I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce roy_q_royce@hotmail.com -----
From: "Roy Royce" roy_q_royce@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600 To: jwales@joey.bomis.com Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--
Dear Mr. Wales,
Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies to the addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it seems to be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical - facts to the Wiki special relativity article.
I cordially invite you to check out the validity of the following statements for yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above):
[1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way).
[2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the lack of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should wonder why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!)
[3] The famous equation E=mc^2 does not support special relativity. (This is stated explicitly by the imminent physicist John Wheeler on page 148 of his famous book _Spacetime Physics_ {1963}, wherein he noted the fact that Einstein presented an SR-free derivation of E=mc^2 in order not to have this famous and important fact associated with a mere theory.)
The above three critical facts are currently not mentioned in the Wiki ; indeed, fact [3] is denied.
My request is that someone please add these facts to the Wiki special relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any encyclopedia.
Thank you very much for listening!
Sincerely, Roy Royce
_________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
----- End forwarded message -----
-----Original Message----- [3] The famous equation E=mc^2 does not support special relativity. (This is stated explicitly by the imminent physicist John Wheeler on
page
148 of his famous book _Spacetime Physics_ {1963}, wherein he noted the
fact
that Einstein presented an SR-free derivation of E=mc^2 in order not
to
have this famous and important fact associated with a mere theory.)
Not a helpful comment, but I think it's highly amusing that John Wheeler is imminent.
I have a strong suspicion his "Spacetime Physics" claim is a misleading paraphrase, especially since our disputant is calling E=mc^2 a "famous and important fact" but special relativity a "mere theory", demonstrating the standard misunderstanding of the scientific meaning of the word "theory".
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
doubtful. That article seems to draw in the crackpots like {insert image of choice here}. It is a waste of our time to go over their theories with them (the guy who said measuring with a stick was a "more direct way of measuring" wasted HOURS of my time).
I have recently been tempted to wipe most of that article's talk page and leave only discussion about the article itself, and add a big notice saying "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOUR OWN THEORIES".
doubtful. That article seems to draw in the crackpots like {insert image of choice here}. It is a waste of our time to go over their theories with them (the guy who said measuring with a stick was a "more direct way of measuring" wasted HOURS of my time).
I have recently been tempted to wipe most of that article's talk page and leave only discussion about the article itself, and add a big notice saying "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOUR OWN THEORIES".
I think wiping talk pages is against Wikipedia policy unless they're copyvios, but I also think that existing policy dictates that wikipedia can't hve new theories on it via the original research provision. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I have recently been tempted to wipe most of that article's talk page and leave only discussion about the article itself, and add a big notice saying "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOUR OWN THEORIES".
I think wiping talk pages is against Wikipedia policy unless they're copyvios,
*refactoring* talk pages is ok -- cleaning up and summarizing. I think removing swathes of discussion that is not relevant to the article would be a good idea. Having it there shows other crackpots they're welcome.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
A quick google search shows that this guy is a sci.physics.relativity crackpot. See:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=XySVa.41611%24F92.4248%40afrodite.te...
----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce roy_q_royce@hotmail.com -----
From: "Roy Royce" roy_q_royce@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600 To: jwales@joey.bomis.com Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--
Dear Mr. Wales,
Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies to the addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it seems to be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical - facts to the Wiki special relativity article.
That's right, it's impossible to add facts permanently if they are considered by community consensus to be inaccurate. It's the nature of the process. Sounds like he's experiencing some Usenet withdrawal symptoms.
I cordially invite you to check out the validity of the following statements for yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above):
[1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way).
[2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the lack of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should wonder why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!)
If anyone cares, this is what he's talking about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0ac0bee.0211081401.61c7eee9%40posting....
Suffice to say that he doesn't seem to have any supporters on s.p.r, where he's been plugging his theories for years. The tactic he's using is a typical red herring: he suggests a direct test of some aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even technically impossible. He ignores the huge body of slightly less direct tests of the same theory, and then obliquely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test. Everywhere he goes, he feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are out to suppress the "truth" he has discovered. It's a common story.
My request is that someone please add these facts to the Wiki special relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any encyclopedia.
Anyone can add them, and anyone can take them away. Luckily for us, Wikipedian co-conspirators greatly outnumber the enlightened individuals who want to expose the shocking truth.
-- Tim Starling.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
I'll match my competence to deal with physics with Jimbo's at any time.
The fact is that these eccentric theories do exist, and more energy is spent trying to discredit them then the originator put into developing the theory. In a similar way, what keeps trolls alive is the generous amount of nourishment supplied by their detractors. The behaviour of some of the advocates of "science" in the preservation of their "bodily humors" is such that if ever there were a Pope of Science they would make fine candidates for that office.
There is a place for these theories, even as most of them (often deservedly) are cast aside in the history of science. Some do lead somewhere, though it is not apparent at the time; an example here could be Alexander Bain's 1843 patent of the teleautograph, an early attempt at transmitting pictures by telegraph.
Allowing Mr. Royce's views at the appropriate place(s) is just fine. There these views should fairly represent what the proponents are trying to say without the need to have those views interrupted by constant bickering about every tiny detail. Later the after the proponent has finished his explanation, there will still be plenty of room to express disagreement. Sometimes only a simple sentence like, "The above ideas have not been accepted by mainstream science," will be more than enough to fulfill all NPOV requirements. Why should it be so easy for the supporters of "sciene" to forget that the primary burden of proof for any new theory lies with the proponents? When they have failed to carry that burden, a simple remark to that effect is all that is needed. There is no need to mount a thorough attack; there is no need to find an excuse (such as promoting one's own theories) for censoring out these articles. If they begin to infect other more accepted concepts, it could be enough to say at the infected site, "An alternative view of this is expressed at [[...]]."
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Allowing Mr. Royce's views at the appropriate place(s) is just fine.
Yes, but Wikipedia is not that place at this point. His theories are at best his own original research, unpublished except on usenet and on the web. Should he publish his views and a serious debate ensues, we will certainly report about it.
Axel
No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way).
I'm not a specialist, but there is no need to measure the speed of light as SI time unit (the second) is defined by reference to the speed of light.