay closer to what is in the Keay paper, however with an abundance of sources which use Chief, it seems sensible to agree with the commonly used title, which correlates closely with 'directed', and focus on more important issues. It will be far more fruitful to establish what this Celestial Mechanics Branch is. As we dig into this topic, it may become apparent that 'directed' is more appropriate. If so, our choice will be an informed one. At present, we have no sources which contradict Chief. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The significance and notability of the Celestial Mechanics Branch (and its Chief) is verifiable. References were given before. For instance, references to reports where the own USNO devotes an entire section to the activities of the Branch (e.g. they report the work done by tvf and of others members of the Branch). Also once again you do accusations about others changing or inflating their credentials; such accusations, repeatedly done without any proof by an anonymous editor, are in direct conflict with Wiki policies. JuanR (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) In the reference "An assessment of the U.S. Naval Observatory" that you report it is done clear as crystal than Celestial mechanics was one branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.

(ii) Also the activities of this Branch were summarized in the subsection "C. Celestial Mechanics" of the section "II. Nautical Almanac Office" of the reports published by the own USNO and that I cited above in this same section. That subsection C of the section II of the reports summarized the work done by tvf. This was said above in this section.

(iii) The current USNO website is not very friendly and as you note it does not contain info about previous org. For instance the old "Time service division" reported in (AMER. ASTRON. SOC. BULLETIN V. 12, P. 401, 1980) must be now the "time service department" (http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/about-us/about-the-u.s.-naval-observatory) but the old "Transit cycle division" does not longer exist.

(iv) The "Research Center for Celestial Mechanics" is another body. JuanR (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JuanR; I hadn't read the BAAS articles until now. I don't have a subscription to BAAS (electronic or hardcopy). It is now more clear to me that "Celestial Mechanics" was a defined group of researchers within NAO, as those reports often give many names in the section for Celestial Mechanics. It is still not clear whether this was a definite "Branch", and when Van Flandern became the Chief/director. btw, it would be a great help if verifiable information about the historical structure of the org could be added to our article about United States Naval Observatory. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nasa database citation for the asteroid named in honor of tvf?

I think that the Nasa database citation for the asteroid named in honor of tvf contains a concise description of the contributions done by tvf and would be added to the article:

"Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas."

Source: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=52266+Van+Flandern

It also looks as a kind of (short) obituary JuanR (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

It is a copy of the MPC citation; it's reputability is not greatly increased because it is republished by NASA. This is already discussed above, where Urgent01 does put forward a reasonable argument asserting that MPC is not a peer-reviewed publication. Discussion about the usefulness of MPC in general should continue in that section. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The MPC link never worked for me. I see that the last version of the article contain the jpl-ssd link given by me above instead the original MPC link.

I am citing an entry from the "JPL Small-Body Database Browser" and it is not an issue if it contains information shared with other sources against the which Urgent01 did his usual rants. I read some ridiculous complaints by Urgent01 against MPC. First he said that MPC was unverifiable. You replied him that was not, which is self-evident. Then he moved to saying that your link was not a peer-reviewed publication by "publishers with a good reputation for scholarly work". His claim about the publisher is blatantly false because MPC is under the auspices of Division III of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Regarding his peer-review rant... well, the own MPC states that naming of small bodies is (http://www.minorplanetcenter.org/iau/info/Astrometry.html#name):

"proposed by the discoverer of a specific object after the object is numbered. Proposals are accompanied by a brief citation explaining the reasons for the naming.

Proposed names are judged by the fifteen-member Committee on Small Body Nomenclature (CSBN) of the International Astronomical Union. Except in very unusual circumstances, new names may not be assigned until a minimum of two months have elapsed since the objects were numbered. If the CSBN has objections to the name or the accompanying citation, this process can take much longer.

Names become official when they are published in the Minor Planet Circulars."

It is evident that the fifteen members of the CSBN reviewed the proposal and had no objections to the accompanying citation (reproduced above) and which the article would include. JuanR (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating this. This means it was written by Carolyn S. Shoemaker, reviewed by peers, and published properly. That makes it an acceptable source. Before we consider quoting it in entirety, I think we should take the time to verify each fact in it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is some background on the practices of asteriod naming.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/asteroid_name_991021.html

Urgent01 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is about the name, rather than the citation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so. It gives an example of a citation, namely, the one for Ringo Starr. The citation is "Ringo Starr is a Liverpudlian of lively personality and deadpan humor who occasionally sat in as drummer with The Beatles during their early days in Hamburg." Needless to say, this is not a serious characterization of the man or his career. It is whimsical and humorous. The point is, asteriod naming, and the nominating citations, is not a terribly serious business, and the group that approves them does not pretend to be a fact-finding body. Also, you apparently missed the point about the 10-year limit, after which anyone at all can propose a name for an asteriod, via email. You said that Carolyn Shoemaker must have named it, but that is not true, because it was named more than 10 years after its discovery. Also, your comment that "This means it was written by Carolyn S. Shoemaker, reviewed by peers, and published properly. That makes it an acceptable source." is nonsense. Asteriod naming citations are not peer-reviewed publications in the sense that you imagine. See the Ringo Starr citation.Urgent01 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) Above it was given an official link to MPC which states the procedure for naming asteroids, the review process to evaluate both the name and the citation, and the people involved in the evaluation.

(ii) You only give your personal evaluation of a humorous news (see its tone) published by a science writer! Once again you ask other editors for reviewed sources for their comments, whereas you pretend to base yours in humorous webpages in commercial news services.

(iii) Even if you had find (I have not checked) a whimsical and humorous item in a source, it does not mean that any item in that source is. Some papers in Nature or Science are fraudulent (search scientific fraud in Wiki for examples), but it is ridiculous if you were to use those to attack Nature or Science as a non-reliable source.

(iv) Once again you address unfounded and unproven accusations against people or groups. This time you attack the fifteen-member Committee on Small Body Nomenclature (CSBN) of the International Astronomical Union with your "the group that approves them does not pretend to be a fact-finding body". If you have verifiable information against their review of the tvf asteroid honor give it, if you have verifiable information that the citation accompanying the asteroid is inaccurate and has been refuted, give it. Otherwise remain quiet... JuanR (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are we going?

There has been a great deal of debate in the last two weeks in several of these discussion sections, but where are we going? There were revisions back and forth between myself and editor Urgent01, then there was a back and forth revision/revert between editor Urgent01 and editor John Vandenberg. It looks like the end of that was to keep Urgent01's text and that he was going to have to add in the material from the other versions that he didn't object to. I have seen no work on that front. We are still without an awards and honors section and the section on TVF's beliefs/work is not divided into separate headings. I feel there have been some good edits 10 days ago that have just been pushed aside for no reason.Akuvar (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current Beliefs heading confounds readers by mixing the wrong stuff (e.g. Cydonia) with the research stuff (e.g. the papers about speed of gravity published in PLA and FoP). I suggest the inclusion of two headings one for each stuff. Also I lacks citations to some of his papers in top journals and citations of some recent papers published in top journals (as Physical Review) that confirm the faster-than-light interactions and correct the mistakes in the papers by Carlip and by Marsh. Also it is not acceptable to cite in the main text the papers commenting on tvf work without saying to readers where find the replies by tvf (also published in journals). I offered a Scholar link to his publications but this has been missed. I also suggested to add the asteroid naming honor and the honor citation from the Nasa JPL database, which (per MPC policy cited above) was reviewed by the fifteen-member Committee on Small Body Nomenclature (CSBN) of the International Astronomical Union and approved. I have no opinion about citing here the obituary by Arp. The section devoted to his work and honors would contain the text (cited above) from the Nasa JPL database as a kind of short obituary:

"Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas."

The current version of the article says: "variation in Newton's gravitational constant G, consistent with a speculative idea that had been put forward by Paul Dirac.[15]" This gives the impression that reference 15 is the source for statement about Dirac but therein Dirac is not even named. JuanR (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved that ref to the first phrase, and added {{cn}} for the second phrase. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A very thorough discussion of TVF's activities related to "variable gravitational constant G", including the background involving Dirac, is given in the Will reference that is appended to the end of the paragraph. If there's a more clear way of indicating that the Will reference covers the whole paragraph, feel free to edit it appropriately.Urgent01 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll read it on Monday. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I started from a version which Urgent01 didnt like, and he or she kept reverting back to the version that they considered appropriate. Rather than have a revert war while I am also trying to improve the article, I decided to start from the version that Urgent01 likes, and add to it. I think it will be useful for us to continue working on the Urgent01 version.

I would also like to separate the accepted scientific contributions from the unorthodox theories, however Urgent01 has raised some objections to the accepted scientific contributions that need to be investigated first. Likewise the MPC citation and other awards need to be more thoroughly investigated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Improving GPS accuracy

Urgent01 claimed in [14] that "Improving GPS accuracy is a false claim". In [15], I removed a footnote about this, because it was not adequately explained in the reliable source that accompanied the footnote. As discussed above, MPC is a reliable source, and it does have a review process. Also, this is part of the obit in [16]. Still it does not hurt to have better sources since this fact has been contested, and if it isn't true, refuting this will need good quality sources.

The first problem is that "Improving GPS accuracy" is very vague. He published quite a few papers re GPS; do we know which papers proposed improvements to GPS accuracy, and which have been discredited? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What papers are you referring to? I'm not aware that TVF published any papers providing improvements to GPS accuracy. He wrote in numerous places his blatently false claims that the GPS system "basically blew off relativity", but that has been fully discredited by all the reputable experts, as was previously explained in this Wikipedia article. It seems to me this blatently pseudo-scientific pronouncements about the GPS system and relativity, and the refutations of his pronouncements by the reputable experts, is a significant aspect of TVF's notability as a crank. so I'm not sure why it has been suppressed in this article. Discussion of this topic can be found in the Salon article, for example, where GPS experts refute TVF's claims.

As far as I can tell, the "GPS consulting work" that TVF put on his resume was related to the paper describing variations in airborne GPS position systems. This consisted of nothing more than a grade school child could do, and to say it contributed to improving the accuracy of the GPS system is absurd. Typical resume puffery. For Wikipedia standards, we would need to find some reputable independent source on the GPS system and its history, mentioning that TVF improved its accuracy. No such reference exists (because it's not true).Urgent01 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) A search in Google of "basically blew off relativity" returns zero results, which mean that is a phrase from Urgent01.

(ii) Salon article is a mass media site webpage written by a non-expert who quotes others but without references that can be checked.

(iii) I agree with editor John Vandenberg for his removing of the source because Tom van Flandern is not even cited in it.

(iv) Once again Urgent01 ignores the reliable and reviewed references given by others, whereas he provides none supporting his claims and speculations. JuanR (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, in this article TVF states: "Both of these experiments were blows to SR’s contention that all motion was relative."

Google books search shows that (according to the American Spectator) TVF used the phrase "They have basically blown off Einstein".

Google web search for "basically blown off Einstein" leads to, for instance, this, where Tom Bethell states that TVF said that "They have basically blown off Einstein." This suggests that Bethell is the origin of The American Spectator's. DVdm (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Which confirms that Urgent01 phrase, which is quoted above twice (one in his original post and other in my reply), "basically blew off relativity", was not written by tvf "in numerous places". It is a phrase by Urgent01. JuanR (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. TVF is not reported to have said that the GPS "basically blew off relativity" like Urgent01 wrote above. TVF is merely reported to have said that "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein." On the other hand, note that of course they do indeed use relativistic corrections before the launch (see, for instance, this article). This seems to suggest that they really had not basically blown off Einstein. Someone must have made some mistakes somewhere. DVdm (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) Therefore you confirm that the quote was from Urgent01 and not from tvf. That is fine because in a first reply below you said that "I had search in the wrong place"...

(ii) You give a low quality website with an article written by "Tom Bethell" (a journalist) where he affirms that vf said so. I notice that peer-reviewed references are not accepted (by some editors) as valid sources, when are pro-tvf, whereas non-peer reviewed sources (e.g. low quality websites) are often accepted/used/cited by a subgroup of editors when are against tvf.

(iii) You take a supposed quote by tvf where he says "after launch" and you seem to pretend to criticize it using an argument (and a reference) that says before the launch and then ironically you write "Someone must have made some mistakes somewhere". What is the point? Who did mistakes and what ones? JuanR (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(iv) I think that is interesting to notice that Tom_Bethell (the author cited by DVdm above) is a journalist who which denies that HIV causes AIDS and who in his "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" promotes skepticism of the existence of man-made global warming, AIDS denialism, and skepticism of evolution, promoting intelligent design instead (Tom_Bethell). JuanR (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One would think that if a quote was attributed to me, it would read, "I have basically blown off Einstein" not, "They..." so again, this quote is an interpretation of what TVF was saying, not something TVF said, and with that, how much he blew off Einstein and how much he didn't. I am surprised to see you edit here after editor JuanR provided links to your website where you maintain a section devoted to debunking the subject of this article (or at least at the time he provided the links you did). Not only is this POV but contributing to this article, IMO, is self-serving for your website. I would ask that you please recuse yourself from this article. Akuvar (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not provide any link to any personal website. JuanR (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

These google searches were meant to provide some balance to JuanR's first remark. Apparently he was looking in the wrong place. Other than this I do not intend to contribute to this article, as I am not really interested in this subject anymore. The links to the publications and articles might be interesting or they might be uninteresting. I leave that for the other contributors to decide. Also note that what JuanR did before, and what you are doing now, is a case of attempted outing (see wp:OUTING). DVdm (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the original posting of your website being grounds for outing, I have no opinion, however, I was simply quoting that information now that it was brought to light, I did no research of my own. My apologies if you felt exposed by my last post. I do appreciate your comments about not contributing to the article. Thanks. Akuvar (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) Except I was looking in the right place. At the end you finally agreed with me, in your own words, "Yes, that is right. TVF is not reported to have said that the GPS "basically blew off relativity" like Urgent01 wrote above."

(ii) Just some hours after saying us that you "do not intend to contribute to this article" as you are "not really interested in this subject anymore", you write another new contribution, see above in this talk, where you suggest two references. Curious...

(iii) It may be emphasized again (I did above) that none link to your personal website was given by me or by any other editor. It would be be also emphasized now (after your above accusation of attempted outing per wp:OUTING) that you have voluntarily posted in your own user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DVdm) links to two pdfs stored in the personal website http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/ where tvf is quoted under the label "A modest but ever growing collection of intremely extelligent remarks of my Favourite Champion Usenet Kooks & Crackpots". For fairness, I also recall that in this talk you wrote often stuff as "I have looked at your [Akuvar] and Mikevf's edit histories, user pages, talk pages, etc. It is clear to me now that you [Akuvar] (a close friend of the subject) and Mikevf (a family member) both are here with a specific purpose (see WP:SPA)". JuanR (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Salon article,

"Van Flandern has argued that because of Einstein's theory of relativity, clock rates on GPS satellites should need to be adjusted continuously to keep them in sync with users on Earth. But they're not, he told the American Spectator (April 1999). The GPS programmers don't need relativity. "They have basically blown off Einstein," Van Flandern says."

I also recall an audio interview that TVF gave to some kook webcast that specialized in new age nonense, and he used the phrase "basically blown off Einstein" (or perhaps relativity). I'll see if I can find that interview and provide the link. But in any case, TVF was certainly known for his belief that the GPS system is inconsistent with relativity, and he is also known for having been totally wrong about this, so it doesn't seem appropriate to suppress this in the article.Urgent01 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) As DVdm has finally agreed with me, in his own words, "Yes, that is right. TVF is not reported to have said that the GPS "basically blew off relativity" like Urgent01 wrote above." Therefore, it has been confirmed that the quote is from you.

(ii) The salon article is not a peer-reviewed source. It is curious that you reject peer-reviewed references (e.g. MPC) as valid sources, when are pro-tvf, whereas you provide non-peer reviewed sources when they are against-tvf.

(iii) In your original post you wrote that tvf "wrote in numerous places. Now you change that and claim that you only heard during an audio interview, but don't give anything that can be verifiable. JuanR (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference with response to Marsch and Nissim-Sabat paper must be added also

In the section about Carlip paper. I recommend to cite also the FOP reference where tvf and Vigier reply to Carlip. I also recommended that recent Physical Review papers (where some of the mistakes found in Carlip paper are corrected) were also added to the list of references.

The current biased and inaccurate version of this Wiki article (largely based in a previous inaccurate and biased editing by Urgent01) cites the paper by Marsch and Nissim-Sabat (ref 14 in the current version) but avoids to cite the response published in the same journal. The reference is: Van Flandern, Tom (1999). "Reply to comment on: "The speed of gravity"" Physics Letters A 262: 261-263. JuanR (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Moonwatch and Boy Scout Merit Badges

A recent edit has added some comments to the article about TVF's participation in Fred Whipple's "Operation Moonwatch". This is verifiably described as "the brainchild of astronomer Fred Whipple, who enlisted thousands of teenagers, housewives, amateur astronomers, school teachers, and other citizens to form Moonwatch teams around the globe in the late 1950s [2] to spot artifical satellites". However, one editor here objects to including this explanation, and also objects to noting that this began as an after-school project while TVF was in high school (age 17), part of the satellite-spotting craze of the late 1950s. Instead, the editor wishes to present this without the descriptive background, which (IMO) gives "undue weight" to the topic. I suggest that editors read carefully the Wikipedia policy on undue weight. In this case, there is a fringe minority view that TVF's youthful participation in Whipple's Operation Moonwatch was a significant scientific achievement, but the mainstream view is that this was just an after-school project, participated in by thousands of teenagers. By suppressing this accurate depiction of the activities, we would be misleading the readers, and giving undue weight to the fringe minority view.

Let me give an example. Suppose an article on John Doe said "John Doe was a charter member of the Cleveland chapter of a prominent national organization, and he received numerous prizes for astronomy and science from this organization." This might be one way of putting it, but the reality is that Johnny Doe joined the boy scouts and earned some merit badges for after-school projects in star-gazing and studying refraction by putting a pencil in a glass of water. The point is, it's important to accurately identify any organizations and the nature of the activities, to accurately convey the verifiable facts. Notice that in the original edit of this article, adding the "moonwatch" stuff, it wasn't even identified with it's official name ("Operation Moonwatch"), and since this is less well-known than the Boy Scouts of America, it is easy to misrepresent the nature of the activities. Whyh is the editor so determined to avoid giving an accurate depiction of Operation Moonwatch? Is it because he realizes that, when described fully and accurately, it no longer convey that impression of a significant scientific accomplishment?

For these reasons, I think my version of the "moonwatcher" paragraph is the more appropriate one, since it conveys the verifiable facts, and avoids giving undue weight to the topic. Actually, I think another acceptable alternative would be to delete the paragraph entirely (are we going to list TVF's boy scout merit badges next?), but if it's going to remain, I think it needs to be accurate. Let's not suppress relevant and verifiable information from the readers, in an attempt to mislead them with resume pufferey.Urgent01 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to the information that YOU decided would be best to explain project moonwatch. The wikipedia page on this subject lists your quote down in the "origins of moonwatch." Why not pull a quote from the introduction, which wiki editors obviously feel make the topic most noteable?

"Operation Moonwatch (also known as Project Moonwatch and, more simply, as Moonwatch) was an amateur science program formally initiated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in 1956 [1]. The SAO organized Moonwatch as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) which was probably the largest single scientific undertaking in history. Its initial goal was to enlist the aid of amateur astronomers and other citizens who would help professional scientists spot the first artificial satellites. However, until professionally-manned optical tracking stations came on-line in 1958, this network of amateur scientists and other interested citizens played a critical role in providing crucial information regarding the world’s first satellites."

The above introduction to the wiki article on Moonwatch paints a completely different picture than the single line you opted to pull. I object to you locating a quote from an article that paints the project in the most amateurish light possible, but it does not surprise me. Akuvar (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand. TVF did not found Operation Moonwatch. The text you've quoted refers to the entire international effort of organizing teenagers and housewives all over the world. The way you are trying to word the article, TVF was somehow responsible for this. That is absurd. He was just one of thousands of teenage boys who were encouraged to take this as an after-school project. It is clearly giving "undue weight" to TVF's involvement to trumpet "the largest single scientific undertaking in history", etc. The verifiably accurate description of TVF's involvement, and the significance of it, is in the wording that I proposed.

You say that I've triede to paint the project in the most amateurish light possible, but your complaint makes no sense, because there is no doubt that it WAS an amateur project for the individual teenagers and housewive participants like TVF. Thye only valid objection would be if I was trying to paint TVF's involvement as something OTHER than amateurish - which of course is exactly what you are striving to do. Mind you, Fred Whipple's involvement was not amateurish, and the work of the SAO in organizing this international effort was not amateurish, but the teenage boys who were recruited to participate were certainly amateurs. You are obviously trying to obscure this plain fact as much as possible. I think you should read the Wiki policy on undue weight, and comply with that policy.Urgent01 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My addition never said he created project moonwatch, however he did help to found the cleveland chapter. Please refrain from changing what I have written to what you wanted me to say. You may want to portray TVF's actions as amateurish, but nothing backs you up on that, and you can't pick and choose what inforamtion you'll use from an article to support your belittling of the subjects accomplishments. Further, the definition of pseudo sciences are things like astrology. Even if everyhting TVF ever said was wrong, his field was still astronomy and most of his life's work was arounf that field, not a psuedo science. If you can show that a majority of his work in life was something other than astronomy, please present it here. Akuvar (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On Operation Moonwatch, your proposed words are clearly designed to give undue weight to this after-school project, participated in by thousands of teenage boys, housewives, and other amateurs. By your own admission, you seek to convey the impression that TVF's activity was something other than as an amateur, whereas the verifiable data indicates clearly that TVF's involvement was strictly as an amateur. Therefore, your edits are false and misleading.

Regarding the "field", you are again quite mistaken. TVF's notability was for his beliefs in faster than light propagation (which is not astronomy) and the artificial origin of the "faces on Mars" at Cydonia, etc. (which is also not astronomy). Also, even in his involvement with issues like exploding planets, which is related to genuine astronomy, his views were not actually scientific, they were pseudo-scientific as judged by the mainstream scientific community. Now, I realize that some editors here may hold the same pseudo-scientific ideas that TVF did, and of course they do not regard them as pseudo-scientific, they regard them as scientific. This is true of all pseudo-scientists, by definition. The test is not how the pseudo-scientist views himself, but how the mainstream scientific community views him. As it says on TVF's web site, people who hold the kinds of ideas he held, disagreeing with widely accepted scientific views, are regarded by the mainstream community as "ignorant, cranks, charlatans, or worse". But rather than putting "ignorant crank" in the Field section of the article, I think it is more suitable to simply put "pseudo-science". This is clearly what TVF was notable for. He was not a notable astronomer. (Saying that planets explode doesn't make someone a notable astronomer, at most it makes them a notable pseudo-astronomer.)Urgent01 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't count. Please address the issue as to why you have picked and chose wording out of the wikipedia article that meets your standards of amateurish, but does not reflect the mainline editorial community of wikipedia. One would think if you used a quote from wikipedia about an organization, you would pull it from the introduction, not a sentence out of the article body that supports your POV. I hold this activity of yours in the worse regard when it comes to good faith edits of this article. Similarly, if you read the wiki article on pseudo science it does NOT refer to people in a field who have bad theories or wrong theories. Was Copernicus a psuedo science crank? Pseudo science is also clearly defined in that article and TVF did not engage in those endeavors. Again, JuanR's point of using google scholar for notability contradicts you for what TVF was most notable for. Finally, I added three references to work he did in the past three days, seperate references about different newspaper article reports on three different projects/activities, and again, rather than discuss any of the other two references, you have simply reverted the entire article. Akuvar (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You ask me to "address the issue" of why I used the words that I used to characterize TVF's involvement in Whipple's Operation Moonwatch, but you overlook the fact that I've clearly and explicitly explained this to you already, multiple times. Once again, this article is not about Operation Moonwatch, and the only relevance of that project to this article is as it relates specifically to TVF's participation, beginning as a boy of 17, along with thousands of other teenage boys, housewives, etc., who were encouraged to form teams of amateurs to spot the new satellites passing over head. The way you have attempted to describe this is obviously designed to give the false and misleading impression, suppressing the actual nature of the activity, taking a boyish after-school project, and inflating it into some kind of adult scientific achievement. Your edits are in violation of Wikipedia policy concerning undue weight. I ask you again to carefully review the Wikipedia policy on Undue Weight, and to stop attempting to insert false and misleading statements into this article.

As to you other edits, attempting to insert still more poorly-sourced crackpot verbiage, it too is in violation of Wikipedia policy, and must be removed. Regarding the category, there is no doubt that TVF's notability was as a pseudo-science crank, not as an astronomer. I fully understand that you personally do not agree with this mainstream assessment, but that is irrelevant. This article needs to reflect the mainstream view of the subject. This is a fundamental difficulty for you, because it's clear that your entire purpose here is to present a portrait that is different from the mainstream scientific view of TVF. But Wikipedia is not the place for you to present your fringe views. Please read the policy on Undue Weight.Urgent01 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems evident that his work on the speed of gravity is scientific (and was published in scientific journals). It is also evident that Google Scholar gives a list of his scientific works. Urgent01 statement about "putting "ignorant crank" in the Field section" is so ridiculous that even he has abandoned such suggestion...

It seems also evident that his work in Cydonia is not scientific but pseudo-scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Astronomy_and_space_sciences).

Therefore the fields tag would contain both astronomy and pseudo-science JuanR (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Subject classification - Pseudo-science or Astronomy?

There has been some discussion of the most appropriate classification for the subject of this article. I think it's clear from the article itself, and from all the previous discussion when the article has been proposed for deletion in the past, that the reason for the existence of this article in Wikipedia, i.e., the notability of the subject, is for pseudo-scientific beliefs. Everyone seems to agree that the Cydonia "faces on Mars" is a pseudo-scientific belief, but some editors here believe that faster-then-light propagation and Lesage ultramundane gravity and exploding planets, etc., etc., should actually be classified as "astronomy". I think the verifiable facts dispute this point of view. All of these beliefs are regarded as pseudo-science by the mainstream scientific community. I recognize that some of the editors of this article strongly disagree with the mainstream scientific view, and these editors do not consider their own personal beliefs to be pseudo-science. Nevertheless, the editorial policies of Wikipedia require us to set aside the personal fringe beliefs of individual editors, and to make the article reflect the mainstream view of the subject. This is why I think the most appropriate subject classification is pseudo-science.Urgent01 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This was already answered. JuanR (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors should review the wikipedia article on pseudoscience. Specifically, pseudoscience is a field that presents itself as science which is not. A specific test for pseudoscience is use of the scientific method and peer review, which TVF deliberatley and methodically subjected all his beliefs to. The label pseudoscience does not refer to beliefs or theories within a field that are unpopular or not mainstream. Copernicus' theory that the universe revolved around the sun was not pseudoscience, it was in fact astronomy regardless that it was later proven wrong and was unpopular with some when first proposed. In fact, having an entire room of people say they think your theory is wrong doesn't make it pseudoscience, it just means you're probably wrong. Akuvar (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on pseudoscience agrees with you on the characterization of pseudo-science. And TVF was not following the scientific method regarding some issues as the Cydonia face, one popular pseudoscientific topic List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Astronomy_and_space_sciences. The point is not if the was right or wrong but he was not following the scientific method regarding this point. As a counterexample, consider his work regarding the variation of G; he was clearly wrong, but he followed the scientific method. This is the reason which this part of his work in under the section on scientific work JuanR (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Juan, could you please give a short explanation (or provide sources) about why TVF was not applying the Scientific Method regarding Cydonia or LeSage Theory of gravity? Thank you very much. (143.106.88.160 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

The article on pseudoscience cited above gives a good intro to the subject. For specific stuff regarding Cydonia, you may find useful the next collection of sources [17]. See also [18] for modern photos and 3D rendering. JuanR (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the qualifiers to dub something pseudo science is to not use the scientific method. Another is to not allow peer review of one's work. If a researcher does work on Astrology to try and show that there is a correlation between birthdates and sports or academics, and that they follow the scientific method and open their research up to peer review, is that research pseudo science even though the field may be considered pseudo science? Same goes with researchers trying to prove or disprove ESP, if the study has controls and follows the scientific method, is it pseudo science just because it is within a pseudo science field? From what I have seen, all of TVF's work on the face on mars was approached as a scientist would. Akuvar (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Numerous edits have recently been made, attempting to insert unverifiable POV material, and misrepresenting material with undue weight, claiming "important work" when there is no such, and presenting original research about faster-than-light travel, and so on.

Basically the facts are these: The subject of this article was, by his own statements, regarded as an ignorant crank, charalaton, or worse, by the mainstream scientific community. Certain editors here, with obvious conflicts of interest, are determined for this Wikipedia article to present a contrary view of the subject, because they do not agree with the mainstream scientific view. But Wikipedia is not the place to argue for a new view of a subject. Wikipedia articles must reflect the mainstream view found in reputable independent (and preferably secondary) sources. The spate of recent edits have all be in violation of Wikipedia policies.

As a side note, references should be publically accessible publications. Citing the Meeting Minutes from a Cub Scout meeting held in 1959 is not verifiability. Obviously some of the editors here have (because of their close personal ties with the subject) access to scrap book material, but if no ISBN number or other actual accessible source can be cited, this material is not good sourcing.Urgent01 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are verifiable, accessible 3rd party sources and are most certainly excellent wikipedia source materials. If you want to check them, please subscribe to a news service. If you cannot or won't, then you need to assume good faith editing. Akuvar (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Urgent01 claims include a collection of blatantly false statements, unverified and unsourced beliefs, plus accusations over other editors work. Check talk archives for more details JuanR (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Multiple long-term block reversions by Urgent01 editor

Editor Urgent01 is reverting the whole article back to an older poor version (largely from him). He is ignoring advices, discussion and consensus achieved at this talk, queries directly addressed to him that he ignores, and pleas done to him from multiple editors to not revert in block after multiple edits by several editors provide a better version. Urgent01 is also deleting references to reliable sources as top journals as PRE, FOP, PLA, as Nasa JPL and MPC databases and others. Please stop this long-term behavior. JuanR (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss any editor's personal fringe views on faster-than-light travel.Urgent01 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure that Wikipedia is not for that, but this is not related to what you are doing. What you are doing is reported above. I have recently checked that your talk page has been blanked; your talk page contained multiple advises and pleas by other editor who objected to your block reverts as well. This is my last plea to you to stop your multiple long-term block reversions of other editor's work. JuanR (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed edits consist almost entirely of your attempts to insert original research and novel narrative in support of your beliefs regarding faster-than-light travel. Wikipedia is not the place for you (or any other editor) to promote fringe pseudo-scientific beliefs. Let's try to keep the article focused on the subject (TVF), and make sure it reflects the reputable independent mainstream view of the subject. If you want to promote your non-mainstream views about faster-than-light travel, I suggest you post your ideas in one of the various physics newsgroups that are available for that purpose.Urgent01 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you ignored my last plea. You have been formally warned at your own talk. Do not blank your talk page again. JuanR (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

pseudo science?

JuanR has placed the heading of psuedo science back into the article. I would like to know what aspects of the subjects works were psuedo science? Remember, just because a non-mainstream topic (or psuedo science topic) is studied by a person, as long as they are willing to use peer review and scientific method, their work is not necessarily psudo science. I believe TVF used these methods in trying to find answers to psudo science topics. It does not mean that his work was pseudo science. Also, you've place his book under the psuedo science heading. I think it was pretty good under the "publications" heading which got deleted. Akuvar (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, any way «pseudoscience» seems like a possibly POV term. Maybe? It seems to imply that Flandern's research was somehow invalid, which while it may be, according to consensus within the scientific community, a POV wording for a heading doesn't seem appropriate. Just a thought. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

well, if you read the wikipedia article on pseudo-science it specifically lists why something should be categorized as that, and some of the qualifiers are lack of peer review and lack of using the scientific method. Both of those things TVF did do while investigating the faces on Mars. So, although the face on Mars is itself a pseudo-science topic, is his research on it pseudo-science? Akuvar (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this before. I gave to you the link to Wikipedia page on pseudo-science, which explains what pseudo-science is. I gave to you the link to the Wikipedia article List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Astronomy_and_space_sciences, which lists the Face on Mars topic. You say that have placed the heading of pseudo science to that of astronomy, but I did more than that. I split the article into scientific and pseudo-science topics and I gave a new reference Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List (reference 38 in the current version) in the section on Face on Mars, emphasizing that Face on Mars is listed as the fourth more popular pseudo-scientific topic regarding astronomy in that astronomers reference.

Editor Urgent01 liked to delete the head astronomy and you like to delete the head pseudo-science. The truth is somewhat in the middle of your extreme viewpoints and I am correcting you now as I corrected to Urgent01 in the past. You have been given reasons, details, and several links. JuanR (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say and have posted. You are missing my point, however. Some time ago, a university decided to look at birth dates and astrology, to see if there was anything proveable or not. Astrology is pseudo-science. The university examined aspects of people's lives that astrological tables give references to, such as marriage, careers, children, etc. They conducted their research using the scientific method and published the results for peer review. Their biggest find? because of school restrictions on when children could start kindergarten, those children that were able to enter kindergarten later did better because they were older. So the month you are born in does have some impact on your life. Interesting, yes? Was the university's research pseudo-science? Absolutely not. It was hard science conducted with today's standards. Where they trying to do research on, to prove or debunk, a pseudo-science topic, yes. The topic was pseudo science, the research was not. TVF was a scientist and he embraced the scientific method. he examined the mace on mars question from that standpoint. He gathered information, presented his theories, and he welcomed criticism. I believe that TVF's research concerning the face on mars was non-pseudo-science of a pseudo-science topic. That is what I asked for people's opinions on. Akuvar (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You say that you agree with everything I say and have posted, but I have said that TVF work on the Face was pseudo-scientific and you continue to disagree.

Regarding your illustrative example. The university scientifically evaluating if astrology has some scientific validity is not pseudo-science, but science. If they followed the scientific method they found not support for astrology. Tests of those have been repeated many times and all with the same conclusion. That the month you are born in has some impact on your life is so known as that the place where you born in has some impact. In the kindergarten case this has a social origin ("because of school restrictions"), not related to any special position of planets as astrology would say you.

Regarding TVF work in the Face. It was pseudo-scientific. I have pointed to the definition many times. Maybe it is time to copy it here:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

TVF did claims about the Face, which he presented as scientific but which were not. He took some old low-resolution photographs and manipulated them with photographic programs! He presented his "Proof that the Face is Artificial" in the next terms:

"For example, the artificiality hypothesis predicts that an image intended to portray a humanoid face should have more than the primary facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) seen in the Viking images. At higher resolution, we ought to see secondary facial features such as eyebrows, pupils, nostrils, and lips, for which the resolution of the original Viking images was insufficient.

[...]

In Figure 2, it is possible to see details in the image (once the right correspondence to the Viking image is recognized) that might have been intended to portray each secondary facial feature – eyebrow, pupil, nostrils, and lips. These are more plainly visible in higher-magnification views with brightness and contrast adjusted for each area because of the limited contrast in the image.

[...]

Detailed study with image processing software shows that these secondary facial features exist where expected by the artificiality hypothesis, but nowhere else on the mesa."

which is a flagrant violation of the scientific method that matches several of the points listed in Pseudo-science#Identifying_pseudoscience. The application of the scientific method has finally completely demolished TVF 'proof' revealing the optical effects that looked as a face in the original low-resolution photos JuanR (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

If it was not evident in my previous post, I want to emphasize now that the "secondary facial features" do not exist. They were invented by TVF using "image processing software" on the medium-resolution images (TVF calls them high-resolution because compare them with original Viking images). The high-resolution images obtained recently are clear as crystal. I have given them before in this talk. JuanR (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More balanced version

This article gives WP:Undue weight to the opinions of Van Flandern, when compared to mainstream. It also relies (in some sections) too much on WP:Primary sources. For example, mainstream science clearly says that the speed of gravity and speed of electromagnetism is equal to the speed of light - all other opinions are far outside the current scientific positions. Every WP article must be based on reputable WP:Secondary sources, and their content must be properly reflected. So I rewrote the section on "speed of gravity", and put it into the non-mainstream section. Also some apparently unnecessary quotations were deleted by me.--D.H (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:JuanR reverted my edits, which I explained above, and calls it vandalism - even though I simply based my edits on the current mainstream physics. This behavior is unacceptable. He also speaks about a "consensus" version created in the last few months, but this "consensus" apparently only includes him and one other user. --D.H (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your original vandalism was explained below in another section. The consensus version was achieved by four or five editors. My last discussion with the other editor was only about the field pseudo-science in the heading, which is something that you did not change! You just ignored the work of all the editors and even deleted entire sections as the section on awards and honors. JuanR (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete it intentionally, this was a mistake by me, for which I apologize. However, I've reverted the article for the second (and last) time (and included the missing section.) However, I'm not interested in an edit war, so maybe another editor could step in, since I'm losing my interest in this article. --D.H (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am shoched to see that WP: Undue Weight was used in an article about a man who did not believe general relativity answered all the questions and devoted the later half of his life to exploring theories that did not necessarily sit with GR. To say that the article needs to be edited to reflect mainstream opinion is completely contrary to what the article is about in the first place. Also, non GR information was deleted from the article with no explanations, I am restoring some of that. Akuvar (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by DH

The consensus and balanced version of this article has been vandalized once again.

The arguments given by DH to justify their editing do not match with the changes that he has really done and I report here.

(i) DH has changed to

"He also published the non-mainstream website Meta Research Bulletin"

The bulletin had a printed version with different subscription prizes for different countries due to airmail cost. That is not a website...

(ii) DH just eliminated the section on honors and awards and the citation to the mainstream Minor Planet Circulars.

(iii) DH writes

"Other non-mainstream authors made similar claims"

but he does not notice in the text that the references cited are published in journals as Physical Review E, which is not only mainstream but one of the leading publications in the topic. DH changed an argument done about the content of works by an ad-hominem against the authors of the work.

He adds that those claims were not accepted by the majority of scientific community, and that authors as Carlip and Feynman said the contrary. This is false. Carlip, as quoted in the article, says that the observational data about aberration is perfectly compatible with van Flandern claim about the speed of gravity; moreover, Carlip does absolutely no claim about the PRE papers or other works cited in the text. Feynman is notorious by saying that the usual field theory of electrodynamics is inconsistent and by promoting his own theory of electrodynamics based in action-at-a-distance, Feynman theory contradicts Carlip basic claims about electromagnetic interactions (Carlip is not an expert in electromagnetic interactions and his views in gravitation have been refuted in print). Moreover, Feynman passed away much before the publication of the modern mathematical and physical results showed in the PRE papers cited. JuanR (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a WP-user for some years, and I'm shocked, that my edits are called vandalism! Please change the tone of your edits.

(i) Ok, your correct. I will change website into publication.

(ii) I unintentionally deleted the section, when moving other section, for which I apologize - it will be re-included.

(iii) That's not true. Van Flandern said that the speed of gravity has a lower limit of 2x10^10 c, while Carlip said that absence of gravitational aberration tells us nothing or little about the speed of gravity at all. This is of course a different opinion. And of course, you cannot deny that mainstream opinion is, that the speed of gravity in general relativity is equal to the speed of light. --D.H (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Why did the authors (Chubykalo etc.) you cited not already got the Nobel prize for their findings, that electromagnetic interactions are faster than the speed of light?... And also a publication in a mainstream journal does not automatically imply, that it is mainstream physics. We also have to look at the authors - and Steve Carlip is an undisputed authority. --D.H (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who broke the original version. Now you say us that you deleted an entire section by "error" and that you were not aware of the difference between a website and a print bulletin. You ask for changing the tone now. However, you started saying in this page that other editors' work was not so balanced... and Wikipedia logs show that you changed the article by the first time at 18:54 and the talk page three minutes after, at the 18:57. This fact shows that you considered that you would not ask other editors about the changes but just do them by yourself, because the opinion of others, and their many hours of work in this article, was unimportant for you...

After being corrected now you change website into publication. But what you write now says that TvF published a publication. Wow! The original wording not said publication and was more elegant. Of course, you do not explain why the original wording must be substituted by the your where folks publish publications. You just substituted.

After being corrected now you re-included the section that you deleted. But again there is more, you moved the section to the end of the article. The original place did seem to us more adequate. Of course, you do not explain why the section must be moved to the end. You just moved it.

You misunderstand the Van Flandern Carlip issue. There was a long discussion of this in this talk page (check the archives) and quotes from their respective papers were invoked to emphasize what they really said and in what context. Evidently, nobody here said or even suggested that the speed of gravity in general relativity is not equal to the speed of light, which does your statement useless.

Your PS did my laugh. Why do not you go to the Wikipedia page on general relativity and ask editors why Einstein never got the Nobel prize for general relativity? You also try to argue by authority again. Your claim that Steve Carlip is an undisputed authority and thus we must take their work as Gospel was also funny. Evidently the page that you cite do not claim that Carlip is an "undisputed authority" in electromagnetism or in the issue of the speed of gravity, because he is not. The article only says that he is known for work in quantum gravity, which is something different. Regarding electromagnetism and the speed of gravity Carlip works are full of errors (references to Physical Review papers noticing some of his mathematical and physical mistakes in electromagnetism are cited). Regarding quantum gravity his work is also largely incorrect. For instance, Lubos Motl who belongs to a much more mainstream school of quantum gravity than Carlip has publicized the myths and mistakes spread by Carlip. See for instance http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/08/strominger-vs-carlip-and-consensus.html and http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-elementary-myths-about-quantum.html

Since your last editing is a step backward, since your statements are not valid (you argue by appeals to supposed 'authority' by authors showed wrong in mainstream literature) since you continue repeating errors as substituting the head of the previous section "Non-mainstream beliefs and Pseudo-science" to the wrong head "Non-mainstream science and believes" and since in that new section you moved material that is mainstream (one of the references cited analyzes the Coulomb theory!) and since you continue deleting information and references as that to the Science Digest magazine, I am improving your flawed editing once again. JuanR (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree to disagree... And as I said above, this article is not interesting enough for me to start an edit war. So, good bye (I now removed the article from my watchlist)... --D.H (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if we do not like your "TVF published a publication" or if we do not confound "belief" with "believes", sorry if we read Physical Review papers, and sorry also if the above references and links do not support that "undisputed authority" that you alluded to... Please, let us know what Wikipedia editors said you about why Einstein never got the Nobel prize for general relativity. Have a nice day. JuanR (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This version is well balanced. It is way better than earlier versions. Congratulations to the Editors. (EPLeite 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

Only some mistakes made by DH editor were corrected, the rest of mistakes remain in the current version. Regards. JuanR (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for response to undos and edits on Tom van Flandern

Several editors did reverts in Tom van Flandern article and posterior edits without discussing them at this talk page.

I commented this in the above section, but received no response.

I commented this in my talk page User_talk:JuanR, in the section about civility, but received no response.

I commented this in the Wikiquete allerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=413173016#Tom_Van_Flandern), but received no response

I will repeat here the main questions about the quality/consensus of the last edits waiting some response:

Why must the consensus edition achieved by several editors who actively discussed in the talk page be substituted by DH editor version, who did his changes without first achieving consensus in the talk page?

Why is the DH version, which deletes some references, better than the previous?

Why is the original wording about the Meta Research Bulletin substituted by the new? What is the gain in writing something like "TvF published a publication"?

The original version contains the fact that Carlip article only analyzed aberration (which correspond to one section in TvF PLA article), why was this fact deleted in the new version?

Why are papers in PRE and other top journals labeled as papers by "non-mainstream authors". Whereas other authors (with zero publications in the topic in PRE) are labeled as "undisputed authority"? Who gives the labels and in basis to what? Editor preferences? In the talk page I gave two links to a famous physicist who disputes the authority of that "undisputed authority".

You are kidding, right? Undisputed authority exists in religions, not in Science. (EPLeite 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

The phrase "undisputed authority" is not from mine, thus better you ask that to the editor who used it for justifying his bad editings. (Please sign your posts) JuanR (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Feynman cited after of "those claims were not accepted by the majority of scientific community", as if he was rejecting the works cited, when Feynman passed away before those works were published.

Why has the heading "Non-mainstream beliefs" been substituted by "Non-mainstream science and believes"?

Why was the section "Awards and honors" moved to the end?

Thanks by your collaboration. JuanR (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor User_talk:Cyclopia#Waiting_for_response_to_your_undos_and_edits_on_Tom_van_Flandern has already "Fixed the «published a publication» redundancy", in his own words. Waiting for the rest. JuanR (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

After about two months, some anonymous editor has changed the wrong word "believes" in the heading to the correct word "beliefs". I am glad that with each little step, the version by good-faith editors as DH and Cyclopia looks more like the original consensus version which was available before their invalid edits. I am still waiting for the rest of questions raised above about the quality of the recent version of the TvF article. JuanR (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What I got out of the discussion was not that you should not edit the article, but you should change the style on the talk page. I think the article needs a lot of work, but I look forward to see the article in a year or so. Keep up your good work.--Stone (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks by the kindly words, but I think that there was more than that:

First, it is a fact (see the logs) that the good-faith editor DH changed the consensus version of the article by a terribly bad version, before participating in this talk page.

Second, my corrections to his bad version were reverted up to in three occasions by good-faith editors DH and Cyclopia.

Third, in the Wikiquette alerts page I was accused of "article ownership" and "tendentious editing", when I was correcting even plain wrong English in the version submitted by DH and Cyclopia!

Fourth. Another editor involved in the Wikiquette alerts has suggested me that English must be not my first language. That is right, but why has not he emphasized that my English was good enough to see that "believes" in DH/Cyclopia editing would be substituted by "beliefs" and so on?

Fiveth. I have reported this and other issues to the editors involved. DH abandoned, Cyclopia claims to have no time, and the other editor claim no interest in the article. JuanR (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Put in citation for observation of satellites of asteroids - article publication is 1994 though text states 'proof came in 1993' I imagine the observation may have dated from 1993? Yellowcrocus (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation added - online published paper on the 'Face on Mars'Yellowcrocus (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, your citation links to metaresearch, which is the subject's website, so you are in danger of creating a circular citation thing...whatever they call it. Akuvar (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, this does not risk circularity. The statement says that the subject claims something. The citation provides direct proof of that. See wp:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. DVdm (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Contribution to article

I reverted a change made to the article today by editor DVdm not because I disagreed with the edit, but because that user had been identified as having a personal bias against the subject of this article, including maintaining a website with derogatory descriptions of the subject. In archive 7 of this discussion page, under the section "Improving GPS" editor DVdm states that he/she will not contribute to the article. I have no issue with editor DVdm making constructive comments in the talk pages. Akuvar (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What I do outside Wikipedia and what I have stated on this talk page in the past should have no influence on the value of my contributions in here.

WP:COI. You admitted that you have a strong personal cause against Tvf and you said that you would stop from editing this page for maintaining the NPOV. JuanR (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do not disagree with the edit, there is no reason to remove it. The content was properly sourced and relevant, so it should remain here. I have re-inserted it. DVdm (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. JuanR (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is a copy of a previous edit from mine that was deleted by another editor without any reason. Your edit is compatible with case 5 of non-conflictive editings of the COI policy. JuanR (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article organization - Mainstream and non-Mainstream

I've moved the portion of the article that constains the words: "In later years, Van Flandern advocated inquiry into astronomy theories which he felt were consistent with the principles of science but were not otherwise supported..." to the non-Mainstream section, because the phrase "not otherwise supported" refers to the fact that these ideas were not supported by the mainstream, so they really belong in the non-mainstream section.Flau98bert (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are reading the quote incorrectly. Van Flandern is refering only to mainstream theories in this quote, that if they are not supported by observation then they should be more closely examined. He does not propose any non-mainstream viewpoints, he is calling for a heightened use of the scientific method, something he felt many scientists were putting aside in favor of complaceny. You can place this under "personal theories" or "philosophies" but it does not belong under "non-mainstream science" Akuvar (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor has suggested that the article should not be split into mainstream and non-mainstream ideas, but it has been split up that way for a long time, with just slightly different header structure. It used to have an overall section on "Scientific Work" and then it began with some mainstream items, followed by a big section labeled Non Mainstream. Obviously the portion of the Scientific work section that is not "Non Mainstream" is Mainstream. All, I've done is made the header levels consistent, calling the first part Mainstream and the second part Non-Mainstream, which really isn't a change from how the article was before.

The editor also questioned why this distinction is even made in this article, stating that it isn't made in other articles. I'm not sure which other articles are being referred to, but I think some other people who have had mainstream ideas and then very non-mainstream ideas (like Isaac Newton's ideas about biblical prophesey) have been described that way in their articles. In the case of this article, the whole basis of notability is the non-mainstream advocacy, which the subject himself fully acknowledged, so I don't see any reason to downplay the distinction. In any case, this distinction has been present in the article for a long time (judging from the history), so I don't know why we would want to change it now.Flau98bert (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind debating the issue, but "for a long time it has been that way" is completely false. For the past 6-months it has been divided into two sections "Scientific work" and "Non-mainstream science and beliefs." If you wan to make the change, you need to justify it as non-redundant to other editors otherwise it will be reverted. Akuvar (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The justification was given above, and you didn't really address it, you just dismissed it and reverted the article. I think if you have no substantive answer to the justifications given above, the edits should stand. I also don't know what you mean about justifying "to other editors". What other editors? Can they speak for themselves? If any other editors have any comments or other edits to make, they are obviously welcome to make them. Lastly, the change we're talking about isn't really changing from what you described. The article divided into two sections "Scientific work" and "Non-mainstream science and beliefs". All I'm suggesting is that this division is awkwardly implemented, because the first section is obviously "mainstream science" since the second section is "non-mainstream science", so they should be given suitable headers at the same header level. The only real substantive change I'm suggesting is to move some things from the first section to the second section, because they really belong in the second section (for the reason explained above). Since no one has offered any objection to these edits, I'll go ahead and restore them. I'd like to ask that they not be summarily reverted (again) without addressing the actual content and justification of the changes here on the talk page. Thanks!Flau98bert (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about adding the mainstream, it doesn't make much difference to me. What does make a difference is your argument for it and "not understanding" my comments. The distinction has been made for a long time in this article between "scientific" and "non-mainstream" ideas/theories. The "scientific" ideas have never been named "Mainstream science" before. You seem to be combining those two facts as one, as if they were the same argument. They are not. I favor the distinction between the subject's Mainstream work and his non-mainstream work. That division should stay. Wether or not the section "Scientific work" should be renamed to "Mainstream science" isn't important to me. Akuvar (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical Ideas

I think the current section on "General Philosophy" consists of three quotes, two of which are very explicitly non-mainstream. The first quote says "Events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned. In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught." This is quite clearly non-mainstream. The third quote in the section gives van Flandern's description of his "deep reality physics", which was quite explicitly non-mainstream, as he himself happily acknowledged. So I think these two quotes very clearly belong on the "Non-mainstream ideas" section of the article.

The middle quote is also non-mainstream, although in an understated form. Obviously van Flandern was not notable as a proponent of mainstream scientific philosophy, so if anyone interprets that quotation as simply echoing mainstream scientific philosophy, it doesn't really belong in the article. (Van Flandern did not originate mainstream scientific philosophy, so it shouldn't be attributed to him.) The only justification for that quotation being in the article is because it actually does express (in veiled terms and code words) some of van Flandern's non-mainstream philosophy. For example, when he said "we will eventually unravel the mystery of our origins" we must bear in mind that according to van Flandern our origins were on the planet Mars that used to be a moon of Jupiter, which he claimed was indisputably indicated by the facts. And when he said "the solution will come sooner if our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be", he was arguing that people should not discount such extreme non-mainstream ideas simply because they seem "fantastic". And when he said "if we let the Universe describe its wonder to us, rather than telling it how it ought to be", he was claiming that mainstream science tried to tell the universe how it ought to be, whereas his own "deep reality physics" was based on letting the universe describe its wonder to us.

So, in summary, I think the first and third quotes in the philosophy section definitely belong under non-mainstream, and the second quote should either be deleted (if it is interpreted as just an expression of mainstream philosophy) or moved to the non-mainstream section (if it is interpreted as actually revealing something about van Flandern's own unique ideas).Flau98bert (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use your own opinions, or borderline original research, as a basis for placing these quotes under non-mainstream science. The quotes do not contain any non-mainstream theories, taken literally they are clearly the subjects outlook on life and measures that should be taken to verify current, mainstream science theories. I have conceded (for the same reasons I just listed) that they should be moved from "mainstream science" but they should be placed in their own category, not in the polar opposite of non-mainstream science. Akuvar (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just undid your revision and placed the quotes back under philosophy. You did not mention in any of your notes the addition of the Mars material you intertwined with the Science Digest quote making it look like the two were somehow connected. Akuvar (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As explained in the justification above, of the three quotes in the "philosophy section", the first and third are explicitly non-mainstream. This is not a matter of opinion. The quotes themselves say he began to "question the correctness of everything I had learned", and that "reality differed seriously from what I had been taught". He had been taught mainstream science, so he is saying that reality differs seriously from mainstream science. Therefore this belongs in the "Non-mainstream science and beliefs" section. (Please note that the section is not entitled just Non-mainstream science, it also includes beliefs.) Likewise the third quote is explicitly describing "deep reality physics", which was van Flandern's non-mainstream concept of physics. (Surely no one will argue that van Flandern's "deep reality physics" was mainstream.)

This leaves only the second of the three quotes, which explicitly refers to the discovery of "our origins", which he admits may seem "fantastic" to most people. Van Flandern's notability is based largely on his fantastic non-mainstream beliefs about "our origins", namely, his belief that we came from the planet Mars, a former moon of Jupiter, which has large sculptures of faces clearly visible on the surface, remnants of the civilization of our ancient ancestors. This is documented later in the article, in the "faces on Mars" section. As explained above, in the context of van Flandern's documented beliefs, this quote is clearly non-mainstream. In fact, it would fit well in the faces on mars section, although I think it's okay to leave it under the non-mainstream general philosophy section.Flau98bert (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Van Flandern's definition of Deep Reality Physics is completely mainstream. All 10 of the principals he outlines are mainstream science. If you are unfamiliar with the subject's work, you should not be pretending to explain what he meant. Mainstream physics theories that further met Van Flandern's 10 mainstream principals were, in his opinion, worthy of meeting a criteria designated "Deep Reality Physics." This philosophy of his was rooted in the scientific method. This is all detailed in the article provided as a reference.

The other quotes are not non-mainstream, there is nothing in the quotes that denounces mainstream theories. Your analysis of what he must have meant, or trying to link it to other work and quotes is original research. Taken at their face, the quotes are statements about the subject's philosophies on viewing life, and that is the header under which they belong. Akuvar (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's take them one at a time. The first quotation says "In matters of religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields, I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught." What he had been taught (in the area of physics) was mainstream science, so this is an explicit renouncing of mainstream science. I don't see any way of interpreting that sentence as anything other than an avowal of non-mainstream beliefs. Do you? If so, could you explain it?Flau98bert (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "religion, medicine, biology, and other fields" again, this is clearly a philosophical statement about how he was looking at the world, it cannot be interpreted any other way, and you cannot pull out pieces of it to try and categorize it differently. Akuvar (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think I am "pulling out pieces"? The quotation states that van Flandern renounced mainstream views in all of those listed areas - religion, medicine, biology, physics, and other fields. It is an explicit assertion that the mainstream views of all those subjects "differ seriously from reality". Now, there is a section in the article called "Non-mainstream science AND BELIEFS". I think this quotation very clearly falls in the category of non-mainstream beliefs.

Since we don't seem able to agree on this, I suggest we request arbitration on whether the quotation is or is not asserting van Flandern's non-mainstream beliefs. Would you agree to abide by whatever arbitration decides?Flau98bert (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the quote does NOT say that he "renounced mainstream views" It does not say what he was taught or what his previous beliefs were, or what they became. If he had been raised an atheist, and decided that Catholicism was correct, would that be mainstream or non-mainstream? What if he were raised that the earth was flat and thought, perhaps, it was round, would that be non-mainstream? What about the "other things"? My point, again, being that you cannot lump all these things together, draw inferences about what he must have been talking about, and declare the quote to be a statement of non-mainstream ideas. Akuvar (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time described in that quote, when Van Flandern stated that in matters of physics (among other things) he "came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught", he had been educated with a degree from Yale in astronomy and celestial mechanics. Are you seriously suggesting that he might have been taught that the Earth was flat during his graduate studies at Yale? That doesn't make any sense, and I think you KNOW it doesn't make any sense. Yale teaches mainstream physics. You know that as well as I do. And he says "in matters of physics I came to discover that reality differed seriously from what I had been taught". And Van Flandern himself spent the rest of his life publically espousing admittedly non-mainstream views about physics. So why are you trying to deny this?

You know as well as I do that the quote describes his turn from mainstream to non-mainstream ideas - at least with regard to physics, which is all that's relevant to this article. (He wasn't notable for his ideas on religion or medicine or biology). Van Flandern himself made no secret of the fact that he believed mainstream physics "differed seriously from reality". So why are you striving so mightily to deny this, and misrepresent him in this article?Flau98bert (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, no response to the above explanation of the edits was given, and yet Akuvar went ahead and re-reverted the edits, claiming that no explanation of the edits has been given. That is obviously false. I'd like to ask that editors read the Talk page and respond here before continuing to make wholesale reverts. Thanks. Flau98bert (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor "knowing as well as I do" is not a valid reference or basis for making the leaps that you are trying for. I have pointed out that your paraphrasing or taking snippets of sentences as a basis is also unacceptable, as in your paraphrasing the quote after pointing out his attendence at Yale. Just because a person is not noteable for his religious views, it doesn't mean you can ignore the presence of religion in the quote and apply it only to the subjects you want. My example of the flat earth was to show that we do not know what he was referring to in his quote, that we can not assume he was taught something only to disagree with it, or that what he was taught could have been non-mainstream itself - we simply do not know from the quote. If you can find references to what he was speaking about, we may be able to re-classify this quote, but until then, it is just a statement of philosophy so that is where it belongs.

I do not deny any of Van Flandern's non-mainstream beliefs, I am simply upholding the standards for which changes can be made. Since we are asking questions, do you know how hard it is to do that when an editor appears with no other edits on wikipedia, who is obviously familiar with editing in wikipedia, makes no meaningful additions to the article, who's arguments that are supposed to be about facts and references include "you know as well as I do" and only tries to shift and re-word the article to place the subject in a poor light? If you wish to seek administrative intervention in this matter, I more than welcome it. Until then, or such a time you can reference your edits, I will begin to revert them as vandalism. Akuvar (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Speed of Gravity Section?

I made some edits correcting and clarifying the section of the article on the speed of gravity, and one of the editors here summarily reverted them. I thought about opening a discussion of the edits here, but based on the discussion of the non-mainstream philosophy quotes I have the feeling that discussion with this editor will not be productive. I'm thinking the best way forward may be to seek input from several additional editors, perhaps not so close to the subject, and/or some kind of arbitration. In the mean time, I wonder if it would be appropriate to put some warning banners on the article?Flau98bert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This statement is wrong. Most like your edits, you seem to be trying to create controversy. I have not reverted any of your edits concerning speed of gravity, in fact, I don't think you have made any edits on the portions of the article dealing with speed of gravity. Also contrary to your accusations, I have agreed to several of your edits, including changing science to mainstream science, have I not? I will always agree to arbitration because I value the viewpoints of other editors, but I don't agree to your synopsis asking for arbitration, it is inflammatory. Akuvar (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad you haven't reverted my edits concerning the speed of gravity. Somehow they got reverted by someone posting under your name. Check the article history. (You might want to change your password, since it looks like someone has hacked into your account.) I'll go ahead and restore them. Thanks!Flau98bert (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I had forgotten you made this "edit" and that it appeared under the heading of speed of gravity. However, this is not an editable section, this is what Mr. Carlip actually said in his article, you cannot go in and twist his words, paraphrase, and manipulate it to your agenda. I thought I made this clear. Also, even though I was wrong about a "speed of gravity" edit, it did not give you carte blanche to re-maike all your other inappropriate edits. Akuvar (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you appreciate how challenging it is to deal with an editor who can't remember what he has said from one day to the next, and who denies ever having said something one day, and then re-affirms having said it the next? But never mind. I think you're mistaken when you say the speed of gravity section "is not an editable section". You are not authorized (as far as I know) to declare what can and can't be edited. Please try to bear this in mind. I think some admin assistance is going to be needed here.Flau98bert (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to insert words and change the meaning of what a scientist such as Mr. Carlip printed in a published letter. You can edit the section to your heart's content if it is meaningful and doesn't change what other people actually said. Please see my Talk comments under "Philosophy" above. Akuvar (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Exploding Planets - mainstream or non-mainstream?

I put a section on Van Flandern's beliefs about exploding planets into the non-mainstream section of the article, because the reception he describes certainly seems to indicate that his views were soundly rejected by mainstream scientists. However, this was at a conference in 1976, which was during the supposedly mainstream part of Van Flandern's career. So I'm not quite sure where to place it. But on balance I think it belongs in the non-mainstream section.Flau98bert (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to write your own POV introductions to quotes. The entire paragraph you authored leading up to the quote from Van Flandern's book was unsourced and POV. I am only an editor, not an administrator, it is not my job to tell you what you can and cannot do to articles (over and over again), however, if you wish to write a book about how you disliked the subject, I urge you to do that rather than attempting to write it here on Wikipedia. Akuvar (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added references to that introductory section, and also to some of the other sections, to give a better-sourced article.Flau98bert (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't bother to address all the other changes you continue to make, that are clearly POV, you seem to ignore my comments entirely and with every edit, slip the material back in under the guise of adding something else. I'm treating your edits to this article as vandalism until you address these issues and become honest with your editing summaries. Akuvar (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the issues have been addressed on this Talk page, and the edit summaries refer to this Talk page. I'm not sure what more can be done. If you still think my edits are vandalism, I suggest you bring this to the attention of a system administrator. I'm trying to make well-sourced and relevant improvements to the article. If any administrator can offer me advice on how to improve my editing, I'll be happy to learn.Flau98bert (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've given you advice, you don't heed it. You paraphrase what authors said in published papers to twist the meaning, you add your own POV editorial to the article, you add POV adjectives prior to statements, you make edit summaries that hide other edits you're performing, and I've recently noticed that some of your attempts at referencing statements simply refer to the subject's book in it's entirety with no page numbers. Lastly, most of the "new" items that you are introducing have been discussed at length in these talk pages. You need to familiarize yourself with the consensus of those editors and state your arguments to them before attempting to re-introducing the material. I am not here to argue on their behalf, and you as an editor must take their opinions into consideration. Akuvar (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for some advice from a third party or an administrator, but thanks for your comments. I think it would help if you could be specific in your criticisms. Rather than simply reverting the entire article, removing whole sections on the exploding planet hypothesis, the big bang theory, and other highly notable and well-sourced material with numerous references, I think it would be better if you focused on specific things that you believe are not well-sourced or not relevant or not notable. For example, when you pointed out that the introductory words in the section on the Exploding Planet Hypothesis were unsourced, I added references. Likewise if you can point out references that are missing the page numbers, then we could add those page numbers. That's the kind of specific criticism that can be addressed to produce a better article. I hope you will return to that kind of constructive commenting. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the Talk page archives to see the comments that other editors have made on the items you are trying to add? This article has had many debates in the past about what content should be in and should be left out, it has had wiki administrators make content decisions. I understand that you might be new to editing this page, so you need to familiarize yourself with these discussions. I am not going to re-argue them and many of the editors who made worthy contributions have moved on, so I cannot argue on their behalf. This isn't one sided, I've won some arguments and I've lost some, but I don't take advantage of the time that has elapsed to squeeze the items I wanted in and were rejected in the past, that isn't right. And I won't let someone else add items that were rejected by consensus in the past either unless you shed new light on the argument. Akuvar (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've reviewed the (very extensive!) talk page archives for this article. The edits I'm making are (I believe) well sourced, relevant, and notable, and meet all the criteria for constructive edits. Nothing in the archived discussions contradicts this, as far as I can tell. If you think one or more of my edits are inappropriate, please explain why it is inappropriate here on this discussion page, and I will try to improve it. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

But your edit contained all your previous rejected edits. I'm not wasting my time looking at anything that might be new when you continue to vandalize the article. Akuvar (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been no vandalism. Each edit has been highlighted in the edit summary when the edit was made. In subsequent edits, as additional material has been added, the edit summaries have described each new change, and then refered to this Talk page for the discussion of all the previous changes that were already discussed and justified on the Talk page. That's the meaning of the phrase "See Talk page for remainder of changes". This is in accord with Wikipedia policy for edit summaries. The fact that one of the other editors here is reverting each and every edit to this article (with the absurd edit summary of "reverting possible vandalism" a dozen or more times, for carefully sourced and relevant edits, each of which has been discussed at length on this Talk page) does make the edit history slightly confusing, but until that editor stops doing that, I think the confusion is unavoidable. I'm hopeful for some intervention by system administrators to fix that problem.Flau98bert (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Section needed on Rejection of Big Bang Cosmology?

I'm thinking one of the most notable beliefs of Van Flandern was his rejection of the mainstream big bang cosmology. He constructed a list of top 10 reasons (later expanded to top 30) why the big bang theory is wrong. He also organized a conference of fellow big bang debunkers, so this was a significant part of his non-mainstream views and activities for which he was known. If there is no objection, I'll add a section to the non-mainstream beliefs.Flau98bert (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I went ahead and added a section on Rejection of Big Bang Cosmology.Flau98bert (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight Banner - July 2012

I've added an Undue Weight template to the article, since there is an on-going dispute.

The dispute centers around several edits and additions to the article that I've recently made, to cover some of the most notable and well-sourced aspects of the subject, namely, the "Exploded Planet Hypothesis", and the "Opposition to the Big Bang". I've tried to provide good sourcing for this information, and also discussed and justified this material on the Talk page. In addition, I placed the "General Philosophy" quotes under the "Non-mainstream science and beliefs" section of the article, for the reasons explained on this Talk page. Lastly, I've expanded the quotation from one of the references in the "Speed of Gravity" section, to give a more complete account.

Another editor here objects to each and every one of my edits, and has reverted every one of my edits, claiming that he suspects "vandalism", and saying he will not explain himself until/unless I write my edit summaries differently. Please see the edit history. The only substantive complaint that he has expressed is that he thinks my edits give undue weight to this material (exploding planets, opposition to big bang, comments of carlip, etc), and that I've used some POV adjectives. I've asked him to identify the POV aspects of my edits so that I can correct them, but he refuses, on the grounds that he will not discuss any of my edits until/unless I write my edit summaries differently. (See the above discussion.) I've tried to explain my edit summaries more fully, but he continues to simply revert all my edits as "vandalism".

So we are at an impasse. There are two significantly different versions of the article now, the one with my edits and additions, and the one without. While we attempt to resolve this dispute, I thought it was appropriate to place a banner on the article, noting that the article is in dispute. I would welcome a discussion of the actual suitability of my edits, in accord with Wikipedia policy guidelines, so that hopefully we can resolve this dispute quickly. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe a dispute between two editors warrants the addition of the banner you have placed on this article, but since this article has had such frequent visits in the past (and seemingly the present) by people who hate the subject, I actually welcome it as it warns the reader that the information contained on the page may not paint a true picture of the subject at any given time.

In regards to your comments; firstly, your accusation that I have not allowed any of your edits is patently false, the primary example being the re-naming of the “Scientific work” section to “Mainstream science” There are other instances, but I only have to prove you’re accusation wrong once.

The re-naming of one section is insignificant. When I say you've reverted all my edits, I'm referring to the substantive edits. This isn't a matter that we need to argue about. Anyone who wants to see the pattern and scope of your wholesale reverts has only to look at the history page of the article.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the section on lunar occultations, after burdening the entire section with your efforts to make light of the work that was done at the time, you add your POV conclusion (which should be left to the reader to decide), “This confirms that the occultation method was not reliable.” If this was in a paper, please source it.

Already done. The occultation method predicted a satellite, and the referenced observations show there is no satellite. Clearly by trying to disguise this failure you are exercising your own POV, which is not appropriate.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You argued that his quote concerning “Deep Reality Physics” argued for non-mainstream theories, I had to point out to you – twice – that you were in error reading the quote and urged you to re-read it. I assume you did because you dropped the subject, but you never gave any acknowledgement that you had been mistaken.

You're mistaken. The "Deep Reality Physics" comment is still in the non-mainstream section, where it belongs.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You consistently move the philosophy section under non-mainstream science without proving any of your arguments using source material. In fact, your argument, purely POV, that “you and I both know what he was talking about” and claiming it was physics, seems to be false. The paragraph it is taken from in his book goes on to give a detailed example of what he meant in one of the other subjects listed.

On this point your comments seem entirely irrational. The quote explicitly says mainstream science differs seriously from reality. Nothing could be more clear. It clearly belongs in the non-mainstream beliefs section of the article.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opening statement in the exploding planets section also seems POV and/or original research and unsourced, “Already in 1976, while Van Flandern was still employed by the USNO, he had begun to promote non-mainstream ideas about astronomy.”

It is very well sourced. The description in Van Flandern's book, as shown by the quotation, makes it abundantly clear that his views were not accepted by the mainstream.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Further, the excerpt from his book is taken out of context, as Van Flandern was trying to show that the scientific community was acting in a manner to ridicule and dismiss his arguments rather that allow his peers to debate them or ask questions. If this section stays, it needs to have the rest of the page inserted to bring it into context.

Again, your comments are irrational. Obviously Van Flandern did not think his non-mainstream ideas were wrong, and he deeply believed that the mainstream scientists were wrong in disagreeing with his ideas. That's not the point. The point is that they did, in fact, disagree with his ideas. This means they were non-mainstream. It is not the purpose of this article to decide whether those scientits were mistaken or whether Van Flandern was mistaken. If you want to include a statement that Van Flandern did not approve of how those mainstream scientists treated him, that would be okay, but it seems wildly superfluous.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Under speed of gravity, again, as I have cautioned you, you have added your own POV editorial comments to the article, such as, “who described the well-known fallacy of Van Flandern's reasoning” The quote from their paper does indeed state, “the argument is fallacious…” but it doesn’t allow you to expound on it in an editorial manner to sway a reader’s opinion.

The intent was not to expound in an editorial manner, but merely to describe more clearly the content of the cited references. There is no doubt that those references disagreed with Van Flandern. Attempts to make it appear as if they didn't would be POV.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the Carlip citation, as I have cautioned once again, you extensively add your own POV editorial comments to the excerpt from the paper, such as, “also published a refutation of Van Flandern's article” and you actually insert your own comments into the middle of the excerpt, “(contrary to Van Flandern's claim)” You try to shed a negative light on the entire synopsis of the paper in which Carlip plainly states that the what one takes from the observations is swayed by the theory you use as a “filter” and that with present data and depending on what theory you use, the observations are consistent with both faster-than-light propagation and general relativity. You are not allowed to insert your own editorial comments and POV comments into a published paper’s summary. This material was discussed at length in archives 5 and 6.

The archives of this Talk page contain many sensible and correct statement, and also many irrational and incorrect statements. Arguments both for and against almost every conceivable edit have been made (including deleting the article altogether), and no one ever seems to be persuaded. On the speed of gravity topic, I think you have a basic misunderstanding of both Van Flandern's paper and the rebuttal papers. I think the presentation as I edited it more accurately represents the sources than the presentation you prefer. In short, Van Flandern said the observations prove the speed of gravity must be superluminal, and the papers of Marsch and Carlip (as well as Eddington and others that could be cited) explain why Van Flandern's claim is false. The very fact that you have such a mistaken view of these papers just highlights the importance of getting it right.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Under awards, again your editorial, POV comments have been placed at the beginning of the paragraph you wish to add, “Later the claims in this paper were discredited,..” This material, as much of the other material you are introducing, was discussed in archives 6 of the talk page.

Again, the archived discussions contains arguments for and against every possible view. The criteria for editing Wikipedia articles remains the same: Well sourced, non-POV, relevant, notable, etc. My edits meet all the criteria. It's pointless to claim that the archives of this talk page represent the final word on anything.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And getting to the bottom of the page, we have another section added that begins with your POV editorial, “Regarding the assertion in the post humous asteroid naming citation, organized after his passing by his colleagues” and the addition of the material trying to pace a negative swing to the quote was discussed at length in archive 7.

It's fine that things have been discussed. That's not the issue. The issue is, are the edits compliant with Wikipedia policy? The answer is yes, so you should stop reverting them.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, IN MY OPINION, your arguments are extremely similar to those of a string of user ID’s created solely to vandalize this article, those user ID’s having been banned by Wikipedia administrators, each new user ID showing up several months after the last to be banned. Your user ID seems to have been created solely to work on this article exactly as has been done in the past, you claim to have made yourself familiar with 7 extremely lengthy archives of talk pages in 3 days, you are rehashing those arguments without adding new data or sources, and your edit summaries have been anything but good faith. I am not an administrator, it is not my job to argue with you every day and tell you repeatedly that things you are doing are against Wikipedia policy, and that is why I am marking your edits as vandalism and will continue to do so until you address each single edit and consensus is reached before you add more. No, I don’t hold other editors to this standard, but I’m holding you to this standard because I believe you are a banned user returning to vandalize this article. Akuvar (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a banned user. I took more than 3 days to review the archives. I have not vandalized the article. My edits are all in complete agreement with Wikipedia policy, as far as I know. If you want to make improvements, feel free to do so. I do not own this article, any more than you do. I do suggest that you try to make constructive edits, rather than just continuing your pattern of wholesale indiscrimate reverts.Flau98bert (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One additional comment - You repeatedly rage against my "dishonest change summaries", but let's look closely at the facts. You have reverted the article, wholesale, with no constructive editing at all, more than a dozen times, always with the change summary "Reverting vandalism", and sometimes you add "I will continue to revert as long as you continue your dishonest change summaries". Meanwhile, I have been making constructive edits in between each of your wholesale reverts, and I've explained each of my edits on the Talk page at length. My edit summaries in each case summarize the new changes I've made, then say "For the remainder of the changes [i.e., the ones that you keep reverting because you mistakenly think I'm a banned user], see the Talk page". I honestly believe that any person in full possession of their mental faculties, reviewing our edits and our change summaries, would say that mine are fine are yours are contemptible. Would you consider it a valid change summary if I simply said "Adding a new section and reverting vandalism by Akuvar"? If not, why not? Can't you see, objectively, that it is YOU who is making grossly dishonest change summaries. The only justification you've claimed for calling my edits vandalism is that you think I am a banned user. But I am not. If you really think I am, you should contact an administrator and they can deal with it. You happen to be wrong. Once an administrator informs you of the facts, you will hopefully start assuming good faith and dealing with the editss on their merits.Flau98bert (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I interspersed my replies to each of Akuvar's comments above, hoping this would make things more clear, and I signed each of my replies, but then I realized that this might be slightly confusing because Akuvar's individual comments (after being split by my replies) were not signed, so it might be unclear who said what. I tried to remedy this by appending his overall signature and time stamp to each of his individual comments. However, he has reverted this change, claiming that "That is not the correct time and date stamp for my comments". Actually I believe it IS the correct time and date stamp, but I will defer to his preference for leaving his individual comments unsigned. He also says "I would caution against editing another user's comments", but hopefully it is clear from the edit history that I did not "edit his comments", I merely tried to re-attach his signature to each of his comments after I split them by interspersing my replies. In future, to minimize confusion, I'll try to refrain from responding to each of Akuvar's individual comments.Flau98bert (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Vandalism or legitimate good faith edits?

Several significant edits have been proposed for this article recently by editor Flau98bert, but they've all been reverted by editor Akuvar, on the grounds that the edits are "vandalism". Could we have some opinions on whether the edits of Flau98bert really are vandalism, or whether they are good faith edits that should be considered on their merits? Thanks. Flau98bert (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• An outside view Although Flau98bert's are not vandalism but good faith edits concerning a difference of opinion regarding Van Flandern's status as a maintream scientist they should be reverted as attempts to give unjustified credibility to Van Flandern's unconventional opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I honestly wasn't aware that my edits gave any credibility to Van Flandern for anything. If my edits gave that impression, I'd be more than happy to revise them to remove that impression. But I honestly don't think my edits give him any credibility, so I'm not sure how to improve them. Could you be a little more specific about how I am giving him credibility?

For easy reference, here's a summary of my edits:

(1) I clarified that according to mainstream science Van Flandern's views about the speed of gravity are erroneous (the pre-existing article suggested that Carlip, et al,actually agreed with Van Flandern, which they most definitely did not),

(2) I pointed out that Van Flandern espoused the very old and discredited hypothesis of Friedrich Olbers about an Exploded Planet (notice that I do NOT give Van Flandern "credit" for this non-mainstream idea - quite the contrary), and I gave a quote from Van Flandern's book describing how he was literally hooted off the stage at a professional conference after describing this idea,

(3) I note that Van Flandern very publically argued against the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology, and quoted published newspaper descriptions of the conference he organized on the subject, which describe Van Flandern as highly dogmatic, and which describe the conference participants as highly unprofessional,

(4) I gave references to the fact that his occultation observations were not reliable for inferring the presence of satellite moons, and that he did NOT originate such observations anyway,

(5) I gave citations showing that his claim to have found evidence of variable G was later discredited, as he himself admited.

(6) I moved his explicitly non-mainstream "philosophy" quotations to the Non-Mainstream Ideas section of the article.

Can you tell me which of these edits gives credibility to Van Flandern for anything?Flau98bert (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I got it the wrong way round. I will have another look. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Okay, I think the important thing I was trying to get feedback on here was whether my edits are vandalism. All my edits have been reverted by Akuvar on the grounds that they are vandalism. Since we agree that my edits are NOT vandalism, it's clear that Akuvar's reverts on June 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, and July 1, 3, 6, 11, and 13 were unjustified, and that my edits should be assessed on their merits, in accord with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Flau98bert (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are most certainly not wp:vandalism and any suggestions by editors that they are should stop. There is a content dispute, which is another matter completely.

Van Flandern is notable for being an 'alternative theorist', to use a polite term, and this article should reflect that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Next Steps on Dispute Resolution

The recommended first step in dispute resolution for a dispute involving just two editors is to request a third opinion. I have attempted to solicit the opinions of third editors, but there seems to be insufficient interest in this article. The next recommended step is to formally request comments by posting the RFC on the article talk page, which I did some time ago, but again, no comments or opinions have been offered. This article seems to be of such low importance that hardly anyone cares to comment. I think the next step is to request formal arbitration or some other form of administrative assistance.

As I see it, the basic problem is well illustrated by the section of the article on "Rejection of the Big Bang Theory". This is a very well known and well documented aspect of Tom Van Flandern's activities, even organizing a conference on the subject. But before adding the section I posted a notice on this Talk page explaining my intent to add the section, and why I thought it was notable and well sourced, etc., and asked if there were any objections. After several days, hearing no objections, I added the section to the article. Within minutes it was reverted by Akuvar as "suspected vandalism". But still Akuvar has never commented on the Talk page about the section. I have re-added it to the article, pointing out that no one has voiced any objections, and it is clearly notable and well-referenced, but Akuvar continues to revert it wholesale, along with every other edit to this article. The only explanation he gives for these reverts is that he thinks I am a banned user - which I am not.

I have continued to try to make constructive edits to the article, but each edit is instantly reverted by Akuvar. Having failed to generate any interest from third parties, I think the only way forward is to request administrative assistance.Flau98bert (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Flaubert, you now have an outside opinion: your edits should be reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still in the process of trying to understand your outside opinion. You say my edits give "unjustified credibility" to Van Flandern, whereas the other editor in this dispute (Akuvar) is arguing just the opposite, i.e., he claims that my edits are tending to undermine Van Flandern's credibility. So we now have a strange situation, that he claims my edits make Van Flandern look too bad, and you claim my edits make Van Flandern look too good! So I don't think we've converged on a consensus yet. If possible, I'd appreciate it if you could review the summary of my changes above, and let me know which of those edits you think is giving Van Flandern credibility. I'll be happy to make any edits necessary to avoid giving Van Flandern any unjustified credibility.Flau98bert (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I looks like I may have got things the wrong way round. Van Flandern has very little credibility in mainstream science and the article should reflect that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My edits have been aimed at improving the accuracy of the article, and giving a more objective view of the subject, with suitable sources, clarifying as much as possible the mainstream view, and more clearly identifying the non-mainstream aspects. I don't claim that my edits are perfect. I think the article could be improved further (maybe trimmed in size?), but I think my edits have at least moved the article toward more accuracy and a more representative balance.Flau98bert (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are NOT objective and that is the PRIMARY reason why I revert them. This began with you making subjective edits and me explaining why the were inappropriate and reverting just that edit. Then you would make an edit and claim it was one thing in your edit summary, but you would add anything that I had removed in the past, until you were adding 1,000's of characters worth of work under the auspices of a single change in your edit summary. I tolerated this for far longer than necessary, continuing to work with you as an editor, but I know believe that you do not have good-faith editing in mind, I believe you are a banned editor returning with a single purpose account to continue your sabotage of this article, and I am tired of debating it with you. I welcome the interjection of administrators on all these points, but until then, I still consider your edits, for any of the resons listed above, as vandalism. Akuvar (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Working with the dispute resolution steps in accord with Wikipedia policy, I posted an RfC requesting comments on your claim that my edits are vandalism. We have now received a comment from a third party, stating that my edits are NOT vandalism. Therefore, I think you should stop claiming that my edits are vandalism. The only other reason you've given for reverting my edits to this article is that you suspect I'm a "banned users" out to "sabotage of this article". I assure you, you are mistaken. I am not a banned user, and I am not out to sabotage this article (whatever that means). Each of my edits is notable, relevant, and well sourced, so they meet all the requirements of good Wikipedia edits. Please try to address the actual edits, and stop making ad homineum attacks on other editors. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, Flau98bert's edits are most certainly not WP:Vandalism and you must not continue to refer to them as such, this is a content dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I appreciate your input and opinion as another active wiki editor. However, I do not believe you took into account all aspects of my complaint against Flau98bert's edits, including the issue of a single purpose account and sock puppetry as a work-around to avoid past sanctions of being banned from editing this account. On its face, my edits compared with Flau98bert's edits are content disputes, but the big picture goes much further than that. I do not think you are an administrator, but you have the ability to look at the past contributions of Flau98bert and see that no other edits to any other article have ever been made. I also do not believe you invested any time into reading the archives of this talk page to see that the arguments made by Flau98bert are similar (if not exact) to arguments and edits made by banned users. Further, since I have made repeated and valid attempts to explain why POV wording in the article is not allowed, and yet that material keeps being added en masse at every "new" edit, I take these three things into account when declaring Flau98bert's edits as vandalism and will continue to do so. Akuvar (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's take those one at a time. First, the fact that I've not edited any other articles is not a violation of any Wikipedia rules or policy as far as I know. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Second, I say again, I am NOT a banned user. If you really think I'm a banned user, you should report it to an administrator. It isn't legitimate for you to unilaterally decide to revert all my edits as "vandalism" simply because you imagine that I am a banned user. Third, the issue is not whether POV wording is allowed, so there is no need for you to "explain why POV wording in the article is not allowed". The question is, is the wording that I've added POV or is it not? I contend that my edits have all been relevant, notable, and well sourced, consisting largely of direct quotations and references from published sources. If any editors thinks some of my wording is inappropriate, they are obviously free to edit it. But you are not (in my opinion) justified in simply continuing to wholesale revert the entire article, on the grounds of vandalism. I agree with Martin that this is a content dispute. We should dispense with the ad hominium attacks, and begin to assume good faith on each other's parts, and deal with each edit on its merits. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, I can see that Flau98bert seems to be an SPA but, as he says above, that is not in itself against WP policy. If you think Flau98bert is a sock puppet than you should bring it up on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. This may mean that Flau98bert should not be editing here but, regardless of that, his edits are not vandalism and if you continue to describe them as such you may rapidly find yourself on the wrong side of the admins. This will not help you further your cause, whatever that may be.

I have to admit that I am a little puzzled by what is going on here and what exactly is the main difference of opinion is between yourself and Flau98bert. Would either of you like to try and explain the difference in perspective between the two of you on this subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the edits I've made. Please note that all these edits appear only on the versions of the article that I have edited. Usually within hours (sometimes just minutes) of when I have made each of these edits and provided careful justification in the Talk page, Akuvar has reverted them all back to his preferred version of the article. That's why when you recently went to make an edit to the speed of gravity section, you were editing his version, not the one that I've worked on for the past month. If you had found the one I've been working on, I don't think you would have seen much need to make any changes, because I basically anticipated your changes, making it clear that Carlip was NOT agreeing with Van Flandern. Anyway, for easy reference, here's a summary of my edits:

(1) I clarified that according to mainstream science Van Flandern's views about the speed of gravity are erroneous (the pre-existing article suggested that Carlip, et al,actually agreed with Van Flandern, which they most definitely did not),

(2) Added New Section on Exploded Planets, pointing out that Van Flandern espoused the very old and discredited hypothesis of Friedrich Olbers about an Exploded Planet (notice that I do NOT give Van Flandern "credit" for this non-mainstream idea - quite the contrary), and I gave a quote from Van Flandern's book describing how he was literally hooted off the stage at a professional conference after describing this idea,

(3) Added New Section on Big Bang, noting that Van Flandern very publically argued against the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology, and quoted published newspaper descriptions of the conference he organized on the subject, which describe Van Flandern as highly dogmatic, and which describe the conference participants as highly unprofessional,

(4) I gave references to the fact that his occultation observations were not reliable for inferring the presence of satellite moons, and that he did NOT originate such observations anyway,

(5) I gave citations showing that his claim to have found evidence of variable G was later discredited, as he himself admited.

(6) I moved his explicitly non-mainstream "philosophy" quotations to the Non-Mainstream Ideas section of the article.Flau98bert (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Speed of gravity

Tom Van Flandern claimed that a 'speed of gravity' of c was incompatible with astronomical observations, in particular the absence of observed gravitational aberration.

Steve Carlip pointed out that general relativity explains how a 'speed of gravity' of c was compatible with astronomical observations. That is where the two disagreed and it is therefore relevant to the article, which discusses TVF's unconventional views on the subject.

It is well known and accepted by both scientists that, according to Newtonian physics, the speed of gravity must be infinite (or at least very much higher than c) for planetary orbits to be stable. This was shown by Laplace years ago. No one disagrees about this fact and it is therefore irrelevant to the article. Stating this fac,t as we now do, tends to give the wrong impression, namely that Carlip thought that TVF might be correct about the 'speed of gravity'. However, this is not the case. I therefore suggest that we remove the statement from the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the Carlip paper, in his synopsis, he states (and I'm paraphrasing here because i don't have a copy of the article in front of me, it is on my other computer) "that the abberations observed are compatible with both faster than light propogation and with propogation at c, depending on what theory you filter the data through" In other words, he admits that the scietific theory you are currently using biases your manipulation of the data. Do you have a copy of the carlip paper in its entirety? It is sometimes hard to find on the internet if you don't pay for an access fee. If you would like to set up a disposable e-mail account I would be happy to send you the article in pdf format. Akuvar (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin, The speed of gravity section was much improved in the version that I've been working on. Take a look at the last version of the article that I edited. The version you just made your edit to is the one that Akuvar keeps substituting when he declares each of my edits as vandalism. Did your eally mean to endorse all his his reverts by making your edit to his version of the article? I think if you look at my last version, you'll see that your intent was already met, and not just in the speed of gravity section but in several other sections as well. I suggest switching to the version of the article that I edited, and take that as the basis going forward.Flau98bert (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar, please read again what I have written above. The fact that Newtonian physics requires faster-than light propagation of gravity is well known and not disputed by either Carlip or Van Flandern. It is therefore not relevant to the TVF's unconventional views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Flau98bert, I did not intend to endorse Akuvar's reverts. What do you think needs changing and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin, as you might expect, I think the version of the article containing my edits is in pretty good shape (although of course it could be improved further), but the other version of the article needs a lot of work. (That's why I worked on it!) A summary of the differences is shown at the end of the previous section of the Talk page.

At this stage I think the most useful next step would be to continue the discussion you and Akuvar are having on the content of the speed of gravity section. I'd like to suggest again that you take a peek at the version I edited, since I put a fair bit of work into it, and it includes some additional material from the paper of Marsh, et al, as well as a more complete quotation from Carlip's paper, hopefully clarifying their sharp disagreement with Van Flandern (which seemed to be intentionally obscured in the prior version of the article). Do you think the speed of gravity section as I edited it needs changing?Flau98bert (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Akuvar and Flau98bert, rather than wholesale reverting could you not try concentrating on one section at a time with some discussion of what exactly you disagree about? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to do that with you, in fact we had both made edits and were discussing the content, when Flau98bert told you that what you really wanted was his edits and reverted the entire article, losing our collaborative effort. If you would like to work on the old version, prior to user Flau98bert's insertion of mostly POV edits, I would be more than happy to do so. Akuvar (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Content Dispute Resolution - Speed of Gravity section

I think Martin had some good input on the Speed of Gravity section, which essentially was the same as mine, namely to accurately represent the mainstream view of Van Flandern's beliefs on this subject. Martin looked at Akuvar's preferred version, and proposed a change to emphasize that Carlip had contradicted Van Flandern's claim that the lack of aberration places a lower bound on speed of propagation. I think Martin's edit was in the right direction, although it was immediately reverted by Akuvar. My edits to the article were intended to accomplish Martin's intent. I asked if he concurred with my edits, and he didn't answer, so perhaps he has lost interest in participating. If so, I think we should seek out additional editors. In fact, it would probably be useful to get some additional editors, even if Martin comes back - the more eyes looking at the article, the more likely we are to get a good result.Flau98bert (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"I think Martin's edit was in the right direction, although it was immediately reverted by Akuvar" That statement is 100% false. I never reverted any of that editor's additions. You, in fact, reverted our attempts at a collaborative effort. In fact, I just reverted the article back to a state prior to your over-writing in hopes that Martin Hobgin would return and help us edit, and you reverted that as well. Akuvar (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin's stated intent was the same as mine, to clarify that Carlip disagreed with Van Flandern. Here is what Martin said to explain his edit:

"It is well known and accepted by both scientists that, according to Newtonian physics, the speed of gravity must be infinite (or at least very much higher than c) for planetary orbits to be stable. This was shown by Laplace years ago. No one disagrees about this fact and it is therefore irrelevant to the article. Stating this fact, as we now do, tends to give the wrong impression, namely that Carlip thought that TVF might be correct about the 'speed of gravity'. However, this is not the case. I therefore suggest that we remove the statement from the article."

His point was exactly the same as the point I've been making. So he removed that statement from the article. You immediately put the statement back in. That's what I mean when I say you reverted his edit. (The fact that you accepted some inconsequential re-wording of his is obviously irrelevant.) He then posted a follow-up message, after you reverted his edit, trying to explain to you why your reversion missed the point. He said

"Akuvar, please read again what I have written above. The fact that Newtonian physics requires faster-than light propagation of gravity is well known and not disputed by either Carlip or Van Flandern. It is therefore not relevant to the TVF's unconventional views."

I then suggested he take a look at the version of the article that I edited, because it accomplishes his intent, i.e., it clarifies the fact that Carlip was disputing Van Flandern's claim. So Martin and I are in agreement on this. I also asked if he endorsed your version of the article (the one without all my edits), and he specifically said No. So please do not claim that your version of the article somehow had Martin's endorsement. Quite the contrary. I think my version of the article is more in line with Martin's intent.

Also, I'd like to point out that I made my edits to the article, one by one, over a period of about a month, explaining each edit on the Talk page and asking for comments or objections. During that entire month you wholesale reverted every one of my edits, usually without comment on the Talk page, on the ground of "vandalism". I took that to a RfC, and Martin stated very clearly that my edits were NOT vandalism, and that you could find yourself blocked for continuing to revert them as vandalism. I also see on your own Talk page that you've been warned by an Administrator before, reverting edits as "vandalism" simply because you disagree with the content. So I think it's fair to say that your tactic of "reverting as vandalism" was illegitimate, and none of those reverts has any validity. So I think my edited version is the legitimate current version, and should be the basis for edits going forward. Hopefully, now that the RfC process (and some prompting from Admin on your Talk page) has clarified the illegitimacy of your "vandalism reverts", we can put all those illegitimate reverts behind us, and get back to constructive editing.Flau98bert (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I added "both faster than light and" to the statement that user Martin Hogbin added to the article. I did not, nor did I ever, revert any of that editor's edits. So, even with all the steam you blew in your above statement, you never acknowledge that you wrote falsely about my reverting Martin Hogbin's edits. That in fact, you are the editor that performed a wholesale revision of the article after Martin Hobgin and I had both made good-faith edits trying to make the article better. The edit summary clearly shows this. Your "comming to our rescue" and reverting the entire article (not just the section in question) because it is obviously what we were trying to say, is not editing in good-faith. You also mention my reverts to your changes, saying I revert the whole article, which in fact, I objected to each change you made and rather than discussing those changes, you would make a new change and add all the contested material back in, giving me no choice to revert your entire edit. This is also not good-faith editing. Lastly, since IMO you are a sock-pocket of a banned user, all your edits to this article are by definition vandalism. Akuvar (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I put this up for RfC, and the conclusion of the independent editor was that you are mistaken. My edits are NOT vandalism. You were warned by that editor that you could find yourself blocked if you keep referring to my edits as vandalism. You were also warned in the past by an Administrator that you must cease claiming that other people's edits are vandalism. I strongly encourage you to take the advice of these people.Flau98bert (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can rest easy knowing that I take the advice of other editors very seriously and follow the instructions of administrators when given. No administrator has weighed in your case, however. Akuvar (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to take the advice seriously, it was to take the advice. You were advised to stop calling my edits vandalism, but you continue to do it. I suggest again you take the advice, and cease your ad hominem attacks, and begin to edit by respecting Wikipedia policies. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Addition of POV viewpoints and adjectives

I think this bickering has clouded what the problems are with user Flau98bert's edits are. I am against edit warring and wholesale reverts of this article, I really want this to end. My opinions aside about the legitemacy of user Flau98bert's account, here is an example of something I have pointed out is POV and non-permissable, which gets added into every revert that user Flau98bert performs. The article currently states:

Steve Carlip also published a refutation of Van Flandern's article, concluding that while aberration is consistent with faster-than-light propagation (assuming some unknown means of incorporating radiation reaction), it is also (contrary to Van Flandern's claim) consistent with speed of light propagation in accord with general relativity

Here is the actual conclusion paragraph from Carlip's article:

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

Note that user Flau98bert added to the article "Steve Carlip...published...concluding that..." and then later "(contrary to Van Flandern's claim)" so Flau98bert is representing that Carlip, in his conclusions, specifically pointed out that it was contrary to Van Flandern's claims. I have pointed out, in almost every change submitted by Flau98bert, that you cannot insert POV remarks into the article, especially in places where, to a reader, you are actually changing what a scientist such as Carlip was saying. In almost every objection I have made to Flau98bert's changes it is because of an insertion of POV commentary or POV adjectives that are inapropriate to any article on wikipedia. Secondly, the area of original dispute was General Philosophy, in which user Flau98bert insisted that Van Flandern's quotes clearly represented non-mainstream views. In one defense of his change, user Flau98bert used the rationale "you and I both know what he was talking about" which is also an inapropriate leap in any wikipedia article. Here is one of the original quotes that has been moved to non-mainstream in the article:

As science progresses we will eventually unravel the mystery of our origins, and the solution will come sooner if our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be. If we are guided by our reason and our scientific method, if we let the Universe describe its wonder to us, rather than telling it how it ought to be, then we will soon come to the answers we seek, perhaps even within our own lifetimes.

I would challenge any editor to declare the above statement to be conclusively non-mainstream. Akuvar (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That quotation came from an article called "Exploding Planets" where Van Flandern was expounding his explicitly non-mainstream beliefs about the exploded "Planet V", etc., and as such the quote really belongs in the Exploding Planets section of the article, which of course is in the non-mainstream section. Van Flandern himself admited that he was literally hooted off the stage at a professional conference of astronomers when he presented his beliefs about exploding planets. So there is no doubt that the quote is non-mainstream. The other quotations are even more explicitly non-mainstream. Your attempts to portray Van Flandern's views as anything other than non-mainstream is very inaccurate and POV. As Martin said, Van Flandern's views were very non-mainstream, and the article must reflect that.Flau98bert (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So, again I'll ask what language, item, or phrase from the above quote shows a non-mainstream viewpoint? Nothing in your argument references this quote. Akuvar (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I identified the magazine article where the quote came from ("Exploding Planets"), and explained what it was referring to, namely, "our origins" (the origins of the human race) on Mars and the now-exploded "Planet V". This is highly non-mainstream. I had to do some detective work to track down the source of that quote, since the person who added it to the article avoided revealing the title of the article, in an obvious attempt to deceive the readers about what Van Flandern was talking about. So I think my edit was constructive, identifying the source of a quotation and removing some intentional deceit from the article.Flau98bert (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you misunderstood my intent. I posted these as examples for other editors or any administrators that come here looking for an explanation of what is going on. I didn't post them to have yet another discussion with you about them. Akuvar (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you're unwilling to actually have a good faith discussion of the content of the article? I don't think it's productive, or consistent with Wikipedia policy, for you to simply revert all edits to this article, without being willing to justify your reverts or work towards resolution of the content disputes. For over a month you justified your reverts simply by claiming that all edits were "vandalism". Now that you've been warned you will be blocked if you continue with that practice, you have gone right on reverting without justification, with an edit summary that says "restoring stable version" instead of "reverting vandalism. But talking about a "stable version" is obviously absurd, given the history of the article.

I've made a good faith effort to respond to all your comments, and provide the justifications for the content of the current article, and I continue to be willing to discuss the content issues. I notice that you've declined (again) to consider or respond to any of my explanations. I urge you (again) to start editing in good faith, and trying to work toward resolution of the content disputes, rather than simply refusing to discuss anything and persistently reverting all edits. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Akuvar's Attempts to Delete the Sections on Big Bang and Exploding Planets

Editor Akuvar has repeatedly (over a dozen times) deleted the sections on "Big Bang" and "Exploding Planets", but he has never justified these deletions. Before adding these sections, they were discussed here on this Talk page, and asked if anyone had any objections. Neither then nor later has anyone expressed any objections. The content is these sections is relevant, notable, and well sourced. I suggest that Akuvar stop attempting to remove these two sections from the article. Of course, if he has any substantive objections to the sections, he is welcome to edit them, but since he has never voiced any objections, I think he should stop removing those sections.Flau98bert (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to discuss them on their individual merits if it werent't that all the other things I object to are added in en masse to all your edits. This is why whenever you add a new topic the character count is over 6,000 because you add all the other disputed stuff back in at the same time. Your edit summery doesn't reflect that, but that is what you are doing. Akuvar (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the situation is better than you think. All the content that you object to consists of thing that can each be discussed on their merits. Those 6000 characters that you want to remove from the article just consist of the following content:

- Expanded and clarified discussion of the speed of gravity, with expanded quotes from both Marsh et al and Carlip, clarified in agreement with Martin's intend, and which you've already expressed willingness to accept.

- New section on the Big Bang, which you've just said you are willing to consider on its merits.

- New section on Exploding Planets, which you are willing to consider on its merits.

- New discussion of Van Flandern's mainstream work on variable G, which I assume you are willing to consider on its merits.

- Placement of explicitly non-mainstream quotations in the non-mainstream beliefs" section of the article, which I assume you are willing to consider on its merits.

So I guess the question is, what content are you NOT willing to consider on its merits? Previously you said you would not consider any of my edits on their merits, for personal reasons, and you simply mass reverted them all as "vandalism", ignoring my pleas to discuss on the Talk page. Now you seem more willing to consider the edits on their merits. So that's good. It might help if you started by identifying what sections of the edited article you disagree with, and why. Thanks.Flau98bert (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ever get fed up with reverting one another's edits.

Let me know and I will try to help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your thoughts on any of the disputed content, which I think consists of the following items:

- Expanded and (hopefully) clarified discussion of the speed of gravity, with expanded quotes from both the papers of Marsch and Carlip (which Akuvar wants to delete).

- The section on the Big Bang conference (which Akuvar wants to delete entirely).

- The section on Exploding Planets (which Akuvar wants to delete entirely).

- The discussion of Van Flandern's mainstream work on variable G (which Akuvar wants to delete).

- The placement of some quotations in either a General Philosophy section (and suppressing the actual source of the quotes) or in the Non-Mainstream beliefs sections (with identification of the source of the quotes from the magazine article "Exploding Planets").

I've been trying to interest other editors in taking a look at the article, to see if this content is appropriate per Wikipedia policies, i.e., relevant, notable, well sourced, but so far have not had much luck. I've also tried and failed to get Akuvar to engage in a constructive discussion of the disputed content. (See above.) As you know, I made an RfC to get input on the charge of "vandalism", hoping this would facilitate substantive discussion of the disputed content, but that didn't work. Failing that, my next step was going to be requesting help from the dispute resolution process. However, I'll hold off on that if you want to try to help resolve the dispute(s).Flau98bert (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see "Edit warring" above. I am very happy to work with you on the original, stable article, but when we last tried that, Flau98bert over-wrote our efforts. I'm not willing to put good work into something that is subject to that. Akuvar (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So how about we start by discussing just the 'Speed of gravity section'. What changes would you like to make and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are asking, or which version of the article you're refering to. The version I've been working on for a couple of months is in pretty good shape, including the speed of gravity section, so I wouldn't advocate making any significant changes. The version Akuvar favors needs a lot of work, which is why I wouldn't advocate basing our discussion on that version.

I think it would be very helpful if you could take a quick peek at the speed of gravity sections in each of the two versions of the article. It's only a couple of paragraphs long, so it should only take a minute to read both versions (if you haven't already). Then if you could provide some feedback on which version you think is preferable, that would be very helpful.Flau98bert (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant the version as it is now. I have intentionally not even looked to see whose version it is because I would like to discuss with you both what it is that you would like to see in that section rather than choose between one editor's version and another's.

So, if the current version is not to your liking, what would you like to change and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this section doesn't read well, and I'll tell you some history on it. It was edited chiefly by user JuanR, and I do not think english was his first language. So some of the sentences are a little run-on and clumsy. The quote from Carlip's paper, in this version, is pretty much verbatim from his synopsis in his actual paper. It isn't the full synopsis (which I think I cut and pasted in an above section). Akuvar (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speed of Gravity section - re-write

The speed of Gravity section could use a re-write. He believed that the high speed of gravity was a result of it being a La Sage type particle, so I have combined that section into this. Here is my 2 cent effort:

In General Relativity the speed that gravity and electromagnetic forces propogates is c, or the same as the speed of light. The majority of the scientific community supports general relativety and this propogation speed. Van Flandern began to support Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper, "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say" in which he asserted that laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the speed of gravity yield a lower limit of 2x10^10 c. Several papers were written in response; some supporting Van Flandern, others dismissing his theories. Again, mainstream science and a majority of scientists support General relativity, and in a response paper Steve Carlip summed up General Relativity's side:

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

Van Flandern gave public lectures on many of his theories, including the speed of gravity, in which he concluded that these particles could be used as an energy source and as propulsion for spacecraft.

This is a good start to discussion rather than edit warring.

My comments on the above would be:

1. Statements like, '...a majority of scientists support General relativity', are far too weak. It really is only a tiny minority of fringe scientists who support any theory of gravitation other than GR.

Agreed. How about, "Again, mainstream science supports General relativity and the small groups of scientists, Van Flandern among them, represent non-mainstream views." Actually, writing that, it seems strong for just one section. Perhaps a well-worded, non-biased disclaimer like this would be well-suited for someplace in the article that is summing up Van Flandern's views, non-mainstream science, and the large majority of what is mainstream science? Akuvar (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. As a result of the above, '...while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation [in Newtonian physics]', would be like saying that, 'combustion is consistent with some elements having negative mass [in the phlogiston theory of combustion]. According to the only generally accepted theory of gravitation the speed of gravity is c.

I agree, but the statement is pulled directly from his paper. I didn't write it! If we use his quote (addressed below) then we have to be true to it and use what it says, we can't go changing what he says if we are quoting his paper. Akuvar (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course we cannot change his words, so best drop the quote altogether,

1. I do not think that direct quotes from Carlip are necessary or desirable. Carlip was one of the few physicists who bothered to address Van Flandern's theories directly but to quote him suggests that the argument was between Carlip and Van Flandern whilst it was, in fact, between Van Flandern and everybody else (except tiny minority of fringe scientists). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the carlip quote was added a long time ago by folks trying to show a contrary opinion to what Van Flandern was proposing. It doesn't add anything to the article except for that. Van Flandern certainly wasn't noteable for what carlip said in a paper. As I said, it was added by those who wanted to show a mainstream quote to hammer home to the reader that Van Flandern was fringe. Frankly, I think some of these folks can't see the forest for the trees, that a reader will see that Van Flandern's ideas were "out there" without being hit over the head with contradicting statements and POV adjectives. I'm for leaving Carlip's quote in, actually, because I think carlip is pretty level headed and didn't attack Van Flandern, he just proved, in GR, Van Flandern's idea was wrong. Akuvar (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What about?

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds and in 1998 he wrote a paper, "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say" in which he asserted that laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the speed of gravity yield a lower limit of 2x10^10 c. Van Flandern gave public lectures on many of his theories, including the speed of gravity, in which he concluded that these particles could be used as an energy source and as propulsion for spacecraft.

Van Flandern's claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip who pointed out that according to the generally accepted theory of gravitation, general relativity, gravitational disturbances propagate at c, the speed of light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I didn't think you wanted to streamline so much or I would have attacked it differently myself. Akuvar (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I think it's a good idea to remove the Carlip quote from the body of the article (although it might be worthwhile to put the relevant sentence in the citation footnote, see below), and the citations to the other non-mainstream papers. However, your proposed re-write omits some relevant, notable, and well sourced material from the article, which I think ought to be retained. This material is all in the version of the article that you've chosen to ignore, which was actually "the current version" of the article when you posted your offer to help edit - on the condition that we both stop reverting the article. Unfortunately, Akuvar immediately reverted the article (using his customary "reverting vandalism" edit summary), and then posted his reply saying he'd be happy to work with you on improving the article.  :) But never mind.

Here is the content that you have deleted in your proposed draft, but that I think probably ought to be retained. Please note the valuable citations and footnotes:

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that in this situation, less is more. To give too much detail on the arguments between TVF and others tends, in my opinion, to give TVF's crazy theories too much credibility.

The article should be about Van Flandern himself and what is ideas were rather than a debate on his science. There is no doubt that TVF was out of his depth in subjects such gravitation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

---

This article was disputed in a comment by Marsch and Nissim-Sabat, [ref]Marsh, Gerald E; Nissim-Sabat, Charles (1999). "Comment on "The speed of gravity"". Physics Letters A. 262 (2–3): 257. Bibcode:1999PhLA..262..257M. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00675-1. [/ref] who pointed out that Van Flandern's own source for the aberration argument, Sir Arthur Eddington, had already explained in 1920 that the argument was fallacious. [ref]As stated in the paper of Marsch and Jissum-Sabat, "In Eddington’s book, the very next sentence after Van Flandern’s quote states that ‘‘The argument is fallacious, because . . . ’’ [/ref]

This looks like a good point. How about we have: Van Flandern's claims had already be shown to be incorrect by Eddington and were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip..., with suitable refs, of course. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

[ref]In footnote citing Carlip paper: "Within the framework of general relativity, though, observations do give an answer. The Einstein field equations contain a single parameter cg, which describes both the speed of gravitational waves and the ‘speed of gravity’ occurring in the expression for aberration and in the velocity-dependent terms in the interaction. This parameter appears in the gravitational radiation reaction in the form cg^-5, and the success of the theory in explaining the orbital decay of binary pulsars implies that cg = c at the 1% level or better." [/ref]

Later Van Flandern claimed that not only gravity but also electromagnetism propagates faster than light. [ref]Van Flandern, Tom; Vigier, Jean-Pierre (2002). Foundations of Physics. 32 (7): 1031. doi:10.1023/A:1016530625645. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)[/ref] This claim, too, is dismissed by mainstream physicists. [ref]Suggest citing the standard reference by J.D. Jackson on the causal propagation speed of electromagnetism here. [/ref]

I agree that we should add this claim but again keep it very brief as the suggestion is so bizarre that it hardly needs refutation at all; light is EM radiation! Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Van Flandern gave public lectures claiming that the flux of ultra-mundane particles could be a source of limitless energy, [ref]Jeffery D. Kooistra (July–August, 1999). "Conference on Future Energy". Infinite Energy Magazine (26). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The summary of Van Flandern's talk at the Infinite Energy conference states "Van Flandern gave a talk entitled 'On a Complete Theory of Gravity and Free Energy'. For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth." [/ref][ref]"Dr. Thomas Van Flandern - MUFON-LA (1 of 1)". youtube. [/ref] which he believed could be used as a means of propulsion for space vehicles ("useful for getting around in the galaxy").

This is essentially in what I wrote although a little more detail of exactly what TVF was claiming might be a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I think this material meets the criteria of relevance, notability, and verifiability. If you combined this material into your draft proposal, I think the result would be good.

On a procedural question, it isn't clear to me how your editing approach will handle the entire sections of the article that Akuvar deleted. There's a section on Exploding Planets and a section on the Big Bang. Both of these sections consist of relevant, notable, and well-sourced material, so I think they should be retained - unless someone knows a good reason why they should be deleted.Flau98bert (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we address one disputed section at a time. It looks as though we may soon reach agreement on the 'speed of gravity' and will be therefore able to move on to other sections. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. We asked him to come help mediate this dispute, let's pick a path that best suits him and work with him to get this article cleaned up and presentable without reverting it all the time. I also agree with him on the streamlining aspect. Too many portions of this article read like a "he said she said" because people are eager to insert how mainstream science disagrees with him. Akuvar (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The story so far

Would you both be happy with this?

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds and in 1998 he wrote a paper, "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say" in which he asserted that laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the speed of gravity yield a lower limit of 2x10^10 c. Van Flandern gave public lectures on many of his theories, including the speed of gravity, in which he concluded that these particles could be used as a limitless energy source and as propulsion for spacecraft.

Van Flandern's claims had, in fact, already been shown to be incorrect by Eddington in 1920 were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip who pointed out that according to the generally accepted theory of gravitation, general relativity, gravitational disturbances propagate at c, the speed of light.

Later Van Flandern claimed that not only gravity but also electromagnetism propagates faster than light. [ref]Van Flandern, Tom; Vigier, Jean-Pierre (2002). Foundations of Physics. 32 (7): 1031. doi:10.1023/A:1016530625645. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) [/ref] This claim, too, has been dismissed by mainstream physicists. [ref]Suggest citing the standard reference by J.D. Jackson on the causal propagation speed of electromagnetism here. [/ref] Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the word "limitless" in front of energy source, Van Flandern never said that, a writer reporting about the conference linked Van Flandern's ideas with the prospect of limitless free energy. I don't like the second paragraph, the second sentence is bad. I prefer your second paragraph on your first suggestion, and that we add the electromagnetic line to that. Akuvar (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to remove 'limitless', it rather sensationalising. Flau98bert, would you mind this?

What is your objection to having the electromagnetism point in a separate paragraph? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to it, I think it could be combined. here is your original proposal from the section above, and I have added electromagentism to the second paragraph.

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds and in 1998 he wrote a paper, "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say" in which he asserted that laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the speed of gravity yield a lower limit of 2x10^10 c. Van Flandern gave public lectures on many of his theories, including the speed of gravity, in which he concluded that these particles could be used as an energy source and as propulsion for spacecraft.

Van Flandern later added electromagnetism to effects that he thought propogated at faster-than-light speeds. His claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip who pointed out that according to the generally accepted theory of gravitation, general relativity, gravitational disturbances propagate at c, the speed of light. Akuvar (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a significant difference in character between the two claims. As Carlip points out it is very hard to actually measure the 'speed of gravity' and there might therefore be considered to be some doubt as to whether its speed of c has been confirmed. On the other hand it is hard to understand what TVF was getting at when he suggested that electromagnetic effects travelled more rapidly that EM radiation, unless he was perhaps confused by the well-understood Propagation_of_static_field_effects. Can anyone shed any light on what TVF was getting at? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was confused by the well-understood propagation of static effects. This was the basis of his mistaken claims about both gravity and electromagnetism. The absence of (first-order) aberration for the electromagnetic force was unknown to Van Flandern when he wrote his first paper, but was pointed out to him by the Marsch response paper. This placed him in the awkward position of having to claim that light propagates faster than light. (Tangled webs...)

Note that Van Flandern's paper on the speed of gravity didn't mention Lesage theory at all, and the reasoning presented there was not specifically linked to gravitation as distinct from any other force. It was purely a recital of the old discredited argument of Laplace which applies to any force. That's why the response of Marsch et al was actually better than Carlip's, because Marsch et al clearly identified the fallacy (both historically and technically) of Van Flandern's Laplacian reasoning. The Carlip paper was really more focused on explaining why the cancellation of aberration in general relativity is actually to the SECOND order, rather than just to the first order, as it is for electromagnetism. This is an interesting topic, but it was only tangentially related to Van Flandern's claim, because Van Flandern's reasoning was entirely first order.

I think it's slightly misleading to combine the Lesage section with the Speed of Gravity section, because, as I said, the speed of gravity paper didn't even mention Lesage's theory. Van Flandern argued that the absence of aberration implies superluminal propagation for ANY theory of gravity, not just for Le Sage's theory. Your proposed draft of the section starts out talking about Lesage theory, and then switches to talking about the speed of gravity paper, which doesn't mention Lesage at all, so the reader would be justified in being somewhat confused. At the very least, if you insist on combining the topics, I think you should include a sentence linking them, by saying something like: "Closely related to Van Flandern's belief in Le Sage's model of gravity was his belief that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light." But this statement could be considered "original synthesis" (even though it's a perfectly reasonable inference).Flau98bert (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Energy

On the subject of free energy, here's the title and abstract of a paper that Van Flandern presented to the Infinite Energy Society:

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.

So there's not doubt that Van Flandern espoused free energy. So I don't agree with Akuvar's deletion of the word "free". Also, about the word "limitless", I did some googling, and found a YouTube video of Van Flandern giving a public talk at a UFO conference, where he described Lesage gravity and explicitly referred to it as a limitless source of energy. It's at the very end of the talk, where he also said it gives a source of free propulsion, "useful for getting around the galaxy". I think this was already accurately presented in the article, and I don't think we should suppress these aspects of Van Flandern's views.Flau98bert (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another citation for "limitless" free energy. In the public lecture that Van Flandern gave at the UFO conference, he included slides, and here is what was on the first slide at the beginning of his lecture that presented the highlights (I captured this from a screen save of the YouTube video of his lecture):

Outline

Why understand gravity?

- end of the universal speed limit

- source of ~ unlimited energy <<---- please note

- causes stars and planets to explode

Why examine planet explosions? <<---- please note exploding planets

- important factor in Mars history

- Mars was a former moon of "Planet V" <<--- please note for later discussion

- provides context for spacecraft findings

Spacecraft images from Mars; biology,

intelligence; terrestrial connection

So I think it's clear that the words "limitless" and "free" in regard to the energy that Van Flandern thought could be taken from the unltrmundane flus are both perfectly appropriate, notable, relevant, well sourced, and verifiable, meeting all the Wikipedia groundrules for inclusion in the article.Flau98bert (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Now we are talking to one another

Flau98bert, you make some good points. I will discuss them individually below. We may have further to go to reach agreement in this section than I originally thought but we are making definite progress.

We need to get the right balance between presenting TVF as a distinctly fringe scientist in some areas and making the article into a character assassination.

Le Sage

I would seen from what Flau98bert has said that we should separate the Le Sage theory from FTL gravitation. How about just splitting the start into two paragraphs?

'Limitless'

Flau98bert has given good sources that seem to me justify including 'limitless'.

Marsch et al

Perhaps we could slip a reference to this paper in.

Would you both accept this start?

Van Flandern supports the discredited Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds.

In 1998 Van Flandern 1998 wrote the paper, "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say" in which he asserted that laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the speed of gravity yield a lower limit of 2x10^10 c. Van Flandern gave public lectures on many of his theories, including the speed of gravity, in which he concluded that these particles could be used a limitless energy source and as propulsion for spacecraft.

Van Flandern's claims had, in fact, already been shown to be incorrect by Eddington in 1920 were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip and Marsch et al who pointed out that according to the generally accepted theory of gravitation, general relativity, gravitational disturbances propagate at c, the speed of light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If your objective is to separate the topics by paragraphs, I think those sentences would have to be re-arranged a bit. Also, I would fix some typos (supported instead of supports, etc), and clarify a bit. How about something like this:

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" (which Van Flandern called c-gravitons) impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. Van Flandern augmented this with another hypothesized field of particles which he called Elysium, which he believed served as the medium of light propagation. He gave public lectures [reference the Infinite Energy Conference and the UFO Conference] in which he asserted that these particles could be used a limitless source of free energy, and as superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

Van Flandern also supported Laplace's discredited argument (from Celeste Mechanique in 1802) that the observed absence of aberration in the force of gravity implies that gravity must propagate at least a million times faster than light. In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper [reference "The Speed of Gravity? What the Experiments Say"] in which he inserted modern astronomical data into Laplace's analysis, raising the claimed lower limit on the propagation speed of gravity to twenty billion times the speed of light. However, Laplace's aberration argument had, in fact, already been discredited by Lorentz and Poincare by 1906 for relativistic forces [reference Poincare's Palermo paper], including both gravity and electromagnetism. As explained in a paper of Marsch et al responding to Van Flandern, the fallacy of Laplace's argument was discussed by Eddington in the very 1920 reference that Van Flandern had cited as his source for the argument [reference Marsch et al]. In another paper rebutting Van Flandern's claims, Carlip explained in more detail why according to the generally accepted theory of gravitation - general relativity - gravitational disturbances propagate at the speed of light, and why this is consistent with the absence of aberration, and gave the observational evidence in support of this. [reference Carlip paper] Van Flandern did not accept these criticisms, and subsequently argued that the force of electromagnetism as well as gravity must propagate billions of times faster than light. These claims, too, are dismissed by mainstream physicists. [reference Poincare 1906 again]

Maybe this could be trimmed down. It's all relevant and well-sourced, but there's always the question of notability. Mainstream scientists have pointed out so many flaws in Van Flandern's beliefs, that it's somewhat tedious to even list them all, but if we don't list them all, we have to choose which ones to list, and omit some of them, which then exposes us to the charge of "original narrative". (Who decides what is important?)

By the way, I think if we're going to combine Le Sage theory with the speed of gravity, you could just as well argue that these should also be combined with the Exploding Planets hypothesis, because that too was linked closely (according to Van Flandern's writings) to the Le Sage model. There is a whole section on Van Flandern's Exploding Planets beliefs in one of the versions of the existing article. The ultra-mundane flux is responsible (he believed) for making the former Planet V explode. In turn, this is closely related to the "Face on Mars", because (according to Van Flandern) the planet Mars, which used to be a moon of Planet V, was spun off into its own orbit, and the inhabitants then created the artificial face sculptures that are visible today on the surface of Mars, and then immigrated to the planet Earth 3.2 million years ago, thereby explaining "our origins". All of these things were tightly related in Van Flandern's writings and public lectures, as you can see at a glance from his "Outline" of his lecture (reproduced above). So by that reasoning we should really put ALL of these things into one section, which would be called something like "Non-mainstream theories and beliefs". But since it would be so long, with so many sub-topics, it would be good to identify each sub-topic with its own sub-heading.

Of course, that is essentially how the article was originally written (at least in one of the two "current versions"). It may take us a long time to get there, but I suspect that eventually we will arrive back at the version of the article (or close to it) that was already one of the two "current versions" we started with. But I do think some improvements are being made, such as eliminating the Carlip quotation and the other non-mainstream citations. Also a nice consistency is emerging, since we can have paragraphs beginning with

Van Flandern supported the discredited theory of Le Sage (1757) on gravity...

Van Flandern supported the discredited theory of Laplace (1802) on aberration...

Van Flandern supported the discredited theory of Olbers (1810) on exploding planets...

Van Flandern supported the discredited theory of artificial face sculptures on Mars...

and so on. But it may be best to alter the wording here and there to avoid monotony.Flau98bert (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have said before, in some ways, less is more. We do not need to spell out every detail of Van Flanden's craziness just show that he had plenty of crazy ideas. As a compromise, Flau98bert, what would you say to having just one section on Le Sage and FTL gravity just entitled 'gravitation' or the like? I think your FTL section is far too long and gives a lot of pointless detail that actually adds credibility to TVF's ideas. What important points have I missed?

Let us leave exploding planets and Mars for later discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the emphasis seems to be on providing references to why people think Van Flandern was wrong. He was noteable for promting his beliefs, not in what people thought about them. People familiar with Van Flandern will already know and lay people just need to be told that his theories were not supported by the mainstreeam scientific community. I'm sure there is an article somewhere on that guy who thought he was Emperor of San Francisco, I doubt if the article sites reference after ereference on why he wasn't an actual Emperor. Also, there seems to be a fascination with using the word "discredited" which, to me, carries a negative connotation. Copernicus is not known as a discredited scientist, nor is galileo or neweton, though all their theories have been proven to be either wrong or too basic. Akuvar (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the term 'discredited' is right for some of VF's theories, in fact it is a little too weak. His FTL gravity suggestion was due to his complete lack of understanding of the subject. It was never a viable theory was was never taken seriously by any mainstream scientists. I do agree though that we do not need to labour the point. The facts about VF's FTL gravity theory are simple - he proposed a crazy theory due to his lack of understanding of the subject, he was wrong, and no one took him seriously. We need to say that but we do not have to give every detail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I agree that the sections I sketched are too long for the article. I was mainly trying to convey some of the background that I think should inform the drafting of the actual wording. The more you know, the better you can summarize. For example, your wording said the incorrectness of the aberration argument was "shown to be incorrect by Eddington in 1920", but that's misleading, because the incorrectness was already common knowledge by then. Eddington merely repeated in his survey book what had been figured out many years earlier by Poincare, etc. The only reason we refer to Eddington is because (1) Van Flandern's paper referenced Eddington as his source for the argument that absence of aberration implies superluminal gravity, and (2) Marsch and Nissam-Sabat pointed out in their rebuttal paper that the very next sentence in Eddington's book, after the ones quoted by Van Flandern, said "But the reasoning is fallacious, because...". These facts speak volumes about the subject, and they are entirely relevant, notable, well-sourced, and verifiable. Likewise the fact that Van Flandern also claimed by the same reasoning that electromagnetism must also propagate faster than light, sheds a lot of light on the subject. I don't think any of this lends any credibility to Van Flandern's ideas at all. Quite the contrary.

Also, there's a problem with your handling of the rebuttals, because you say Van Flandern's argument was shown to be incorrect by Eddington in 1920 - which was before Van Flandern was born. To give an intelligible account, we can't avoid explaining that Van Flandern was simply repeating the argument of Laplace, which had been discredited long ago. The same problem exists for almost all of Van Flandern's beliefs, i.e., they were conclusively discredited before he was born, so it takes some careful explanation to make the facts clear. Also I think it's fairly important to note that Van Flandern did not originate the aberration analysis and relating it to the speed of gravity; that was done by Laplace, who argued that gravity must propagate a million times faster than light. All Van Flandern did was plug in the more modern numbers for the observations, and crank out the number twenty billion. You may think this lends credibility to Van Flandern, but I don't. Quite the contrary. It shows that what he did was not only wrong, it was completely trivial, plugging in the modern numbers to Laplace's formula.

Also, I think your handling of Carlip and Marsch is not quite right, because you just say they pointed out that according to general relativity gravity propagates at c. That's true, but a Van Flandernist could just say "so much the worse for general relativity". What Carlip (and Eddington and Poincare, etc) actually did was more than that, they explained why the aberration argument of Laplace fails in relativistic theory, hence why the astronomical observations cited by Laplace and Van Flandern do not imply superluminal gravity, and they noted the observational support for this aspect of general relativity (the binary pulsar results).

Anyway, if I had to boil it down to a short section, based on what you drafted, but without the anachronisms, non-sequiturs, and inaccuracies, I would suggest some wording like this:

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light. Van Flandern's claims were based on inserting modern data into a formula of Laplace for Newtonian gravity, but that formula had, in fact, already been shown to be incorrect for relativistic theories long ago. Consequently Van Flandern's claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, such as Steve Carlip and Marsch et al, who wrote rebuttal papers explaining that in the modern theory of gravity (general relativity) the astronomical observations cited by Van Flandern do not imply superluminal propagation of gravity.

But I still think much of the other material, including the Eddington story, could be included in the references and footnotes. (That's where most of that material is placed in the existing article.) Our little drafts here on this Talk page don't include the citations and footnotes, so it's difficult to really do justice to a full proposal. But I guess it's okay to hammer out the main text of the article here.Flau98bert (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not like, Van Flandern's claims were based on inserting modern data into a formula of Laplace for Newtonian gravity, but that formula had, in fact, already been shown to be incorrect for relativistic theories long ago. Is that really true? Did VF really just insert data into an old formula? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is all he did. He notes in his paper (which is readily available, if you're interested) the well known fact that the insertion of a time delay into Newtonian gravity would result in observable disturbances in orbits, and he continues "From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of gravity of about 10^8 c, where c is the speed of light". Laplace did this using the equation Pdot = 6pi(v/vg) where Pdot is the rate of change of the period of an orbit, v is the speed of the orbiting body, and vg is the postulated speed of gravity. Observations in Laplace's day placed limits on how much the period of the Moon's orbit is changing (very small), so this is how he inferred a very large lower bound on vg. Van Flandern used this very same equation (it is equation 3 in his "Speed of Gravity" paper, which is the same as his equations 2 and 1 with juvenile algebraic re-arrangement), simply plugging in even tighter bounds on the possible magnitude of Pdot from the (then) recently published binary pulsar data to infer an even larger lower bound on vg. But of course this equation is explicitly based on Newtonian gravity, which does not account for the relativistic effects like non-central components and the cancellation of aberration to low orders. And this has been known and well understood for ages.

So, yes, that's all Van Flandern did. He plugged in the published bounds on Pdot for the binary pulsar PSR19 13+ 16 into Laplace's Newtonian equation. All the rest of his "Speed of Gravity" paper is just verbal mumbo jumbo, in which he expounds on his confusion between propagation of static forces and waves, etc.Flau98bert (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have to admit that I did not realise that VF had been quite so crass. I still do not like, 'but that formula had, in fact, already been shown to be incorrect for relativistic theories long ago', even though it is perfectly correct. Not everyone appreciates what 'relativistic theories' are, and the fact that any viable theory today must be relativistic may not be apparent to everyone. It is this kind of lack of understanding by the general public that allows VF's theories to retain some popular credibility. I think we must just make it clear that his theories were trivially dismissed by physicists. This is an article about the person, TVF, not an article about his unconventional theories (which do not justify an article). Do you see my point?

Akuvar, do you have any other objections to Flau98bert's proposed wording? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I understand your point about not giving undue weight to the unconventional beliefs of one individual, but on the other hand I think Van Flandern's notability rests entirely on his unconventional beliefs. They are the only reason this article exists. If you say his unconventional beliefs don't justify an article (and I might agree with you about that), then I think the whole article is called into question. Looking back at the history of this article, I see it has been nominated for deletion in the past, but was kept on the grounds that Van Flandern's unconventional beliefs were sufficiently notable, due to his public lectures, press conferences, etc., especially for the faces on Mars, exploding planets, superluminal gravity and propulsion, free energy, and so on. So I think that's why the article is written the way it is, focusing on his notable unconventional beliefs.

Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia policy requires a mainstream emphasis, so we need to be very clear how his beliefs were viewed by mainstream science. And yet we also need to be accurate about what those beliefs actually were, and what Van Flandern actually contributed to them - which was essentially nothing. He simply espoused long-since discredited ideas of other people. For example, the analysis showing that if gravity is produced by the impact of a flowing fluid (as in LeSage gravity), then the fluid would have to travel at no less than a hundred million times the speed of light, was not original to Van Flandern. That was already computed by Laplace in 1805, as everyone knows. Van Flandern's only significant "contribution" (aside from plugging in some more current observations) was in claiming (incorrectly, of course) that this lower bound applies to every theory of gravity, disregarding the entire history of the development of physics since the mid 18th century.

Since you don't like talking about relativistic theories, how about this for a compromise?

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper noting that Laplace had shown in 1805 that if gravity is produced by something like Le Sage's ultramundane corpuscles then those corpuscles would have to travel at millions of times the speed of light. Van Flandern argued (contrary to what Laplace himself had said) that Laplace's analysis must apply to all theories of gravity, and hence implies the existence of superluminal propagation of forces. Van Flandern's claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, because it is well known that Laplace's analysis applies only to the discredited theories of gravity (like Le Sage's) in which gravity is produced by the impulse of a flow of Newtonain fluid or particles. In the modern theory of gravity (general relativity) all effects of gravity propagate at the speed of light, and Laplace's analysis is not applicable because it does not account for the energy and momentum carried by the gravitational field itself.

Would this be acceptable?Flau98bert (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I just had another idea. The whole second paragraph ends up being sort of redundant to the first, which already says that LeSage's theory entails superluminal propagation speed, and it already says this is discredited. So, maybe we don't even need the second paragraph? If you wanted to trim the whole section down to just that first paragraph, I think I could accept that. (Maybe some of the other comments could go into footnotes.)Flau98bert (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail again

I think just the first paragraph is not enough because it does not make clear VF's theory on the 'speed of gravity'. Could we drop the science completely from the second paragraph and just have:

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light. These claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, including as Steve Carlip and Marsch et al. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We may be getting close, but I still think that wording is a bit misleading, because it suggests Van Flandern had a theory on the 'speed of gravity'. He didn't. As the first paragraph says, he supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravity, which entails propagation of the force of gravity at millions of times the speed of light, which was already known in the 1690s. Also, I think just saying his claims were "dismissed" without reason is very weak, since it leaves the unsophisticated reader with the impression that mainstream science is just brazenly dismissive of unconventional ideas. How about this for a single combined paragraph to cover everything:

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions. He wrote a paper in 1998 repeating the 18th century explanations for why the force of gravity must propagate millions of times faster than light, implicitly assuming that gravity propagates like the ultra-mundane corpuscles of Le Sage's theory, and he gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft. These claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, including Carlip and Marsch, who pointed out that Le Sage's theory is not viable, and that the 18th century reasoning quoted by Van Flandern is not relevant to the modern theory of gravity.

Flau98bert (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that my wording is misleading. VF did write a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light. He may have based this on the theories of others but so what? It was wrong.

Just to be clear, I am proposing your first paragraph followed by my second, so we have:

Van Flandern supported Le Sage's discredited theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light. These claims were dismissed by mainstream physicists, including as Steve Carlip and Marsch et al.

I think we should now wait and see what Akuvar thinks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I will agree to it, Martin. I will state my objection again, however, as to the use of the word discredited. That word has far larger connotations than just, "general Relativity has proven this to be false." Discredited, in almost every dictionary, carries a negative connotation with it. I do not see its use on the Copernicus page, nor heliocentrism, nor geocentrism, but it somehow has made its way here. Akuvar (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! we have agreement on this section. Let us add it to the article.

I understand your point about 'discredited'; can you think of a better word. The point is that Le Sage's theory was fine in its day but has since been completely disproved, unlike SR and Newtonian physics which are still very good approximations and in regular use today. The phlogiston theory of combustion might be a better analogy. The point that needs to be made is that the Le Sage theory of gravitation is unable to explain current observations and has fallen into complete disuse. It is really TVF's attempt to revive the theory without fixing any of the disagreements with observation that has been discredited but I am not sure how that could be worded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disproved does not carry the negative connotation that discredited does. I would approve of disproved. Akuvar (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But I think there should be some negative connotation, not towards Le Sage's theory itself but towards VF's crazy attempt to revive it. Although, if the current wording is read literally, 'discredited' does refer to Le Sage's theory I think in practice this discredit carries over to Van Flandern, which indeed it should. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Your proposed words are okay with me.Flau98bert (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)