Talk:1941 Reich experiment

It's all wrong.

NO it isn't

Yes it is.

No it isn't

That's not an argument!

Yes it is!

No it isn't!

Whats the point?
What is the point of creating a page with a deliberatly POV title and then disputing it yourself? So I moved it. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 08:43:19 (UTC).

merging
This article should be merged into Wilhelm Reich. It is far too non-notable for its own article: .--MarSch 30 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)


 * Fair point. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 15:03:51 (UTC).


 * It should stay as a separate entry. How often does one hear about Albert Einstein changing his mind?  From a bomb in physics to mere convection that to this day has not been experimentally proven...? Connolley is just showing more of his unscientific bias.  The experiment was performed by Einstein, not Reich.  The results confirmed Reich, but on the basis of an interpretation provided by Infeld, Einstein came to view the experiment as being, somehow, insignificant - without any requirement that convection be demonstrated as the cause of the anomaly. Since Connolley thinks he is a 'doc', how does he propose to test that it is convection that causes the anomaly? Well he should first check the other references I put in, where the experiment has been replicated by two independent groups of researchers and controls introduced that rule out convection. Moreover, it was important enough for Reich, since he based his theory of orgone energy in part on this experiment.


 * Einstein changing his mind is not an unknown thing. He changed his mind of the cosmological constant Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)


 * Who cares if Einstein changed his mind. Besides going from "If that is true it would be a bomb in physics" to "Unfortunately it is only mere convection" is not what I would call changing your mind.
 * But the end was that the experiment failed to show anything controversial or even significant or even noteworthy. I think it is very much just a note in Reich's life, but a crucial one. Einstein's article should probably mention this as a curiosity. This was just some fun for Einstein, And why not? You never know after all. --MarSch 2 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)


 * That is pretty thick-headed, MarSch, specially since it takes so much latitude with facts. It also betrays a pretty narrow-minded POV. Get this: the "if that is true" was not whether the interpretation would be different from convection (read the record: this is a fact); no, convection did not cross Einstein's mind at that time (read the friggin' record before opening mouse trap); no siree. The "if that is true" applied exclusively to "whether the result is a positive temperature difference as you Dr. Reich claim it is". Now guess what happened?  Einstein confirmed that difference. So, by that initial "if that is true", Einstein would now have to admit it was indeed "a bomb in Physics".  And that is why it took him so long to reply - because he only noted that the phenomenon was likely caused by convection after Infeld suggested this as the explanation. In science, what matters first are facts.  The first fact confirms Reich's observation.  The second fact concerns interpretations.  To decide between interpretations, one needs other facts.  So the question arises, what facts are there on which Infeld based his objection? And to you, MarSh, so quickly on the dismissive click draw, I put the same question: where is the proof, the experimental proof that a box of certain materials placed in darkness, in an unheated room with dead air, on top and not on top of a table, etc (all the caveats that you cavalierly ignore or dismiss), develops or should develop a positive temperature difference instead of reaching the lowest steady-state temperature, the temperature of the surrounding air?? Why is the temperature difference not null, and why are no negative differences observed? I bet that you cannot answer these questions. Try citing papers and proposing a model or an experiment that proves it is convection.  You don't have one, do you? you can't, can you? And why? Because there is nothing in convection theory or the corollary to the second law that permits you to postulate that this should happen with certain boxes and not others. See?  Most people's objections are like yours: poorly thought out and with little grasp of facts.

Does this inspire confidence in the reader?
"Although the experiment was clearly important for Reich, it doesn't seem to merit even a footnote in Einstein's life. For example, there is no mention of Reich in Abraham Pais's biography, 'Subtle is the Lord...': The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein." References
 * Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: Avon, 1971, ISBN 038001159X pages 689-90 paperback edition.

The denial of a mention in a biography which is immediately followed by biography that DOES mention it?

There are dozens of bios of E. It would be more convincing to consult as many as possible and see how accounts differ, which was what I was hoping could be done colaboratively. GangofOne 30 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Silly - what do you expect from biographers who understand nothing of the science? This readiness to believe authorities rather than one's eyes or facts is a sign of great debility.


 * I didn't say believe them. I meant, to find out what they say, and be amused. Anyway, it's not a great debility but rather a common one. GangofOne 2 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
 * Yes, greatly common.

Experiments of this TYPE
As I conceived of this article it wouldn't just refer to what happened in 1941, but to experiments like it. Just as an article on, say, the Michelson-Morley experiment is about a TYPE of experiment, not just what happened in 1885. Therefore replications by others are on topic, all of which as been wiped. Even if the Correas et all are all wrong it's up the reader to decide. It is indeed the case that those are relevant references, regardless of their putative bogosity. It is not wikipedia's job to determine the truth of every scientific issue. It provides a service to reader to be shown where to look next on the topic, if they so choose. If the articles says something like ... that is the experiment and it is bogus because of ...blah. I have no objection to that.GangofOne 30 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

I was hoping when I created the article that those with new information would be able to add more complete accounts, before the cleanser attack by the orthodox, who are trying to superstitiously "protect the good name" of their heroes from being associated with evil and other bad juju.GangofOne 30 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

The problem with your moves GangOfOne is that in general they are inaccurate and devoid of critical criteria.


 * 209.183.20.183, what took you so long to show up? I'd take your comment more seriously if I had any belief that you had read the page history. GangofOne 2 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)


 * Apologies if the text I corrected was not yours.

wording
I wrote "(An orgone accumulator, invented by Reich, " to point out that the OA is part of the Reich realm, not some standard piece of scientific equipment. The current version loses that distinction.GangofOne 30 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Text removed: "(Here facts are in dispute. One account says Einstein removed the outer layer of wood, leaving the metal. An enclosed volume surrounded by metal is sometimes called a Faraday cage, since it blocks out (or in) electromagnetic radiation.)"  Anome points out it was a Faraday cage even before wood was removed. True, but what we are attempting to write about is what really happened, so facts are relevant. From the orgonomist's POV, without the wood, it's a totally different experiment.GangofOne 30 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Aetherometry is the direct descendent of orgonomy, so it's relevantGangofOne 30 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Here is another example of your inaccuracy, GangOfone: It was Einstein who eventually decided to remove the insulation and work with just the Faraday cage - confirming Reich's claim that it worked with or without the insulation that makes it into an orgone accumulator. Einstein himself says he tested the two arrangements in his final letter. Get informed! Search the facts! Do the legwork! Lift the leg, man!
 * Not sure what you're disputing. GangofOne 2 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
 * an ORAC and a Faraday cage both accumulate Orgone?GangofOne 2 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
 * What really happened is this: Einstein himself tested both the Faraday cage and the orgone accumulator. In both cases he saw a positive temperature difference.  Fake orgonomists pretend that it was only the accumulator that gave a positive difference, and that the difference was towards the inside, not the top.  The record shows otherwise. That's all.

Karada, why did you remove this:? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics GangofOne 2 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)


 * Karada: you are nothing but a fee-for-all vandal. What you removed is entirely a factual record. To call facts propaganda is pure Goebbels mentality. Herd-instinct at work.  Disgraceful revisionist POV.

The bias against facts
How many times will thou restoreth all that is wrong with facts? How many Einstein biographers will you list that fail to mention the Reich-Einstein Experiment? Will you do a statistical study? Will you also mention the bible and the tibetan book of the dead because they thusly failed? Why do you come across as having a much worst mission than the mission you attribute to the aetherometrists? Karada, a man completely ignorant of the Reich-Einstein experiment until a few days ago, already has something intelligent to say about it...

POV removal
I reverted back to the Anome, because this:


 * Einstein observed a positive temperature difference for a week in his basement, and confirmed Reich's finding in a published letter. Einstein originally agreed with Reich that this discovery was a "a bomb in physics". Since there was no explanation for the finding, Reich concluded that the heat was the result of a novel form of energy (massfree orgone energy) that accumulated inside the Faraday cage. However, Einstein's assistant Infeld interpreted the phenomenon as the result of thermal convection, but he failed to provide an experimental demonstration of his contention. Einstein reversed himself and concurred that the experiment seemingly could be explained by convection.

Is unacceptable. Firstly, I very much doubt the "published letter": in science, published means "in a journal". Second, this version is trying to imply that AE agreed with R but was sneakily turned round by Infeld, for which there is... no evidence. In fact, given that it was Infeld that supplied the explanation, I rather suspect that a more correct version would be that AE humoured R, and gave the thing to In to work on. William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 09:49:28 (UTC).