Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for Reference

Can we have a reference for the statement that van Flandern was "Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of..."? The US Naval Observatory web site doesn't show this in their extensive historical listing of department chiefs going back to the 1800's. It's possible that "Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch" is just not a very notable position. The entire USNO web site turns up only 3 hits for van Flandern, one being an obituary for another individual, stating that the individual was led to colaborate with TvF on a search for planet X, but noting that late in his career he was very skeptical of its existence. The other two hits are just long lists of office circulars and papers published by employees, among which are some by van Flandern. Can someone find a solid source for his position as "Chief of celestial mechanics branch" and an indication of whether this is a notable position? (And if so, why it isn't noted on the organization's own web site?)63.24.104.99 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the extremely sparse USNO online records I could not find any list of branch chiefs. If an editor can provide a link to such a list I will make sure it accurately reflects Tom's time as Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch. Failing that I'm not clear what evidence user 63.24 would find acceptable. I believe I can produce a signed a copy of a government document from one of Tom's direct reports with Tom's title. Would that be acceptable?Mikevf (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Article Update

Some of the latest article update reads more like a newspaper obituary than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for personal announcements.130.76.32.16 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Details about North Atlantic Books

I have removed a sentence that appeared after a reference, because the goals of a reference are: (i) to provide a verifiable source to the reader; and (ii) to allow the reader to actually find that verifiable source of reference. Nothing more than that.

The removed sentence is: "North Atlantic Books is "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles", whose self-proclaimed mission is "to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service"."

This type of information never occurs in a reference. Now, there is the usual form of a book reference as it appears in other articles (EPleite (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)).

Someone is reverting my edition. Why? What are the arguments in favor of keeping that sentence about NA Books? (EPleite (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

See the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. If the actual topic of discussion was astronomy and physics, the book would not be admissible as a source, because the publisher (NA Books) is not a "reputable publisher of scientific works" per the criteria defined in Wikipedia policy. The book is cited here not as a source of scientific information, but only as a source of information about itself. This is permissible under Wikipedia policy (if it's notable), just as it's permissible to cite self-published works, provided the nature of the publication is identified. For example, if a book is self-published, it should be so stated. Likewise, if a book on astronomy and physics is published by "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles", whose self-proclaimed mission is "to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service", then it should be so stated. Maybe the note could be trimmed down, to just say "a publisher of alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles". This is certainly a factual statement, and relevant to the nature of the publication being cited, which (remember) is being cited here only for information about itself, not as typical reference which is cited as a source of information about the subject of the book.130.76.32.15 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, your core argument is: (i) "the book is about astronomy and physics"; and(ii) "the publisher publishs alternative health, martial arts, and spiritual titles". Therefore: this must be stated. Why? This book itself is evidently not about those subjects, no matter what is the general goal of the publisher.

Also, nothing of the like is written on my 1993 copy of this book. Instead, on the second page it is only stated that: [title of the book] is sponsored by the Society of the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a nonprofit educational corporation whose goals are to develop an educational and crosscultural perspective linking various scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to puslish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature.

Therefore, if someone buy this book he/she will not even find the information that you insist to keep as being relevant. (EPLeite 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

The material is verbatim quote from the publisher's web site, so there can be no disagreement as to whether it accurately describes the publisher. Needless to say, the relevance is that a publisher of books on martial arts is not a reputable publisher for astronomy or physics books in accord with Wikipedia policy. Therefore, the book is being cited NOT as a source of astronomy or physics information, but merely as one thing this individual is notable for (to the extent that he is notable, which is debatable in itself), and an accurate description of this "thing" needs to be provided. It is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. This is probably the most notable thing about the book. More could be said on this point, but I think it suffices to simply state the facts.130.76.32.181 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. "

Which is irrelevant, because the book is not about those subjects. The book actually discuss physics and astronomy (I am not arguing about the merits of the discussions) and it is all that matters. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts (EPLeite 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point. You say "the book is not about those subjects" (i.e., martial arts, etc), and that is precisely the point. I say again, it is a book purporting to discuss physics and astronomy, but published by a publisher of martial arts, etc. This is a crucial clarification, because it sets this book apart from the ordinary book on physics and astronomy, which is published by a publisher who publishes books on physics and astronomy, and has a good reputation for doing so, with fact checking, peer review, and so on, all of which are explicitly REQUIRED by Wikipedia policy for citing science books. It would be deceptive and misleading to omit the fact that the cited book is not such a book. This is not just some random fact of no relevance (as you suggest), it is a very relevant and significant fact, revealing the nature of the cited work. This fact should not be suppressed.63.24.105.103 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking? Many of the issues in peer-reviewed articles about cosmology and, for example, theoretical physics, can not have fact checking for several reasons, let alone in books for the layman person. The book "The Universe in a Nutshell" is such an example of highly especulative book on theoretical physics. However, I am not aware about the procedure of peer-reviewing (IF there is any) in those kinds of books. Do you? Do you actually know if TVF's book has got any peer-review? It may had. Meanwhile I will hold that it is irrelevant to state what the general goal of the publisher is (EPleite (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite).

I think we can agree that North Atlantic Books publishes material outside the mainstream of science and that it's unlikely a traditional science publisher would have published Tom's book. We just disagree about why a traditional publisher would be unlikely to publish a controversial science book. There seems to be an attempt to discredit Tom's book by selectively associating it with the other titles NA publishes. That is inappropriate, as Tom's book has very little in common with other titles published by NA. The book should be judged on its own merits. Making a disclaimer is fair, but making implications through association is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference seems to simply be providing further information on one of Van Flandern's books. This information should possibly be split into an article focusing on the book, as the purpose of citing sources is to provide reliable sources, rather than to cite an author's book as a reliable source stating that the book exists. I suggest the book should be mentioned, linked to an article devoted to the book. That would resolve this dispute. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This article is about someone who is only marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and even this has been challenged). The notability is due to the person's unorthodox views. As such, this article is subject to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of individuals who are just barely notable, but not public figures. The policy is:

"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

In accord with this policy, I think a lot of the personal information recently added to the article is not really appropriate. Unless someone can cite a good reason for keeping the personal biographical info, I propose to remove it. Wikipedia isn't Facebook.63.24.32.10 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is a travesty. Tom was a well credential professional who proposed several controversial theories late in his career. The work with the most significant implications is the 2 peer reviewed papers on the speed of gravity published in separate professional journals. The article on this site clearly attempts paint Tom as a crank by consistently minimizing or removing Tom's valid scientific credentials and accomplishments (participation in Moon watch, position as Chief Celestial Mechanics Branch of USNO, references to peer reviewed papers, etc) while leaving in place critical material that's clearly not biographical (salon article, mission statement from North Atlantic Books and inflammatory opinions). Tom certainly did make arguments that there may be artificial structures on Mars and it's fair to point that out. However, stating Tom was best known for claims of artificiality on Mars is a statement of opinion at best. It's clear why his critics wish it to be true... it makes dismissing Dr. Van Flandern out of hand easier, and ironically the revisionists will use sites like wikipedia to even make it true. This article is a good example of what's wrong wikipedia. Science is supposed to be about making falsifiable predictions, performing the tests and publishing the peer reviewed results. This page is about character assassination and a popularity contest. It’s disgusting. If someone with some authority at wikipedia is interested in brokering a fair biography I'd be happy to participate in a discussion about what the scope ought to be, and how to do the fact checking. As is this is a sham. Tom's opinions were outside the main stream so of course his critics out number his supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems fairly well balanced, and conforms to Wikipedia policy. This article has been considered for deletion in the past, on the grounds of not meeting the Wikipedia criteria for notability. The outcome of the deletion discussion was a marginal "keep", but only because of the subject's notability arising from his advocacy of certain fringe ideas, most notably the belief that the "faces on Mars" were build by extra-terrestial beings. A quick google search suffices to confirm that this is, indeed, what the most notable of the unorthodox ideas. Second would the contentions involving faster than light phenomena, infinite free energy, and in general the whole "deep reality physics". Third would be the advocacy of Olbers' 1802 expoded planet hypothesis. This is the order in which these topics are listed in the present article.

Please note that publishing a paper, or even a book, does not qualify as "notable" in Wikipedia policy. Thousands of accomplished scientists and professors with many important and frequently cited papers to their credit are not the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Per the previous discussions among a large number of editors here, the consensus is that this article is marginally "keep" primarily as a prominent advocate for the "face on mars" belief. But it was very marginal, and I think if family members would prefer not to have a Wikipedia article describing this notability, probably no one would object to simply removing the article.63.24.33.127 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There has indeed been a discussion about removing Tom from Wikipedia, the text of which is still available in a link at the top of this page. I suggest rereading it. The consensus is 'keep' based on notability for several topics, including his 'speed of gravity' work as well as his 'Face on Mars' assertions. The "face on Mars" is not given any special prominence in the discussion. I understand detractors want to focus on Tom's assertions about artificiality on Mars, it makes dismissing Van Flandern as a crank easier. This is clearly evidenced in the aforementioned discussion where an anonymous user posts "I just found this article after finding his (Van Flandern’s) theory on the instantaneous propogation of gravity on the Internet. It adds information by giving me more information on the credibility of his article (which is not great)." Clearly the goal here is to persuade readers that Tom's work does not have any merit, without actually addressing the merits. This does not seem like a legitimate objective for a biography on Wikipedia. Offering Tom's family the choice of accepting a distorted biography or having Tom's biography erased from Wikipedia is absurd. Fortunately there are other options. The best would be to segment the biography into two sections, pro and con. Folks in the con section can make claims about Tom's work on 'unlimited free energy' (he never did any) while those in the pro section can cite Tom's peer reviewed papers. Despite the fact that this is common practice on several other controversial wikipedia pages (and even Encyclopedic articles about Tom), I suspect from the prior discussion on this article that there's no appetite for a full discussion based on merit. In which case, I suggest simply eliminating the double standard. References to peer reviewed articles should not be deleted in preference to opinion pieces from Salon. Legitimate career accomplishments (record sets while participating in Project Moon watch, work at JPL and on GPS, Chief of Celestial Mechanics branch at USNO) should not be removed in favor of the self reinforcing opinion that Tom's most noted for his assertions regarding artificiality on Mars. You can't include the negative stuff claiming it speaks to the merits of Tom's work and then delete his hard science achievements. It's exactly these accomplishments that make Tom notable... he's not easily pigeon holed as a run of the mill crank.

Another comment on some recent edits: Some have suggested focusing this article more on the "speed of gravity" issue, but this has been discussed here previously, and the conclusion was two-fold: First, the notability is secondary to the faces on Mars advocacy, and second, the focus on gravity is misleading, because the actual belief espoused was that the electric and magnetic forces are also propagated superluminally, and even pressure forces in the air. This was part of a very broad "deep reality physics" that entailed the rejection of essentially all of science. But this article isn't the place to discuss this. It seems that the best course is to just accurately state report the advocacy of what was called "deep reality physics" which was primarily associated with the belief in faster than light propagation and also infinite free energy. These are the notable ideas that need to be mentioned.63.24.112.242 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed work should be more, not less meritorious on inclusion. Tom's two cited papers were specifically on the ‘speed of gravity’. Tom did separately outline a working model for how superluminal propagation might be possible in his book, but he called the model the 'Meta Model', not ‘deep reality physics’. He fully believed the Meta Model was in full accord with most of conventional physics. However, he certainly did take exception with portions of the mainstream model and in particular to the conclusion of quantum mechanics that there is 'no deep reality'. Claiming that Tom essentially rejected all science because of his tongue in cheek jab at the absurdity of portions of the existing model is not a fact, it's an opinion and in my view a gross distortion. And where exactly did he claim to have solution for infinite free energy? Finally, a Google search on "Van Flandern gravity” produces 3x the results as 'Van Flandern mars”. I'm sure you can find a query that supports your opinion, but it's still an opinion that has no place in his biography.

Van Flandern seems sufficiently notable to warrant an article focusing on his notable achievements, rather than his personal life (as per the policy). Information concerning his personal history would be better placed at a personal website, or at a wiki which advocates adding this type of content (which is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Free Energy

It's been suggested that Van Flandern never espoused infinite free energy, so the comment should be removed from the article. However, just a 10-second search on google turns up the magazine "Infinite Energy" reporting on "The First International Conference on Future Energy (COFE) was held over three days, April 29-May 1, 1999...". After explaining that the conference got kicked out of multiple official venues, the article goes on to say

"The concluding speaker of the day was astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern of the Meta Research

Institute, who spoke on "A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy." Van Flandern's background is in astrodynamics and celestial mechanics... For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth."

So, it seems fair to include this as one of the ideas for which he was notable.

Another comment has been that Van Flandern did not espouse "deep reality physics", but this is simply not true, as it was the phrase that he himself used to characterize his ideas. We also need to guard against the mistake (mentioned above) of thinking that his idea about faster than light propagation was limited only to gravity. He explicitly acknowledged that it must also apply to electricity, magnetism, and even to ordinary pressure in the air. And this led to the complete rejection of all of modern physics, with modern being defined as everything since Newton. I agree with the comment that this isn't the place to debate the merits of these ideas, but neither is this the place to mis-represent them.63.24.123.192 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The contributor is confusing the 'Meta Model' with the term 'deep reality physics'. The meta model is Tom's attempt to offer an working model that is in accord with the observational evidence and doesn't violate basic principles of physics. Tom referred to "Deep Reality Physics" as any theory that didn't violate the principles of physics" (as defined in his paper "Physics has its Principles" on the Meta Research web site). The principles are his proposed list of constraints for all models and includes things like "something cannot come into existence out of nothing" and "No Time Reversal". I'd call it a list of common sense rules for developing theories, but given many main stream models violate these principles (ex: Big Bang). It's fair to say that "Deep Reality Physics" is at odds with much (but not most) of what is currently widely accepted in Physics today. What it's not fair to say is "he advocated the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "deep reality physics," the main feature of which was his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy". That's simply inaccurate. Furthermore contrary to the commenter’s claim, Tom did not reject all modern physics; he preferred the Lorentzian model for relativity to the Einsteinian model, because it was in accord with Deep Reality Physics (and also did not limit gravity to the speed of light).

Can the contributor provide context regarding the claim that Tom asserted FTL applied to forces in ordinary air pressure? The Meta Model does argue that particles propagating at scales below the light carrying medium were not bound by C, and it also postulated that all motion at any scale is precipitated from motion of particles at much smaller scales. But to my knowledge Tom did not believe or claim that ordinary air pressure propagated FTL. The peer reviewed papers Tom published on the topic were very specific to gravity and focused on the observational evidence rather than the theoretical speculation indulged in Tom's book.

The same 10 second google search produces the following abstract from Tom's paper: Propagation of gravity has been experimentally shown to exceed the speed of light (Phys. Lett A 250, #1-3, 1-11, 1999). This indicates that a flat-spacetime particle gravity interpretation (originally attributed to LeSage) may be the preferred model. The LeSage perspective also provides the best information for free energy sources since the sea of classical gravitons can in principle be used for propulsion as easily as a windmill. The man speculated about the possibility of using gravity as an energy source at a conference for free energy. That's a far cry from claiming "he advocated the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "deep reality physics," the main feature of which was his belief in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy".

Glad there's agreement that this isn't the place for misrepresentation. Just need to get to consensus on what that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments seem a bit self-contradictory. You dispute the accuracy of describing Van Flandern's beliefs as "deep reality physics", and then you proceed to elaborate on his espousal of "Deep Reality Physics". If the distinction you are making is that the words should be capitalized, I think we could probably all agree to capitalize them. But if your point is anything else, your comments seem to contradict your own position. By the same token, you dispute that Van Flandern was notable as a proponent of infinite free energy, but then you proceed to describe how he was a speaker at a conference on infinite free energy. Again, the facts (that you yourself acknowledge) directly contradict your claims.

On the subject of the "two peer reviewed papers", the Foundations one is such a low quality journal that it doesn't really qualify as an academic peer reviewed journal, and the Phys Lett A paper is a notorious example of how a sufficiently persistent individual can harass a beleagured editor long enough that he will finally agree to let some nonsense be printed, to his subsequent everlasting regret and embarrassment. The claims made in that silly paper were thoroughly refuted (as if that was necessary) by, among others, the little recreational paper by Carlip. Getting a paper published in a journal is not sufficient to qualify someone for a Wikipedia article. This is not why the article on Van Flandern exists. His notability was not as a scientist, but as a proponent of un-scientific ideas, as exemplified in his talks, video tapes, newsletter, web site, book, and various other self-promotional devices.

User 63.23 is expressing the peer reviewed scientific papers in two separate journals are without merit. Discussion on the 'speed of gravity' article concluded they merited a reference.

I don't see any reference to TVF on the speed of gravity page. Checking the history, I see you added a reference awhile back, but it seems to have been removed (not by me, by the way).6324xxxx (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite that user 63.24 has deleted references to these papers from that article as well. User 63.24 is asserting his own judgement of scientific papers in place of peer reviewed sources published by a 3rd party, contrary to wiki policy. Further user 63.24 asserts Tom's notability is for self published work, but the assertion is suspect given user 63.24's experience with van flandern is from usenet discussions about the 'speed of gravity'.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is inherently problematic for Wikipedia. Bear in mind that we all have lost loved ones, people who did wonderful things in their lives, and we are proud of them, and grateful to have known them, and will continue to carry them in our hearts. But this doesn't mean that we will extoll their virtues in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a place for obituaries, or for documenting the meritorious deeds of our loved ones. This article was created only for a specific notable aspect of this individual, and that notability has connotations that may not be pleasing to his loved ones. So what is to be done? We can't let each person turn Wikipedia into a shrine for their departed relatives. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It may be that, in the spirit of kindness and generosity, an article like this one, describing the highly unorthodox beliefs of someone, is in bad taste, and should simply be removed. It's hard to say. 130.76.32.19 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you would like to see Tom's biography removed from Wikipedia. You've made that argument repeatedly now, but that issue has been decided against you (again see link to attached debate at the top of the page). Please, let's move on and focus on what a biography should contain. Tom is notable for being a main stream professional with impeccable credentials who ultimately challenged his own field in several areas. That's why people come to this page. Why not list the areas of dispute and link to articles pro and con? Readers can form judgments for themselves. The objections to your repeatedly inserting the same edits are 1) they're misleading and factually inaccurate, 2) they contain implicit judgments and are clearly intended to disabuse the reader of the notion that Tom's ideas merit further investigation, 3) you consistently delete references to relevant peer reviewed articles while inserting links to pejorative opinion pieces, and 4) your edits show absolutely no response to feedback posted here. I get that you think Tom's work is without merit and that he's a flake. You couldn't be clearer. Start a blog, and tell the world. But wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for your opinions/judgements about other people or their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection to deleting this article. I believe Van Flandern is noteworthy based on his science but user 63.24 is intent on supressing Tom's science and believe's instead Tom is noteworthy for kooky views. Given the sheer persistence of 63.23 (he dominates the contributions to this article with over 50 posts as of 3/14/09), I favor deletion. If Tom was correct in more of his scientific work then time will tell. If note, he's not noteworthy and will be forgotten. A wiki article that primarily reflects 63.24's perspective on Tom does not service wikipedia or it's audience.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The differences between the two versions are not very extensive. The only substantive difference is that the NPOV consensus version mentions Van Flandern's advocacy of infinite free energy, whereas the other version does not. Editors were challenged to find evidence of this free energy association, and the evidence was produced immediately, so the one thing we've established with certainty is that this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable fact that must be included in the article. We also know that one editor here is intent on suppressing this fact, along with relevant and notable facts about the publisher of the referenced book. It's understandable that some individuals, especially close family relatives of the subject, might prefer to suppress such facts, and it's difficult in the circumstances to argue with family members, which is why I've suggested that perhaps the best course of action at this point is to remove the article. Clearly a man's son cannot be expected to present an objective assessment. The best option would be to keep the NPOV version, that has existed here in its present form (except for the recent news) for years. But if the only two choices are a blatently POV re-write by a family member or no article at all, I'd have to vote for the latter, especially since this article was just a marginal "keep" to begin with.63.24.38.95 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You conveniently leave out the other major difference which is references to peered reviewed articles on gravity. Why are you intent on suppressing that fact, it seems very relevant to his notability? In fact you seem intent on suppressing any mention of the man be repeatedly recommending deletion of the article despite a hearing and resolution on the matter. I'm open to a neutral article and think the several compromises I've drafted represent a willingness on my part to be more than fair. However, you are completely inflexible and your posts don't offer any sign you're willing to accept anything but your very slanted perspective on the man. Happy to discuss with you in person, if you are genuinely interested in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.85.221 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the articles regarding the "gravity" issue is really just one of scope and accuracy. Tom admitted that his rationale for why gravity "must" propagate faster than light also applies to the electric force, which has no aberration for uniformly moving bodies. He could never grasp what Poincare and Lorentz explained over a century ago, namely, why relativistic forces do not exhibit Laplacian aberration. Then he had to admit that by his same reasoning static pressure forces in the air and water must also propagate superluminally, and so on. Little by little, anyone conversing with him discovered that his issue was not with gravity, per se, nor even with relativistic field theories in general. His issue was with the very foundations of classical physics. When pressed, he even denied the conservation of energy.

Citation please. User 63.24 has provided prior interpretations of Tom's work that I've found to be incorrect. To persuade others of his view that Tom was a crank user 63.24 needs to provide quotes AND provide a citation (so the context can be verified). Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then he would claim that particles can't be accelerated to superluminal speeds in particle accelerators merely "because the electric force only propagates at the speed of light, so it can't push things any faster". When it was pointed out that this directly contradicts his claim that the electrostatic force must be nearly instantaneous to account for the lack of aberration, and he would say "You need to learn Deep Reality Physics, but unfortunately I'm too busy right now to explain any further." And this same conversation was carried on in many venues, with many different people, over many years. Over and over, like clockwork.

Citation please. My father was exceeding generous with his time and willing to talk with anyone of any education level about science so this seems extremely out of character. However, I will investigate user 63.24's assetion if there's a quote with a citation (for context). Failing that this assertion is suspect at best.Mikevf (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it is very misleading to just say "he believed gravity is superluminal", because this implies by omission that he did not believe every other force was superluminal, whereas in fact he did. The only accurate way to summarize his views is as in the consensus article, i.e., he advocated the rejection of modern science in favor of what he called Deep Reality Physics. There is no other accurate way to put it. And no more detailed explanation is appropriate for Wikipedia.63.24.40.52 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinions, but not relevant. I don't agree with your opinions but that's not relevant either. Opinions are not permissible material for Wikipedia articles. The article should stick to facts. Show me a citation where Tom said he advocated the rejection of modern science. Quote Tom instead offering your paraphrased interpretations, and list the citation. Failing that, stop saying it. You could say instead that Tom advocated "Deep Reality Physics". Rather than calling it a replacement model (it isn’t) it seems appropriate to either include Tom’s definition of the term (not yours) which can be found in the "Physics has its Principles" article on the Meta Research web site. If you don't want to include what he actually said you could just provide a citation with a link to the article. The two articles he published were about the speed of gravity... another fact. They're relevant to the article and should be cited with links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.85.221 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really wish to have a fully documented presentation, with verbatim quotes proving each of Tom's bizarre beliefs, I honestly believe you will not be pleased with the resulting article. These are just "my irrelevant opinions" in exactly the same sense that the claim that Tom espoused infinite free energy was just my irrelevant opinion... which is to say, they are highly relevant facts that can be fully documented very easily. And it gets worse... we can document that Tom disagreed not just with basic Newtonian physics, but even with elementary mathematics. For example, he insisted that the gradient of a potential field is not computed according to the simple formula for the gradient of a potential field. He maintained that the gradient is a non-local operation (!), although when pressed to actually compute a gradient he could never do it. So the article can also document the fact that he advocated the replacement of simple mathematical operations with some vague and undefinable alternatives, and so on. Again, if you really want to present a detailed examination of Deep Reality Physics and everything it entailed, based on verbatim quotes, I'm very confident that the resulting article will not please you. But this has all been hashed out before. The conclusion was that a Wikipedia article is not really the place for this, because by it's very nature, a discussion of the baseless beliefs of an unorthodox thinker (so to speak) involves the use of many sources that are not of high quality, per Wikipedia guidelines. The subject himself was not a reputable source for scientific information, per Wikipedia guidelines, and any discussion of his unreputableness is necessarily of marginal quality at best for Wikipedia.

Honestly, the only real difference remaining between the articles is whether to list Mars or superluminal propagation first or second, and I really think a quick google search confirms that Mars faces was his most notable belief, in terms of press conferences, presentations, videos, etc.63.24.99.174 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making this harder than necessary. You wrote:

"Van Flandern was best known for his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings" That's a subjective claim for which I've already offered contrary evidence. Furthermore, many of the Google search results for "Van Flandern face on Mars" are reprints of your wikipedia text, making your argument a circular one. I proposed listing both his work on the speed of gravity and his claim about artificiality without a subjective qualifier. We can even put the "face on Mars" first since I know that's what you want to emphasize. How about something like this: "Van Flandern was known for several unorthodox theories including his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings and that gravity propagated faster than the speed of light.

I suggest citations for both claims with links to the appropriate papers as well as a link to Carlip’s refutation. I know you want to point out that Tom's claims of FTL forces went beyond gravity, and while that work is both less known and not peer reviewed it merits inclusion so I've added it further down.

Next you wrote: "and for advocating the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "Deep Reality Physics," but that can't remain because it is a factually inaccurate and an opinion. I suggest this instead: "He rejected moderns theories that violated a set of principles he defined (arguing violation of any of the principles necessitated a miracle). He advocated replacing “problematic” theories with "Deep Reality Physics", his term for any theories/models in compliance with his proposed set of principles." I know it does not pack quite the same punch, but it has the virtue of being accurate and with a readily available citation to support it (see "Physics has its Principles"). That is what NPOV is striving for, right?

You wrote: "the main features of which were his beliefs in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy." Again I propose edits that make the claim less subjective and more accurate: "Van Flandern offered the Meta Model as a possible explanation for how faster than light propagation may be possible. In this model he claimed many forces propagating beneath a light carrying medium exhibited superluminal propagation (ex: the force of a charged particle). He also asserted that gravitational shielding may offer the best hope for free energy research.

Next you wrote: "These ideas have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. He authored a book[3] in which he also challenged prevailing notions regarding dark matter and solar system formation, " No problems here. This looks accurate.

And finally you wrote: "and advocated the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet. He maintained a website devoted to his ideas." This implies Tom was either unfamiliar with or did not address criticisms of Olbers theory, but neither is true. Also the Meta Research site was and is maintained with the help of several people. I propose the following more accurate revision: "and advocated reviving (with significant revisions), the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet. He founded Meta Research which maintains a website devoted to his ideas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of peer reviewed science and preferential treatment of self published material

Editors are consistently removing peer reviewed science and references and replacing with paraphrased references to self published material. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to cast Dr. Van Flandern in the most unflattering light possible, in violation of NPOV policy. Dr. Van Flandern is best known for two things 1) his assertion that the propagation ‘speed of gravity’ has been demonstrated in 6 separate experiments to be >> the speed of light and 2) that the structure at the Cydonia site on Mars resembling a face must be artificial. The gravity assertion is supported by 2 peer reviewed papers published in ‘Physics Letters A’ and ‘Foundations of Physics’, the later paper was co-published with Dr. Vigier. The artificiality claim is only supported with papers published by Meta Research, an organization founded by Dr. Van Flandern. Editors removing gravity claims and references while highlighting artificiality assertions cite the Wikipedia policy against promoting self published papers. However, it is exactly the opposite edits that must be made to abide by this policy. Tom's assertions about gravity are not self published and have been deemed worthy of mentioning in other articles on wikipedia. The artificiality claims comes from a self published paper. Given this is a biography, claims about what Van Flandern said should not be made without supporting references. Deleting references to Tom’s papers on the ‘principles of physics’ and then paraphrasing the contents of that paper (with a slanted interpretation) also seems a violation of NPOV. Finally editors are again asked to use the talk page when making edits.Mikevf (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed the previous discussion where your issues were already addressed. See the discussion on Notability. In summary, Van Flandern's notability for a Wikipedia article is not as a scientist, in which capacity he had a very undistinguished career (to put it mildly). Thousands of scientists with vastly more impressive lists of published papers, with with far more importance to their respective fields, do not have Wikipedia articles devoted to them, because simply being a scientist and having published papers does not qualify someone as sufficiently "notable" for a Wikipedia article. Van Flandern appears in a Wikipedia article for one reason, and one reason only, namely, his prominent advocacy of what are widely regarded as kooky ideas. Please understand that no one is saying these kooky ideas represent his life, or that he didn't do meritorious things unrelated to these kooky ideas, or that he wasn't a splendid person, beloved and admired by family and friends. But lots of splendid people, beloved by family and friends, who have done plenty of meritorious things, do not have Wikipedia articles about them. So this is a delicate situation, as you can see from past archived discussions. Is it proper for Wikipedia to have articles on people who are notable for their kooky ideas? Are such things even verifiable? If someone holds press conferences about the faces on Mars, this makes them notable, so they may get a Wikipedia article, but their family and friends may not enjoy the notoriety. It's a matter of balencing kindness with accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia rules. There's no ideal answer, but I think the consensus article is the best compromise of all the considerations.63.24.37.175 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the essence of our disagreement. Asserting that Tom is notable for being kooky leads to an article about how kooky he is. Tom is notable for being a well credentialed atronomer who was in the mainstream and then departed the mainstream by advocating ideas that challenged more than a few sacred cows. An NPOV article lists his credentials, the ideas he challenges and notes he did not achieve majority acceptance in the scientific community. It does not labor to make his ideas seem kooky.Mikevf (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure on the "Peer Reviewed Science"

Some editors here have advocated including reference to "peer reviewed papers" of Van Flandern, but this is an issue that has been discussed here previously, and the difficulty is due to the fact that the papers in question were distinctly atypical of scientific peer reviewed papers, and this is well documented. If those papers were going to be discussed fully and honestly in the article, it would have to say something like the following:

In a 1998 paper published in Physics Letters A (communicated by J. P. Vigier, Van Flandern's 78-year old sponsor and cold fusion enthusiast), Van Flandern lent an air of respectability to his comments by claiming that Arthur Eddington had explained the implications of the lack of aberration of gravitation, giving an extended quote from Eddington's book, ending with the words:

"This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.”

However, in a follow-up paper published in the same journal (Physics Letters A), March and Nissim-Sabat noted something that apparently the editors and referees of Van Flandern's paper had not, namely,

"In Eddington’s book, the very next sentence after Van Flandern’s quote states that "The argument is fallacious, because ... "

In other words, Eddington's point was exactly the opposite of what Van Flandern implied, and it is not plausible that Van Flandern simply failed to realize this. The whole point of Eddington's discussion was to say that the view espoused by Van Flandern is fallacious. March and Nissim-Sabat then go on to elaborate on Eddington's explanation of why Van Flandern's view is fallacious, pointing out that (for example) it is falsified by the Trouton-Noble experiment, and that this was all fully explained by Poincare and Lorentz around 1904.

[interjected] Tom's quote prior to citing Eddington was "anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequenses of computed orbits introducing a delay into gravitational interactions". In other words he cited Eddington not to claim he supported FTL but rather to show that adding a delay doesn't work. Tom full well understood that GR works around this by supposing field momentum and he addressed this later in the article. So you've now engaged in an extreme ad hominem attack that is not supported by the facts. This is why this paper, the rebutals and follow up should be referenced. Why should this biography be limited to your very biased interpretation when the peer reviewed articles are available for wikipedia's audience to judge for themselves?Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The same journal (Physics Letters A) soon thereafter published still another refutation of Van Flandern's fallacious claims, by S. Carlip in the March 2000 issue, focusing specifically on the aspects of aberration related to general relativity, whereas the paper of March had addressed the more generic fallacy of applying Laplacian aberration arguments to any relativistic field, including electromagnetism.

The digrace and embarrassment of having been duped into publishing Van Flandern's dishonest and fallacious paper caused the editorial board of "Physics Letters A" to over-rule Vigier and decline to publish any further comment from Van Flandern. This led Van Flandern and the (then) 80-year old Vigier to submit their patently fallacious rejoinder to another journal known for its loose standards of acceptance, Foundations of Physics. This follow up paper contained nothing new, and simply demonstrated again Van Flandern's complete lack of comprehension of the subject. Thereafter, no journal published any further communications from Van Flandern.

[interjected] There is absolutely no evidence offered to support this scenario. Vigier was an editor for Physics Letters A and it's seems improbable he would join Tom in coauthoring a paper after a scandel of they type suggested above, though I have no doubt that this topic got political. Further, Tom continued to publish in peer reviewed journals well after both the aforementioned papers were published. See scholar.google.com and search Van Flandern.Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The clear consensus of the scientific community is that the view espoused by Van Flandern was known to be fallacious for over a century, and has no scientific merit, and moreover that Van Flandern had exhibited outright dishonesty as well as incompetence, by blatently misrepresenting the views of Eddington.

[interjected] If you make charges like this you have to back them up, especially since you've misrepresented Tom's statements. I think a careful reading of Tom's paper makes is clear that he did not represent that Eddingtons views. I will agree he could have and probably should have explicity stated the Eddington did not believe the arguement applied in the case of relativity, if for no other reason that to prevent deliberate misinterpretations of Tom's paper like we're seeing here. Tom did make it clear he was citing the argument to show that adding delay makes orbits unstable, and he later in the article made it clear how relativty tries to work around this. Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the above is a fair and accurate summary of the peer-reviewed science relevant to the present discussion, and yet I don't actually favor including this in the Wikipedia article, because I think it's somewhat unkind and serves no useful purpose. This is basically why the consensus article that has been here for the past few years avoided getting into the whole question, and instead chose to just give a succinct statement of Van Flandern's notable views, and then state that his views have not found acceptance within the scientific community. This strikes me as eminently fair and reasonable (if there's going to be an article about Van Flandern at all). Wikipedia is not the place for discussions of the validity of fringe or pseudo-scientific ideas. 63.24.119.203 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. We have a statement of Tom's views and the disclaimer. Per wikipedia policy let's add the citations for both sides and close on this issueMikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the exploding planet hypothesis, as peer reviewed science, the following incident, which was typical of the reception of Van Flandern's ideas, ought to be represented in the article, to show the extent to which his ideas deserve the status of "peer reviewed science":

"What happens if a scientist has enough influence to get to speak in front of a large body of his peers about an extraordinary idea? This happened to me at an International Astronomical Union Colloquium in Lyon, France, in 1976, where I first spoke to my peers about the exploding planet hypothesis. I had widely circulated lengthy preprints for comment prior to that talk. Unbeknownst to me, a number of colleagues arranged with the meeting chairperson for three specialists to be called on in the discussion period after my talk to give prepared rebuttal remarks2. Afterwards, the chairperson tried to cut off further discussion, although dozens of additional attendees still wished to ask questions or make comments. So one prominent specialist stood up and declared, “Based on what we have just heard, this paper is surely without merit and can be dismissed!” The response was emotional applause and cheers (without precedent for that scientific body) and the immediate adjournment of the session, postponing the remaining scheduled presentations. So much for the pretense of objectivity!"

Tom gave a presentation where he was led to believe the process was he'd present and then there would be a Q&A period. Instead preprints of his paper were distributed to individuals invited to rebut Tom's presentation, Tom was given no information about the content of their rebuttal presentations or that there even would be rebuttals, and upon conclusion of the rebuttals the session was promptly closed without the usual Q&A period or any opportunity for Tom to respond or even the presentation of other scheduled papers. And you think that's an indictment of Tom? It speaks to the politicization of science.Mikevf (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I personally don't favor including this in the article, for the reasons mentioned above, but without this kind of context, it is grossly misleading to blandly cite "peer reviewed science". So the only sensible approach seems to be the one taken in the consensus article as it has existed here for the past few years, i.e., just present a succinct summary and leave it at that. Any attempt to present Van Flandern's views as "peer reviewed science" must inevitably lead to the full presentation, so as not to mislead the readers.63.24.37.175 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so I understand then... initially you claimed Physics Letters A was not peer reviewed.

No, I never claimed that.

Since that was easily disproven you now claim they were 'duped' into publishing the paper?

I never made the claim that you say has been disproven. Yes, I do claim that they were duped into publishing it. Well, Vigier wasn't duped, he participated in it, because he was always eager to promote any claim that superluminal propagation was possible, because of his fringe "stochastic quantum mechanics" beliefs. But certainly the rest of the editorial board would not have knowingly permited such a deliberate misrepresentation of Eddington's views (for example).

And the reason 'Physics Letters A' did not publish Tom's follow up paper is because they were incensed at being duped...

Yes, and because they could see that his claims were fallacious, as explained in the two follow-up papers.

not because Vigier joined Tom as a co-author creating a clear conflict on interest?

If Vigier's co-authorship was the only obstacle to letting Van Flandern publish a rebuttal in Phys Lett A, Van Flandern could obviously have authored a rebuttal himself, so your argument doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the conflict of interest already existed in the first paper, which Vigier had encourage Van Flandern to prepare for publication (as it says in the paper itself).

One other comment on this, Vigier DID publish in Phys Lett A (see his paper in 2003, for example), with approval of another board member, so this was obviously not an obstacle - if they had been able to get approval of another board member.63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that 'Foundations of Physics' published the article after allowing one of the referees the unusually latitude to go multiple rounds before concluding all raised objections had been answered is because they are a disreputable journal?

I don't claim to know the details of the refereeing process for the Found of Phys paper, but I do know that their charter was to be quite liberal in their acceptance policies. It would be interesting to know why they agreed to publish such patent nonsense, but I don't know how to find out.

If I go to the effort to investigate these claims and can show they are flase will you allow citation of the papers as peered reviewed or will you introduce new objections?

The relevant claims are these: (1) Phy Lett A published two refutations of Van Flandern's paper shortly after its appearance, (2) in the first of these published refutations, a clear and deliberate misrepresentation was exposed (along with the fallaciousness of the idea), and (3) after publishing these two refutations, Phy Lett A did not publish any rebuttal from Van Flandern. (Normally a journal offers to publish an author's response to published comments on his paper.) I believe all of these claims are accurate, and taken together they constitute a clear repudiation of the paper by Phy Lett A.

In view of this, I think it would be misleading to cite this paper as an example of "peer reviewed science". If the paper is going to be mentioned, the subsequent revelations and repudiations must also be presented. It has been my feeling that such an elaborate discussion would be disproportionate for this article, and that the net effect would be simply to further discredit the ideas presented in that paper.

As to the Found of Phys paper, I wouldn't mind knowing more about the circumstances of its refereeing and publication. I do know that Found of Phys has a reputation for liberal acceptance criteria, i.e., they go out of their way to say that the appearance of a paper in this journal does not imply that the editors or referees agree with its content. Also, coming so soon after the appearance of essentially the same content in Phy Lett A, followed by two clear refutations of that content, it seems like a very unusual editorial decision, even for Found of Phys, not at all representative of ordinary "peer reviewed science". I really think it's fair to say that the ideas described in those papers are not "peer reviewed science" in any ordinary sense of that phrase, and that there is essentially universal agreement among reputable scientists that those ideas have been known to be fallacious for over a century. (See Lorentz and Poincare circa 1900 on why forces do not exhibit Laplacian aberration.)

Here's the actual statement of policy of Foundations of Physics -

"There are controversies, differences of opinion, and sometimes even religious feelings which come into play. These should be discussed openly... Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything, but rather that the issues put forward by the author were considered to be of sufficient interest to our readership, and the exposition was clear enough that our readers, whom we assume to be competent enough, can judge for themselves."

So, they are saying that acceptance does not in any way imply endorsement of the correctness of a paper, but simply that the exposition is clear enough for readers to judge for themselves. Of course, this is the statement of current policy, which may not be identical to the policy in force when the Van Flandern / Vigier paper appeared. But I imagine it was comparable. So, again, to call this ordinary "peer reviewed science" is a bit of a stretch, especially in view of the repudiation the same material received at Phys Lett A.63.24.108.96 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick online search shows that contrary to your assertion, Physics Letters A did publish a rebuttal from Tom. After I dig up a copy and read his response I'll let you know what it said. But I'd say the "clear repudiation" is looking a little less clear. How is it that you knew about the two critical papers but not Tom's response? Reply to comment on: “The speed of gravity” Physics Letters A, Volume 262, Issues 2-3, 1 November 1999, Pages 261-263 Tom Van Flandern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to learn what that says. It is odd, because in all of Tom's subsequent rather lively discussions with Carlip et al, on newsgroups, he consistently said Carlip's objections had been answered in the Foundations of Physics paper, and never (to my knowledge) mentioned having addressed the issues in Phys Lett A. If he actually did present his reply there, then it's odd that he repeated it in the Foundations paper, and equally odd that he never mentioned it in later conversations. Perhaps the pro-forma rebuttal in Phys Lett A just said something like "Please see our forthcoming paper in Foundations of Physics"? 63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait... the rebuttal you are referring to appeared in the Nov 1999 issue, on the pages immediately following the refutation by March et al, but Carlip's refutation didn't appear until March 2000, so obviously it couldn't have been addressed in Tom's 1999 rebuttal, and no rebuttal to Carlip appeared in Phys Lett A. So the clear repudiation stands. Also, if Tom's rebuttal of March et al is the same as he repeated in the Foundations paper, it's totally vacuous. The only thing of interest it might contain is his explanation of the mis-representation of Eddington that March exposed. It will be entertaining to see what artful words were devised to explain that away.63.24.45.223 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read Tom's paper and the rebuttal and I must say March and Nissim-Sabat are not at all ad hominem, unlike your charge that Tom's "dishonest and incompetent". Further, Tom's quote prior to citing Eddington was "anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequenses of computed orbits introducing a delay into gravitational interactions". In other words he cited Eddington not to claim he supported FTL but rather to show that adding a delay doesn't work. Tom full well understood that GR works around this by supposing field momentum and he addressed this later in the article. So you've now engaged in an extreme ad hominem attack that is not supported by the facts. This is why this paper, the rebutals and follow up should be referenced. Why should this biography be limited to your very biased interpretation when the peer reviewed articles are available for wikipedia's audience to judge for themselves?Mikevf (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles vs Personal Opinion

There was an editor who pointed out that articles written by family members and those who seek to discredit an individual are patently biased. However, from reading the entire string, I have to give credit to the son of Dr. Van Flandern for answering the accusations and arguments about his father by the editors who favor the removal of this biography page. Moreover, it is difficult to give the same credit to those editors that favor removal. Of special note these editors fail to provide cited examples when asked to, continue to use inflamatory language in their articles, and avoid comming to a consensus with Dr. Van Flandern's son by instead opening new arguments (that again go un-cited and inflamatory). The original discussion of if Dr. Van Flandern was notable enough has been proven simply by this string that shows he was, if anything, a highly controversial figure who has sparked great debate within the scientific community.

Ultimately, this is a biography article, not a place for debate. If the editors are unwilling to set their personal biases aside and move their arguments away from the biography, they should respectfully leave the authoring to Dr. Van Flandern's son who, at least seems reasonable enough in his arguments to write a neutral article. Any other options, at this point, seem to validate what any editor can plainly read above, that some editors are exhibiting personal and subjective malice for Dr. Van Flandern and his views instead of allowing a simple biography to be authored. Akuvar (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Akuvar Feb 22, 2009

I'd say his son is one of the last people who should be editing the article. See what WP:COI has to say about close relationships. It's fine for him to make suggestions for the article here, but not to edit it. You also need to read WP:Civil and WP:AGF.

This article has always been somewhat problematical (as can be seen from the archived Discussion page for the past several years), mainly for the two reasons mentioned above (i.e., editing by family members and articles that discredit people). The subject of the article is an individual who is notable (marginally) for being a prominent advocate of certain highly unorthodox ideas, including ideas that by the subject's own admission are considered to be discredited by the scientific community. In other words, the espousal of discredited ideas constitutes the notability of the subject of this article. It's difficult to write an article about someone who was notable for advocating discredited ideas without mentioning that his ideas were discredited.

Adding to the difficulty is the fact that wikipedia articles on people who aren't public figures are supposed to focus strictly on the person's notability. The dilemma is obvious. If someone's notability consists of advocating discredited ideas, then the article is required to described this accurately, but in so doing, it can be argued that the article is discrediting the subject, by stating that his ideas were discredited. This connundrum is what has led some editors to suggest that maybe the article is simply not appropriate for wikipedia, although no one has recently proposed this article for deletion (as far as I know).

The latest round of discussions seems to be focused on the question of whether to retain the basic substance and content of the article as it has existed here on Wikipedia for the past several years (after much discussion), or whether it should be revised (by a family memeber, which is also problematic, as noted above) to obscure the extent to which the ideas of the subject were and are considered to be discredited.

In my opinion, the long-standing article had it about right: Simply state the ideas succinctly, giving priority to the most notable as judged by press conferences, video tapes, book, public talks, newsletters, etc., and then simply state that these ideas have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. This is not inflamatory at all (in my opinion), and it gives an accurate picture of the notability of the subject.

The question about how to handle the superluminal propagation issue, and the paper in Physics Letters A, has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere on this discussion page. Basically as soon as that paper appeared, the journal published not one but two follow-up notes, explaining that the paper was both fallacious and dishonest (I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it), and then declined to publish a rebuttal. So to present that paper as "peer reviewed science" is surely misleading. Any discussion of that paper would have to be accompanied by a discussion of the follow-up, which then goes beyond the scope of this article. So the decision was made to simply state, succinctly, the unorthodox views espoused by Van Flandern, and then state that they have not found acceptance within the scientific community. Is this really unreasonable or inflammatory?63.24.36.29 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it appears to be quite reasonable. dougweller (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to stating "succinctly, the unorthodox views espoused by Van Flandern, and then state that they have not found 'broad' acceptance within the scientific community." I've made several suggestions for how to make subjective and opinionated statements factual. All of my suggestions are ignored or reverted. At this point I'm asking the parties with an interest in the verbage of Tom's biography to participate in mediation. Please reply stating whether or not you are willing to participate.Mikevf (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any Evidence of Celestial Mechanics Expertise?

The article has stated for some time that Van Flandern "specialized in orbital mechanics", but this is an unverifiable statement, and from the available evidence appears false. None of Van Flanderns writings contain any orbital mechanics, nor any hint that he had any expertise in the subject. Orbital mechanics is a branch of mathematical physics, and involves sophisticated mathematical techniques, especially things like potential theory. In many of Van Flandern's writings he demonstrated that he not only didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic, but he wasn't even acquainted with rudimentary things like how to take the gradient of a potential field, and how this corresponds to a force, and so on. There is no mathematical content in any of his writings. Based on this, it seems to me that the claim that he ever specialized in orbital mechanics is not credible. What appears to be the case is that he specialized in reviewing observational orbital data (gathered by others), and using pre-exiting critera (developed by others) to evaluate such data. This is entirely consistent with the statement that his work at USNO involved the production of the annual almanac. It's also consistent with the fact that his college degree was from a liberal arts school, which doesn't even offer any scientific degrees, so he certainly didn't have a scientific degree of any kind for at least the first 6 years of his tenure at the USNO.

On a related point, if anyone knows the details of how, working at the USNO in Washington DC from 1963 to 1969, he managed at the same time to earn a doctorate from Yale University in New Haven Connecticut, and what precisely his thesis was, and who his advisor was, this would be useful information for the article. This shouldn't be too difficult to determine, since there were only 70 Phd's in astronomy granted in the entire United States in 1969, and only a handful of those would have been from Yale.63.24.46.34 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A search of Yale's online library catalog ([1]) turns up his PhD thesis. The title is "A Discussion of 1950-1968: Occultations of Stars by the Moon." -- BenRG (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I also notice that his web site provides the info:

B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended on General Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.

Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington, DC 1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship.

Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University, New Haven, CT, June 1969, specializing in Celestial Mechanics. Dissertation: "A discussion of 1950-1968 occultations of stars by the Moon". Adviser: G.M. Clemence.

I must say that I still find it remarkable that he had an undergraduate degree from Xavier in mathematics, and yet in all of his writings he displayed a complete lack of mathematical capability, and in discussions he showed himself to be completely unacquainted with even the most rudimentary mathematics. Also, a review of lunar occultations from 1950 to 1968 is not really "celestial mechanics". By the way, I found a copy of a 1970 paper co-authored by Van Flandern and someone named C. F. Martin (who also is listed as getting a Phd in Astronomy from Yale in 1969, apparently with the same specialty as Van Flandern), on the subject of "Secular variation in Lunar Occultations", but even this contains no real "celestial mechanics". I'm also still puzzled by the chronology, since his bio says he worked for 20 years, from 1963 to 1983, at the USNO in Washington DC, and yet he received a PhD from Yale, New Haven CT, in 1969. Was it some sort of remote program, where attendance at Yale was not actually required? Or did he commute between DC and New Haven? Not that it matters, but it might make the chronology hang together better if more details were available.63.24.112.67 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Posting anonymous insults and questioning Dr. Van Flandern's integrity do not help your claim to represent the NPOV. For the record, my father attended both Xavier and Yale on full scholarships. The Yale scholarship was sponsored by the US Naval Observatory. At the time that was unprecendented. Despite your assertion that he was an "unremarkable" scientist who "didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic", a lot of people who actually knew him seemed to think differently. Of course they probably just weren't a 'neutral' as you are.

Would you say the article should be corrected about the chronology? It currently indicates that he worked at the USNO in Washington DC for 20 years, but since he attended Yale in New Haven CT for some portion of that 20 years, perhaps that should be noted. By the way, from reading the biography of Clemence (his advisor, who left the USNO for Yale in 1963, the same year Van Flandern arrived at USNO), I don't think it's accurate to say this arrangement was unprecedented. It says in Clemences work at USNO he enlisted the help of many assistants to do the punch-card crunching, and arranged for a large number (40?) of those assistants to get PhDs from Yale, where Clemence became acting director for awhile.130.76.32.16 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct the above number... it wasn't 40 PhDs, it was 25, during the period from 1949 to 1970, so Van Flandern would have been at the tail end of this tsunami of astronomy PhDs produced by the colaboration of the USNO and Yale. Here's some interesting info on how this came about, and on Van Flandern's advisor, Gerald Clemence:

After graduation from high school he [Clemence] entered Brown University. Assuming his chief interest to be mathematics, he majored in that subject, with an additional year of graduate study, and earned the degree of Ph.B. in 1930. [Note that this is not a PhD, it was based on just one extra year of study, comparable to something less than a Master's degree. Also, it had nothing to do with astronomy or physics.]

“As a recreation,” he said later, he took a civil service examination for astronomer and upon passing with a high grade (he was first in a field of 50), he accepted an appointment to the U. S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., “attracted by the seemingly high salary of $2,000 per annum.” [This was 1930, when he was 22 years old. He worked with Eckert and Herget.]

In 1945, at the end of the war, Eckert resigned to become director of IBM’s Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory at Columbia University, Herget returned to Cincinnati as director of the Cincinnati Observatory, and Clemence was promoted to the post of director of the Nautical Almanac Office.

In 1947 the Office of Naval Research began a sustained period of support for research in celestial mechanics through a contract involving Yale, the Nautical Almanac Office, the Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory... and the Cincinnati Observatory ... [Was there any connection between Van Flandern and the Cincinnati Observatory, since he went to school in the area.] The research output of this coalition was prodigious and in the period between 1949 and 1970 resulted in 22 contributions to the Papers of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, as well as many shorter articles in scientific journals. In addition, over 25 Ph.D. dissertations were based on research carried out in this project.

With the onset of the space age and the launch of Sputnik in 1957 Clemence cooperated with Brouwer in launching the series of Yale Summer Institutes in Dynamical Astronomy aimed at meeting the burgeoning requirement for scientists trained in this subject.

This shows that Clemences academic history was almost identical to Van Flandern's, i.e., an undergraduate degree in mathematics, and then going straight to the USNO where they both apparently learned their astronomy and whatever physics they acquired along the way. Clemence apparently never received a PhD in astronomy (or anything else), but had risen administratively to a position where he served as an advisor.

I'm still curious to know whether Van Flandern actually attended classes in New Haven. Their current graduate program says a degree in astronomy takes about 6 years, which means for the first 6 years of Van Flandern's working at the USNO in Washington DC he would have had to be going to school full time in New Haven. If so, I think the article should be revised to state that after leaving Xavier he attended Yale from 1963 to 1969, on a scholarship from the USNO perhaps(?), and then went to work at the USNO for 14 years, from 1969 to 1983. But this is just speculation on my part. I'd be interested if anyone can supply the real facts.63.24.107.211 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked my mother about the details and she informed me that the USNO not only paid for Tom to attend Yale, they paid him a salary while he attended classes. He agreed to work at the USNO 3 years for every 1 year they paid for. Tom had received a full scholarship to Georgetown and took 1 year of classes there. However, after the USNO made their offer he left Georgetown and began attending Yale. Yes he attended classes in New Haven (where my sister was born). You are correct in noting the arrangement was not unique, my mother informed me that 3 of Tom's classmates were sponsored by the USNO.

User 63.24.xxx.xxx, is there any hope here of working toward a balanced biography? You've rejected every bit of feedback I've offered that could move this article toward improved accuracy and a more neutral perspective. In addition you've challenged my father's integrity and all of his credentials. Further you've asserted that a man with a PhD in Celestial Mechanics from Yale and a degree in mathematics from Xavier "didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic". I took a lot of math classes studying electrical engineering at U of MD before starting my career at Microsoft. Despite having several years of college math in an engineering program under my belt, my father's math knowledge dwarfed my own. So candidly, I absolutely know you're full of it on at least this point. Now you've made new accusations about my father's integrity. People who knew my father know he was honest to a fault, so given his and your track records there's no question who I believe. I'm willing to run down this latest allegation, but only if you're willing to participate in mediation. I did not agree with all of my father's theories, and I think many of the ideas he advocated can fairly be used to undermine his credibility. However, there are a lot of detractors that disliked my father's challenging the status quo used dishonest short cuts to try to discredit him. I'm going to insist that the presentation here be factual and free of opinion statements. And I will absolutely not accept unsubstantiated attacks on his character. These are serious allegations and frankly I think it's reprehensible that they are being made anonymously as there can be no reprecussion if/when they are proven to be false. I've asked you to talk with me directly. I've asked you to participate in mediation. One last time I'm asking you to participation in mediation on this biography. Will you?Mikevf (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize the inherently problematic nature of this article, since the notability of the subject (sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia web page) is due solely to his advocacy of scientifically discredited ideas. Even the idea that you seem to think was the most credible (the superluminal propagation of gravitational and electromagnetic forces) is a fallacy that was fully understood and discredited over a century ago. Indeed, the very next sentence from Eddington's 1920 book, from which Tom quoted the aberration paradox, says "The reasoning is fallacious, because...", and then goes on to explain the (by then) well known reasons that it is fallacious. And I must point out the title of the paper refers to gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields... in other words, everything. So I hope you can understand why I've been reluctant to summarize Tom's position by just saying "superluminal propagation of gravity", because he very explicitly maintained that ALL physical forces propagate superluminally. So, in a succinct summary of the notable features of Deep Reality Physics, I think it's fair to say it is characterized by a belief in faster than light travel, but they also said in their paper "communication". Now, if you think the article should say "faster than light communication and propagation of forces", then that might be okay, but my point is it can't focus just on gravity, because that just doesn't agree with what he wrote.

We've been over the issue of infinite free energy, and I cited his public lecture on the subject (after you insisted that he'd never espoused any such thing). I think it might also be good to mention gravitational shielding and the Le Sage theory of gravity... although notice that Vigier was not having any Le Sage in the Foundations paper.

On the subject of referencing the two papers, I've never said they absolutely should be excluded, I've simply said that IF they are included, it's essential for the context and subsequent history of rebuttals to be presented. It just would not be accurate to leave the readers with the impression that the views expressed by Tom and Vigier are in any way accepted as accurate or correct by the scientific community. This was discussed many times with Tom himself, when he argued that no rebuttals to his Foundations paper had ever appeared. Of course the answer is that the rebuttals to those ideas WERE published, in reputable journals, by Nobel prize winning physicists (e.g., Lorentz, Laue)... over a century ago. Today you can pick up a copy of Jackson's electrodynamics for undergraduates and read why the Coulomb gauge doesn't imply superluminal propagation speed for the electromagnetic force, and why in fact the propagation speed is unambiguously c, and how the electromagnetic field conveys both energy (Poynting's vector) and momentum, something which Tom never grasped. It's an undergraduate homework assignment. So it just would not be right for this article to give the impression that the claims in Tom's papers have any scientific validity. Or that they have gone un-answered. Or that there is an on-going controversy about them.

I'm open to suggestions on how exactly the article should be worded to make all this clear. I'm not saying the existing article is perfect, but I do oppose change that just tend to obscure the plain facts.63.24.43.157 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the willingness to dialog and entertain inclusions of citations to published papers. Despite the history on the page I remain hopeful that we may reach a mutually acceptable compromise. The fundamental problem as I see it is that you don't really understand Tom's arguments and have prejudged his ideas to be kooky. Unfortunately this perspective is reflected in your attempts to briefly summarize his work. If you can acknowledge this bias in your perspective and be hypervigilant in not letting infect your writing I think we can start moving forward. I'm not opposed to succintly summarizig Tom's ideas, providing the citations and stating they are not accepted by the mainstream. If you can agree to keep it at that then I'll restate my objections to the current verbage and we can try to make progress. BTW, Tom understood full well the argument that electrodynamic and gravitational fields propagated at the speed of light and that the field conveys energy and momentum. Tom argued that momentum was insuffient when the mass was not traveling linearly (ex: an oscilating mass or binary star system). But I thought you didn't want to argue the merits of the ideas here. 67.183.85.221 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How many distinct individuals are behind these various anonymous IPs? It's very confusing. 63.24, your crusade against Tom seems a bit pathological. It would have been interesting if his PhD had been fabricated, but since it obviously wasn't it seems to me that that line of discussion is finished. "USNO 1963–1983" could just mean that he first worked there in 1963 and last worked there in 1983. His refusal to take the gradient of a field in a conversation with you could mean any number of things other than an inability to calculate. The article is never going to say "Tom lacked any understanding of the most basic mathematics", no matter how much you may want it to. Mike, I can't remember Wikipedia's exact policies about deletion, but if you requested that the article be deleted I think there's a good chance your wish would be honored. But if Wikipedia does have an article about Tom I don't think it can ever be significantly different from how it was before the recent spate of edits following his death. My preference would be to roll back to that version, make the minimal necessary changes, and leave it at that. -- BenRG (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. 130.76.32.145 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I reluctantly concur. Despite my asking serveral times 63.24 doesn't show any inclination toward compromise or accepting mediation, and I frankly have other things to do. I doubt this article is sufficiently important to merit arbitration given wikipedias extremely limited resources. I don't think the pre death article is entirely factually accurate however it's better than the current mess. Please revert. Also please remove the Salon link as non biographical per discussion. I'll submit a request to have the article deleted. Anyone know how to do that? Thanks -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I get this malicious article deleted from wikipedia. There's no longer any pretense of neutrality. User 63.23.xx.xx is a relativist and is dominating the content with a clear agenda (discredit Tom and prevent mentions of FTL gravity). My preferred solution would be prohibiting anonymous posts and mediating NPOV content. However failing that this article must be deleted. It's slanderous.Mikevf (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction... The article does prominently mention that van Flandern was known for the belief in "faster than light propagation of forces", which includes faster than light gravity. All forces must be included, as is clear from the title and content of the Foundation of Phys paper (which refers explicitly to "gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields").Agnon5 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You can go to WP:AfD but there aren't any grounds that I can think of to get it deleted by our criteria. I know BenRG thinks it would be, but I'd be very surprised if very many editors agreed. dougweller (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that he is best known for his eccentric ideas, which must thus be in the article. I can see why his family might not like this, but that is simply a fact. And there is no way to prohibit anonymous edits on Wikipedia. Also, I've deleted the misplaced template and your personal comment which was on the article, Mikevf. Please do not attempt to replace it. dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the particular words that are slanderous were identified, they could be removed. No one wants a slanderous article here. But, as Dougweller said, in order to be accurate, the article does need to make clear that the subject's notability was for advocating highly unorthodox ideas that were considered untenable by the scientific community. I don't think this, in itself, can be considered slanderous, since the subject himself freely acknowledged that his beliefs were rejected by the scientific community. Regarding deletion of the article, I don't actually see a reason to delete it, but on the other hand, if the family wants it to be deleted, and considering that it was always a marginal "keep", I personally wouldn't object to deletion, just out of courtesy.Agnon5 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the article simply said that Tom advocated highly unorthodox ideas that were considered untenable by the majority of the scientific community I'd have no objection. I agree that's true. However what he advocated has been misrepresented and distorted to discredit. I'm ameanable to mediating this content or deleting. But while a libelous article is posted it must be marked as such until the problem is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)