Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 1

Neutrality Of Article
People seem to be using wikipedia as a platform for outside arguments about Tom Van Flandern. Would the parties concerned please create a seperate article on the arguments involved and clean up this one. This is a bio. It's not for describing controversies in minute detail. Only a blurb about them, with a link to the appropriate page, is required on this article.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 October 2004

Reflections
While the remark above may prove true, it is equally centain until the "editors" allow for a object format for Flandern's reservations, these debates will continue.

When Einstein proposed Special Relativity, he set out to deal with certain observational contradictions that had arisen from the implications of the Michelson and Morey experiments and from Maxwell’s Equations.

On paper, Einstein’s observations seemed to work. But in reality they produced more problems than they set out to explain. For e example, if three points, X, Y and Z are stationary in relationship to a Cartesian grid, and points X and Y accelerate at 99% to speed of light in opposite vectors from Z, which remains stationary, their recessional speed from would be plotted at 1.99 x c, where c is the speed of light.

Yet Einstein would hold that this simple observation would never take place, because the modern “correct” or Einsteinian velocity addition that falls out of the Lorentz transformations an observer in frame 1 will see frame 2 moving at a velocity of: (0.75 c + 0.75 c)/(1 + 0.75 c * 0.75 c/c^2) = 0.96 c and vice versa for frame 2 viewing frame 1, there are no relative velocities greater than c.

So which paradox is greater? Those cited by Einstein or ones such as this one?

Moreover the necessary observational data to confirm the theory is not likely every to be held firmly within any lab or replicatable, as my college physics book conceded.

Further Einstein hoped to do away with Newton’s principle of gravitation, which was predicated on action at a distant. To do this Einstein proposed that a massive object, such as the sun, distorts space and it is the distortion in space/time that makes objects appear to move at accelerating speeds.

However just how massive objects might distort time and space, at a distance related to the inverse/square law was never answered. Certainly not without supposing action at a distance.

Further, as Van Flandern’s papers have pointed out, Einstein cannot explain how an apple starts to move, when it is separated from the tree. What overcomes its inertia and why does that same force work proportionately second by second to increase its speed?

Nor does Einstein give a clear explanation as to why kinetic energy is equal to mv, as pointed out here: 

, aka the localaccess.com anon (Local Access Communications; apparently geolocated near Chehalis, WA) 19:45, 6 May 2006

This article stinks
Guys, if you want to have a discussion on the in/validity of his arguments, the DISCUSSION page is the place to do it. I'm going to do some massive snippage.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 February 2005

Ok, now let's talk
After researching this article to some degree, reading all the materials I could find, I find that the statements made against his theory:


 * 1) stand up scientifically
 * 2) have not been addressed, contrary to claims made in this article

Unfortunately I cannot easily get PhysLet here, so reference [13] is unavailable.

The long and short of it is this: GR encodes motion into the field. As I stated in the article, this is not magical or something that was added on, it is a natural consequence of the math Nor is this some "oddball" part of the theory that is not commonly known -- discussions of it appear (typically buried in math) in any GR discussion I've seen. For instance, consider, which I believe predates this dissussion. Carlip's letter, which is available at, talks about this issue in depth.BTW I have dramatically simplified the argument in the article. Carlip's paper is considerably more in-depth and explains the issues fully. EM does have some sorts of effects and GR others, but a full discussion of these are outside the scope of the article. In every example of the VF discussion on the UseNet I can find, people who do GR for a living have pointed this out repeatedly.

Contrary to claims made in the article, VF appears to have never addressed this issue. Reading the "main article" at [6] I can't find a single mention of it at all, even though he does note correspondance with Carlip. The article still contains numerous claims that GR implies a direct force -- which is simply false, and he knows it. For this reason I agree with the general consensus on the UseNet, that VF either doesn't understand the issue, or is deliberately ignoring it. In fact I see threads from 2004 in which he once again pretends that this issue doesn't exist. It is entirely possible I'm missing VF's answer to this issue, however I cannot find it on his web site, in Google Groups, or after a quick Google search. If such a refutation does exist please forward me details. In the meantime I believe my conclusion -- that it has not been addressed -- is true.

Further the article also made claims about "his theory", but as I have pointed out this has never appeared in complete form, and appears to not exist at all. Certainly nothing more than handwaving appears in any of the cited works (given the caviat above). Again, if anyone can provide a reference to a clear, concise and mathematical development of his theory I would be happy to update the article. In the meantime I am once again led to believe that such a thing does not actually exist.

Finally I would like to point out that the claim that VF's papers have been peer reviewed is also not true. Physics Letters, where the material in question appeared, is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a discussion forum, one intended to allow physicists to "blue sky" ideas with fellow physicists. Yes, much like the UseNet, but predating it a bit. As far as I can find, none of VF's work on this topic has appeared in a peer reviewed manner. Again, I may just be missing another reference, and would be happy to examine any that anyone can provide.

I don't believe I am being unfair or non-neutral in the article or my statements here. I believe that they are an accurate description of the issue. As far as I can see there really is nothing more to this than what's gone before, that VF put out his theory, got shot down, and has since refused to admit it.

Maury 14:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Physics Letters has a peer-review system. This can be checked here. It is not like a "discussion forum" as you think. (EPleite (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite).

Peer-reviewed, published results replaced by uninformed opinions
> After researching this article to some degree, reading all the materials I could find, I find that the statements made against his theory: ** stand up scientifically ...

I don't have a pet theory of my own. My published papers (as cited) argue that the geometric interpretation of GR is non-viable on physical grounds, and that the field interpretation preferred by Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman is correct. This better physical interpretation can now be best understood in the light of modern experiments such as GPS and binary pulsars. The statements made against these published results (references 11 and 12), along with all other claims and reservations made by relativists and reviewers, were definitively addressed by myself and my respected senior-physicist co-author in reference 6, which remains to this day as the final word on the subject. No one, formally or informally, has raised arguments attempting to refute reference 6.

> ... ** have not been addressed, contrary to claims made in this article

Clearly, this person has not read reference 6. Every such comment has been addressed and definitively resolved in favor of the published conclusions.

> Unfortunately I cannot easily get PhysLet here, so reference [13] is unavailable.

Important references 8, 11, 12 and 13 are all in Phys.Lett.A. All good technical libraries carry this major physics journal.

> The long and short of it is this: GR encodes motion into the field. As I stated in the article, this is not magical or something that was added on, it is a natural consequence of the math

Math cannot have consequences in reality. It can merely describe what happens in reality. Math is normally unconcerned with cause and effect. Any action or effect without a proximate, antecedent cause is magical by definition of the word in this context.

Specifically, curvature alone cannot initiate motion in the absence of a force. Nor can a static field be a source for new 3-space momentum. In fact, the physics definition of force is "the time rate of change of (3-space) momentum". This is not alien to GR, and is in fact what the field interpretation of GR is all about. The fact that schools today sometimes teach only the geometric interpretation is no fault of GR or of Einstein. And it sure isn't my fault.

> Carlip's paper is considerably more in-depth and explains the issues fully.

Carlip's argument was rebutted in reference 6. It is no longer on the table.

> In every example of the VF discussion on the UseNet I can find, people who do GR for a living have pointed this out repeatedly.

Reference 6 includes both EM and GR effects. In none of those USENET discussions did I fail to address any misleading claims made by others.

> Contrary to claims made in the article, VF appears to have never addressed this issue.

Again, this is evidence of not having read the published literature.

> Reading the "main article" at [6] I can't find a single mention of it at all

Because the similarities of EM and GR are mentioned throughout the article, I can't imagine what this statement is referring to.

> The article still contains numerous claims that GR implies a direct force -- which is simply false, and he knows it.

This person has never been taught the field interpretation of GR. He should read some of Einstein's papers sometime. Gravity is used as a force in many contexts. The matter is in fact beyond dispute, given the definition of force I quoted above. Only the geometric interpretation of GR attempts do do away with the "gravity is force" concept; but it violates causality and momentum conservation in doing so, making it "magical".

> If such a refutation does exist please forward me details. In the meantime I believe my conclusion -- that it has not been addressed -- is true.

Have you now read the published literature and has your belief been changed by the cogent arguments therein? Many others have been persuaded by them.

> Further the article also made claims about "his theory", but as I have pointed out this has never appeared in complete form, and appears to not exist at all.

I've not referred to "my theory" in this context, although others have. I agree it doesn't exist. A definitive statement of my position, interpretation, and conclusions about gravity in general and GR in particular may be found on our new "Gravity" CD: http://metaresearch.org/publications/CDs/GravityContents.asp

> Certainly nothing more than handwaving appears in any of the cited works (given the caviat above).

It is always amazing to see those in other fields describe physical reasoning as "handwaving". One presumes this is a person who only "understands" concepts when they are expressed in the language of math. But that is an exceedingly limited form of understanding.

> Finally I would like to point out that the claim that VF's papers have been peer reviewed is also not true. Physics Letters, where the material in question appeared, is not a peer reviewed journal.

This is total nonsense. Physics Letters contributions are always peer-reviewed. So were my book and all of my other papers, especially the latest and most comprehensive reference 6, which underwent extensive peer review from three reviewers at "Foundations of Physics".

> I don't believe I am being unfair or non-neutral in the article or my statements here. I believe that they are an accurate description of the issue. As far as I can see there really is nothing more to this than what's gone before, that VF put out his theory, got shot down, and has since refused to admit it.

Your view of "reality" is highly fictional. Get and read the references. Read the journal policies about peer review. Understand the physical reasons for the published position in reference 6 that stands unchallenged and is gaining momentum as more and more physicists learn of it.

Of course, this presumes that you are more interested in physical understanding of nature and in advancing physics than in being right. Advancing physical understanding is my only interest, as evidenced by several times when I have publicly admitted to errors in other areas. But I do that only when some good cause is presented. That has yet to happen for this "speed of gravity" issue. -|Tom VF|-

--- 18:53, 1 March 2005

Chris Hillman objects
(The following was moved from NPOV flag added by to this section by  02:12, 25 March 2006)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed because: This biography has been extensively rewritten by User:Tomvf, who is apparently Tom Van Flandern in real life, to push a POV which is not accepted in mainstream physics. As such, these edits appear to violate WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. In addition, Van Flandern appears to be attempting to rebut in detail here at WP an arViv eprint by Steve Carlip, which would appear to also violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox."

Tom Van Flandern responds
The above objection should have been in Talk, not in the biography, especially because it makes factually incorrect claims. The discussion of these points appears in the article speed of gravity, and issues of verifiability, neutrality, and whether or not the ideas are established appear in the Talk section with that article. My detailed rebuttal of Steve Carlip's paper appeared in my Foundations of Physics paper with Vigier in 2002, not here. But the main problem with your objection is that it addresses only the non-biographical material here. There was plenty of it when I first saw it, and rather than delete it all, I simply responded to correct errors and point out that my viewpoints, right or wrong, are at least peer-reviewed, published in major journals, and extensively discussed.

I suggest we take all further discussion about the speed of gravity to that Wiki article's Talk. Once that article has stabilized, most of the similar material here can be replaced with a reference, and the biography can become biographical again. Agreed?

Incidentally, I recently moved to the Pacific NW and frequently visit the Seattle area. If Chris Hillman or others would be interested in a sit-down over coffee sometime, I'm up for that. Tomvf 09:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Diff. Equ. of GRT in "wake" fields and "slow" speed of motion equals exactly Newton law. There is nothing of speed of gravity and it is equal speed of gravity  instant (>>>>c). If GRT would be right then a term like r/c would be nessesary. That is not the case. Therefore GRT is wrong. The Moon shows it. With speed of gravity of only c the distance moon-earth would change any year by moore than 5000 m. Measuring shows only < 0.04m change exactly as Newton predicts. Most of 0.04m is because tides. Therefore gravitionaly waves are not possible. All of Einstein is wrong. All! byby 13.4.2006


 * ---, aka the dip.t-dialin.net anon (Deutsche Telekom AG; apparently geolocated near Nürnberg, Germany) 23:31, April 12, 2006

Remove the counter-counter arguments section
I am proposing that the counter-counter arguments section in the article be deleted from it, and removed to this talk page. That it has to go is a given, since its style is not at all encyclopedic, and it is blatantly is material which makes Wikipedia act as a primary source in violation of the no original research policy. Then we need to review it and the counter-arguments section. First of all, we need to ensure that the counter-arguments are not making Wikipedia act as a secondary source, which would also violate the "no original research" policy. Secondly, we need to see how much of TVF's counter-counter arguments are documented in acceptable sources, and place those in the counter-arguments section as appropriate. --EMS | Talk 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the place
This biographical article is absolutely not the place to make massive statements and claims and counterclaims about theories and bunk science and who knows what all. This is a biography article. If someone wants to write an article about whatever the new theory is, make all those arguments over there. Not in this article. FCYTravis 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lose the Salon Reference
The Salon reference is an opinion piece that reflects the bias of the author and many of the 'experts' quoted. If the article should appear anywhere then it would be in an Wikipedia article on Mainstream Physics.

The only purpose for the article here is to relegate TVF to "crank" status. Such smearing is inappropriate whether you agree with TVF or not.

It is long since time for self appointed experts to stop running to the defense of Einstein. His ideas stand on their own merits.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Albert Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921

Get over it. DasV 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "the organization Meta Research" ?
The article cites as the only notable thing about this person (aside from authoring a book, which may or may not be notable) is that he founded the organization Meta Research in Washington D.C. But there is no link to this organization, nor any explanation of what it is. I followed the link from the autobiography on the MetaResearch web site, and frankly, as far as I can tell, "the Meta Research" organization consists of precisely one individual, namely, Mr Van Flandern himself. If I went to the Washington D.C. area, would I find the headquarters of this "organization"? How many members are in this organization, and who are they, and what are they "organized" to do? I see no evidence of any collaborative effort on their web site, so as far as one can tell, this "organization" is simply a vanity myth for its founding (and sole) member. If I'm wrong about this, I hope someone will correct me and provide some supporting information. On the other hand, if I'm right, then surely this "organization" doesn't merit mention in Wikipedia (does it?) Lumpy27 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Meta Research exists as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This site has tax returns from 2003-2005, which list among other things a street address in Washington D.C. and the names of the seven members of the board of directors. Of course, none of this makes it notable. I dare say it is just Tomvf, or more precisely a way for him to accept tax-free contributions. His wife is listed as vice president and the other five board members are most likely just there to satisfy a legal minimum. (Only Tomvf is listed as receiving compensation.) Note that I know nothing whatever about Meta Research; the above is the result of a few minutes' research. I know a bit about Tom van Flandern. -- BenRG 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. It's about what I expected. In addition to his wife, another of the "board members" is also named van Flandern, and two more share a common name (I would guess they are a husband and wife). The current article here says the Meta Research organization was founded in 1991, so I wonder why the first tax records are 2003. I would guess it must not have been "founded" as a nonprofit until 2003. Also, since there is no data for 2006, it seems questionable if it still exists as a non-profit entity. Above all, it seems like purely a financial arrangement, self-incorporation, the kind of thing any self-employed person might set up. This all just confirms my feeling that the founding of Meta Research is not Wiki-worthy. I propose to delete mention of it from the article. Do I hear any objections (backed up by solid reason why someone's self-incorporation merits coverage in Wikipedia)? Lumpy27 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the website's database is simply incomplete. But yes, by all means delete the mention. Someone else can always add it back if we've missed something. -- BenRG 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * MetaResearch.org is not Tom's personal web site. As already cited Meta Research is a non profit organization.  Arguing otherwise because there are some of Tom's family members on the board is akin to arguing Walmart is not a real company.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevf (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)