Thank you, Mr. Starling, for helping to lower my "stress quotient"!
(And please note that I did not really call anyone a liar, but instead gave the choice between that and someone who really has not taken the time to check out the facts of the case.)
(I also would like to point out the fact that Mr. Poor misquoted me by snipping my "buffer" phrase "I hate to say this, but".)
(I would also like to note that it seems odd to me that whereas the main party [you] has actually apologized, I still got several strong reprimands from "parties of the second part.")
(Finally, as far as this initial top-posting stuff goes, let me correct Mr. Axel Boldt's assumption that I have a theory or theories by stating that this is untrue. My whole point was simply that critical facts have been left out of the WIKI special relativity article, and I have proved my point.)
From: "Tim Starling" ts4294967296@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request REaWIKIArticle--] Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:40:36 +1000
[snip]
The fact that E=mc^2 does not support SR is not merely "my fact."
I never said anything about that one, remember? I snipped it. I didn't want to get into a technical discussion on this mailing list, where most readers are not familiar with relativity. Save it for the talk page of the article.
Your many references to cranks in the context of my first post made it necessary for me to try to defend myself, and it seemed to me that this could best be done by showing that E=mc^2 is not a part of SR.
Regarding your "save it for the talk page" advice, you are actually at a disadvantage because you did not know that I had already tried that, and found that it did not work - so I tried taking my case to the "main dude" himself, James Wales; however, since he assumed that he could not handle the physics, he "tossed me to the 'wolves' of this list." (said with a smile, Mr. Poor!)
I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.
[snip]
I challenge anyone here to find where I lost any argument to anyone in the Newsgroups.
Who said anything about losing arguments? I've never known a crackpot to lose an argument, by their own concession.
Actually, it is easy to tell who has won an argument in the Newsgroups if one cares to find out. The main two ways are [1] if no one replies to one's final posting (re the main subject), or [2] if there are only ad hominem or "you ain't right" or "you're just a troll and a crank" kinds of replies. (I certainly would not dream of asking you to simply take my word that I had won.)
I hate to say this, but Mr. Tim Starling is either a liar or an easily-fooled person because I have never - by any stretch of anyone's imagination - except Starling's - suggested "a direct test of some aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even technically impossible."
Two very important questions:
- What would be my motivation to lie?
- Who am I being fooled by?
It would be of course the same motivation that led you to dismiss me instantly as some sort of crackpot. I wish I knew what it was!
You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2. You could also be fooled by those in the Newsgroups who have tried to label anything that they're not familiar with as "BS from a crank."
And I have never ignored "the huge body of slightly less direct tests of the same theory," and I have not then "obliquely suggested some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test." And it is complete balderdash to say of me that "Everywhere he goes, he feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are out to suppress the 'truth' he has discovered."
Mr. Starling, I demand either an apology or some proof of the above serious accusations.
I apologise. I was making generalisations. As a matter of curiosity, what is your estimate for the cost of this experiment?
Thanks, but it seemed to me to be a direct attack on my credibility, so I got pretty defensive (which I rarely do).
As for "the cost of this experiment," I am not sure to which experiment you are referring, but I assume it is a two-clock measurement of light's one-way speed. Since we are actually talking about theoretical physics (note that my main topic is SR), the cost is practically zero because it is all done on paper.
For some reason, everyone assumes that I am either presenting a theory of my own or calling for some exorbitant test of SR. Instead, I am simply trying to clarify the meaning of SR. [snip]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Roy Royce wrote:
I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales.
The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my business. My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed and respected. Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it misses the point.
You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2.
What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Remember, I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? And this question can be answered in the fashion I outlined above.
--Jimbo
Maybe we should make a section about crackpot theories on relativity. After all, there are so many of them and their existance is well-known. It wouldn't need to name specific points that they are making, only that crackpot theories exist. Possibly there could be an article on crackpot theories. We don't have to endorce them to acknowledge them. (Or do we, under NPOV?) LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Maybe we should make a section about crackpot theories on relativity. After all, there are so many of them and their existance is well-known. It wouldn't need to name specific points that they are making, only that crackpot theories exist. Possibly there could be an article on crackpot theories. We don't have to endorce them to acknowledge them. (Or do we, under NPOV?)
The term "crackpot" should really be avoided, because of the attitude that it carries. I prefer "eccentric" as more reflective of the fact that these ideas are away from the center of physical thought.
A list of these theories is certainly valuable, but there would be room there ton go into much detail. I support allowing each of them to have an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his ideas. Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint, and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought." The more outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you should say about it. Engaging in a discussion on the merits of such a theory gives it an air of credibility that it might never otherwise have had.
I also think that the criterion of requiring that something has been previously published is not entirely sound, because that opens up a big question about what it means to have been published. So when it comes to having one article of reasonable length on a subject I would give these proponents the benefit of the doubt. Beyond that I would be more cautious.
If I may make a somewhat irreverent analogy: A zoo needs to keep its wild animals in cages where they can be seen.
Some interesting ideas in the history of science and technology have been forgotten when better more efficient ideas came along, It is perfectly encyclopedic to record these despite the fact that they mostly got nowhere. We have no honest way of determining which of today's theories will bear future fruit.
As Napoleon is reported to have said when he met Robert Fulton: "What, Sir? Would you make a ship sail against the wind and currentsby lighting a bonfireunder her deck? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The term "crackpot" should really be avoided, because of the attitude that it carries.
I agree.
I support allowing each of them to have an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his ideas. Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint, and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought." The more outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you should say about it.
I thoroughly disagree, for three reasons:
* nobody should ever get virtually free reign over any Wikipedia article.
* NPOV, as well the duty to our readers, requires that people are informed *why* mainstream scientists dispute a given theory. How else would they be able to properly judge the matter?
* A theory that only exists in one head and maybe in an incomplete outline in some usenet articles and web pages is not a proper subject of encyclopedic coverage. An encyclopedia reports about those things that *have had* an impact, it does not help people along who want to *make* an impact.
Axel