Talk:Allais effect

This author seems to present a bias that is obviosly not shared by NASA and other scientific communities around the world. The Allais effect is very far from junk science and mention of an article where all experiments for the last 30 years are called ambiguous is misleading.

Read about the 1999 experiment held simultaneously all around the world through the cooperation of NASA and other scientific establishments from multiple countries: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm


 * If you believe the article does not reflect the mainstream scientific literature, point to a recent published article in a mainstream journal that reports an unexplained Allais effect...I did a literature search and I didn't find any recent papers other than the ones cited.
 * In the 1999 URL you point to, they don't actually have any results yet (they were still analyzing the data); moreover, the two scientists mentioned (Noever and Koczor) apparently never got any results that were worth publishing, because a literature search on INSPEC for their names and "eclipse" or "allais" comes up with nothing.  The only thing your URL really establishes is that people were still trying to measure the Allais effect in 1999, and the Wikipedia article already says this (reporting the Wang measurements, which were published...and then refuted.)  &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 23:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well an article refuting the Allais effect would have been worth publishing but I haven't found any too. What I found, but only from unconfirmed sources, is that Noever never disclosed the result and resigned from NASA to create his own web company. Some say this is because of mistakes in the conceptions of the experiments. The team didn't know that Mr. Allais was still alive and Allais himself was not aware of the experiments until a few weeks before the eclipse. He is then said to have sent a lot of advices explaining what he thought was wrong in this experiment. This is a voluminous document and it is published on the web (in French only). This is only gossips. It may also be that, having resigned from Nasa, he didn't took time to publish his results.
 * User:Iv

The bias is not that of the 'author'
The history tab shows that the original article contained no such bias. The bias was added subsequently. I also believe the original article was much more interesting! &mdash;User:Etimbo


 * You're right, before my edits, the article was more interesting. It also happened to be false and/or misleading, unfortunately.  The original version said, "there is growing evidence that the Allais effect does exist and it is believed by some to represent the only gross anomaly outstanding in the current scheme of physical knowledge."  (In fact, the evidence is shrinking in the literature as the recent experiments were refuted by multiple papers, and apparently the only people who still believe it is an anomaly are so far outside the mainstream of science that they don't even publish.) &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 17:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Criticism by multiple papers means a proposition is bold, not that it is wrong. Special Relativity was "refuted" by how many dozen papers? You can't just count the number of papers on each side of a controversy and announce that whoever has more papers wins. Has Wang or any of his coworkers disclaimed their work? Has a considered consensus emerged within the scientific community and been documented? If not, then saying they were 'refuted' instead of 'criticized' constitutes an opinion of the controversy on your part, not a fact Wikipedia should accept.0nullbinary0 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now edited the page to remove confusion between the Allais effect (precession of a physical pendulum), the Jeverdan effect (period shortening of a Foucault pendulum), the Saxl&Allen effect (period change of a torsion pendulum), and the Wang observations (gravimeter readings).

I do wish people would read the references to know something about the subject, before making erroneous edits!

I have also reinserted the reference to the Allais paper, which is a primary reference which should be mentioned, and have inserted and discussed a quotation from the Thomas van Flandern paper, while trying not to be too sarcastic about it.

Moreover, having reviewed all the Wang et al papers concerning their gravimeter experiments, I am frankly astounded at the gross nature of the misrepresentation above. These recent experiments have not been refuted; in fact, I am not aware of any published articles discussing them, except for the Flandern paper which is, to put it politely, unconvincing. Still less have the original authors disclaimed their observations. I have modified the article to reflect the actual state of affairs. Galileo would understand the situation..... Thomas Goodey

Please leave Galileo out of this. This article clearly has a bias towards the Allais effect, which is not even close to accepted by the majority of physicists. Could someone with an in-depth knowledge of this subject edit this page to improve it's neutrality? Grokmoo 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You say the article "has a bias towards the Allais effect". Do you mean towards the existence of the Allais effect?


 * The article concludes with the line "Exotic explanations for Allais and related effects have not gained significant traction among mainstream scientists" which I believe is a beautifully neutral summary of the state of knowlege. This line was penned by Steven G. Johnson who does know what he's talking about and, I believe, does not believe in the existence of the Allais effect. -- Etimbo ( Talk) 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Etimbo. While the last line doesn't favor the Allais effect, I fear that it is vague and would not be understood by many non-scientists.  The article also seems to be biased towards "the existance of the Allais effect" for its bulk.  I'm not entirely sure what to do to fix this, but it would be a better article if the position of mainstream scientists was made clearly and concisely, instead of sprinkled throughout the article.  It seems like most of the article favors the Allais effect, with only the occasional rebutal.  I think an entire section devoted to the mainstream (and to Allais's) positions would be in order. Grokmoo 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You say, "I'm not entirely sure what to do to fix this". Well if you're not sure, then we're a bit stuck. I am sure that the article is written from a NPOV. Unless you can come up with a concrete proposal to change the article, or change it yourself, I will remove the disputed NPOV tag. -- Etimbo ( Talk) 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Etimbo. The article is clear that the subject is theory, and debated, but at the same time clearly explains and discusses the theory without a bias towards the likliness of its falsehood.  Due to the assinine nature of an explaination of theory being viewed as biased in favor of a theory, especially when clearly weighted with claims to its disputed nature, and the stagnation of the NPOV debate, I'm removing the DNPOV tag. -- Corwinoid 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

allais is not a physicist
Allais has no publication in a peer-reviewed journal in physics. He cannot be considered a physicist by any standard so I modified the article accordingly. LeYaYa 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the article to include a reference to Allais's ten notes published in the Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences, which is certainly peer-reviewed! As for what Allais "is" or "is not", I am not sure that the discussion has any value. He "isn't" an economist any more than he "is" a physicist; in fact, while he was doing his work on physics in the 1950's, he also wrote his two first books on economics, which formed the fundamental support for his receiving the Nobel Prize in Economics later. So I think it is NPOV to say that Allais "is" a polymath. 220.215.160.147 08:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Thomas Goodey 220.215.160.147 08:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy concerning crackpot theories?
I think that this article is well written, but it is obviously a crackpot theory expounded by a non-physicist that noone believes. Does anyone know if there is a wikipedia policy regarding such theories? I would be inclined to propose deletion of this article if there is. Lunokhod 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sort of... WP:FRINGE deals with such, but this article passes the threshold for Fringe - as it is discussed extensively on the NASA webpage. Blueboar 21:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar. The guidelines state that "Fringe theories and even demonstrably incorrect assertions like the Face on Mars conspiracy theory can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia by sheer notoriety" and that subjects can be included in Wikipedia if they relate "to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines)". The Allais Effect was the subject of an article in a large-circulation magazine, The Economist, on 19 August 2004 entitled "An Invisible Hand?", which contains the following passage:

Since that first observation, the “Allais effect”, as it is now called, has confounded physicists. If the effect is real, it could indicate a hitherto unperceived flaw in General Relativity—the current explanation of how gravity works.
 * Therefore, according to Wikipedia guidelines this article certainly should not be deleted. -- Etimbo ( Talk) 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the article should not be deleted, because many people want to know what the Allais effect is, and they will likely go to Wikipedia to find out! Whether or not the claimed Allais effect is related to any crackpot theory is irrelevant; quite rightly, there are lots of crackpot things on Wikipedia - for example, most of the religious theories described MUST be crackpot, because they are mutually exclusive: only one can be true. Wikipedia describes things - it doesn't rate things as sensible or not. 220.215.160.147 08:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Thomas Goodey

And I quote from the guidelines "the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong" - 220.215.160.147 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Thomas Goodey

Article is skewed and needs rewriting
I don't think it should be deleted; the "Allais effect" is sufficiently notorious, despite not being widely believed, that it deserves a Wikipedia article. However, I do think the article in its present state is misleading. (I tried editing it for NPOV a while back, but eventually gave up trying to battle with proponents.)

For example, I added the Flandern citation, but then it was edited to quote them out of context in such a way as to suggest the complete opposite of their conclusions: since the original experiments of Allais et al. claiming large effects not explainable by simple atmospheric models etc. have never been replicated, and predate the recognition of the need for careful controls in this sort of experiment, Flandern et al concluded that they were most likely experimental errors having nothing to do with gravity (unlike the 2000 Wang experiment, which they argue measured a real gravitational variation, albeit one due simply to conventional atmospheric motion). In contrast, the article quotes Flandern in such a way as to suggest that Flandern "admits" the original Allais observations are still a scientific mystery.

Even worse, the article originally (when I edited it) stated regarding the Wang paper that "however, the same authors later (2002 and 2003) published papers showing how their observations could be explained by conventional thermal phenomena (e.g. temperature and pressure changes and their indirect effects) caused by the eclipse." The article now states the complete opposite: "the same authors later (2002 and 2003) published papers maintaining that their observations could not be explained by conventional phenomena such as temperature and pressure change caused by the eclipse, and that, although tilting of the ground due to temperature changes could, in the extreme, have been responsible, that hypothesis was unlikely." This is totally false, and even libellous.

Also, I should point out that the proponents of this effect on Wikipedia seem to want to restrict it to experiments exactly like Allais' original experiment: that is, if you are not measuring gravity with a pendulum in a specific way, you are not measuring the "Allais effect". This is not how the term is used in actual published articles, like the Wang article&mdash;actual published articles use the term "Allais effect" to indicate any supposed gravitational anomaly during an eclipse, regardless of how it is measured. (Proponents apparently want to restrict the term to pendula, despite the fact that much more sensitive gravitational measurement techniques are now available, in order to deny the fact that numerous attempts have failed to replicate anything remotely of the magnitude claimed by Allais, at least as published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. See also the lighthanded dismissal of the Kuusela and Jun experiments because they used the "wrong" kind of pendula...this kind of sniping has nothing to do with real error analysis, and is an original interpretation imposed on published articles that violates Wikipedia policy.)

Our penultimate paragraph cites the Duif article, which is self-published (and has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal as far as I can tell), and therefore dubious as a reputable source according to Wikipedia guidelines (not to mention standard scholarly practice).

In short, while the article should be kept, it needs substantial rewriting. I personally have decided that I don't have the energy to keep the crackpots at bay in Wikipedia's relativity-related articles, however, so I leave this to others. I merely warn you to actually read the mainstream published sources, rather than trusting skewed summaries of them by Allais proponents.

—Steven G. Johnson 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please hurry, all discussion forums speaking about this end by quoting this article. Barraki 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed by author. I decided one bit was intemperate and included the other at the bottom of the section where it belongs.0nullbinary0 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

I must comment quickly: (a) the article does not mention relativity at all. Prof. Allais's own suggested explanation, which involves an aether, may be considered as relativity related; but the claimed effect itself, if true, has no immediate implications for relativity theory. In fact, the claimed effect is not necessarily related to gravitation either: there are various reasons for pendulums to precess. 220.215.160.147 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Thomas Goodey

I'll work on it as soon as I can - 220.215.160.147 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Thomas Goodey


 * Somehow I don't think Thomas Goodey (author of http://www.allais.info/, an unabashed proponent site proclaiming Allais to be a genius who deserves a Nobel prize in physics for his never-reproduced experiments) is the best person to restore accuracy and neutrality to this page. —Steven G. Johnson 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be careful of what might be interpreted as a personal attack.--Rocksanddirt 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas Goodey is a liar! Look at this diff: : he placed his text between Johnson's and mine's to look like he had my approbation! I'm not with him,, and I don't want him to misquote me to make it appear! Barraki 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A lie is an intentional false statement. Inserting a constructive comment in a discussion may hardly be interpreted as a lie. As this article is about the anomalous Allais effect and not directly about Maurice Allais, I think that any experimenter who has performed experiments on anomalous effects of pendulae during solar eclipses should be very welcomed as a contributor of this article, whether proponent or opponent of Maurice Allais. Thomas Goodey is one of them. Arjen Dijksman 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history, Mr. Goodey is apparently responsible for introducing several of the very factual inaccuracies and misleading statements that I identified above (and which no one has yet refuted). This, combined with his passionate self-proclaimed opinions on the subject, make him a dubious candidate for correcting these same problems, although I do not call him a "liar."  (Regarding Mr. Goodey's credentials as an experimenter, I should point out that a literature search on the INSPEC science/engineering database turns up zero publications by any "T. Goodey" in mainstream journals or conferences, on this or any other subject.)  This is not a personal attack, merely a statement of the relevant facts regarding the past behavior and self-acknowledged biases of an editor whose work on this page has constantly and unfortunately merited close scrutiny by anyone who wants this article to accurately describe accepted scientific work on the subject.  —Steven G. Johnson 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion could be more content related and assume good faith of Mr. Goodey. The previous posts may really be interpreted as personal attacks if we do not respect these guidelines Wp:assume good faith and WP:No Personal Attacks. Maybe I should have reverted the personal attack which an anonymous IP adress attributes to Barraki, in place of responding to it. Either it does not emanate from him, either it does: in both cases it is harmful for him and the wikipedian project. The Allais effect is still an open subject. There are many speculations and contradictions even among peer-reviewed Phys Rev D articles. So we should be a bit more cautious in our proclaiming neutral truth about it. Arjen Dijksman 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote this. Yes, "liar" is inaccurate. Maybe "manipulator" fits better. The comment was inserted in the right place to make it look like I was supporting him, and not Johnson. And it can't be genuine as he answered a message I was clearly sending to Johnson. How could we trust him after this? And as Johnson noted, he is not the best guy to NPOV this as he is an actor in the controversy. Barraki 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to claim this article is not relativity-related is disingenuous. Yes, there are many reasons for pendula to precess, the most notable of which in this context is experimental error (failure to isolate the pendulum from other forces), but most of those reasons are uninteresting. The only reason that the "Allais effect" has attracted widespread interest (and notoriety) is because of claims that it indicates a failure of standard models of gravitation (i.e. general relativity). —Steven G. Johnson 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Steven. I cite Wang et al. from the following references (you may find them on Thomas Goodey's website):
 * X.-S. Yang and Q.-S. Wang, Gravity anomaly during the Mohe total solar eclipse and new constraint on gravitational shielding parameter, Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 245-253, 2002.
 * "...the temperature change in the shadow region cannot be the responsible factor."
 * "...there was no synchronisation or any correlation of pressure with gravity variations."
 * "Thus, the observed puzzles could be due to the ground tilt and thermal stress, however, it is very unlike to cause the anomalies with such high values as observed during the total solar eclipse."


 * Tang, K, Wang, Q, Zhang, H, Hua, C, Peng, F, Hu, K, Gravity Effects of Solar Eclipse and Inducted Gravitational Field, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract G32A-0735, 2003.
 * "It is reasonable to believe that surrounding environment of the observatory excluded the significant gravity variations caused by temperature, pressure variation and local moving of persons and vehicles."


 * Therefore, unlike what you wrote above, the contribution correcting that Wang et al. maintain that their observations could not be explained by conventional phenomena such as temperature and pressure change is correct. By the way, I found no use of the term "Allais Effect" in the Wang reference as you refer to. For insiders, there seems to be a real difference between the different anomalous eclipse effects and I think it is OK if that appears in the article. Arjen Dijksman 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Excluding wild claims, there have been four anomalous physical effects claimed during solar eclipses: deviation of the swing plane of a paraconical pendulum (termed the "Allais effect" which is what this page is about); change of the period of a pendulum; change of the vertical component of gravity; and change of the period of a torsion pendulum. As such, these are different effects, and I repeat: they should not be lumped together. If any writer does so (probably due to ignorance), that writer is wrong and is propagating confusion. If any or all are genuine, they may be due to a common cause, which may be gravitational in nature. But they may not, and it may not. If any effect is genuine, it may indeed be relativity-related, and certainly will be insofar as all modern physics is conceptually interrelated. Basically, more data is needed - some well performed experiments with utmost care taken to exclude adventitious effects. I think it is best if I ignore the personal attacks. But I must comment that I do not have passionate opinions on the subject of the claimed Allais effect; I am agnostic, and very calm minded. In fact I have now performed paraconical pendulum experiments on the central lines of three solar eclipses (8/4/2005, 3/5/2005, 29/3/2006). Although the behavior of the pendulum is interesting and not easy to understand, I have not seen any particular eclipse effect - and these experiments were certainly more delicate and accurate than Allais's experiments. Accordingly I can assert with fair confidence that no Allais effect appears on the central eclipse line. To be fair, Allais did not claim this: he was 1300 km from the eclipse line when (he claims) he saw the effect. Therefore my future experiments will be conducted at some distance from the eclipse line. Thomas Goodey 83.105.93.158 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these extra informations, which show that we must take care to avoid false assumptions. Is there any reference work on these new experiments that could help to gain better understanding of the field? If this is original research, maybe a research project at wikiversity would be a better place to share it. Arjen Dijksman 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Duif paper gives the considered thoughts of a reputable worker in the field. It is not cited to establish any facts, only as one perspective on an open scientific question. Even though it is unpublished, isn't it still something you'd want to read if investigating this topic? Wikipedia routinely cites media articles on scientific topics, usually written by people with bachelors degrees in English or Journalism. It would truly be a shame if we started shunning the self-published work of people with science PhDs.0nullbinary0 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unpublished = unreviewed = unreliable. This is an encyclopedia, not some journal of alternative scientific inquiry. It does no harm to wait until it's published by a reliable source. Auntie E.  23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambig
Should this be disambiguated with Allais paradox (which is, in certain context, occasionally referred to as Allais effect in economics) since that's probably better known and what readers might be searching for?radek (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, why not? Done. --Ørjan (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No Tags
Please do not tag this article or waste editors' time raising pointless claims. This is obvious and blatant crackpotism, in the same category with levitating mystics: Many people have seen such a thing and all of them are mistaken.

Physics, unlike, say, macroeconomics, is a rather well-understood science. Theories of the luminiferous aether have been thoroughly debunked. We also understand that gravity is a continuous field: space is distorted by mass but consistently; there are no tiny holes or peaks except at black holes, which are none of Terra, Luna, or Sol. So if an unusual gravitational effect were observable during a solar eclipse, it would also be observable, to a greater or smaller degree, during each new moon. This is not the case.

This is a case of people influenced psychologically by the drama and comparative rarity of eclipses to impute mystical effects to them. To uphold this theory is not merely poor science; worse than bad science, it is anti-science: It contributes to public ignorance and confusion.

As with other exploded theories, sober and educated people studied this one. Their work was not in vain nor is it proper to attack them as fools, even if their results are shown to be unrealistic. That is not how science works. Many respected individuals have advanced theories that have now fallen into dust. We theorize, we experiment, we publish, we replicate (or fail in the attempt), we devise new experiments and new theories, we debate, debate, debate and eventually, perhaps, consensus emerges among the community of experts in the field.

The system is imperfect but it's better than the previous model: A mystic announces his theories, raves convincingly in affirmation, and enlists fanatic followers who beat and kill skeptics. Let's stick with science, okay?

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of exploded theories. I don't care how much time you have spent trisecting the angle or exploring the hollow Earth; it's completely unimportant how convinced you are or how many dozens of fellow travelers you claim. An unbiased discussion of these topics is absurd, if by "unbiased" you mean to give equal weight to fact and to fancy. The primary purpose of any encyclopedia is to inform, not to mislead and confuse.

I have reviewed this article in detail and find it a reasonably well-written, objective, factual discussion of a dismissed theory; it contains citations nearly in excess of its editorial content. No further tinkering is required to skew its viewpoint toward greater credulity; on the other hand, there is no need to delete it. In its present form it is likely about as good as it can be.

Rationally, I can not hope here to persuade fanatical supporters to abandon their support. I do trust that rational editors will recognize the essential foolishness of continuing to permit the fanatics to dispute this article.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 14:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is still skewed in favor of the Allais effect. For example, the article currently states:


 * In response to criticisms, the same authors later (2002 and 2003) published papers maintaining that their observations could not be explained by conventional phenomena such as temperature and pressure change caused by the eclipse, and that, although tilting of the ground due to temperature changes could, in the extreme, have been responsible, that hypothesis was unlikely


 * Whereas their actual 2003 paper (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002) asserts that their observations could be explained by conventional physical phenomena (from their abstract: rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages, emphasis added).


 * As another example, the present article uses the biased phrase that the Flandern paper "admits that ‘the gravitation anomaly discussed here is about a factor of 100,000 too small to explain the Allais excess pendulum precession… during eclipses”." (emphasis added). But if you actually read the Flandern paper, this is not presented as an "admission" of failure of mainstream physics, but rather evidence that the (unreplicated) Allais measurements were simply erroneous (due to improper controls).  The present article puts entirely the opposite spin on it, a spin imposed by Allais proponents and not by the scientists.


 * — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The article should be an honest presentation of a marginal theory, even if it is crackpot. There is still support of a flat Earth and you will note, in that article, evidence presented for that view.

I rm the needless tags because I cannot see any value in skewing the article any further toward credulity; also, I cannot see any value in debunking it any harder. My reading of it currently makes quite clear that this is not taken seriously by anybody I would respect as a scientist.

"Exotic explanations for Allais and related effects have not gained significant traction amongst mainstream scientists." That is clear enough to me. If I am not yet clued in, I can follow the citations.

It is obvious to any thinking person that crackpot science is always disputed; almost by definition, there is a hard core of supporters and, besides mainstreamers who simply ignore it, another, opposing hard core devoted to debunking. No need to tag the obvious.

Suggest you not waste more time on this. Don't give it credibility by attacking it.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of whether the phenomenon is disputed or not. The question is whether the article accurately describes the published literature, which it did not. In one case, it actually reversed the conclusions of a given paper.  I have corrected the descriptions of the abovementioned papers.  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Allais effect and consensus
There is consensus about the fact that the Allais effect is sometimes observed, cf. the different publications in peer-reviewed journals. There is however no consensus about the explanation: experimental errors, temperature variations, lunisolar effects, etc. So the existence of an eclipse effect is accepted by the scientific community. The different claims refer to different explanations. --Arjen Dijksman (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to have two distinct paragraphs:
 * the experimental observations with published references
 * the various explanations for which there is no consensus today
 * --Arjen Dijksman (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, to the best of my knowledge, Maurice Allais didn't give any explanation for the eclipse effect. His explanation of an anisotropy of space is for another effect which he also observed: the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum and of angular deviations of sightings at marks.--Arjen Dijksman (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the Dark Flow is also worth mentioning. There's a fairly recent paper "The Cause of the Allais Effect Solved" by Bjarne Lorenzen and the follow up by the same author: "Extension to the Cause of the Allais Effect Solved". I think the topic is worth investigating by competent people (I'm not a phisicist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaterski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allais effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516091554/http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/noever/decrypting.htm to http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/noever/decrypting.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)