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