Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 3

Is the Article Libelous?
One editor has stated that he (and other family members) believes the article is "slanderous" in its present form. Most likely he mean libelous, because slander refers to things that are spoken, whereas libel refers to written statements. I suggest that he identify the statements that he believes to be libelous. If other (non-family) editors agree that the article contains libelous statements, I think there would be general agreement to remove them. No one wants the article to be libelous.Agnon5 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As impressive as your denotational knowledge may be, it is obvious that what is intended to be conveyed is the belief that the article contains defamatory statements. I too urge Mikevf to identify what parts of the article Flandern's family finds troubling.  Once that is clear, I believe we can work from there.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no intent to make a gratuitous display of denotational knowledge (one of those phrases that is what it describes). I just thought it might help to avoid misunderstanding if I explained why I was using the word "libel" rather than the original poster's word "slander".Agnon5 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote slanderous as libelous can carry legal implications. But I accept the use of the word libelous is appropriate here as defined by Webster:


 * Li"bel*ous\ (l[imac]"b[e^]l*[u^]s), a. Containing or involving a libel; defamatory; containing that which exposes some person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; as, a libelous pamphlet. [Written also libellous.] -- Li"bel*ous*ly, adv..


 * li⋅bel   /ˈlaɪbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-buhl]  Show IPA noun, verb, -beled, -bel⋅ing or (especially British) -belled, -bel⋅ling.
 * –noun 1. Law. a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
 * b. the act or crime of publishing it.
 * c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.


 * 2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.


 * I'll identify the defamatory and damaging misrepresentations explicitly here within the next day or two (need time to compose the list). I think maliciousness is clear if you read all the comments on this page however it's subjective and therefore probably not productive to debate.  Mikevf (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent place to begin, although, as I'm sure you already know, it is possible that not all of the changes you want will occur. Any actual misrepresentations of fact should be easy to remove, however.  My condolences on your recent loss.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I endorse all of ClovisPt's comments above. Please read some of the links I've put on your talk page. dougweller (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tossing around terms such as "slander" and "libel" should be done cautiously in light of WP:NLT. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally chose the word slander which does not carry a legal implication. However, libel as defined above is also appropriate and not used lightly. For example, ScienceApologist you placed a post on wikipedia (outside of this article) asking for additional editors to help edit this biography claiming Tom advocated PseudoScience. That's an example of a libelous statement. It is defamatory and damagingly misrepresentsMikevf (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of displaying any denotational knowledge, your explanation for why you chose the word slanderous over libelous is a non-sequitur, because slanderous has essentially the same legal implications as libelous. From a legal standpoint, they are both forms of defamation, the only difference being that slander is spoken whereas libel is written. Either one can be grounds for legal action. But I agree with someone else's comment that accusations of libel or slander aren't very productive here. The important thing is to be sure the article is NPOV and verifiable from reputable sources.Agnon5 (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, individuals can be sued for slander as well. I concede libel is the correct term. Guys I am fully in favor of deescalating the tone of the dialog here. However I would point out that user 64.24.xx.xx previously stated that my father was "dishonest and incompetent". That combined with terms like "PseudoScience" has led me to believe that a few editors are coming to the table with a bias and agenda that is reflected in the article as currently written. I think you will find I'm actually a reasonable fellow and I'm not looking for an article that praises my father or a whitewashing of the ideas he advocated. I agree the important thing "is to be sure the article is NPOV and verifiable from reputable sources".

As a relative and admirer of Tom's work I acknowledge that I come to the table with some bias. I think a quick read of ScienceApologists personal page shows he's pretty upfront about his bias. And editor 63.24.xx.xx, having participated in extensive usenet debates with Tom about the speed of gravity also brings a particular bias. My request is that all editors acknowledge the bias they're bringing to the table and then engage in real discussion intended to find a neutral perspective. Give other editors (me included) the benefit of the doubt regarding our intentions and give Tom the benefit of the doubt as well. Thanks Mikevf (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Edits of Csv2009
Several recent edits were proposed by Csv2009, but I think they are not appropriate for the article (except for mentioning the big bang as noted below). Taking them one by one:

(1) Csv2009 suggests that the 14 years from 1969 to 1983 are "additional" years that Tom worked at the USNO in Washington DC, but this disagrees with the family's recollection that he attended Yale in New Haven CT during the years leading up to his PhD in 1969. We don't know exactly how long he took to get his PhD, but the Yale Astronomy Dept says it takes an average of six years to get a PhD in Astronomy from Yale, so it seems reasonable to say Tom was at Yale for most if not all of the time 1963 to 1969. Family members have confirmed that he did indeed live in New Haven CT for at least some of this time, and a daughter was born there. Considering all this, it's hard to support the claim that he worked at the USNO in Washiington DC during those six years. Rather than saying he worked an "additional" 14 years at the USNO beginning in 1969, it seems more accurate to say he worked for 14 years at the USNO, from 1969 to 1983.

If someone can find verifiable information that he spent less time at Yale and more at USNO, it would be fine to adjust the article, but I don't think it should imply he was in both places at once for those six years. (By the same token, we know he attended Xavier for four years on a GM scholarship, but we shouldn't say he worked at GM in Detroit for those four years too!)

(2) Csv2009 suggested saying that, after leaving USNO, Tom "developed a privately funded research organization, META Research". Csv also suggests deleting the information about organizing eclipse viewing tours. This has been discussed here previosly. It is abundantly clear that Metaresearch was purely a vanity organization, set up by Tom to promote Tom's ideas and to enable him to say he was affiliated with some "research" organization. The most accurate description of his activities after leaving USNO is that he organized eclipse viewing tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas. Any mention of his vanity organization would have to be accompanied by an explanation of exactly who and what the organization consisted of. This would make it perfectly clear that this "research organization" consisted entirely of Tom (with family and friends on the "board" to qualify for incorporation).

(3) Csv suggests saying that Tom was known for advocating the replacement of some contemporary theories of physics, i.e., Black Holes and the Big Bang. This is not an accurate representation. As has been disussed at length here previously, Tom's views entailed the rejection of all mainstream theories of physics, not just contemporary theories, and was not focused on just black holes and the big bang. The beliefs for which he was noted and notable were the Mars faces, and faster than light propagation of ALL forces (not just gravity and electromagnetism), and for gravitational shielding as in Lesage gravity and ultramundane particles, and for exploding planets (closely associated with the Lesage belief). The article already summarizes the salient beliefs. He also was known for his espousal of infinite free energy, as has been discussed here and verified by reference to his talk at the Infinite Free Energy conference. I think it would be okay to add mention of black holes and the big bang to the list of "prevailing notions" that Tom challenged, but they certainly should not be presented as his most notable beliefs.

(4) Csv wants to say Tom espoused a "revision" of Olber's theory that the asteroids are remnants of an exploded former planet, which is exactly what Tom espoused, so it's silly to say it was revised. Also, Csv wants to delete the word discredited when referring to this theory, but Tom's own book describes how, when he presented this to a large gathering of his peers, the conference chairman arranged for three experts to debunk Tom's presentation, and then he was hooted from the hall. If this doesn't qualify as "discredited", I don't know what does. In fact, a stronger word could be used, but I think "discredited" is appropriate.6324xxxx (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(5) I forgot to mention CSv's proposed removal of the information describing the publisher of Tom's book. It consists of a brief phrase, and the rationale for including this information has been explained at length on this Discussion page. It is a notable aspect of the publication, consistent with the fact that it is being cited here, not as a source of scientific information (it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of "reputable sources"), but as something relevant to the subject of the article. No one disputes that the statement is factual, and for anyone striving so mightily to remove it, it's hard to argue that it's not relevant.6324xxxx (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you've taken a quote out of context, list just a few of the catagories of books they publish. Here's another from the publishers web site "North Atlantic Books was incorporated in 1980 within the Society for the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The Society's goals are to develop an educational and cross-cultural perspective that links scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to publish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature."

I agree there's been a good deal of discussion on this and general concensus that 1) it should be made clear the book is not published by a mainstream source of scientific information and 2) that it shouldn't be implied that the book has anything to do with spirituality or other non scientific topics. Mikevf (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your sentiments here. I'll go ahead and voice my take on your points, numbering my responses accordingly.


 * (1) Without knowing the specifics of Flandern's case, in the United States it is fairly normal for a government agency to fund a given individual's graduate studies, with the understanding that this individual will work for the agency for a set number of years following the completion of the degree. While graduate studies are ongoing, the individual is typically considered to be associated with the agency, often in the capacity of employee.  So, baring a reliable source that suggests otherwise, I see nothing inherently suspicious about the statement that Flandern was formally considered to retain his position at the USNO while attending Yale.


 * (2) Metaresearch is certainly a private organization which existed/exists to promote Flandern's fringe astronomy. Additionally, the eclipse (and other astronomical events) viewing tours were important enough to Flandern's work to be listed on his resume.  So I think that both of these things should certainly be mentioned, although the exact wording could be changed around somewhat.


 * (3) Exactly which of Flandern fringe theories is most well known for is difficult to determine. I might be incorrect on this, but I believe that to avoid creating a synthesis of his beliefs, we shouldn't add in content that makes an argument for the rejection of all physics if Flandern himself never made that statement.  A good way to go might be looking at the sources that refutes Flandern's hypothesis and seeing what arguments they make.


 * (4) I find this wording to be somewhat problematic. Why is this the only one of Flandern's unorthodox views to be singled out as "discredited"?  A statement that all of these ideas have been rejected, or refuted, or ignored (as the case may be) by the prevailing consensus among professional astronomers would be more to the point.


 * (5) The information about the publisher is pertinent, and should stay in the article in some form, unless anyone can make a convincing argument against doing so.
 * Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ClovisPt, I think your comments are resonable. On point 5 I suggest simply noting that the book was 'not published by a traditional science publisher'. Randomly selecting other catagories of titles published by NA seems intended to unfairly deminish the work by association but Tom's book was not about martial arts or spirituality. Mikevf (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The description of the publisher is not a random selection of other categories of titles, it is a direct quote from the web site of the publisher describing themselves. We can't get any more authoritive and verifiable than that. Their self-proclaimed mission statement is


 * "to affect planetary consciousness, nurture spiritual and ecological disciplines, disseminate ancient wisdom, and put forth ways to transmute cultural dissonance and violence into service".


 * This is the publisher's own description of themselves and their mission. I deleted this mission statement from the article, because I thought it's excessive, but I don't agree with deleting the simple declarative self-description of the publisher. I think your proposed alternative is clearly less informative and intentionally obscure.6324xxxx (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is authoritative and verifiable and doesn't misrepresent. "North Atlantic Books was incorporated in 1980 within the Society for the Study of Native Arts and Sciences, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The Society's goals are to develop an educational and cross-cultural perspective that links scientific, social, and artistic fields; to nurture a holistic view of arts, sciences, humanities, and healing; and to publish and distribute literature on the relationship of mind, body, and nature." Mikevf (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Objective Text, Integrity of Wikipedia
Based on author 6324's revisions of this article on VF, and that authors subsequent arguments to keep in very subjective language that might be considered inflammatory (and certainly not in the best interest of objectivity or the advancement of science), I suggest that author 6324 might be too emotionally involved and may want to recuse themselves from further edits. This article may not even warrant a Wikipedia page. Certainly VF's eclipse viewing trips are not relevant to discussion about him, nor is his specific retirement age (a date is sufficient). It is subjective to state what he is "best" known for or to suggest one knows VF's intentions were to "replace modern Physics". Perhaps deletion of this page would be in the best interest of Wikipedia since the non-subjective material in the article seems insubstantial. In other words, this article is a flimsy 2 paragraphs packed with obvious prejudice. Once the hostile jargon is removed, VF may not be noteworthy enough to support a Wiki page at the present time. Csv2009 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Csv2009


 * I think you may not be familiar with Tom's writings, if you take offense at the suggestion that he advocated the replacement of existing scientic theory. He explicitly used the phrases, "replacement theories" and "replacement science". This was his stated (indeed, his broadcasted) belief. I suggest you read his book or his web page.


 * You comment that his age (42) at the time of retirement is not relevant to the discussion about him, i.e., to his borgraphy, but it's hard to see how you can defend this position. First, it is obviously an objective fact, not in the least subjective, so your complaint obviously is unrelated to your advertised goal of limiting the article to purely objective text. Second, I would venture to say that Tom's departure from the USNO (he refers to it as his "separation from the USNO" in his book) at the age of 42, with a wife and four children, was probably one of the most momentous events of his life. (If astronomers make enough to retire at 42, I must be in the wrong business.) For you to say that this event, and his age at the time, is not relevant to his biography strikes me as odd.


 * You also say Tom's eclipse viewing tours are not relevant to a discussion about him. Again, considering what a large part these activities played in his professional life (after separating from the USNO), this strikes me as an odd point of view. It was just about the only notable function of his corporation, and dominates his post-USNO resume.


 * You object to the phrase "best known for", arguing that it is subjective. Well, it's hard to say with precision what someone is best known for, but the items listed have not been chosen entirely subjectively. If you do a google search on Tom Van Flandern the top hits are video talks about Mars, and I honestly think the Martian faces, along with faster than light propagation of forces, the exploding planet, and perhaps anti-big-bang (which I just added to the article) are the things for which he is most notable.  Having said that, if most editors think the word "best" is unjustified and should be deleted, I wouldn't object. I think it would reduce slightly the clarity of the article, but not too much.


 * You mention that the article contains "inflamatory" language, but you didn't actually cite any. What language do you consider to be inflammatory? This is a real question. Earlier there were charges that the article was libelous, but when the accusor was asked to cite the libelous text, he chose not to do so. This makes it hard to assess and correct, if those making the accusations can never be persuaded to actually say specifically what is inflammatory or libelous.


 * Lastly, you suggest that the best course of action might be to simply delete the article. I am not opposed to that idea. Several others have suggested it as well.  If you want to propose it for deletion, go right ahead.  I for one will support you.6324xxxx (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Politics of Science
I was drawn to the Tom Van Flandern page as someone interested in and working on a project having to do with the politics of science. The project involves researching - historically - the establishment of mainstream scientific questions and the subsequent marginalization of thinkers or theories whose ideas do not conform to the resulting parameters of mainstream inquiry, and in some cases, the rediscovery of those formerly "on the outs.". Interestingly, I was looking up Dr. Van Flandern as an example of a scientist who has occupied both positions in their career but I was drawn in to a careful reading of the voluminous talk and history pages. I felt compelled to add to the fray not as a judge of Van Flandern (I am not an astronomer), but to point out that this talk page represents exactly the sort of thing I caution my students about: much of what we come to know as knowledge is deeply influenced by the protracted battles over scientific positions long before any certainty can be reached about their objective validity. This talk page is about as subjective, emotional and biased as you can get. It seems somewhat understandable coming from those who seem to be family members but the comments and constant revisions by 6324 indicate extreme prejudice based, it appears on a crusading mentality to protect the public from something (I'm not sure what...). I am not against passion or displays of emotion, indeed I feel they are unavoidable even in science. But they should not be disguised as fact-finding. I must say, this experience has been enormously profitable for my research, but if Wikipedia wants a standard article on Van Flandern, this would not be it. I would suggest removing the essay altogether. Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.Helmswolf (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I just mentioned to Csv2009, it's difficult to assess the validity of your complaints and accusations unless you cite the specific offending words. Hopefully you remember to mention this simple methodological principle to your students, along with pointing out the obvious fallacies of relativism, i.e., the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense.63.24.101.173 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that you see this forum as a place to separate "sense and nonsense" (which, by the way is NOT the definition of relativism as you indicate when you say that relativism is in other words "the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense". Relativism is any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. Indeed, that definition I DO teach my students, whether they agree with it or not is up to them.

But, back to the "sense and nonsense" issue. Do you mean, in this case Van Flandern's ideas? If you mean to say that Van Flandern's ideas were nonsense that seems to disqualify you (I would think) from authoring the bio page on him. It would not disqualify you from voicing opinions about him in the appropriate venue of course. But let me, if I may, refer to the exchange with Csv2009 regarding using either his age or the date to indicate the time when Van Flandern retired. If there is indeed no difference (they are both objective facts right?) then why not use the date? If the difference is that citing his age indicates a momentous occasion at which he sought to expose his family to financial duress to pursue his commitment to his research (whatever one thinks of it) could that not be cast as an honorable endeavor? I do not get the sense you mean it that way, I only get the sense that you feel citing his age communicates something more. Arguing for one "fact" over another indicates to me that these are not simply neutral bits of information in the long run. Is that a distinction betwen sense and nonsense? No, I think it is deciding between two kinds of "sense." I think the key issue here is whether this biographical page of Van Flandern should remain. You seem to support removing it which would indicate that you do not feel Van Flandern is notable enough to deserve an entry at all. But if that's the case I am not sure why, instead of re-writing the bio you did not just lobby for it's removal in the first place sticking to the argument that simply his notability was in question? Re-writing is not about setting the record straight, it's about setting the record "different" which would be irrelevant if there was no page to begin with. Anyway, I have enjoyed this exchange.Helmswolf (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Helmswolf: I feel that you see this forum as a place to separate "sense and nonsense" 


 * No, this is a place to present information on various subjects in accord with the policies of Wikipedia, such as verifiability from reputable sources, where the term “reputable sources” has a clear and explicit definition. My comment about sense and nonsense was simply in response to your quaint little discourse advocating relativism, which is not one of the principles on which Wikipedia is based.


 * Helmswolf: which, by the way is NOT the definition of relativism as you indicate when you say that relativism is in other words "the belief that we can never judge the difference between sense and nonsense". Relativism is any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.


 * You might want to ponder the distinction between sense and nonsense – or honesty and dishonesty - in the context of relativism. If Mr X tells you that “Eddington explained why gravity must propagate much faster than light as follows….[insert quote from Eddington]”, but then you discover that the next sentence from Eddington was “but this reasoning is fallacious, because… [insert explanation]”, would you say that Mr X had been honest with you? Does your conclusion depend on your social conditioning?  Will there come a time when scientists regard that sort of intentional misrepresentation as intellectually honest?  I would say no.  That sort of behavior has always been, and will always be considered intellectually dishonest.


 * Helmswolf: But, back to the "sense and nonsense" issue. Do you mean, in this case Van Flandern's ideas? If you mean to say that Van Flandern's ideas were nonsense that seems to disqualify you (I would think) from authoring the bio page on him. 


 * You would be wrong. You seem to be unacquainted with Wikipedia policies and practices (not to mention rational thought).  Believing that someone’s ideas were nonsense does not in any way disqualify someone from editing a Wikipedia article on that person.  If it did, an article on Yuri Geller could only be edited by people who believe Geller has telekinetic powers, and an article on Nostradamus could only be edited by people who are convinced that the world will end in 2012. Needless to say (or so one would have thought), your understanding of the editing policy at Wikipedia has, shall we say, not yet found the political context in which it can be deemed to make sense.


 * Helmswolf: But let me, if I may, refer to the exchange with Csv2009 regarding using either his age or the date to indicate the time when Van Flandern retired… If the difference is that citing his age indicates a momentous occasion at which he sought to expose his family to financial duress to pursue his commitment to his research (whatever one thinks of it) could that not be cast as an honorable endeavor? 


 * Of course. How else could it be cast?


 * Helmswolf: I do not get the sense you mean it that way, I only get the sense that you feel citing his age communicates something more. 


 * Citing his age communicates something more than not citing his age. (Duh) If you tell me someone retired in 1983 and thereafter organized eclipse tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas, you convey the idea of someone at age 65, collecting his gold watch for 40 years of faithful service, and heading off to his retirement. But if you tell me someone retired in 1983 at the age of 42 and thereafter organized eclipse tours and promoted his unorthodox ideas, you have added another significant aspect of the events. This communicates something more, and it is factual, and it is relevant to the subject of the article. As you said, it was an act of great courage and commitment to science, and it would be obscured by omitting the man’s age and referring to it as retirement. As noted before, Tom himself referred to this as “my separation from the USNO”, so it might be better (and more in accord with Wikipedia verifiability policy) to say he left or resigned from (rather than retired from) the USNO in 1983. We don’t know the circumstances of this separation, so characterizing it as retirement is potentially misleading.  It is unusual for a person in any line of work (except professional sports) to “retire” at 42.  But you know all this.  The question is why you feel the need to suppress or obscure the facts by representing it as a typical retirement rather than a very atypical resignation?  Remember, we’re not here to praise or condemn anyone, we’re here to give an accurate and informative representation of what happenned, as it can be gathered from reputable sources.  I really believe that noting the age, and/or changing retire to resign, helps to do this.


 * Helmswolf: I think the key issue here is whether this biographical page of Van Flandern should remain. You seem to support removing it which would indicate that you do not feel Van Flandern is notable enough to deserve an entry at all. 


 * I don’t feel too strongly about it, one way or the other. I wouldn’t mind seeing the article deleted for insufficient notability.  I also wouldn’t mind having an accurate NPOV article that conforms with Wikipedia policy.  The only thing I’d object to is having a POV article that does not conform to Wikipedia policy.


 * Helmswolf: But if that's the case I am not sure why, instead of re-writing the bio you did not just lobby for it's removal in the first place…


 * You’re misinformed. I did not re-write the article, and I have consistently said, from my very first post, that I would support removal.  Back then I was strongly criticized by family members for suggesting that removal might be the best course of action. Now I’m being criticized for not suggesting removal.  Sheesh…


 * Helmswolf: Re-writing is not about setting the record straight, it's about setting the record "different".


 * Uh huh. There is no right or wrong. There is no sense or nonsense. There are only different kinds of sense. We each have our own truth. The prevailing beliefs are only what happens to be politically correct at the current moment, in the context of our current social conditioning… Yes, we know.  Fortunately moral and intellectual relativism are not among the principles of science.6324xxxx (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's a link the an article published by Farrellmedia (I say this with tounge in cheek, to illustrate that organizations consisting of just one individual are not too uncommon). http://www.farrellmedia.com/2006_01_01_BlogArchive.html

I don't favor inclusion of this link in the article, because we've already heard from Farrell in the salon story, but it does support the idea that TVF was primarily notable for ideas that are widely regarded as kooky. It also gives examples of an unfortunate tendency toward name-dropping and resume-padding, which ultimately has the opposite effect from what was intended, since it leads people to doubt and question everything. This contributes to the difficulty of editing an article like this, where reputable sources of information are very sparse.6324xxxx (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think a fair read of this would be that Van Flandern was clearly most noted for his papers on the speed of gravity and that when someone brings them up they're quickly directed to Tom's claims about the 'face on mars' by reltivists defending the status quo. No need to actually discuss the merits of Tom's peer reviewed papers. And for good measure Farrell claims Tom never answered Carlip's rebuttal, but anyone familiar with this saga knows that's clearly false. Farrell claims that Van Flandern was reckless in publishing claims about Cydonia, and it's one of the few points on which I agree with him. Not that Tom's claims weren't scientific, he clearly articulated the evidence and offered a falsifiable hypothesis. Rather, his argument was radical and in my opinion not persuasive. And it clearly did irrepairable harm to his reputation as critics no longer addressed the merits of his ideas but rather simply point to this single claim and then ridicule him. Not very scientific of his critics, but understandable. The rest of the article is unsubstantiated defamation similar to the discussion on this page. Tom was a prolific writer and there are no shortage material to draw quotes from. Instead Farrell says, that Bethell said that Tom said that Dirac said. Yeesh, and Farrell's critical of Bethell's sources? Here's the bottom line, Tom's been accused of dishonesty, of inflating his resume, of name dropping, of falsifying his degree, yet none of this, not one bit as been proven. The best evidence presented is a fourth hand statement and a quote taken out of context from one of Tom's papers. Yes, Tom supported unorthodox theories. That does not justify sullying his reputation like this. And for the record there are a lot of people who feel equally strongly that at least some of Tom's ideas had merit. You can find them via google put I won't post any links because it's clear anyone associated with Van Flandern gets disparaged here (Vigier, Xavier, Yale, Tom's graduate advisor, editors on this page, etc). Mikevf (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there are some additional voices on this page. I for one have been dismayed by the lack of civility by some users. Phrases like "duh" and the idea that one is not acquainted with "rational thought" seem counterproductive and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.234.243 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense and Nonsense - Tom's Challenge to Dark Matter
Rather than talking in vague philosophical generalities, it may be illuminating to consider a specific example. The article mentions that Tom challenged prevailing notions concerning dark matter. This is true, but it's also true that his "challenge" was nonsense. For those not familiar with the issue, let me explain.

The basic observational fact, which no one disputes, is that each galaxy appears to have too little mass to hold itself together by gravity, given its observed rotation rate. This leads to the supposition that there is more matter present than we can see (the so-called dark matter), to produce the extra gravitational force necessary to hold the rotating galaxy together. Now, various other explanations have been considered, and they are legitimate ideas, but Tom's explanation is regarded as nonsense. Why is this?

Well, Tom's explanation was that, in a Lesage model of gravity, the force of gravity gets weaker at great distances than the pure inverse-square law would predict, because the ultramundane particles collide and smear out the shadows, until they completely disappear, i.e., the flux is completely uniform, at great distances. Thus, gravity has only a limited range. Tom contended that this reduction in the strength of gravity at great distances accounts for the coherence of galaxies. The response of any scientist (or indeed, any rational person) is to point out that what is needed to account for galactic coherence is more gravity, not less gravity. Therefore, a theory which predicts a limited range of gravity is in the opposite direction from what is needed to explain the observed facts. This was repeatedly explained to Tom. His response was always "That is just your unsubstantiated opinion."

Citation please. User 63.24 casts aspirsions without citations. When citations are provided the claims have not proved out.Mikevf (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So what do we conclude from this? Is there some politically motivated conspiracy to suppress brilliant ideas of maverick thinkers who have succeeded in resisting peer pressure and who offer us enlightenment? Or is this simply someone speaking nonsense? More to the point, should the Wikipedia article on this person treat his ideas as if they are serious contributions to science?6324xxxx (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be no question that there are a few critics, most notably a student at UW created a web page attacking Van Flandern (and is cited in the Salon article). Rather than speculate about their motivations, we can simply acknowledge some people are willing to engage in ad hominem attacks and therefore all claims in a biography must be backed with citations.Mikevf (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific misrepresentations, etc.
I've been asked to identify specific parts of the article that are defamatory and damagingly misrepresent. In reviewing the article there are inaccurate statements as well as well as factual statements that imply false and defaming messages. I's like to focus on implicit messages first as they are more pervasive in this article.

An editor previously argued a statement must be false to be libelous. Let me offer a contrary example: "Born in pre Nazi Germany, Einstein lobbied for the creation of a weapon during WWII that was ultimately used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people." While this sentence is a fact, it carries several implications that are not only false, they convey exactly the opposite of what Einstein's views and positions were.


 * If I can interject a comment here, I think your statement about Einstein is perfectly accurate, and in fact I've seen nearly verbatim statements in respectful published biographies. Furthermore, I don't think it conveys a false impression. Einstein was known to have said some shockingly bloodthirsty-sounding things about the German people. Of course, there was an irony, because he had formly been a devout pacifist, so for him to have lobied for the production of the atomic bomb is quite a remarkable fact. I really think most bios of Einstein include a statement like the one you presented above. The facts are the facts, whether they are flattering or not. Something to keep in mind.Agnon5 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what is happening with this article. Negative opinions and claims without citation are given preference to numerous legitimate and well documented scientific achievements.

In the article about Tom, it's been repeatedly written "at the age of 42 (with a wife a family of four children) he retired from the civil service, and thereafter organized eclipse-viewing tours and promoted his unorthodox views on various topics". The implicit messages here are that Tom was self indulgent, irresponsible and neglected his obligations to his family. There's no evidence to support these implications (and a great deal to contradict them) and there's no valid reason to word the article so as to make these implications.


 * Another comment here: I don't think the article mentions his wife and family of four children, it just says he retired from the USNO at the age of 42. I don't think it will be productive to argue about obsolete versions of the article said. As to the existing article, I think a reasonable justification for noting his age at retirement has been given, so I think it should stay.Agnon5 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Next the article claims "Van Flandern was best known for his contention that certain rock formations on Mars are artificial sculptures of "faces" created by extraterrestrial beings. This contains both factual and implicit errors.  I note it is somewhat ironic that user 63.24 participated in extensive Usenet debates with Tom about the speed of gravity, a topic on which Tom is well published in peer reviewed journals, yet the same user is insistent that ‘faces on mars’ topic is what Tom is most noted for.  Tom has no peer reviewed papers Cydonia.  As I've pointed out previously, a Google search of "van flandern 'speed of gravity'" produces twice the results of "van flandern 'face on mars'".  The Google results include many reprints of the wiki article and because user 63.23 has consistently removed the term 'speed of gravity' from this article, the relative popularity to the 'face on mars' results for Van Flandern have been falsely inflated. Even so, it’s clear Tom is not best known (or even well know) for his arguments about faces on Mars.


 * I've edited the article to remove the statement about "was best known for", since everyone agrees that it's difficult to establish what someone was "best known for".6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom did argue the evidence suggests that ONE object on Mars was artificial. He went on to say that if a reader accepts his arguments for artificiality that there are other objects that merit investigation, but he was very clear that no definitive conclusions could be drawn about other objects without additional data.


 * I don't think the claim of ONE artificial structure on Mars is appreciably less outlandish than the claim of two or more. I suppose the article could be changed to say just one, but as you said, once we have accepted one, why not more? And he did think several features were candidates. So I think the current article referring to plural is fairly reasonable for a top level summary.6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom also asserted that the structure in question was ancient and his arguments regarding artificiality were not limited to the appearance of the object. The sentence in the article falsely implies that Tom believed there were multiple faces on mars, that they were created by modern day ETs and that he reached these conclusions because he saw objects that looked like faces, none of which is true.


 * Hmmm... Aside from the plural versus singlaur, I don't get those implications from the article. It says he held that certain features of the Martian terrain are artificial sculptures of faces. Maybe it should say "one or more". But I don't see anything in the article suggesting they were created by "modern", nor does it imply that he reached his conclusions based on how the objects look.  If your point is that he didn't think they were in the shape of "faces", then I think we could agree to just say "artificial structures".6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the editor has consistently imposed his biased interpretation of Tom's position while deleting citations that actually spell out Tom's position. If this claim is to remain in the article it requires a credible 3rd party citation. User 64.23 refuses to include links to Tom’s paper on this topic, citing Wiki policy against using self published papers as sources. But this creates a dilemma, since there isn’t a credible 3rd party citation. If we cannot accept Tom’s actual words and a reference to them then it seems inappropriate to accept a biased interpretation of Tom’s words with no references.


 * I think most editors, mindful of the Wikipedia policy about verifiability from reputable sources, feel that this isn't an appropriate forum for a defense of Tom's unorthodox views on Martian artificial structure(s), because there are no reputable sources on this. But still this was among his most notable beliefs, without which this article probably wouldn't even be here, so it seems like the best course of action is the way it's currently treated in the article. Just give an accurate top level statement of the fact that he espoused the belief that one (and perhaps more) features of the Martian terrain are artificial structures created by extraterestrial beings.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Next the article reads "advocating the replacement of modern theories of physics with his own set of ideas, which he called "Deep Reality Physics," Here the author erroneously implies Van Flandern did not accept any modern physics and arrogantly thought he could rewrite the whole field with a presumptuously titled replacement theory.  However, as I've pointed out before Tom's paper "Physic has its principles" is simply a proposed set of principles which all theories should comply with.  Deep reality physics is ANY theory which complies with these principles and there are many modern theories of physics that DO comply with DPR including use of the field interpretation of GR (as Einstein favored) over the curved time space interpretation.


 * Here I disagree very strongly, and I believe there are ample reputable and verifiable sources to support the fact that recognized experts in the field unanimously contend that Tom simply did not understand general relativity, and his belief that his views were consistent with the field interpretation of general relativity was erroneous, just as was his belief that his views were consistent with the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. Furthermore, it was shown many times, including in discussions on the Metaresearch board, that Tom's beliefs were inconsistent with classical physics just as much as they were with more modern theories. But again, this article is not the appropriate place to discuss the details of ideas that have been deemed by all reputable and verifiable sources to be erroneous.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has again used a biased interpretation of Tom's work rather than quotations from Tom, has failed to provide 3rd party citations and has removed citations to the actual papers. Supporting credible citations for each for idea Tom challenged should be presented (and for the definition of DRP) should be included or the claims deleted from the article.

Next the article claims "the main features of which were his beliefs in the possibility of faster-than-light travel and limitless free energy." The implication here is that Tom's belief's are outlandish (an opinion) and not scientific (another opinion). Again a biased opinions should not be accepted in place of actual quotes with citations.


 * If you're not prepared to acknowledge that Tom's beliefs were outlandish, then I'm afraid there's little hope that you will ever be happy with the article, because the only reason this article exists is the outlandishness and unscientificness of his views. If you think his views (such as the infinite heirarchy of nothingness) were scientific and not outlandish, then I think you should petition to have the article removed. But I doubt that many people share that view.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Later the article read “and advocated the discredited theory (first proposed by Olbers in 1802) that the asteroid belt consists of the remains of an exploded former planet.”  Ok, are we discussing the merits of the idea here or not? If editors are not permitted to argue the merits of the ideas here (in a biography) then it seems inappropriate to slide in this remark about Olbers theory having been discredited. It’s been stated that Tom’s ideas have not achieved majority acceptance in the scientific community, that should be sufficient.


 * The article has a structural problem, because it listed some views, said they had not found acceptance, and then listed some more views, so the "discredited" was to cover those as well. But I've tried to fix this problem, eliminating the word "discredited", by moving the "not found acceptance" phrase to the end of the article, where it can cover everything.6324xxxx (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The net result is that is an article that closely approximates the UW's students ad hominem characterization of Van Flandern on his personal web site (later inherited by John Baez). There are many articles about Van Flandern on the web but it seems completely inappropriate that a wiki article resembles the most ad hominem.


 * I don't know which of the online comments you've read, but I can tell you with certainty that this article is very very far from the most disparaging. Compared to many of the publicly available assessments, this article reads like an homage.6324xxxx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrast this article with the citation for the recent renaming of asteroid 52266 as “Van Flandern”. The following citation is from MPC 65123: (52266) Van Flandern = 1986 AD Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas.Mikevf (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for identifying the problems you see with the article. There's a lot of stuff here to go over, as well as points raised by other users on this talk page, so kindly be patient as various editors try and sort through it all.  I'll have more to say later on, but let me make a few quick comments.
 * (1) Your point about implicit messages seems to ring true for this article. Reviewing the extensive discussion on this page, a fair amount of back and forth arguing and editing seems to be more focused on implicit than explicit meaning.
 * (2) As I said in another thread on this page, figuring out what Flandern is most well known for is challenging. It does seem that his fringe beliefs, while perhaps not the only things he is known for, are among the most prominent.  It is clear that they will have to be mentioned in this article; luckily, Wikipedia has some guidelines for dealing with fringe subjects.
 * (3) The naming of the asteroid is interesting, and constitutes decent evidence that Flandern was notable as more than a promoter of "kooky" ideas, as you say. Regardless, this information seems like it would make a good addition to the article.
 * Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful with the asteriod naming. There is a business that sells asteroid names, sort of like selling internet domain names. I could name an asteriod after you for your birthday, and send in the associated nomination words, such as "ClovisPt invented the microprocessor, the laser, the cesium clock, and founded Wikipedia, and was secretry general of the United Nations while simultaneously studying for his PhD at Yale, and discovered the double helix structure of DNA, and the polio vaccine". Since such honoraria are purchaseable, I think some caution would be wise.Agnon5 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. I must say, however, that while I was unaware of this service, and although you chose to mention only a few of my accomplishments, I find your proposal to be an excellent one. ClovisPt (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ClovisPt, your attention to this problem is much appreciated. Also Agnon5 raises a good point, I expect citations for user 63.24’s claims, so it’s only reasonable that I provide citations for my own. The the naming of asteroid "Van Flandern" was published in the Minor Planet Circulars, and I’m not aware of any service selling these names. You can check the citation by going to the Minor Planet & Comet Ephemeris Service and requesting the ephemerides for object 52266. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/MPEph/MPEph.html User 63.24 also suggested that Van Flandern’s thesis at Yale was simply a catalog of occultations. On it’s face, this assertion seems improbable, Yale would not grant PhDs in celestial mechanics without requiring a thesis that demonstrated both competency and that ability to make meaningful contributions to the field. However since the claim has been made I feel compelled cite the abstract for this paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969BAAS....1Q.367V “A Discussion of 1950-1968 Occultations of Stars by the Moon. Occultation observations during one nodal period of the moon are analyzed utilizing Atomic Time, Watt’s limb corrections, an improved lunar theory, star positions on the FK4 system, and analytical partial derivatives in observational equations. Corrections are derived to lunar orbital elements. Corrections are derived to lunar orbital elements and to other astronomical constants. In all, 26 parameters are solved for. Two somewhat tentative conclusions of this discussion are a correction of -10 seconds of arc per century squared to the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean longitude; and a difference of perhaps 1 seconds of arc along the moon’s orbit between its geometrical center and its center of mass. Further, the solution indicates the Watt’s limb correction datum is slightly elliptical, the amplitude of the ellipticity being about 0.10 sec of arc, and that the average correction to Watt’s position angle around the entire limb is +0.1degrees.” It should be clear from the abstract that Tom both has a solid grasp of celestial mechanics and mathematics. If necessary I can produce segments of the thesis that clearly demonstrate 63.24’s assertion Van Flandern “didn't understand any mathematics beyond grade school arithmetic” was at best specious.Mikevf (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On the asteroid naming thing, there are thousands and thousands of asteroids that have yet to be named. According to the web site I found, "After 10 years have elapsed (from the time of discovery), it's fair game and almost anybody can propose a name". For example, we have FrankZappa, Clapton, Ringo, Elvis, and various cartoon characters.  It's not uncommon to name them after friends and family members. The justification statements are often somwhat whimsical.  For example, "The official argument for putting Ringo on the list goes like this:


 * "He's a Liverpudlian of lively personality and deadpan humor who occasionally sat in as drummer with The Beatles during their early days in Hamburg."


 * So I'm just saying we should be cautious about taking an asteroid naming nomination as some kind of solomn and prestegious thing. My guess is, everyone who ever worked at the USNO, in any capacity, has an asteroid named after them.


 * About the purchase of a name, it turned out I was remembering the services that sell the naming of stars. As far as I know, asteroid names are free, but can only be gotten by asking the 11-member board. Apparently this has not been widely known before. One article I read talked about "the likely flood of e-mail requests that will come now that the real truth behind the asteroid naming convention is out of the bag."Agnon5 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I say go for it Agnon5. I understand from this discussion that Yale is giving out PhDs indiscriminately so you ought to email for one of those as well.


 * Done! DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know when you have your asteroid.


 * Will do.DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, neither Tom nor any of his family members asked for this honor on his behalf (though we are very appreciative).Mikevf (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2009 (

Speedy deletion declined
I've removed a speedy deletion tag suggesting that the article is an attack page, since my assessment is that it doesn't meet any of the criteria. I suggest that if this sort of process is desired, either a PROD tag or an articles for deletion process would be somewhat more appropriate; I don't think either would pass, but opinions vary. If anyone has any questions or problems, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Credentials Conflated
It’s been suggested that Tom was notable for being an impeccably credentialed scientist who came to challenge prevailing views, but this doesn't square with the verifiable facts. The basis of Tom's beliefs, even those related to astronomy proper, was his "replacement theories" of fundamental physics, based on Lesage ultramundane corpuscles, an infinite heirarchy of nothingness, and so on. He said in his book that these ideas on theoretical physics were the basis for even his early "mainstream" work, and that he concealed this basis so that his papers wouldn't be rejected. Unfortunately Tom had no credentials or education in theoretical physics. I would venture to say that he never even took a class in electromagnetism, general relativity, or quantum mechanics. In the field of theoretical physics, he was purely an amateur, so it would be wrong to portray him as an impeccably credentialed scientist for the areas in which he held unorthodox views.

63.24 it's clear you think Tom's a kook so you read everything he said or did with that filter on. You need to provide citations because... to put in simply you frequently misrepresent Tom's views. Tom's first published work on the Exploded Planet Hypothesis directly resulted from tracing the orbits of first entry comets. It predate's any of his thinking on the Meta Model and it's a direct product of his area of expertise, celectial mechanics. I would agree that Tom was not an expert on electromagnitism which is why he wrote about gravity. Since you've read the papers you know that Tom only made claims about the speed of gravity in the paper published in Physics Letter's A. That's why the relevant paper's are titled the way they are: The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say - Van Flandern in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998) Comment of the speed of gravity - Marsh & Nissim-Sabat in Physics Letters A 202:257-269 (1999) Reply to Comment of the speed of gravity - Van Flandern in Physics Letters A (I could not find this online and would appreciate a link)


 * Tom's reply was in Physics Letters A 262 1999 261–263. You can purchase a copy online.6324xxxx (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Abberation and the Speed of Gravity - Carlip in Physics Letters A missing volume reference(1999)


 * Carlip's paper was in Physics Letters A 267 2000 81–87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6324xxxx (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Gravity - Repeal the Speed Limit - Van Flandern & Vigier in Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002)Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The paper by Tom and Vigier published in Foundations of Physics was entitled "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", and the text covers all of these claims, so it isn't correct to say that Tom's published papers were specifically or even mainly focused on gravity. The edited versions of these papers that he placed on his web site are not representative in this regard of the actual published papers.

63.23 You are correct in noting that the last paper was titled "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions" and this paper alone covered claims beyond the speed of gravity. I believe this reflects Vigier's input in joining tom on the topic as Vigier was a Physicist and Tom's specialty was celestial mechanics. Tom limited his reprint to the portion of the paper he was an expert on, namely celectial mechanics and the speed of gravity.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, his first paper (in Phys Lett A) focused on gravity alone, but only because Tom was unaware at that time that the electromagnetic force does not exhibit Laplacian aberration. He for some reason had thought that gravity was unique in that regard. The published refutations pointed this out, i.e., they noted that Tom's 'reasoning' when applied to electromagnetism leads to exactly the same conclusion: the electromagnetic force must propagate far faster than the speed of light, which of course is absurd, because as every freshman physics student knows, the electromagnetic potential at any given time and place is fully and explicitly determined by the charges on the past light cone of the event. Nevertheless, the electric force on each of two uniformly moving charges always points directly toward the instantaneous position (not the retarded position) of the other particle. According to Tom, this is categorically impossible - despite the awkward fact that it is demonstrated trillions of times each day for electromagnetic interactions.

63.24 Are you deliberately using the words misusing electromagnetic and electrodynamic interchangably? Tom did not it was imposible rather for an object to act nearly instantaneously on a distant object rather he simply argued it required an agent of causality. The traditional explanation if field momentum which is indistinguishable mathematically from a FTL propagating causal agent, that is until acceleration is introduced. Hence the discussion of binary stars and black holes.


 * No, a field mechanism is not indistinguishable mathematically from faster than light propagation. Just the opposite. Given two initially stationary charged particles at a distance D from each other, if one of them is moved, there is no effect at all on the force experienced by the other until a time D/c later. Tom's entire world view rested on the denial of this well known fact.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Tom didn't understand (and didn't want to understand) how Lorentz invariant field theories (like Maxwell's equations or general relativity) work. He mistakenly believed that the only energy and momentum carried by fields is in the form of radiation. He never grasped that two uniformly moving charges emit no radiation, and yet there is a flux of energy and momentum in the field, and this flux is of the amount and direction at each point such that energy and momentum are everywhere and always conserved. If he had just taken March's advice and studied the Trouton-Nobel experiment, he could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment. All these phenomena take place in accord with the fact that the potential at each point depends only on the charges on the past light cone of that point, which is to say, the force explicitly propagates at the speed of light.


 * There is no magic here, and no miracles. And the only one who was confused about the distinction between forces and waves was Tom himself. This was clear even when discussing pressure and waves in air or water. He insisted that pressure is propagated through a gas almost instantaneously, much faster than the speed of sound in the medium, which of course is ridiculous. He simply didn't know what he was talking about, which isn't overly surprising, since he had no credentials in theoretical physics.


 * By the time of the Foundations paper, he had learned from the comments on his first paper that he now had to defend the (preposterous) proposition that electromagnetism and quantum fields also propagate superluminally, because they too are Lorentz covariant fields and therefore do not exhibit Laplacian aberration. And please note that this in no way violates causality. Quite the contrary. There is a well-defined causal flow of energy and momentum at each and every event. I know for a fact that Tom knew nothing about electromagnetism, just as he knew nothing about general relativity. Vigier, on the other hand, at the age of nearly 80, was still trying to promote his nutty stochastic quantum mechanics, which needed superluminal effects, so the two of them, each for his own reasons, launched that silly Foundations paper, which no real scientist can take seriously.

You are correct that Tom and Vigier assert that electrodynamic (not electromagnetic) forces propagate faster than light in the Foundations paper. However your characterization of the paper is derogatory without substantiation and your characterization of Tom and Vigier's motives is derogatory without evidence. Wiki policy is perferential treatment of verifiable third party sources. Tom's theories were published in 3 peer reviewed publications and the last was not answered. It's clear you think the paper was 'silly'. Get your opinion published in a peer reviewed journal and only then will it meet the criterial for a verifiable source. Until then, I point out it's a derogatory subjective opinion that's not verifiable and therefore posting it here violates wiki policy on several grounds.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're confusing criteria for inclusion of material in articles with criteria for acceptable discussion on Talk pages. For the latter, just about the only things that are violations of policy (besides obscenities, etc.) are things like threatening legal action. There have been threats and recommendations of legal action on this discussion page, but not by me.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I confess I'm not an expert on wiki policy but I find it implausible that anything goes so long as there are no threats of legal action. Certainly there's a note at the top of this page regarding civility. Do you really think compliance with those directives is optional?Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion hasn't been particularly uncivil, as Wiki discussions go, especially for articles involving topics that are regarded by mainstream science as kooky (e.g., artificial face on Mars, faster than light communication, infinite free energy, etc.). It's quite common for a variety of strong views on the subject of the article to be expressed in the Discussion page. I think this particular situation is somewhat unusual, because one of the editors is a close family member of the subject of the article, so the free expression of views on that subject may strike that editor as uncivil.  But usually the prohibition against incivility relates to the editors themselves, rather than to the subject.  For example, if we were editing an article on Yuri Geller, and you wrote in the Discussion page that you think Geller does not really have telekenetic powers, and that his claims to such powers are false, this would not be considered uncivil discussion. On the other hand, if you wrote on the discussion page that one of your fellow editors (me, for example) is a disgrace to the human race, or that my mother wore army boots, then that would be considered uncivil. Most of the discussion here that you regard as uncivil has been focused on the subject of the ariticle, rather than impunging the competence or motives of other editors. Unfortunately, when the subject of the article is also a close family member, the comments on the subject may strike you as uncivil.


 * The main exception to the general focus on the subject here has been the ocassional charges of libel and threats of legal action against certain editors. I agree that such incivility is inappropriate, per Wikipedia policy.6324xxxx (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't refrain from pointing out the quality of Tom's rebuttal to the paper of March, et al. He says (among other hilarious things) "Hayden and Beckmann (via Beckmann’s book, Einstein Plus Two, and a series of articles in Galilean Electrodynamics) have been successful in convincing the physics community that the local gravitational field must entrain the hypothetical aether..."  Anyone reading that must immediately have checked the date of the paper, to see if it was the April 1 edition. Honestly, I can say with great confidence that Hayden and Beckmann were never successful in convincing the physics community of any such thing. And THIS was what Tom's defense was based on... Beckmann's "Einstein Plus Two" and Hayden's articles in Galilean Electrodynamics!??? Please. And I haven't even scratched the surface of all the ludicrous statements... 6324xxxx (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Publish your paper in a peer reviewed journal and we'll add it to the references. Until then I'm frankly not impressed by your attacks.Mikevf (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. The explanation for why Lorentz invariant forces don't (and can't) exhibit Laplacian aberration, even though they propagate at the speed of light, was published in peer reviewed journals... over a century ago. For a slightly more recent review of this explanation, see Eddington's 1920s book, beginning with the words "but [the reasoning espoused by Tom] is fallacious, because...". Today this topic is to be found only in elementary text books and expository articles. If you'd like, we can add about 1000 of these reputable references to the article, all refuting the fallacy of Tom's reasoning.  There is no need for any of these to specifically mention Tom by name, because he did not invent the fallacy that he espoused. They are all well known fallacies, and all have been thoroughly explained in the literature.6324xxxx (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the relevant chapter in eddington's book and after reading it I have to say I agree with Marsh and Nissin-Sabat's assessment in their "Comment on 'the speed of gravity'". They wrote "Eddington's comments as to why the argument is fallacious are cursory at best...".  That's a far cry from the slam dunk you present it as. I am familiar enough with wiki policy to know that verifiable sources are permitted in articles while editors opinions of those sources are not.  Tom's papers on gravity were printed in many peer reviewed journals and they merit citation here.  The rebuttal papers should be included as well.  I don't think you and I are going to agree on the merits on the papers, but fortunately we don't need to.  In fact you don't even need to keep expressing them here.  Perhaps a more appropriate forum for that debate is the discussion page on the speed of gravity article.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still missing the point. By the time Eddington wrote that book, the explanation for why Lorentz covariant forces do not (and can not) exhibit Laplacian aberration was already two decades old, and he merely needed to point this out. For the convenience of readers not familiar with the explanation, Marsh and Nissin-Sabat give it in more detail than Eddington did. The point is that TVF's claims were wrong, and well known to be wrong for over a century. Read Poincare and Lorentz on this subject, circa 1900-1904. The secondary point is that TVF intentionally misrepresented Eddington by omitting the fact that he followed the summary of the reasoning employed by Tom to assert superliminal propagation with the words "but the reasoning is fallacious, because...". As to your opinion that TVF's views on this subject were anything other than rejected by the scientific community, you're certainly free to hold that opinion, but the verifiable facts are to the contrary. If you really want to insist on adding 1000 references to published explanations of the fallacy of TVF's reasoning, I think it will make the article unreadable. Can't we just agree that the scientific community rejected the claim that the lack of Laplacian aberration implies superluminal propagation? 6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it's unclear what sort of credentials would even qualify someone to assert that terrain features on Mars are artificial. "Artificiality recognition" isn't part of astronomy (as far as I know). Even his rejection of dark matter, and his advocacy of exploding planets, which might seem to be astronomical topics, were firmly based on his “replacement physics” ideas. (For example, planets explode because of the heat generated by the ultramundane corpuscles bombarding them at super-light speeds. Dark matter doesn’t exist because galaxy cohesion can be explained by the limited range of gravity as the ultramundane corpuscles interact, etc.) So, to suggest that he was a credentialed expert on the subjects he wrote about is verifiably wrong. (Also, see the Wikipedia policy about conflating credentials in different fields.)6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom offered a theory on why planets might explode long after the celestial mechanics evidence led him to conclude some have exploded.


 * Just a comment here - You suggest that Tom's adoption of Lesage gravity came subsequent to his adoption of the exploded planet hypothesis, which may be true, but it's interesting that his 1998 Phys Let A paper began with the recollection -
 * "The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptble... mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagating at infinite speeds..."
 * So one could infer from this that he was already fixated on "the speed of gravity" while a student in the 60s. It would be interesting to know at what point he first heard about Lesage gravity, and adopted it.Agnon5 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Tom predicted based on the EPH that asteroids would have satellites and irregularly shaped asteroids without any stable orbits would have "landed" satellites with roll marks on their surface. Tom was ridiculed for this hypothesis as an astronomical meeting and at the time made a very public wager about what would be found in the next 2 years. The fact is that both orbiting and landed satellited of asteroids have been discovered since, in defiance of the mainstream models. Tom only developed his theory about the cause of planetary explosions later and he was by no means certain of it. This seems like a notable prediction, except for the fact that Tom's source for the prediction still challenges the prevailing theory.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor has offered to see if he can find a report written by someone who worked in Tom's group at the USNO, to see if possibly this report lists Tom's job title. Hmmm... As the previous discussion of this issue made clear, the reason this administrative job title is not in the article is that it was deemed not sufficiently notable - which seems to be confirmed by the difficulty of even verifying the title (whose significance is, in any case, ambiguous).

This is nonsense, there are no branch chiefs listed on the USNO website because any information on the site is extremely sparse. Being chief of the celestial almanac division is of course by itself not noteworthy, however it is relevant to this biography since editor 63.24 has repeatedly challenged Van Flandern's credentails and expertise. I ask again, will user 63.24 accept a copy of a signed government document as evidence of the title and competency?


 * This Discussion sub-section is entitled "Credentials Conflated" because there has been a tendency to suggest that, for example, an administrative title in the Naval Almanac Office constitutes credentials (or evidency of competency) in the field of theoretical physics. It doesn't.  And since we are in agreement that the title is not by itself noteworthy, and since it has no bearing on the competency of the individual in the field of theoretical physics (nor in the field of artificial face sculpture recognition), it has no place in the article.


 * I see. So your assertion is that, although you don't know any details of the job description for chief of the celestial almanac division, it must be an administrative title, doesn't imply competency in celestial mechanics and is irrelevant to a biography.  Let's just say we'll have to disagree on this point as well.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, a more careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that I said such a title is not evidence of expertise in [please note] theoretical physics and artificial face recognition, which are the only notable subjects under discussion.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What WOULD be useful is a copy of Tom's PhD diploma, because the significance of that is not ambiguous. The article currently references his PhD thesis, but as any PhD candidate knows, writing a thesis and being granted a PhD are two different things. Given the conflicting information as to Tom's activities and whereabouts during the years leading up to 1969 (was he attending classes at New Haven, or working at the USNO in DC?), along with Tom's apparent lack of familiarity with the physics that even an astronomy student might be expected to know, some readers may welcome a confirmation of his actual diploma. It would also be helpful if someone can cite a paper in which there was any actual celestial mechanics.

I believe I can pull his diploma from his files. Since I'll need to make a trip to his home it may take a week. Similarly you can easily find lots of his papers with actual celestial mechanics in them on the metaresearch.org site. The reference I already provided for his thesis abstract makes it clear celestial mechanics expertise was demonstrated (and that your characterization of the thesis was misleading).Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It’s also been suggested that Tom was a mainstream astronomer during his years at the USNO (69 to 83), but this seems contrary to verifiable facts. His first work after getting his doctorate in the early 70s was a review of lunar data for evidence to support the rather radical and highly speculative idea that the gravitational constant is variable. His conclusion (later shown to be wrong) was that the evidence supported this hypothesis. This can probably be called mainstream, but on the speculative end of the spectrum. Then, already in 1976 (the mid point of his supposedly mainstream career as an astronomer) he tells in his book of being hooted down (literally) at a conference where he presented his ideas on an exploding planet. As mentioned above, the exploding planet idea hinged on Lesage gravity and faster than light propagation of forces, because this was his proposed mechanism for making planets explode. This is really in the category of theoretical physics, a field in which he had no credentials or educational background. (Oddly enough, Tom's advisor himself had no doctorate in any field, not even astronomy, and he too was a product of the USNO.)

This has been discussed. Tom was employed by the USNO and paid a salary while he attended Yale.


 * I don't think we have achieved complete clarity about this, either in our understanding or in the article's wording. Someone mentioned an agreement to work at USNO for 3 years for every year of attending college, but does the 3 years include the year of college? In other words, assuming Tom attended Yale for the average time it takes to get a PhD in Astronomy at Yale (6 years), was his agreement to then work a minimum of 18 years at the USNO once he received his doctorate?  Or did the agreement only require him to work a minimum of 12 years after getting his doctorate (allowing him to count the 6 years of study as part of the 18 total)?  It would seem that the latter must be the case, because he retired just 13 years after getting his doctorate.  Another point of ambiguity is what exactly it means to say he was "employed by" the USNO while he attended Yale?  Needless to say, it isn't uncommon for people to be formally employees of a company while attending school, but the question is whether, in a resume of one's experience, those years are to be counted as years of scholastic study, or years of employment at the USNO, or BOTH.  If I'm a human resources manager reading someone's resume, and I see that they list 6 years and school AND years of work experience for the same six year period, it would raise a question in my mind about double-bookkeeping.6324xxxx (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Tom was at the USNO before attending Yale. He started his degee at Georgetown and left that program at the USNO's request.  He was employed by the USNO while he attended classes at Yale (they paid him a salary in addition to a full scholarship), so if your concern is double bookkeeping your beef is with the USNO.


 * Again, you miss the point. The article is striving to present an accurate picture of TVF's background and experience. We're not here to decide if the USNO spent its money wisely (although if people wish to talk about that, they are free to do so), we're just trying to decide if it's accurate to say he worked at the USNO for 20 years, or if it's more accurate to say he attented Yale University for 6 years and worked at the USNO for 14 years. Some might argue that he did both, and he accomplished this in just 20 years total time, because he served the 6 years at Yale and the first 6 years at the USNO concurrently, for a total of 26 years experience in just 20 years... but I don't think it's reasonable to make such a claim. I'm just trying to establish a reasonable chronology, and avoid padding the resume.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom's invalid conclusion on the changing gravitational constant were based on errors in the oberservational data which Tom readily acknowedged. The EPH was a product of comet celestial mechanics contrary to your claim.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaken about what I've claimed. I have never suggested that Tom's belief in exploding planets originated from his belief in Lesage gravity. I would think it much more likely to be the reverse, i.e., he was driven to adopt Lesage gravity in an attempt to defend Olber's exploding planet hypothesis against the charge that there is no physical mechanism for making a planet spontaneously explode.6324xxxx (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Adopting pushing gravity to support the EPH would be more feasible as it at least matches the chronology but Tom published papers on the EPH and speed of gravity long before trying to tie the two ideas together. The simpler explanation is Tom learned that one of  Feynmen's criticism of pushing gravity is that it ought to cause planets to over heat.  The EPH had long been criticized for lacking any model to explain the cause of planetary explosions.  Linking the two ideas at that point doesn't seem like a stretch.  But I'm speculating.Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of this speculation, the point remains that TVF himself acknowledged that the exploding planet and Lesage gravity ideas were linked, and in fact Lesage gravity was routinely invoked by him as what he regarded as a plausible mechanism for causing planets to explode. Needless to say, his ideas in this area make absolutely no scientific sense, since Lesage gravity doesn't just add a bit of excess heat, it would be sufficient to vaporize any object like the Earth in a fraction of a second, as Poincare, et al, showed over a century ago.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In summary, Tom was not an example of a highly credentialed scientist who came to challenge the prevailing views. He was an amateur in the field of physics, and knew no more (and no less) about physics than the typical individual who promotes the kind of ideas that he promoted.6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning. You think Tom was an incompetent kook because he question curved time space. Convinced he was a kook you misinterpret and misrepresent everything he's done and then conclude based on your misrepresentations that you've proven he's a kook.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't pointed out any circularity. Assessments of Tom's writings are based on those writings. What else would they be based on?6324xxxx (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, rather than base an assessment of Tom's writings on your opinion, how about looking at what the scholarly journals think of Tom's writing. In 1974 he won second prize from the gravity foundation for his paper "A Determination of the Rate of G".  Or in 1976 he wrote a 15 page paper for Scientific American at their invitation on the same topic. He's written and is cited in literally hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals as easily evidenced here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=van+flandern&hl=en&lr= and here http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/TVF%20papers%20online.asp.  You've implied Tom's papers on gravity in 'Phylics Letters A' and 'Foundations of Physics' were an anomally somehow due to incompetent editors but as you can see, Tom published extensively on gravity and relativity in other peer reviewed jounals as well. According to scholar.google Tom's paper on the speed of gravity is cited more than Carlips rebuttal (though it's close).  Wikipedia is pretty clear that articles must use verifiable sources.  Your opinion doesn't qualify.  And since it's really offensive I'm politely asking you to stop expressing it.  You've said repeatedly that you thought Tom was incompetant and dishonest and at this point I think everyone's heard you.  Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The view of Tom's ideas about superluminal propagation, etc., in the theoretical physics community are clear and unambiguous. Those ideas have no merit. As to the determination of varying G, you've already acknowledged that Tom's original conclusion about this was shown to be mistaken. I don't think you can successfully argue that Tom's notable views, which are the basis of his notability, are anything other than strenuously rejected by the scientific community. This is not to say that every single word he ever wrote was wrong. It is just to say that the views for which he was notable were (and are) regared as (very) wrong by the scientific community. Also, he had no credentials in theoretical physics.  We shouldn't conflate different fields of study.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone asked why the exploding planet hypothesis was specifically said to be “discredited”. I think the article tries to note, for each set of unorthodox ideas, the level of acceptance.  The first set is said to have not found acceptance, and the second set is said to be challenges to mainstream ideas. Then we come to Olber’s exploding planet hypothesis, the discreditedness of which is vividly described in Tom’s book, as well as in the reputable scientific literature. If people think the word "discredited" is too strong, maybe we could say "this hypothesis is not considered viable by mainstream scientists".6324xxxx (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Olber's theory was discredited. Tom's revision to the theory was not. We're not going to argue the merits of the theory in this article and it's unfair to make false implications. It should be sufficient to say that the idea is not accepted by the mainstream or the majority of experts in the field.Mikevf (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * TVF did not revise Olber's theory. Olber's theory was that the asteroids are the remains of an exploded planet. TVF's theory was that the asteriods are the remains of an exploded planet. As to whether this idea has been discredited, we can cite Tom's own book:


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


 * This obviously shows that Tom's theory was discredited among professional qualified astronomers, the world's experts in the field.6324xxxx (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom's point was that some people are willing to violate professional protocol and behave in a political manner in a scientific forum. Tom had no idea that critics would be allowed to present after his presentation, was given no opportunity to see their arguments in advance despite the fact they were given preprints of his paper, and Tom was given no oppotunity to respond to their arguments.  Frankly there are some compelling parallels to that story and the discussions about the speed of gravity. I think this article speaks poorly of the indivuals involved in the ambush but I understand you see it as an indictment of Tom and an appropriate response from the professionals. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. I am not asserting that the community of professional astronomers was right in their emphatic rejection of Tom's ideas. I am merely asserting that they emphatically rejected his ideas. I think there can be no doubt about this from the quoted incident... and this was already in 1976, the mid-point of Tom's "mainstream" career.  Wikipedia policy is clear. We cannot decide what is true or false, we can only state the verifiable view of reputable sources, such as recognized scholarly organizations like the group of astronomers that Tom addressed. They represent the mainstream scientific community, and they rejected Tom's ideas.  I know your opinion of the merit of Tom's ideas is different, but that has no bearing on how the article should be written.6324xxxx (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Salon Article
Someone has placed a header in the article calling for some verifiable secondary sources. Just about the only such source is the Salon article, but when I add it back, someone keeps removing it. This seems counter-productive. We could also list Tom Bethell's article, but then I think we would be obligated to list the follow-up by Farrell, pointing out Bethell's retreat. DrAgnon5 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the papers on the speed of gravity (and their rebuttals)are preferable sources since they're published in peer reviewed journals. I personally don't favor inclusion of the the Salon opinion piece as part of a biography however because a few editors that feel it's important I recommend it only be included with the rebuttal opinion which was also published in Salon http://archive.salon.com/people/letters/2001/07/23/hughes/index.html)Mikevf (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness. Are you really suggesting that you'd like a letter to the editor from Robert Sungenis(!) to represent the rebuttal to the Salon article? Do you not see any irony in a specialist in celestial mechanics of orbits being defended by a geocentrist?  Copernicus was wrong!  Galileo was wrong! (For readers not familiar with Sungenis, please see the Wikipedia article about him.  Enough said.)6324xxxx (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, I have to give you this point. I had no idea who Sungenis was and I certainly agree a citing a geocentrist is not helpful.  Again I don't think linking opinion pieces to a biography is at all appropriate.  Farrell's attempts to link Tom with creationists is equally absurd.  And he brands Tom a kook while completely misrepresenting his perspective on relativity.  He acts like Tom completely dismissed relativity which surely even 63.24 doesn't beleive at this point.  Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clear that Tom had a misunderstanding of relativity (actually several of them), and he rejected this misunderstood imaginary theory. At the same time, he worked hard to present this rejection in a way that he hoped would enable him to lay claim to the empirical successes of relativity while rejecting it. But the view of the scientific community is that Tom simply did not understand relativity (nor electromagnetism, nor quantum mechanics, nor thermodynamics, nor...)6324xxxx (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Press Conferences, Public Lectures, Video Tapes, Etc
One editor has removed several proposed references to things like Tom's 2001 Press Conference in New York City on the subject of artificial structures on Mars, and to the web site of the Infinite Energy Conference where Tom presented his views related to that subject. I'm not certain about this. On one hand, I agree that these are not reputable sources of scientific information, per Wikipedia guidelines, but on the other hand, if such things are not notable and citeable, then there is very little that can be said. In the earlier discussions about possible deletion of this article, for non-notability, one of the cited reasons for the marginal "keep" decision was precisely these press conferences and public lectures, etc. If we are now placing these off limits, the earlier keep decision may need to be re-considered.

Perhaps what's needed is some references to the actual press coverage of the press conferences, etc. Unfortunately, I did some searching online, and wasn't able to find any actual press coverage... which seems odd. What's the point of a press conference if it doesn't result in any press coverage? There must be some, but perhaps it's not easily accessible on line. If anyone can cite some actual press coverage of Tom's activities, that might be useful.63.24.61.69 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lot's of Tom's papers on gravity, the big bang, relativity, improvements to the model for predicting asteroid showers and even his paper on "physics has its principles" which defines deep reality physics, have all been publsihed in 3rd party journals. That stuff is easy to find and it's what he's really notible for anyway.  Wiki policy requires adding citations for that stuff. Mikevf (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC).


 * As far as I can tell, his only publications in (arguably) reputable venues on the subjects for which he is notable are the Phys Lett A paper (which was soundly repudiated) and the joint Vigier paper on electromagnetism (which Tom knew nothing about), quantum field theory (which Tom knew nothing about), and gravity (about which Tom's knowledge was limited to Newtonian theory) in Foundations of Physics, which does not endorse the correctness of material that it publishes. He also had publications in "dissident" literature, but those are not reputable sources per Wikipedia policy.6324xxxx (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability 2
It seems to me that the productive focus at this time, at least for any editors who believe that Wikipedia should have an article on Tom Van Flandern, would be an effort to locate and add reliable sources about Flandern which help establish his notability. I'm no expert on this matter, but I think a good starting place would be articles, especially in peer-reviewed journals, by other authors dealing specifically with Flandern and/or his arguments. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural Philosophy Alliance ??
This article mentions the Natural Philosophy Alliance as "an organization intensely critical of relativity, etc", but a review of their web site raises some (for me at least) about how this "organization" should be cited, if at all. The first thing that jumps out at me is that their list of "members", as well as their "member memorials" for deceased members, includes a large number of individuals who died several decades before this "organization" was founded. It's as if I claimed that George Washington and Mother Theresa were former members of the Agnon Benevolent Society (which I just founded while typing this). This is clearly not a reputable organization.

On the other hand, I don't dispute that the "NPA" actually has a number (perhaps several dozen) of real living "members", and that the group has get-togethers, etc. But at the same time it is self-evidently not a reputable scientific organization, so the article should avoid giving a false impression. I notice that there is no Wikipedia article about the group. I think it would be more appropriate for this TVF article to say something like "a group known as the Natural Philsophy Alliance, consisting of individuals strongly opposed to various aspects of modern science, especially relativity and quantum theory."Agnon5 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Recent Biography of Dr. Van Flandern (3/15/2009)
I was very happy to see the new biography of Dr. Van Flandern. Thanks to the Wikipedia people for doing some edits. I am concerned about two points, perhaps someone can make these changes.

1) The bio is supposed to be about notable people, and paraphrasing Dr. Van Flandern's ideas or reducing them to statements like, "having unorthodox views" rather than mentioning those views seems to defeat the notability aspect. Specifically, his view that gravity was a particle and traveled many times faster than the speed of light was at the forefront of his book, his research, his papers, his newsletters, his website, and ultimately shaped his beliefs of how the universe worked.  The fact that this theory went against general relativity is also why Dr. Van Flandern became highly notable, as many antagonistic posts and edits to this bio have been by supporters of GR and prove the point.


 * Tom's espousal of superluminal propagation of forces (not just gravity, but electromagnetism and quantum fields, i.e., ALL forces) is already prominently noted in the article, along with his belief in gravitational shielding. His belief in the discredited particle theory of gravity, first proposed and rejected in 1692, was completely excluded from the Foundations opinion piece with Vigier, and it leads directly to perpetual motion machines and infinite free energy, as explained by Lord Kelvin in the 1870s. Your desire to place more emphasis on this in the article seems to conflict with your proposal below, to remove all references to infinite free energy. Also, Tom's version of Lesage as presented in his book actually involves an infinite heirarcy of nothingness. Other editors here have tried to downplay the more outlandish ideas in his book and on his web site, prefering instead to focus on just the Fountations paper with Vigier as the "unanswered" claims. Your proposals seem to be going in the opposite direction, trying to highlight his more outlandish claims.6324xxxx (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If Dr. Van Flandern was building on the theories of 17th century mathmeticians, one would think he would apply the 1st Rule of Thermodynamics, a 19th century theory. To say that Dr. Van Flandern's work was equivalent to Le Sage's removes almost 300 years of theories and work that he incorporated into his writings.  The bio saying "..his belief in faster-than-light propagation of forces, gravitational shielding, and limitless free energy." does not, as you say, adequately represent his belief that gravity was a super-luminous particle.  The "gravitational shielding" was a side belief of his that stemmed from his particle theory and the "limitless free energy" is a fabrication of assumptions on your part with no citations from you from any of Dr. Van Flandern's writings. Akuvar (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom didn't "build" on the theory, he merely espoused it. There were no significant improvements or enhancements of the theory subsequent to Fatio's account of it in the 1690s. The facts that falsify the theory are the same today as they were then. Kelvin's explanation of why the theory implies the possibility of infinite free energy was based on the theory as it stood in the 1870s, which is the same as it stood in 1692, and the same as it stands today. Even the infinite hierarchy of nothingness was not original with Tom. The idea goes back centuries - as does the refutation of it.


 * You are incorrect and ignoring my above arguments. Also, as you have been accused of doing so elsewhere in this article, you are including information and paraphrasing only to suit your current argument.  Kelvin's original paper where he mentioned a perpetual motion machine (although he did dismiss the theory later) was in support of Le Sage and tried to further explain it.  Kelvin came upon the notion of the perpetual motion machine as a result of his studying Le Sage's work, and felt that it was possible, although his reasoning was flawed.  You make it sound as if Kelvin discredited Le Sage's work because it could lead to a perpetual motion machine. Regardless, this discussion of theories, old, new, or discredited has nothing to do with Dr. Van Flandern's notoriety in regard to his belief in them. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that I should point out your proposed edits go directly against the wishes of the Tom's family, who had asked that the article not focus on the ideas presented on his web site and press releases, and video tapes, etc. They asked that the focus be placed on the Phys Lett A paper (which was soundly repudiated) and the Foundations paper with Vigier, which made no mention at all of Lesage gravity (because Vigier didn't believe in it), and which explicitly was concerned with the propagation speed of ALL forces, including electromagnetism and quantum fields. According to Vigier such forces are actually propagated not just superluminally, but instantaneously, which of course was anathema to Tom, but this is what Vigier needed to support his kooky Stochastic quantum mechanics. And so it goes.6324xxxx (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you now concerned with the desires of the Van Flandern family and what they wish/do not wish in this biography? This statement on your part is indicative of your argument style in this discussion where you resort to using any angle - including ones you have argued against - to rationalize your current argument. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have made one additional point. I suggest caution when referring to Doctor Van Flandern in the context of theoretical physics (such as theory of the fundamental forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum fields), because this is conflating credentials, which we are supposed to avoid in Wikipedia. As discussed previously, Tom had no credentials in theoretical physics, the very subject that you wish to emphasize. In this field he was purely an amateur, so referring to him as "Dr" in this context is misleading.6324xxxx (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, if I help my Dentist, Dr. Brown install a new air conditioner in his home, I should refer to him only as Mr. Brown during our endeavors because his credentials are in Dental Surgery and not Mechanical Engineering? Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on how you should refer to your dentist when installing his air conditioner. You're on your own with that.6324xxxx (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2) the statement that Dr. Van Flandern was a supporter of "limitless free energy" is based only on his appearance at a conference on future energy, not on any cited references to his papers, newsletters, website or his book. On the first page of the review of the conference (http://users.erols.com/iri/COFEReview.htm) it lists his presentation "on the physics of gravity, with a possible energy conversion modality" But the title of his presentation is the physics of gravity and does not include the energy conversion part.  Clicking on the list of speakers lists Dr. Van Flandern and a different title for his presentation, "complete gravity model and free energy." So, at best, the only reference to Dr. Van Flandern's supposed link to free energy contradicts itself as to what the title of his presentation was.  And for this we are labeling him as a proponent of Free Energy?  And deciding that this association is so notable as to place it in his bio?


 * Your view seems inconsistent. In your item 1 you advocated giving more attention to things in his book and web site and newsletter, etc., and this presumably includes his press conferences, press releases, and public lectures and videos, and in particular you want to stress his belief in Lesage and gravitational shielding. But now you want to suppress his belief in infinite free energy, which is a direct consequence of gravitational shielding, as Lord Kelvin explain over a century ago, and as Tom clearly espoused. I don't think your proposed edits are valid.6324xxxx (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to stress any belief in Le Sage or gravitational shielding. I want to stress what Dr. Van Flandern was most noted for.  Regardless if theories are right or wrong, or based on theories right or wrong, this bio is supposed to list why individuals are noteworthy.  if a person held that the sun was a giant red balloon, went on talk shows, got media attention, wrote papers, became famous for their discredited theory about the sun being a big red balloon, then it should be listed in their bio.  The work of 17th century mathematicians, and anyone else for that matter, is irrelevant in deciding if a person was noteworthy for their beliefs.  In fact, the Wikipedia page on Ptolemy's Almagest goes into great detail about his notable, yet discredited theories. (please refrain from blasting me for comparing Dr. Van Flandern to Ptolemy) Akuvar (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You may have missed the earlier discussion on this page, where the question of notability of material from non-reputable sources (talk shows, "media attention") has been discussed at length. It's true that Tom's notability was due to these non-reputable activities, and to his espousal of the Mars face and faster than light communication, and Lesage gravity, etc., but some editors here have rejected all citations of press conferences and talks at Infinite Energy conferences and web pages and newsletters and things of that nature. So this poses a dilemma. TVF was notable for espousing kooky ideas that had been discredited for centuries. How can this be presented in a reputable way, when there is almost no reputable coverage of it?6324xxxx (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no dilemma. You are the one that brought up limitless free energy by connecting him with speaking at a conference towards the beginning of this discussion page. Although I pointed this out, and asked that it be removed unless you could present any citations from Dr. Van Flandern on limitless free energy, you continue to argue without citations.  This is also indicative of your arguing style throughout this discussion, making allegations based on circumstantial or associative statements and then ignoring requests to cite references. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel it necessary to put a plea in to all the editors of this page to refrain from the use of subjective, abusive, belittling, and derogatory labels being placed on persons being discussed. In the last few paragraphs I have seen "kooky" "amateur" "stochastic" and "outlandish" all used not to improve our discussion, but simply to bash the subject of this biography. Akuvar (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel it necessary to put a plea in to all editors of that page to consider the possibility that if they aren't acquainted with the term "stochastic quantum mechanics" perhaps they should familiarize themselves with it before suggesting that the term is a "derogatory label". Sheesh.  As to the other words, it has already been established that TVF's notability was for promoting kooky ideas, and that he had no credentials as a theoretical physicist, and was entirely and amateur in the field. Also, there is not doubt that TVF's belief in the artificial sculpture of a face on Mars, created by extra-terrestrial beings, is "outlandish".


 * I assumed you were using stochastic as an adjective trying to infer that Dr. Van Flandern and his colleagues' work was random, unpredictable, and therefore easily dismissed. I was going to apologize for this but then I read your ridiculous attempts at justifying the use of the other derogatory terms you use and decided against it. Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is agreed by essentially every rational adult that the terrain at Cydonia is not an artificial sculpture of a face, and that the belief in the Cydonia Mars face is kooky and outlandish. Even TVF's friends and family members have acknowledged that his persistent espousal of such beliefs seriously undermined his credibility and makes it easy for people to dismiss him as a kook.  Now, if someone's beliefs make it easy to dismiss him as a kook, it seems fair to say that those beliefs are regarded as kooky and outlandish. It's hard to see how a rational person can dispute any of this... unless you wish to contend that the terrain at Cydonia is in fact a sculpture of a face created by extra-terrestrial beings. As to the word amatuer, this is a plain fact. Tom was not educated in theoretical physics. I know this for a fact, and his educational background corroborates it. Your reasons for regarding these plain facts as ridiculous are, shall we say, somewhat obscure.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above statement exposes 63.34's bias regarding Van Flandern but is not fact. Kooky is a subjective a derogatory term.  The repeated ad hominem attacks are not helpful in building consensus or furthering the article.


 * You continue to miss the point. Tom is the SUBJECT of this article. Comments about Tom in this discussion are not "ad hominem attacks", they are comments about the SUBJECT of this article, and as was established in the Nomination for Deletion discussion, Tom's notability and therefore the whole reason for this article is due to his espousal of kooky and outlandish ideas.  If you feel it is inappropriate or unkind to have such an article, then feel free to re-nominate for deletion on the grounds on non-notability.  But the silly accusations of "ad hominem attacks" can be dispensed with.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, his espousal of ideas that were non-mainstream, unproven, and went against a majority of the scientific community is what the article could focus on. Kooky and outlandish are your childish, derogatory labels that you have continued to use throughout this discussion. Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And once again, you continue to miss the point. It isn't that TVF's ideas about the face on Mars or superluminal communication are "unproven", they are definitively proven wrong. This is what makes his espousal of them kooky.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the structures on Mars are artificial, however, I would be hesitant to say that I know with 100% certainty that they are in fact not artificial. I would tend to say that they are, in all probability, natural formations.  But you say they are definitively proven to be natural, and I am curious about your definitive proof. Akuvar (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom's expertise in celestial mechanics and SR made him well qualified to point out the experimetal evidence supporting FTL propagation of gravity.


 * Tom had zero understanding of special relativity, let alone general relativity (which of course is necessary for a discussion of gravity), and his background in the study of Newtonian orbits obviously did not prepare him to understand even classical electrodynamics, which violates Laplacian aberration just as surely as does gravity. What's more, he not only didn't understand these things, he had active MISunderstandings... things that could have been cleared up in just a couple of hours if he had ever chosen to do so.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is supported by the fact that his papers were published in multiple peer reviewed journals and the debate between Van Flandern and Carlip was well documented, including in an article "The Great Gravity Debate" by Jeffery D Kooistra, in Analog magazine.


 * "Analog" is a venue for science fiction. If you wish to claim that TVF was a notable purveyor of science fiction, I might be inclined to agree with you. As noted before, the Phys Lett A paper was a soundly repudiated embarrassment, and the Found of Phys opinion piece in a magazine that goes out of its way to explain that it does not endorse the correctness of the opinion pieces it publishes was on the subject of electromagnetism (which Tom knew nothing about), quantum field theory (which Tom knew nothing about), and gravity (about which Tom's only knowledge was Newtonian theory. And the paper espouses not just superluminal but instantaneous propagation, which the octagenarian cold fusionist Vigier needed to support his kooky Stochastic quantum mechanics, but which was anathema to Tom. And so on.  This does not constitute peer reviewed endorsement of any of TVF's ideas by ANY stretch of the imagination.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom's position was a minority position (though not without supporters), but it met wikipedia criteria for both notability and reliability. Wikipedia:fringe is clear that an acceptable bar for reliability is publication in credible peer reviewed journals.  Merits of a paper are based on number of citations and again I point out that Tom's original paper is cited slightly more frequently than Carlips rebuttal.  Auther 63.24, not suprisingly has ojections to each of the journal articles, but wiki policy does not permit an editor to elevate their personal views over reliable and verifiable sources.67.183.85.221 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability discussion concluded that TVF was marginally notable, primarily for his prominence as a pseudo-science crackpot. Having succeeded in enlisting another kook (Vigier) in helping a fellow superluminalist, first by having the 80-year-old cold fusion enthusiast Vigier endorse the paper for Phys Lett A (which was soundly repudiated when the editors woke up and realized the gaff they had committed) and then by having him co-author the embarrassing opinion piece in Found of Phys does not comprise the basis of a notable scientific career. Note, for example, that Carlip, who is to TVF as an elephant is to an ant, does not have a Wikipedia article, and yet he has DOZENS of well-respected and important papers in the most prestegious scientific journals in the world. Speaking of Carlip and what you call his well-documented "debate" with TVF, anyone who read those newsgroup postings can have no doubt about Carlip's estimation of TVF's qualifications and level of understanding.6324xxxx (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the fundamental dilemma of this article, which you decline to recognize. According to all reputable verifiable sources (which are to form the basis of Wikipedia articles), the ideas espoused by TVF were not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong, and known to have been wrong for at least a century, and some for several centuries. But any accurate presentation of this fact is going to strike people like yourself as unwarranted. There's no easy way around this. I think the article does a fairly reasonable job of being accurate but restrained in presenting the verifiable facts.  Strictly speaking, the final line (have not found acceptance) ought to be replaced with something like "have been scientifically refuted for centuries", but I think the more understated sentence is okay.6324xxxx (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So I am to assume, once and for all, that you do not believe in the evolution of science or that it is a body of work constantly under scrutiny and revision when new ideas and observations are made. That Galileo's support of Copernicus, Einstein's building on Plank, and countless other scientists who took previous work and built-on or advocated them, should all be summarily dismissed based on the questionability or discredited nature of the original work? Akuvar (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Science thrives on new ideas. Unfortunately, in the entire Natural Philosophy Alliance there is not a single NEW idea. Physics cranks invariable adopt OLD ideas, and they espouse them naively, oblivious to the reasons why those old ideas were rejected. Then they pretend that they are "building on" those old ideas, but that is simply the fantasy. Invariably the modern crank's version of an ancient theory (like Le Sage gravity) is LESS sophisticated than the ancient versions. Ultimately the crank's only defense is to argue against ever distinguishing between sense and nonsense. They are led (ironically) to adopt the belief of relativism (not to be confused with relativity), according to which no ideas are right or wrong, they are just socially adapted to different communities. So they form their little societies like the NPA, within which they can pretend to be practicing science.


 * So Galileo, Einstein, and Kelvin were cranks. Got it. Akuvar (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But none of this is particuarly relevant to the editing of this article. I'd say the article is in reasonably good shape at the moment, except that there should be more on Cydonia, and perhaps a bit more on the view of the scientific community.  A good case study would be the rings of Uranus episode, since it is well documented in the literature, and illustrates all the aspects of TVF's mode of operation, as well as the reaction of the scientific community.6324xxxx (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that it still includes nonsense like limitless free energy and your mis-quotes of the NPA. Akuvar (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't contain any misquotes of the NPA. One editor here mistakenly claimed that the NPA specifically delineated "special relativity and general relativity" to distinguish them from "Lorenztian relativity", but a search of the NPA web site turns up ZERO hits for "Lorentzian relativity", although it does turn up hits for publications with such titled as "Goodbye Relativity, Hello Reality". Therefore, the afore mentioned editor's claim on behalf of the NPA is specious. Furthermore, Lorentzian relativity is a theory of relativistic phenomena (hence the name), whereas TVF espoused grossly non-relativistic phenomena, inconsistent with both empirical facts and with Lorentzian relativity. Hence, the afore mentioned editor's desire to insert into the article a claim that TVF espoused "relativity" is contradicted by the verifiable information available to us, and so it doesn't belong in the article.


 * By the way, regarding infinite energy, it's interesting that editor mikevf recently referred us to an article supposedly lending credence to TVF's ideas in the science fiction magazine called Analog (formerly called Astounding) written by Mr. Kooistra, who happens to be the associate editor of (wait for it...) Infinite Energy magazine.6324xxxx (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I once sat next to G. Gordon Liddy on a boat. I must have been (wait for it...) involved in Watergate! Akuvar (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual, you completely missed the point. Two individuals have been cited by editor mikevf as lending credence to TVF's ideas. One was Robert Sungenis and the other was Jeffrey Kooistra. Now, it so happens that Robert Sungenis is a well known anti-semitic geocentrist (Coperniucus was wrong! Galileo was wrong!), and Jefrey Kooistra is the editor of Infinite Energy magazine, which you evidently regard as disreputable, because you're enraged that TVF is mentioned as espousing it, despite the fact that TVF spoke at an Infinite Energy conference about how his theory of gravity makes possible infinite free energy. The point is that all the people you can think of who lend credence to TVF's views are people who - according to your OWN beliefs - are believers in loony and/or disreputable ideas.  At the very least, I think you have to agree this is an interesting fact, one that would give most people pause.


 * As usual, you seem to rant on about anything that gives an impression that your discussing what is at hand. Your above statement rambles so far of course that you are actually combining MikeVF's arguments with mine and using that step-child to accuse me of thinking Kooistra is disreputable (I never said that), that I am enraged (am I enraged? how does one tell from a text stream?) and you reiterate your guilt-by-association belief about Tom attending a conference and is therefore a proponent of it (and you've been asked to provide a citation of this claim, ignored it, and now are doing it again). Akuvar (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You refer to guilt by association with the Infinite Energy crowd, and yet you claim that you do not regard the Infinite Energy crowd as disreputable. If infinite energy is not disreputable, then why does an association with it connote any kind of "guilt"?


 * Are you making this up as you go along? Guilt by association is a figure of speech, no one is implying that anyone is guilty of anything.  It applies to your statements that Dr. Van Flandern believed in Infinite Free Energy because he was at a conference on that subject.  This is circumstantial, or guilt by association. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you striving to exonerate TVF from any significant association with Infinite Energy, considering that you hold it in such high esteem?


 * I do? I have never written any comments on whether or not I support, don't support, like or dislike the Infinite Free Energy people or their ideas.  Why do you make this stuff up?  Why is it important to you to do that to other editors? Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you seeking to minimize and marginalize TVF by denying that he participated in such highly reputable groups as the Infinite Energy crowd? Not very generous of you, especially considering that the evidence falsifies your claims.  You say TVF merely "attended a conference", and it is (you imply) unfair to infer from this attendence that he was a proponent of it. Well, as you've been told before, the magazine "Infinite Energy" reported on "The First International Conference on Future Energy (COFE) was held over three days, April 29-May 1, 1999...".


 * Actually, I've pointed out that I read the same article, actually a review, of that conference as you have. The same article that you are basing your false allegations on.  And I've pointed out above, under this very topic, Item 2, I list the URL to go read this review, and I believe you are also referencing a similar one at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/cofe.html (see how easy it is to provide other editors with references?) and I encourage all editors to go read both.  So I know, and have written, that he was a speaker there. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After explaining that the conference got kicked out of multiple official venues (presumably because not everyone shares your high regard for the proponents of infinite free energy),


 * Presumably? So you read the article enough to blast Dr. Van Flandern, but not well enough to read that it got booted due to the black-eye cold fusion had recently received in the media and the DOE's efforts to distance itself from all cold fusion work. Not only do you fail to properly cite the article, you then interject your own erroneous, insulting comments.  I actually believe this is in complete violation of NPOV because it is clear that you read the article and it is clear that you are misrepresenting it. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * the article goes on to describe each of the talks, and when it gets to the key note speaker (apparently some happless attendee who did not in any way endorse or espouse infinite free energy, and just stood in the wrong line, somehow ending up at an Infinite Free Energy conference, and being forced, presumably against his will, to deliver the keynote address),


 * The keynote speaker was Mary Hutzler from DOE who didn't show. So the keynote speaker was neither Dr. Van Flandern nor "some hapless attendee."  Again, you read the article, you misrepresent, you interject your insulting comments when you know what was actually written. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * saying


 * "The concluding speaker of the day was astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern of the Meta Research Institute [sic], who spoke on 'A Complete Gravity Model and Free Energy' ... For the free energy enthusiast, the implications of gravity being particulate and perhaps blockable are obvious. Block or deflect the c-gravitons raining down from the sky and up you go into space. Turn off the blocking shield and recover the energy you've gained, for free, as you fall back to Earth."


 * I hope editors will go read the article. Editor 6324 has truncated three paragraphs of review using a "..." The first two paragraphs listing what Dr. Van Flandern spoke about, and the third paragraph, the one about free energy and the blocking shield, are the reviewer's speculative comments of what Dr. Van Flandern spoke abouit might imply "for the free energy enthusiast."  Again, how misleading of editor 6324 to place this truncated abridgement of what the article actually said.  I guess the bold lettering should be an alert to all editors, "This is fabricated by 6324!" Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you will stop repeating your false claim that TVF merely "attended" an infinite free energy conference. It's perfectly clear that TVF did not merely attend the conference, he spoke at the conference on how his deep reality physical theory of gravity implies the availability of infinite free energy. This is as notable as any other of his kooky ideas.  Your persistent efforts to suppress this in the article are not appropriate. (Of course, since you hold Infinite Energy in such high regard... when you aren't considering any association with it to imply some kind of guilt ... you are presumably happy to have TVF credited with such advanced ideas... or maybe not.6324xxxx (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Never made that claim, thanks. Never tried to suppress this article, thanks. In fact, before you wrote these comments, I was the only editor to provide a URL to one of the reviews of the conference, although you are the first editor to "quote" (and I now use that term with you extremely loosely) the article.  Therefore your statement that my comments are not appropriate is really turning into some kind of pathetic, ironic joke at this point in this discussion. Akuvar (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As to your involvement in Watergate, I have no comment. I also have no comment about your stated conclusion that Galileo, Einstein, and Kelvin were cranks, nor on your dilemma about what to call your dentist when installing his appliances. But please don't interpret this as indicating any lack of appreciation for your insightful and well thought out contributions to the discussion.6324xxxx (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a compliment...thanks! Many editors, including myself, have made the mistake of writing long comments that give you a great deal of freedom to roam around Tom-Bashing Land without addressing the direct questions that were put to you.  I have therefore taken to writing short analogies that succinctly expose your current statement as being ridiculous, without going on to discuss other topics that you could comment on rather than the issue at hand. Akuvar (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I would ask that a statement concerning his most notable and criticized view that gravity was a particle and traveled many times faster than the speed of light be added (and this can easily be the lead-in for the statements about unorthodox views and strong criticism), and that the reference to his support of free energy be removed. Akuvar (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)