Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation/Archive 2

message: I have been giving some thought to how to use this anon's edits here, and I am beginning to see some parts of the puzzle here.  The big problem with his business of "Newton smiled at Fatio's theory" is that it is being placed in the lead!   63.24.108.68 needs to see the article Wikipedia:The perfect article.  The first part is the lead section, and should only be a brief expression of the subject, explaining in as quick and concise a way as possible with the article it about.  Historical details can be placed in the article, but they should be in a section on the history of the subject!
Secondly, 63.24.108.68 needs to see that policies on civility and wikiquette.  I realize that this editor is experiencing stress and frustration in dealing with the rest of us, but it goes both ways in this case.  --EMS | Talk 04:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I am not sure if the postscript was in response to a comment here--- did the uu.net anon (who has used 63.24.108.68 and several other IP addresses) actually claim that Ed's contribs connected with WikiProject GTR have been "cranky"?  If so, I missed that.  In any case, for the record, I am pleased to report that so far as I am aware, Ed has been very careful to avoid POV-pushing edits to the WP, despite his personal objections to the notion of a black hole as treated in gtr, which he mentions on his user page.  (I don't share those particular objections, but I do recognize that there are viable theoretical objections to gtr--- I should immediately add that at present it is not clear whether one can claim that experiments/observations disagree with gtr, although the Pioneer anomaly may eventually lead to widespread recognition of a genuine problem.)  I think it redounds to his credit that we have been able to work together despite this individual difference of opinion.  And I think his good behavior in this respect should be emulated by all Wikipedians who happen to hold some dissident viewpoint.  (Probably almost every Wikipedian holds some dissident viewpoint!)  As Ed understands, the only method of overturning an established paradigm which is acceptable to scholars, while not for the impatient, the ignorant, the incompetent, or the faint of heart, is still the traditional approach, which is pretty much the only approach with any chance of success.  To wit: publish papers which make such cogent criticism, and offer an alternative which is so attractive, that others gradually begin to change their methods as working astrophysicists engaged in scholarly research, ideally by carefully comparing the interpretion of observations/experiments using both gtr and the proposed alternative theory.---CH 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, uu.net anon, aka 63.24.108.68 and similar IPs: while I have not studied your many comments here in detail, my sense is that I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I am concerned by how you are saying it!  Please try to moderate your comments as per WP:CIV and all other widely accepted standards of behavior here.  TIA ---CH 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for 63.24.108.68 

message: This page has been unlocked per my request.  I think that the main "food fight" is now over, and it is time to see when ensues.  In response to my plan to do have this done, User:LeSagian wrote:
: As for anon 63.24 ... I strongly suspect that he will resurface once this page is unlocked.  I would strongly suggest trying semi-protection for the near term.
I do not see much need for this.  That anon seems to be properly chastenned at this time. Also,
# Partial protection only means that this anon gets a Wikipedia userID.  That still would be nice, but it can still be a mask that this person hides behind.
# The anon cannot win a 3-to-1 edit war.
# I think that the structure of MRE's article may help us to create more focussed changes and complaints even by this anon.
(I actually would not mind this anon reappearing, if he/she is willing to behave and be constructive in their editing and commentary.  BTW:  Both Lesagain  and MRE are advised that it takes two to tango -- If this anon should become willing to work with you, you will then have to work with him/her.  I hope that your willingness to work with me does carry over in that [admitedly unlikely] case.) --EMS | Talk 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page unlocked 

message: I have done some tweking in this section.  First of all, I removed much of the material about the idead of Paul Stowe (who is reputedly editing here as "LeSagian").  The business on orbital instability is not worth mentioning without also mentioning it as a being hypotheisized as a cause of the Titus-Bode law.  Also, this and the frame dragging business impress me as being very much original research.  I strongly suspect that PG is the most authoritative source for this material.  In that case, it is original research since PG is not an acceptable source for the introduction of new theoretical concepts.  (PG is admissible mostly as a seconday source for this article, and can be a primary source only when it is updating information presented in other, acceptable sources.)
:The issue of so-called frame dragging has nothing to do with the author (Stowe or Feynman, or any other), it has to do with whether the Le Sage process would create such an effect.  So I ask you, if you have a passage of Le Sage particles through a rotating body that is, by definition, actively interacting with some will conservation of momentum occur.  You can easily visualize several mechanistic analogies, so do the ultra-mundane particles get deflected with a biased in the direction of rotation or not?  Further is this not a artifact of the model itself or not?  It certainly is not just an aspect of an author.
I also am wondering whether the Pioneer anomaly business that I kept is appropriate.  Paul is not a notable person to the extent of having an article in Wikipedia, and I wonder if he is all that notable within the community of Le Sage gavitation supporters.  In other words, even the text I kept may not be appropriate, but I am willing to leave this issue on the table and see what consensus arises about it.
:Are you going to insist that all material in the article be vetted.  If so, many other issues become debatable, including all mention of gravitating energy since, to my knowledge, no reputable published peer-reviewed document has been written on this topic in regards to Le Sage's theory.  You cannot allow speculation as to what the model itself must contain on the one hand yet not the other. User: LeSagian 
:: There does need to be some vetting here.  The issue here is not one of whether Le Sage gravitation would create one effect or the other, but of whether it is known that Le Sage gravitation would create such an effect.  To quote from WP:NPOV and Jimbo Wales:
::: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
:: The goal of the current research section is to give people some sense of what is currently being done along those line and a chance to find relevant resources.  It is not to announce novel findings.  To be admissible here, the item in question must either 
::# be commonly accepted within the Le Sage gravitation community, 
::# have (or have had) a non-trivial level of awareness in the physics community, or 
::# have (or have had) a non-trivial level of awareness in the general public.  
:: This allows for items that are not published in a peer reviewed journal to be presented here, but they must be of demonstratable significance.  In short, the issue is not the speculation itself, but whether the speculation is notable. --EMS | Talk 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to the "Current status of the theory" section 

message: I have little use for POV edits, even if the orientation is mainstream.  In Wikipedia, better is expected.  My revert took care of two issues:
* Removing detailed references to general relativity:  That gravitation gravitates is a GR concept, and is not germane to Le Sage gravitation.
* Restoring information on current research: IMO, if the topic is notable and the researchers are notable, then what the researchers are doing in this are is notable.  (However, I will not say that they deserve much coverage, and IMO they are not getting much coverage.)  If ELQ22 doe not agree with this, then he can seek an RfC.
--EMS | Talk 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to specifically direct the attention of all the defenders to my strongly positive comment above regarding the notably good behavior here at WP of someone I regard as a model dissident.  And once again I entreat every contributor to respect WP:CIV.---CH 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of ELQ22 edits 

message: Rather than simply revert this long string of POV edits and deletion of references made by the latest sock puppet, I'm going to try to go through these dozen-plus changes one-by-one and include anything of value.
First and second edits, moving Laplace's calculations ahead of discussion of LeSage's own activities is inappropriate historically (50 to 75 years out of sequence).  It also breaks the flow of the article into the 19th century revival.  Moved back to it's original (historical) location.
: The flow is better in the earlier version. Strictly speaking, Laplace would be in the 19th century (or the turn of the century), but conceptually it allows a complete discussion of the speed, which is needed to fill out the basics.
Third edit was editorial.  However, the second half of the first (now runon) sentence is strictly POV, and unsubstantiated.  Second half of sentence deleted.
: Disagree with this change. The edit is accurate and appropriate.
Fourth edit was pure POV.  Cages are not identical hard spheres.  The theories are similar, but not the same.  LeSage's matter was not opaque.  Change reverted.  Difference is explicit in reference.  I've tried a slight rewording to try to compromise without sacrificing reality.
: Strongly disagree. Darwin's macroscopic matter was not opaque, but the microscopic matter of both Darwin and LeSage is opaque. Everyone other than Barry Minsk understands this.
Fifth edit was pure POV. Unsubstantiated.  There are *no* experimental tests that "energy ... gravitates and ... is also a source of gravitation".  But such doesn't exist in Ohanian and Rufinn.  fixwiki is welcome to provide page number and explicit citation to show me wrong.
: Strongly disagree. Chapter 1.6 lists the experimental references.
The sixth edit was by Ems57fcva.  He has a good point.  The whole paragraph is primarily POV, unrelated to LeSagian graviation.  I'm willing to see it back in -- so long as it's clear that this is merely theory.  Not experiment.  So, this paragraph went away.  Perhaps some more discussion to see if anyone else thinks GR theory is appropriate in an article on LeSage.
: This change was already justified in previous discussion.
The seventh edit replaced the GR paragraph.  While it may be that Dr. Carlip believes that GR is a superior theory, this is an encyclopediac page.  Not a debate about the merits of one theory over another.  Once again, fixwiki is welcome to provide an explicit source for this claim.  Including page number, please.
: Change already justified in previous discussion. This is not related to GR, see Rufinni and Ohanian, chapter 1.6, for discussion. For another reference to the experimental evidence that kinetic energy gravitates, see S. Carlip's paper in Am J Phys, 65, (1998), p409-413.
The eighth edit was further editing to the GR paragraph.  Which is moot at this point.
: Leave as is, see above. Also, see the Nordvedt effect, which has been experimentally checked to high accuracy from lunar ranging measurements, proving that gravitational energy gravitates. The fact that general relativity is the only known theory consistent with this experimental fact is beside the point. The point for this article is that Lesage theory is not compatible with this experimental fact.
The ninth edit was by LeSagian, modifying the predictions section.
: This change should be reverted.
The tenth edit (by fixwiki) removed some of the prior mods.  Fixwiki claimed it was "original research" this is a false claim.  However, let's leave his deletion, pending a reference.
The eleventh edit removed some explicit historical references.  Completely inappropriate and POV.  Replaced.  It doesn't matter if fixwiki likes Poincare better that Radzievskii.
: Change already justified and explained.
The twelfth edit corrected the date of Poincare's orignal work, referencing the French version, instead of the English translation.  However the basis for the rest of POV edits done by fixwiki were not supported.  Reverted to original, except for date correction, and resulting paragraph order swap.
: No, the previous version made a point of saying Poincare wrote his critique in 1918, shortly AFTER general relativity was published, which was in 1915. I pointed out that Poincare died in 1912, and he actually wrote Science and Method in 1908. My change was correct and appropriate.
The thirteenth edit removed the explict reference to famous argument.  Replaced.  It isn't redundant, until someone provides the page numbers from the 1929 version.  Editorial word changes kept.
: Incorrect. The fameous statement quoted is from the 1908 article.
The fourteenth edit linked Poincare to his wiki biography.  Left in.  Barry Mingst 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixwiki's multitudinous POV edits and removal of references 

message: It is bugging me more and more that this page was protected at the behest of Le Sagian, who is the one editor here (at least that I have dealt with) for whom I have less respect than Fixwiki.  Perhaps a cooling-off period may be needed here again.  Otherwise, it may be an idea to promptly unprotect this page and request that both "Fixwiki" and Le Sagian refrain from editing this article directly, but instead post suggestions here and let other editors rule on them.  BTW - Do note that this page must be unprotected sooner or later, with Wikipedia being what it is. --EMS | Talk 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EMS, I am also asking for protection for some neutral version of the article.  I feel that Wikipedia is a worthwhile endeavour, but is it right that two warring parties should have to go on indefinitely?  It's a bit like the Hatfields and the McCoys here.  We can never come to an agreement.  I can understand that it goes against the Wikipedia principle to lock an article, but there must be precedents for this.MRE 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that I agree with MRE.  Is there a way to lock the page against all but a selected few *identified* people (some pro- some anti-), to whom anyone could e-mail suggested modifications? Barry Mingst 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be protected? 

message: Fixwiki -
You are not going to win an edit war.  Remember the 3 revert rule.  If you want things changed, then please state how you would like things changed and why.  I would love to see your constructive participation in the editing of this page.  Instead, you seem to want to steamroll over everyone else.  That does not work here.  You have two editors in Matt and myself who are willing to work with you, but you have to be polite (and do notice the this link references a Wikipedia policy) and respectful in dealing with us.  Like it or not, the best articles in Wikipedia are the result of editors creating a consensus amongst themselves, and not of one editor dominating the page.  Even in the cases where an editor has had a disproportionate influence (like I have had with the general relativity article), there is still a consensus supporting that editor's work.
So you are outnumbered four-to-one.  I can tell you that you will not have your way on everything.  For instance I will not accept your "improvement" of the "Current status" section, as there is some lay awareness of the work of Halton Arp and Tom Van Flandern.  So I find it best to mention itheir work in a matter-of-fact way as another variation on a theme that the article shows has been historically unsuccessful.  However, I probably should be getting rid of the business about the Pioneer anomaly since it is Paul Stowe's research and he has no such presense.  (Sorry, Paul.)  In any case, if you can make a thoughtful and well documented case for other changes, you may well find that we can support them.  However, you have to be part of the group, and not a Lone Ranger.
I have wondered above if it would be good for this page to be without your input.  However, you are not offering input here as much as you are saying "take it or leave it".  In that case, my view is that we should leave it.  Look at it this way: If you do not wish to work with us, then your input is as useful to us as if you were not here.  Think about that.  Like it or not, in NPOV "neutral" means neutral, not biased towards the mainstream view.  So please think in Dragnet mode:  "Just the facts ...", and do please present the evidence. --EMS | Talk 04:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fixwiki" is back 

message: The time and date tags that get automatically attached to edits seem to be based on Greenwich Meridian time, so this can result in misleading indications of how many times "per day" a particular editor has reverted an article. To minimize confusion, I intend to note, by date, the number of reversions I've made for that date. This will help others assure themselves that I'm only reverting the article 3 times per day. I reverted the article three times yesterday (Tuesday), and I have reverted the article once today (Wednesday, June 21), and will revert it twice more today, and I'll denote these as rv #1, 2, 3. Fixwiki 12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Accounting