 |
 |
If you find this site useful or just support what I'm doing, I'd really appreciate if you could donate. To cover server costs and for the hundreds of hours I've put into making this happen.
|
 |
If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason. If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.
If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
|
Revision 103347 of "Talk:Aleatoric_music" on enwiki''Old discussion can be found at [[talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 1]].''<br>
The developement version of this article can be found at: [[Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp]]
----
I have resubmitted the RS article linked to Larson's name only. I have also deleted the talk from the previous article as it is no longer relevant and is anyhow a duplicate of 'old Talk'.
This second draft of the article is NOT an attempt to establish the bonefides of the theory within the physics community. It's aim is to provide an overview of what Larson's work contains much like an article on an ancient author's precepts would do. The article has nothing to do with the issues of modern research, peer review journals, crackpot theories, or established scientific knowledge, just as an ancient work would not. Therefore, those who feel the need to protect the sanctity of the cannon of modern scientific knowledge from heresy need not feel they must delete it because, in their view, it contains false, unscientific, or untestable precepts. That is not the issue here. The only relevant issue is how well it reports what the late Mr. Larson produced as a historical fact. In my opinion, what he TRIED to do was at least worthy of historical note. No one else to my knowledge has, in the history of mankind, attempted such a feat. Think of it, the title alone is mind boggling "The Structure of the Physical Universe!" One would think that anyone that is as articulate and informed as he was (and no one can dispute that) and who undertook to concoct a theory of the entire physical universe, is worthy of a descriptive wiki.
Doug
----
RS is at best original research, and at worst quackery. In either case, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. A short broad outline of the theory is ok, and that's what we have. The details are covered well on their website. That is why I reverted to the short and neutral version that was arrived at after considerable discussion several months ago. See [[talk:Reciprocal System of Theory Archive]]. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]], Thursday, May 23, 2002
----
Here we go again. I'm not going to argue the merits of your opinion. It's irrelevant. Your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, of the validity of Larson's ideas makes no difference here. I have not linked the article to physics in any way (that was the original complaint - remember?). This article is only linked to the Dewey B. Larson article - so get over it and let me be. I'm trying to summarize what his ideas are- not argue their acceptance in any way, so if you can't help me constructively to do that with a NPOV then you are of no help at all. And oh by the way, If I deleted all the articles that are explained elsewhere on the Web, there would not be much left, especially yours.
Doug
Doug, you don't think you can just lay low for a couple of months, then come back and just put your material back in, do you? All of this was discussed exhaustively, and it was decided that a short description of the theory, along with a link to your website and a critical paragraph, would be appropriate. By all objective measures, the theory does not deserve more than that. And that decision stands. You are clearly attempting to gain respect for the theory by getting a major treatment into Wikipedia, as if it were a major theory. It is not. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]
Having looked back at the talk history, I agree with Axel. [[user:The Anome|The Anome]]
Does the criticism section need to be any longer than "This is quackery"? Should we create an entry to explain exactly what quackery means? -- RichardK
----
You agreed before looking. Axel knows there was never such an agreement and you would too if you had actually read the old talk. The agreement was that they would give me a chance to write the article unlinked to TOE so I could get it out on the table and then answer questions/challenges and defend it. However, not everyone was privy to the agreement or not willing to be a party to it, so it became a mess and I didn't have the time to fight everyone at once so I bid them adieu with the promise that I would return. And so I have.
It's almost amusing to see how the rationalizations change from one edit to another. They have ranged from copyright, to psuedoscience, to NPOV, to new research, and now to a blatant attempt "to gain respect for the theory." This is ludicrous. There is no mention of the degree of treatment to which a Wiki is entitled here. This is just an exercise of plain prejudice from mathematicians, physicists, students and others from the establishment of 'normal' science most of whom don't have the integrity to admit it. Give me a break. I'm putting it back and, by the way, expect to see YOUR articles edited as well Axel, but don't expect the same level of bias from me as you show, that would be a waste of my time. If I edit any of your articles it will be for honest purposes. And btw Anome, the piece you keep putting back was never removed, just moved into the expanded portion. So, it appears twice in your edits, line for line. If you had taken the time to examine the article at all, you would have known that.
Doug
-----------
Looking at the history of this article, we now have reversion wars, with this article repeatedly being reverted by several parties, and replaced by its orignal author. This is not good. --Anon
-----
I really hate to have done this, but I locked the article so that it is only editable by sysops. This was to stop the edit war that seems to be going on here. Further discussion can now proceed. Although a read of the old talk and current talk indicates that everything important has already be said. This is [[pseudoscience]] and shouldn't be given such an extensive treatment. Sorry Doug -- you are the ''only'' person that disagrees with this point. With that said, I think we need to discuss what we should do now. If the removed content is already someplace else on the web (which it seems to be) perhaps a link there should suffice? --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
----
Doug,
A word of advice from someone who has had the same problem as you -- but found a solution.
Don't be so contentious. Try to be a little nicer. It's the only way one editor (namely, you) can hold his own when half a dozen editors (Axel, Maveric, et al.) see it differently.
If you review the history of some of the more controversial articles I've contributed or edited, you'll see that I also got involved in edit wars and lost a lot of time that way, only to see my contributions reverted out of existence.
However, I'm still here. I've made my peace with the others (mostly, I guess :-). Moreover, '''none''' of the articles we fought over has been locked.
What am I doing differently? Think about that, because different points of view are valuable and I'd hate to see your voice silenced for no good reason.
Sincerely,
[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Friday, May 24, 2002
----
Thanks Ed for the good advice. I wonder how many pages have been locked like this before. I admit that I have been pretty aggressive, but then the opposition to the article has been so inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia, the spirit of the Web, and the spirit of truth and justice that it riled me.
All I want to do is place a fair summary of RS, a Wiki article, in Wikipedia according to the established rules, and guidelines. Now, I must admit that my first attempt to do that was made not understanding clearly the idea of NPOV, etc., which I came to appreciate more eventually. But this latest attempt, though no doubt far from acceptable, was much more in the intended spirit of NPOV.
Moreover, it was purposely not linked to any Physics topics, which was the source of so much dispute originally. However, it has become painfully obvious that the real reason for such strong opposition is, ironically, the extremely strong POV of those opposed. Here is the reality of the situation: they will not permit the RS article to have a NPOV. They have insisted on the POV that it should be classified as pseudoscience (well, now that's even too good for it - let's say "Quackery," shall we?).
In the first go around I was convinced of the integrity and honesty of those involved and thought that all that I had to do was to draft a sufficiently NPOV article, so I naively set out to achieve that, and acquiecsed to the placement of the "disclaimer" phrases (definitely POV) in the article. But then I was assailed for not explaining and supporting certain concepts well enough. Licking my wounds, I at length ceased the effort promising to return sometime in the future to try again.
In the meantime, the article was left (for months) with this incredibly strong POV intact! So, when I did come back, I set out to neutralize the POV to the best of my ability and at the same time present RS in a more comprehensible fashion to answer the earlier criticism. Then Axel (of all people who should know better) reverts it claiming that the reverted form had been agreed upon earlier!
Maybe I wasn't as diplomatic as I should have been, but any reasonable person can see how injust this situation is and how much violence it does to the stated principles of Wikipedia. Just look at the article now. Two thirds of it is their POV! And it's locked into that POV! What can these guys be thinking? Whatever it is, it's definitely not consistent with the stated objectives of Wikipedia.
Compare my latest article with theirs and tell me which is more NPOV. There's no comparison. In theirs RS is given no slack. If you think mine is too POV the other way, then tell me how to improve it like one of the editors did (can't remember his name) and soon we can have an article. However, I cannot but suppose, given the recent actions, that the motives of some are less altruistic than they let on, and thus an appeal to fairness will be mocked here as much as the ideas of others are.
Doug
----
I have unprotected the page. Doug, please don't take this a an open invitation to simply restore your version. A compromise needs to be reached.
I will study the article, and see what I think. --130.94.121.26
----
I don't like to 'me too', but if an edit is going to be justified on the grounds 'you are the only person advocating the longer version', I'll speak up.
I think the longer version is better. The short version gives me too little information about the 'theory' to understand what kind of theory it is. The longer version makes its nature wntirely clear.
I'm very disturbed to see content rejected because 'clearly attempting to gain respect for the theory by getting a major treatment into Wikipedia, as if it were a major theory.'. There are many pages on minority political systems in the Wikipedia, often much more extensive than those for more mainstream views. Should we reduce them? There are many pages on obscure religious beliefs in the Wikipedia, often more extensive than those for mainstream beliefs. Should we edit those, too?
If the Wikipedia has room for a page about every Simpsons character, it has room for a page about every crackpot scientific theory. It seems to me much more likely that pages on the latter will prove useful for future researchers than pages on the former.
[[user:Matthew Woodcraft|Matthew Woodcraft]]
:I strongly agree with this, especially the last paragraph. -- [[user:Miguel|Miguel]]
:However, the article must first be made NPOV. The current longer article reports the theory in terms that are far from NPOV; I suggest a ''medium-length'' compromise first, then we can try to grope towards a longer article. Perhaps a big disclaimer is needed to point out that "what follows is not accepted science" etc. -- Anon.
----
Fantastic! I have been waiting for somebody else to chime in. Now ''maybe'' we can continue the discussion so that the longer version can be tweaked some more so that the people advocating the shorter version will be satisfied or at the very least be able to live with a modified longer version. I would like to hear from them -- especially since they have more complete knowledge of the subject matter and arguments against it (which will be needed to make the longer version closer to NPOV). I would like to second 130.94.121.26's (is that you Jimbo?) statement about ''not'' simply replacing the current version with the longer one ''until'' a compromise is reached. Perhaps if those with knowledge of why this theory is pseudoscience heavily edited the longer version, then it might be acceptable. I wish I had the appropriate knowledge to edit the longer version myself -- but I don't. My goal all along with protecting the page was to put, at least, a temporary stop to the outright replacement of one version with another (a forced truce, if you will). Maybe this can now be done. Although we might still decide that an external link to a more complete treatment is more appropriate (which still tends to be my vote -- especially if nobody has the time or energy to make the longer version NPOV). Hopefully the authors of the shorter version can help us decide what to do. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
----
I'm not sure I know quite what to say. I'm pleasantly surprised, certainly pleased, and even somewhat moved by the show of reason and understanding evident in these comments. I think what you chose to do maveric was the right choice. I'm grateful to see the end of the brutal deletes, and the expressions of a real desire to get to a genuine NPOV are certainly encouraging. I'm ready to help all I can. I have reread the Wikipedia policy and articles on etiquette and NPOV writing. I know I need help on writing so as to ''restate'' the various views while not asserting the one I happen to agree with, I've found that it's not as easy to do as one might suppose.
Doug
----
I agree that there is nothing wrong with a long treatment of this topic, even it is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I think the problem is that Doug, a proponant of the idea, is the only person that seems interested in putting in a lot of work on the article. I reverted back to the shorter version because Doug's new version is very enthusiasticly supportive of RST, and I didn't think that anyone would work to change that. However, I do commend Doug for not linking the article from the physics articles in the 'pedia; I think that shows a willingness to be cooperative.
It's important to remember, Doug, that the [[NPOV]] is not about giving all points of view equal weight. Our goal is to write articles that present topics in a way that all partisans can agree with (a lofty goal, too be sure!). In this case, it is a fact that the general scientific community and interested laypeople hold the RSS to be pseudoscience, while a small number of people believe it is a revolutionary new system of scientific theory. RSS has not been published in any major scientific journals, is not taught in high school and university science curriculums, and is placed in the same category has alien abductions and ESP by Internet kooks. None of these things automatically make RSS wrong, and you probably think that RSS hasnot been accepted because of politics and misunderstandings. Fair enough, andthe article should reflect that. But the article can leave no room for doubt on this point: RSS is not an established theory within science. Keep in mind that it is perfectly acceptable to link to Larson's works and other sympathetic overviews in anexternal links section, and in fact that short article already does this. --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
-----
Stephen, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Not enough is generally known about RS to allow much to be written from an opposing point of view. No specific, scientific criticisms other than the general charges already discussed exist. So it makes it hard for me to write much other than explanations of the concepts. However, I've shortened the article considerably and attempted to write it from more NPOV. Let's see if it's closer to what we need and what specific suggestions might be offered.
Doug
----
I moved Doug's version of the article to [[Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp]] so that he or anybody who is interested can work on it there. The newest version by Doug is shorter and has some additional qualifications but it still needs a lot of work before I feel it is acceptable to those replacing it with the shorter version. I need at least of few more days before I even touch the darn thing so that I can brush up on my physics. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
----
Doug's version needs A LOT more than neutrality--it needs someone to give me a damn good reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia at all. Encyclopedias aren't the place for original ideas, even if they are useful ones. Encyclopedias are for covering established academic subjects. It makes sense now and then to mention in an encyclopedia that some person or group believes in theory X, and possibly to briefly describe theory X. But that's all. That's all that even a rational new idea deserves, and meaningless nonsense like this doesn't even deserve that. It would be a far better use of someone's time to write about the psychological deficiencies that lead to crackpot theories like this. --[[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]]
:Ok, here's my argument. Larry summed it up pretty well on the old talk page: "We will do the world a service by amassing huge numbers of erstwhile crank theories and reporting about them objectively. They will not benefit as a result." I think an article on this topic would be very useful and appropriate if it included information on ''why'' the scientific community considers RSS a crank theory. Far too many people are scientifically illiterate, and don't see why this theory is any different than those in current physics. It ''sounds'' very scientific, right? While not taking a position itself, the article could and should help these people come to a decision, instead of slapping on the label of "crank theory". --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
----
Lee says 'Doug's version needs A LOT more than neutrality--it needs someone to give me a damn good reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia at all.' I think I could give lots of reasons, but in the end Matthew and Miguel summed the idea up best with Matthew's comment on the Simpson characters in Wikipedia. However, Lee then says 'Encyclopedias aren't the place for original ideas, even if they are useful ones.' Wow, we are going to throw the baby out with the bath water on that one. Theories by definition are original ideas, just read the article on M-theory with Lee's comment in mind, that will give you some pause for thought. He argues 'Encyclopedias are for covering established academic subjects.' Well the subject here is physics, a pretty established subject I would say, but to keep from contaminating the subject here which is so dominated by professionals, we have not linked it to physics, in defference to their opinion that non-professionals are all cranks, crackpots and producers of pseudoscience (which is yet so threatening, a fact I find very curious). But here, I remind you Lee, the article is simply linked from Dewey Larson, who was the author of many books. The RS is his major work, we are trying to explain what it was and, maybe if we can reach a consensus, why it has received the reception it has by some professionals (remember not all professionals mind you, but most unfortunately). Larson was a chemical engineer, not a professional physicist. Through history (oh, BTW do we have an article on the decipherer of the Rosetta stone?) most major scientific contributions are not made by the practicioners of 'normal' science, i.e. professionals, but by non-professional 'amateurs.' One that comes to mind in physics right off is deBroglia, but they are legion in all fields, in fact the most notables actually.
:You misunderstand the problem. Our science guys here don't have a problem with Mr. Larson being an amateur; the problem is with the theory itself. I challenge you to produce some evidence that scientists believe "non-professionals are all cranks, crackpots and producers of pseudoscience". I also encourage someone who is able to pick out some problem areas of RSS and pick them apart, if only to dispense with the arguments of scientific elitism and new theories threatening the established priesthood. --[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
Just one last thought. today I heard Ira Flatow's show ''Science Friday'' and his guest Paul Steinhardt was discussing his book ''A Cyclic model of the Universe''. In a nutshell the new theory's motivation stems from troubles recent discoveries have given physicists and cosmologists. Now Lee et al probably wouldn't be as critical of this new theory because its concepts are so consonant with other modern theories such as string theory and other 'accepted' theories. But what struck me is (and I was only listening while working - so I may be mistaken) that, while the ideas are about as inventive as any in the history of physics (and that is saying a lot because inventive science is the norm today), the invention here is one of a universe (or a dimension - whatever that means today) parallel to the observable universe swapping energy for matter and vise versa. The result is a model of a static universe in which a mechanism exists (though a rather bizarre one imo) to cycle energy-matter between the two sectors. Anyone who is familiar at all with RS will immediately recognize the resemblance. RS has a much different mechanism, but in the end the result is the same: energy and matter are cycled perpetually between two sectors, mutually unobservable but coextended.
Now, don't get me wrong - the two theories are very far apart - in fact totally incompatible, but the interesting fact is that Steinhardt's resort to this model was motivated by problems with current cosmological theories (especially Big Bang and Inflation) caused by recent discoveries of a geometrically flat, accelerating universe with a puzzleing large structure and energy distribution. In contrast, these discoveries are nothing but good news for the RS which was first published over forty years ago. What I don't understand is how does a 'crackpot' and a 'crank' keeps coming out so far ahead of the professionals? Maybe we need to be a wee bit more careful with these labels until we know more of the facts.
Doug
:Doug, just so you know, I set-up a "development" version of the article with your most recently overwritten version at [[Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp]]. I suggest that those that are interested work on NPOVing that version. I'll see what I can do myself in a few days. It would be a bit rude if someone reverted a development version, no? If there are still loud protests that your version is still on the main wikipedia ''at all'', we can continue work on it over at the meta (meta.wikipedia.com) which already contains scores of biased essays. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
Mav, Lee, et al., I see no problem leaving this long version. After all, you've left in all the articles I contributed about the [[Unification Church]] even though a lot of you think (a) all religion is irrational and/or (b) the UC is especially nutty.
It's clear (from the second paragraph) that the scientific community has not blessed RS with its seal of approval. Hm, that reminds me of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]], two ideas opposed by 95% of scientists generally and dismissed by virtually all biologists.
[[Martin Gardner]] has an entertaining and informative book on [[pseudoscience]] (which I think even mentions my great-grandfather [[Charles Lane Poor]], a professor of astronomy who challenged initial solar eclipse evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity).
I vote for the longer version. [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Tuesday, May 28, 2002
:Sorry for my previous statement Ed - That't what I get for trying to make comments on talk pages when I'm also trying to work. I didn't see that you were doing what I had hoped people would do -- edit the development version. It does, however, still need much work before it is acceptable enough to the "anti-RST advocates" so that the longer version isn't reverted again. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
----
Maveric, it's ok with me, but help me understand something. How are we defining bias here? If the article simply abridges the concepts pertaining to the system without in any way maintaining that its theories are correct, will we have reached the goal? Are the charges that the system is untestable and contains no mathematical basis which are made over and over again without offering the slightest shred of evidence to support them not to be considered bias? If we can't admit that such charges are bias, but insist on simply reporting them as anonymous allegations, is that consistent with the standards?
As I see it, the dilemma here is that we won't admit to ourselves that this is a sticky wiki (sorry :)). How do we disallow something that so obviously exists, but at the same time has been ignored by the 'authorities?' If we deny it a place at all we are surely inconsistent with our own values (I won't use the word hypocritical), but on the other hand, if we permit it a place, we run the risk of appearing to endorse its view (I'm not clear on how that follows though, there seems to be no problem linking articles on different religions under the same heading, surely no one is concerned with 'true' religion, then why the fuss about 'true' science? Maybe because it really is the state religion in disguise?) Of course, we could strongly and explicity deny that we endorse it, but then in denying that, if we allege that it has no genuine scientific standing - like we are presently doing, we are left open to charges of scientific bigotry on one hand, or else facing the daunting task of studying it ourselves to determine its true scientific basis for ourselves. Not easy to do to be sure - especially for non-specialists already overburdened with too much to do in too little time.
So, admitting that this dilemma is not likely to be resolved seems to me the most prudent course. So how about this idea: a heading entitled 'Alternate Theories of Everything' under physics and let anyone who actually publishes one be listed there. I think you will find that there are not many applying. It's not really a very common subject for a life's work (and that's what it takes.) Look at what such a move would accomplish:
* Wikipedia will have been consistent and true to its purpose.
* Scientific types can write articles about what such theories lack in general, thus avoiding taking on RS specifically, unless they have the desire and the time to do so, in which case they are free to do it in their own articles.
* RS can be treated like any other article without having to assert the allegations which it can't answer, not because it doesn't have the answers, but because it doesn't have the forum in Wikipedia to do so.
* If this every comes up again in connection with another theory (e.g. ''A Cyclic Model of the Universe'') we'll have a solution.
Doug
::Doug, I didn't say that RST was biased -- all I stated was that the meta if full of biased stuff. I assumed you would take that as "if all else fails, we can work on the developement version of the article in the meta so that we can make it acceptable to those who advocate the shorter version ''becasue'' just about anything that is controversial can be placed in the meta and it won't be removed or reverted". I should have stated this explicitly, so I am sorry for not being clear. As for your other ideas.... How about we work on the current article first before we think about setting up any sort of future framework? I for one feel that we are wasting ''far'' too much time here in the talk page instead of working on the longer version of the article to address as many of the "issues" as possible. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
:May I butt in again? The Wikipedia cannot and should not try to settle the issue. The best it can do is say that party A criticizes it for reason B, citing grounds C. To balance this, we can also say that X says Y because of Z.
:Let me suggest that you yourself abstain from editing RS; rather, make suggestions here on the talk page. Since I have no opinion on the merits of RS, I can easily describe it from the NPOV: I am in fact neutral concerning it :-) [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Tuesday, May 28, 2002
: Great idea. Let's do it - Doug
:Concur. Although I don't know about excluding Doug from editing -- so long as he promises to make fair edits. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
:Maveric - I don't mind - It's not that I'm excluded - it's that I'm volunteering to refrain from editing to help find a solution. I think it's a great idea and commend Ed for the innovative approach.
Doug
----
Let me try to be more clear:
* I do not propose excluding Doug from editing.
* I do think he'll get more mileage out of making suggestions in /Talk rather than editing directly.
* I offer myself as (in all modesty :-) an exquisitely neutral editor of the article.
Thus, I will check this page daily for suggestions from Doug, Maveric, Lee, and the gang. Any relevant idea I can understand, I hereby offer to incorporate into the article in a [[NPOV|neutral]] way. [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Tuesday, May 28, 2002
:Ok, The first thing I wish I could do is answer party A who criticizes RS for reason B (RS is untestable) citing grounds C (no cited grounds (!?!)). X (I guess that would be me) says Y (RS theories are testable (Fundamental Postulates of the system are not directly testable - no duhh - whose are?), but theories based on them are because Z, Larson and others have and are testing them. To wit:
* Item: Using the RS theory of atomic structure can the inter-atomic distances of the elements be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume II chapter 2, of ''The Structure of the Physical Universe'' (we'll just leave it implied after this)
* Item: Using the RS theory of atomic structure can the properties of the elements and their compounds such as compressibility, specific heat, thermal factors, thermal expansion coefficients, electrical resistivity and thermoelectric properties be calculated? Answer yes, results are published in volume II, chapters 4-11.
* Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can RS calculate the charge of an electron? Answer: yes, results are published in volume II, chapter 16, page 178. (BTW, no other theory can do this.)
** ''Well hang on a minute, lets look at this:''(http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm16.htm)
:: Since the charge is not defined independently of the equation, the fact that there is only one force involved means that the expression QQ' is actually Q¹/2Q'¹/2. It follows that, unless some structural factor (as previously defined) enters into the Coulomb relation, the value of the natural unit of Q derived from that relation should be the second power of the natural unit of t/s2. '''In carrying out the calculation we find that a factor of 3 does enter into the equation.'''
::: This isn't science, or even mathematics. There is a term for adding unexplained terms to equations. They're called fudge factors, and they don't prove anything.
::This probably has the same origin as the factors of the same size that apply to a number of the basic equations examined in Volume I. It no doubt has a dimensional significance, although a full explanation is not yet available.
::: Yes, they're fudge factors too. Until he shows his calculations, and tells us where the terms comes from, no neutral article should avoid pointing these idiocies out. -- [[GWO]]
::::GWO: Larson shows the calculation of the electron’s charge, as well as many other electrical and magnetic quantities, in the context of clearing up the “dimensional confusion” existing in conventional physics. Thus, he actually derives the value of the charge twice.
::::The first one in connection with the discussion on electric currents (chapter 9) and the second one in connection with induction of charges (chapter 16). I cited the second one, based on Coulomb's force equation, which does have a yet undetected dimensional problem, as explained by Larson as you correctly point out. However, I should have cited the first one in chapter 9, based on Faraday's constant. Here, Larson explains what is happening:
:::::The basic physical entities and phenomena of the universe of motion–radiation, gravitation, matter, electricity, magnetism, and so on–can be defined explicitly in terms of space and time…an electric charge applied to a physical entity must necessarily be a motion. Thus the problem faced in the theoretical investigation was not to answer the question, What is an electric charge?, but merely to determine what kind of motion manifests itself as a charge.
::::So the theory must show that the charge of an electron, or any other electrical or magnetic quantity, can be expressed in units of space and time, i.e. motion. To do that, one has to determine what the “natural unit” of space is and because of some confusion in assigning the dimensions in conventional physics, Larson has to deal with that issue first:
:::::The system of units commonly utilized in dealing with electric currents was developed independently of the mechanical units on an arbitrary basis. In order to ascertain the relation between this arbitrary system and the natural system of units it is necessary to measure some one physical quantity whose magnitude can be identified in the natural system, as was done in the previous determination of the relations between the natural and conventional units of space, time, and mass. For this purpose we will use the ''Faraday constant'', the observed relation between the quantity of electricity and the mass involved in electrolytic action. Multiplying this constant, 2.89366 x 1014 esu/g-equiv., by the natural unit of atomic weight, 1.65979 x 10-24 g, we arrive at 4.80287 x 10-10 esu as the natural unit of electrical quantity.
:::::The magnitude of the electric current is the number of electrons per unit of time; that is, units of space per unit of time, or speed. Thus the natural unit of current could be expressed as the natural unit of speed, 2.99793 x 1010 cm/sec. In electrical terms it is the natural unit of quantity divided by the natural unit of time, and amounts to 3.15842 x 106 esu/sec, or 1.05353 x 10-3 amperes. The conventional unit of electrical energy, the watt-hour, is equal to 3.6 x 1010 ergs. The natural unit of energy, 1.49275 x 10-3 ergs, is therefore equivalent to 4.14375 x 10-14 watt-hours. Dividing this unit by the natural unit of time, we obtain the natural unit of power 9.8099 x 1012 ergs/sec = 9.8099 x 105 watts. A division by the natural unit of current then gives us the natural unit of electromotive force, or voltage, 9,31146 x 108 volts. Another division by current brings us to the natural unit of resistance, 8.83834 x 1011 ohms.
:::::The basic quantities of current electricity and their natural units in electrical terms can be summarized as follows:
<center><table>
<tr><td>s</td> <td>quantity</td><td> </td><td>4.80287 x 10-10 esu</td></tr>
<tr><td>s/t</td> <td>current</td><td> </td><td>1.05353 x 10-3 amperes</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/s</td> <td>power</td><td> </td><td>9.8099 x 105 watts</td></tr>
<tr><td>t/s</td> <td>energy</td><td> </td><td>4.14375 x 10-14 watt-hours</td></tr>
<tr><td>t/s2</td> <td>voltage</td><td> </td><td>9.31146 x 108volts</td></tr>
<tr><td>t2/s3</td> <td>resistance</td><td> </td><td>8.83834 x 1011 ohms</td></tr>
</table></center>
::::Doug
* Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can the masses of subatomic particles be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume I, chapter 13.
* Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can the element positions in the periodic table be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume 1, chapter 10. (To my knowledge, RS is the only theory that can do this too.)
This should suffice, but there is much more if needed.
Not only are theories of the system testable and falsifiable, but they also predict new discoveries: (this issue is not mentioned in latest arguments of party A but has been in the past.) If it is desired, I will provide the necessary info to answer that allegation if it is raised again. The other issue raised is regarding the lack of mathematical content. I can provide you with our Y and Z on this too when you are ready.
Doug
----
Wow, Doug. That's a lot. It might take me longer than one day, just to digest this much. Would you please be patient for that long?
I will start by saying something like ''proponents of RS claim that it can blah, blah, blah.'' (replacing ''blah'' with the 5 items you so neatly listed.
After I've done that, we can let it stew for a while, and see what the anti-RS crowd have to say about that. One thing they might ask for is details of the calculations. I myself am curious about how 2 simple postulates produce the charge of an electron, for example.
[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Wednesday, May 29, 2002
:Ed, sure I can wait as long as it takes. I wrote a paragraph or two about the electric charge - but Wikipedia lost it somehow. It's just as well though because to understand 'how 2 simple postulates produce the charge of an electron' you first need to understand how they produce the photon, subatoms, atoms, compounds, etc. In other words, the theory progressively builds from simple motion to more and more complex combinations of these simple motions.
The key to understanding it is grasping the idea that in a universe of nothing but motion, motion must be understood to mean the reciprocal relationship of space and time, not just the velocity of an object through space. A vector in space as we normally think of it is a special case of motion in RS. In RS, space and time do not exist independently, they are aspects of motion. Motion is primary and it is scalar, meaning that it has no inherent direction as does a vector. Direction of a scalar value has the meaning of increasing or decreasing, inward or outward, but not left or right, up or down, near or far. So, the fundamental postulates, by assuming that nothing but motion exists, assume a 'progression' of space and time, that is space and time are increasing at unit value (s/t = 1), which, in RS, is the speed of light (denoted by 'c').
Once you grasp that idea and are able to hold to it firmly, then you can move on. The next step is to understand that the postulated motion is three-dimensional (s<sup>3</sup>/t<sup>3</sup>). This means that it cannot be fully represented in the ordinary three dimensional coordinate system with which we are familiar since any combination of motions in that system results in a vector, a one-dimensional motion. Now that means a new reference system is required to represent such motion or we would have to use three ordinary coordinate systems and treat each dimension separately as its three resolutes.
Larson chose to use what he called the natural frame of reference in RS to avoid confusion in treating the resolutes of three-dimensional motion. The natural frame of reference has unity as its origin or datum of reference. This is very useful because the reciprocal nature of RS requires the simultaneous consideration of the two sectors that the fundamental postulates requires us to deal with: one is defined below unity in the natural frame and the other above unity, analogous to greater than zero and less than zero in the ordinary coordinate frame.
The motion as postulated in RS, remember, not only is three-dimensional, but also exists in discrete (quantum(?)) units. Therefore, there cannot be motion with less than one unit of space or time. In other words, fractions of a unit don't exist. Now, the question is how does motion other than unit motion, (s/t = 1) arise? Though Larson's development is quite erudite, it doesn't state this step as explicitly and consisely as this. Nevertheless, it is a key question and understanding the answer is critical to understanding the RS.
After all, you can't just arbitrarily add units of space or units of time to produce greater than or less than unit values because space and time in RS are not independent entities but only aspects of motion (BTW - since unit motion is defined as c, the velocity of light, you may be concerned with references to motion at greater than unit values - but bear with me for now). So, how do these non-unit values arise? Well, here it gets a little philosophical. The reasoning is that since the postulates assume nothing but motion, we must be permitted to assume that motion exists with these non-unit ratios because nothing in the postulates excludes the possibility. So, the question then becomes what motion would produce a given non unit ratio (let's call it speed)?
One answer is a simple harmonic vibration. In such a motion, displacement of time or space would occur because its reciprocal oscillates. For instance, in a vibratory motion in which time is displaced from unity, space necessarily is reversing direction (scalar direction) so that the result is s/t = 1/n, n > 1. This results in a scalar speed less than unit speed (i.e. less than c). As n increases, the speed of the ocillation (frequency) decreases from unit speed towards zero speed in space.
A similar condition creates a displacement of space when time is oscillating so that the result is s/t = n/1, n > 1. Now notice that in this case it represents greater than unit velocity. However, since in RS time and space are reciprocals, this means that t/s represents motion in time, and in the sector of three-dimensional time s/t = n/1, n > 1 in three-dimensional space is equivalent to t/s = 1/n, n > 1. So, again we have the case that a displacement of increasing values of n represents speeds decreasing from unity towards zero, but in this case the ocillation ('frequency' - we have no word for it) is in time and it decreases from unit speed towards zero speed in time.
Uggh, enough for now.
Doug - May 30, 2002
----
Sorry, Doug, you lost me there. I will do my best to summarize RS, perhaps by picking out key statements from your exposition above.
It's beginning to look like we could classify RS under philosophy or metaphysics. Many other philosophies make claims about their applicability to the real world (such as Marxism which intreprets the world in terms of "matter in motion"). RS is simpler than Marxism, in that it begins only with motion, leaving out matter.
Brace yourself, because as you recall my offer was limited to only those parts of RS I could understand, and I'm having trouble following your exposition. I will probably wind up stating the claims of RS, followed by the briefest of bare-bones introduction to some of its arguments, ending with external references.
This will be somewhat more sympathetic and slightly more edifying that what we have (in the main version), but probably shorter than what is in Maveric's /temp version.
Hm. Here is a possible outline:
* what is it
* who developed/advocates it
* who advocates against it
* list of claims, with evidence for & against each claim
* external references
[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Thursday, May 30, 2002
:Ed, sounds good to me. What I wrote was for your benefit - background - not for the article itself. Do what you can do, if we can get it out there in a way that everyone is happy, we will have accomplished a lot.
Doug
Excuse me, Doug, but this article has become too hard for me. Would you please help me by writing a '''short''' summary of RS's claims, with evidence for a few representative claims? I thought I could do that myself, but I failed to understand enough of it to do it justice.
One piece of advice that may help you on the talk pages: try restating your opponents' points in your own words. When they are satisfied that you understand their objections, you can then include them in the article, like this:
* RS introduces the concept of the '''scalar vector''' in its explanation of the galaxies all mutually receding from each other after the big bang. This concept shows that . . .
* RS critics call the term ''scalar vector'' an oxymoron, on the grounds that a quantity can be either scalor or vector, but not both.
I'm not sure my example does RS justice; please focus on the '''form''' of the 2 bullet points more than their exact accuracy. First I explained the RS idea (as well as I could), then I gave the response of the typical mainstream critic.
This form is generally acceptable to all Wikipedians, because each side gets its say. RS gets its paragraph explaining its cherished idea and why it's important and/or valid. The anti-RS advocates get their innings as well, explaining why they dismiss it as rubbish (or question it, or have vague misgivings, etc.).
You like RS, right? Well, the only way you'll get Wikipedians to stop reverting your article into oblivion is to be sensitive to their '''response''' to RS. The article can't be 100% pro-RS. Accept the possiblity that as much as 3/4 of the article will be devoted to anti-RS points of view. If you can accept that, then I'm sure Maveric will promote the /temp page to replace RS of T (he might even unlock it).
One last thing, and I'll get off the pulpit: remember, this is an encyclopedia. It's not a debating forum like the Internet newsgroups. We are all trying to make an article of lasting value. The only way to do this is to attribute each point of view to its advocates:
#A supports B because of C.
#X opposes B because of Z.
Don't try to censor X, just because you disagree with Z. Okay? [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Monday, June 3, 2002
:Ok Ed, I'll take another stab at it. -Doug
----
Ed, here is my latest effort. It's not complete, but I'm attempting to follow your suggestions. My biggest problem is a lack of specifics from the opposing view. I can't just keep repeating their unsupported one-liners. If someone could give me something to work with like how, in their view, the RST is untestable, or why it is unfalsifiable, I could do more. The charge of RST's lack of mathematical formulation is likewise difficult to expound for the same reason. If Larson can use F=ma, etc. and get the correct results, what more can I say? - Doug June 9
---
I've revised and added more. It needs a lot more work, but I wanted to post more of it to see what comments there might be to this point. It is a work in progress. I will add references for cited sections soon. Doug June 22
:I'm sorry Doug - I should have mentioned this before. But your additions and deletions from the Temp version have turned a POV article on the road to NPOV into a point-counterpoint defense of the RST with the explanation of what it actually is being removed. I suggest we revert to the last version Ed and I had worked on [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Reciprocal_System_of_Theory/Temp&oldID=85368&version=3 here]. Perhaps it would be best if you didn't edit the Temp verions until Ed and I are done with it. All I wanted was a quick note after each of the discussions stating briefly why the mainstream scientific community thinks the particular ideas expressed are crackpot ideas. I am sorry that I have not had more time to do this, but there is constantly many other fires being started that I have to put out. Not to mention the fact that I also try to contribute some content myself once in a while. If you agree, I will still take a closer look at what you added to see if it could be integrated into the article. If you don't agree, then I would probably have to give up because I really don't know what to do with the most recent additions. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
I agree. I've read all the past versions of this article and this talk page, and I still have no idea what the word ''motion'' means in RST. Nor ''time''. Nor ''reciprocal''. Definitions of these words were written using RST jargon. That can't help me since I don't know the jargon. These terms need to be defined using words/equations that non-RST people will understand. An RST encyclopedia article shouldn't include a long debate on the philosophy of science. It just needs a clear description of the basics of RST, and a few short statements pointing out that mainstream science rejects RST.--Anon
:Sounds good. Hopefully Doug will be able to explain what these terms mean on this talk page so that those definitions can be put into the article. --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=103347.
  This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|