Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation/Archive 1

message: Where does it suggest that LeSage theory has entered the mainstream?  In fact, it specifically states "Today the theory continues to be developed and is a continuing avenue of research and interest for a growing number of researchers who find themselves unsatisfied with current mainstream theory." which is true.  These include Halton Arp, Tom Van Flandern, Matthew Edwards, and others.  And they are indeed unsatisfied with current mainstream theory.  This does not hint at, or suggest that LeSage Theory is becoming mainstream.  In fact, it clearly states just the opposite.  I would say that it is Hillman's objectivity that is in dispute.
(unsigned edit by anon)
:Feb 20, 2006 - It is important to remember that bias is not limited to any one side.  Most concepts or ideas, be it abortion rights or scientific concepts, have people that zealously believe and defend their perspective as being right, and all others wrong.  LeSage theory is controversial, and like anything of this nature it raises strong emotions in some.  Care has been taken to present the information in the article in as factual and neutral a manner as possible, without introducing either a negative or positive bias.  For those with strongly held beliefs, information presented in a truly neutral manner will probably be perceived as biased against their perspective.  Any theory under current development, as evidenced by the recent pubication of Pushing Gravity, is not an obsolete theory, although it will certainly be considered so by anyone that has a bias against it.  It is factually true that the majority of practicing scientists (usually denoted as mainstream) are not working on, nor are they interested in, the LeSage Gravity concept.  They are quite content to accept the tenets of General Relativity at face value, without any further need of explanation or causal process(es).  It is however the duty of an encyclopedia to provide all information, mainstream or not, without bias, even that slanted toward the perceived mainstream views.
:(unsigned edit by anon)
::Hi anon(s?), first, please consider using a registered account to avoid the impression that you are one user trying to appear like two distinct persons.  I am not accusing either(?) of you of anything, just letting you know that anon edits sometimes raise the issue of manipulative tricks which have been a problem in the past, such as multiple votes using different IPs in AfD debates, so you should be aware that simply making anon edits unfortunately sometimes raises questions, due to misbehavior by previous anons.
::Second and more important, please re-read what you added to the article and find ways to remove the POV bits.  For example, I am sure you know that the alleged "expertise" regarding general relativity of Tom van Flandern has been questioned by several observers, including myself, so you should remove serious scientists since this flunks WP:VAIN.  Contrast this weasel wording with the verifiable fact that he once earned a Ph.D. from Yale.  In this particular case, however, I urge you to just remove that particular comment, link to the article on Flandern and let interested readers follow up there on the question of whether Flandern's credentials are as impressive as some claim, or whether his views have any scientific merit.  
::In other bits of the edits you made which I am asking you to tone down, you may prefer to replace weasel words with verifiable facts, which would probably be OK by me.  Fair enough?  ---CH 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, the book you cited probably cannot be regarded as mainstream, as you seem to imply.  By rewriting you should be able to sidestep the issue.  I am not suggesting you remove the link to that book, just suggesting that remove the implication that it should be regarded as representing mainstream physics.  Fair enough? ---CH 03:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream physics advocated by "serious scientists"? 

message: I have done some cleanup here.  I changed "growing number" in the introduction to just "number", and deleted that last paragraph talking about "unresolved issues", etc.  In both cases I found the statements to be at best highly subjective if not POV.  That last paragraph was very strange, and read like it compromise between two POV warriers instead of being coherent summation of this theory and its status.  --EMS | Talk 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subjective statements removed 

message: The following made for an interesting addition, but it is both trivial and POV IMO, and therefore is inappropriate.  It was also placed in the lead, where is totally did not belong even if it was appropriate for the article.  The edit was:
: Even Newton would likely have favored a mechanistic theory like LeSage's rather than the geometric treatment given by the current mainstream theory, General Relativity, according to an opinion he expressed in a letter to Richard Bentley :
::That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one Body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity, that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain Laws[...]
--EMS | Talk 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton and LeSage gravity 

message: I think Feynman's statements are useful to people reading about LeSage.
:It is obviously a POV, Feynman's...
Disproof that LeSage is not mainstream: LeSage was even investigated by Feynman.  It is not dismissed because it is ether heresy so much as because it is 'not even wrong' and non-predictive, hence non-scientific in the modern sense of making quantitative predictions.
:This statement is simply incorrect.  LeSage's model is quite quantitative and predictive.  In fact, it is these very predictions that causes the controversy.  LeSage's model yields precisely,
:: F = \frac{fs^2Mm}{r^2}
:For its weak static solution and,
:: F = \frac{fA_1A_2}{r^2}
:for the strong static solution... Where f is LeSagian momentum flux term and s is the attenuation coefficient...
:For LeSage theory the gravitational constant is actually, fs^2
:The equalibrium thermal power flux Q (in watts per square meter) predicted quantitatively by the theory is,
:: Q = \frac{(fs)^2}{2 \pi c} \frac M r
:The drag predicted for weakly attenuating bodies is,
::a_d = fs \frac v c
:Given,
::f = 6.74 kg/m-sec^2 
:And,
::u = 3.16E-06 m^2/kg 
:Then for the Pioneer spacecraft moving at a speed v of ~12,000 m/sec the predicted deceleration is, 
::a_d ~= 8.5E-10 m/sec^2
Feynman failed to make LeSage gravity work in his November 1964 Cornell Lectures Character of Physical Law but he did conclude that someday someone might succeed. 
:So then where's the problem?  Work appears to be still ongoing...
Those lectures were mainstream, they were recorded by the BBC and broadcast on TV in 1965, as well as being published in Feynman's book Character of Physical Law.  On the topic of renormalisation for quantum gravity and the problem of a purely mathematical abstract theory, he said a lot:
Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3:
"The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculative theories of physics] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. ... There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory."
:One of the thing that should never be inserted into an encyclopedia is bias.  As you are aware, bias comes in two forms, positive & negative...  Let's avoid both & present a neutral format that actually contains referenceable factual information.
On page 38 of this book, Feynman has a diagram which looks basically like this: >E S<, where E is earth and S is sun. The arrows show the push that causes gravity. This is the LeSage gravity scheme, which I now find Feynman also discusses (without the diagram) in his full Lectures on Physics. He concludes that the mechanism in its form as of 1964 contradicted the no-ether relativity model and could not make any valid predictions, but finishes off by saying (p. 39):
"'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today [1964], from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other the mathematical form."
Does this mean Feynman is after physical mechanism, or is happy with the mathematical model? The answer is there on page 57-8:
"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities."   Anderson 172.200.200.127 14:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: INCLUSION OF FEYNMAN