Talk:Dean drive/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Consensus Points

I'm beginning to see the outlines of the problem more clearly. Moving to suggested wording is premature. I believe we need to characterize the points we agree on and those we disagree on. Otherwise we are only going to have endless wording changes that simply "yo-yo" back and forth.

I'm going to start a list of points that are not in dispute and a list of those that are. Hopefully we can start to work towards a consensus by slowly eliminating the disputed points. At some juncture there ought to be enough undisputed points to produce a consensus wording for the article based on those.

If anyone believes that any point is disputed, please feel free to remove it from the "Points Not Disputed" list and add it to the "Disputed Points" list and indicate your rationale somewhere below the two lists.

Try to keep the lists intact - don't simply delete any of the points or mix them into the conversation. (you can refer to them, of course) Add to the points if you feel that there are any others that need to be addressed. The numbering is unique - that is, the numbers of each point are not duplicated in either list. That way there is no need for complicated idenifiers. Just refer to the point number.

Later on I will start a "Deadlocked Points" list, IF we find that there are points which cannot be reconciled by any compromise or pursuasion. Let's hope that list is either nonexistent or very short. 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

Points Not Disputed

(1) The Dean drive was invented by Norman L. Dean

(2) The Dean drive was believed by its inventor to be a reactionless drive

(3) Reactionless drives are controversial because they would violate Newton's Laws of motion and the law of conservation of momentum

(5) Dean believed that models of his drive successfully demonstrated reactionless behavior.

(6) It is generally accepted that Dean's drive did not actually demonstrate reactionless behavior.

(7) Dean demonstrated some models of his drive that were not described in his patents

(9) G. Harry Stine and William O. Davis witnessed a demonstration of the drive by Dean

(12) William O. Davis (and team) developed a theoretical explanation of how the Dean drive operated

Disputed Points

(4) The only generally accepted mechanism by which a reactionless drive might actually work is the Woodward effect.

(8) Many believe that the Dean drive operated by means of "stick-slip" frictional effects.

(10) G. Harry Stine's experiments did not confirm Dean's claims

(11) G. Harry Stine's experiments partially verified some of Dean's cliams

OK - that should be enough to start. I didn't address the issue of publication and what is (or is not) a valid published work. Feel free to add any points about this element (or any other). 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

On the list of undisputed items, I think that (4) could be phrased better. The Woodward effect is not, I think, "generally accepted"; even the Wikipedia article about it states that it is controversial. I'd say it's kind-of in a no-man's-land where those who object to it haven't been able to muster a good enough argument yet to shoot it down (and thus it persists, as a thorn in the side of Orthodoxy). I'm sure that both sides of the controversy want more experimental evidence, one way or the other.

I edited (9) and (12) a bit because of definite inaccuracies. Stine and Davis visited Dean jointly, and saw the same demonstration on Sept 28, 1960. Stine's 1976 Analog article includes, and I quote: "I have taken the liberty of quoting extensively from written notes made within a day or so of witnessing ... because they more accurately express our joint observations of the time and do not exhibit the ravages of time on the memory." Next, the "team" that Davis assembled, to more-fully develop his initial hypothesis to explain how the Dean Drive MIGHT work, included the moderately well known physicist Henri Coanda and a professor of physics at New York University, Serge Korff, who (according to Stine) later became president of the New York Academy of Sciences. Davis himself had at one time been Chief of Scientific Research, Headquarters, Air [Force] Research and Development Command (per a bio in May 1962 Analog). A less notable (but likely not less valuable) member of the team was a mathematician named E. L. Victory, an M.I.T. graduate. Toward the end of Stine's article he wrote: "With several very very intelligent and respected scientists involved in the program, we never once ran up against a flaw in the logic, a trivial consequence, an irrational conclusion, or any result that did not appear to jibe with the real world." One very specific example of that is described, and I'll quote it after reiterating that Davis' hypothesis is basically Newtonian Mechanics with a small addition to it, the notion that there is a force proportional to the rate of change of acceleration. That is, when a force is applied to an object, a small part of it causes the object to experience a changing acceleration, while the bulk of it does the normal thing and causes the object to accelerate. (Note that something known as "Dimensional analysis" requires a what Davis called a "Critical Action Time" to be involved in his force-equation. That's the time it takes for the applied force to fully permeate the object, at the speed of sound in the substance of the object, typically less than a thousandth of a second for ordinary objects. It's the time during which the object experiences a change of acceleration, and because the time is so short, that's why the associated/hypothesized force is typically a small part of the total applied force, and is typically ignored by physicists, although engineers are well aware of a temporary thing often called "jerk" or "kick" or starting transient" in mechanical systems.) And now the quote, "One meeting really sticks in my mind; in late 1961 I sat astounded and watched Professor Serge Korff derive Planck's Constant and the quantum condition from Newtonian Mechanics using the hypothesis of Davis..."

Regarding the disputed points, for (6) I would prefer it to be expressed something like, "It is generally accepted that Dean's drive could not actually demonstrate reactionless behavior." This would accommodate both the Standard View and even Davis' view, since his hypothesis would make the Dean Drive a reaction drive that has an invisible and difficult-to-detect "exhaust". I cannot object to (8), since that belief appears to be rooted in confusing Dean's patented gadget with his demonstrated gadget. And (10) is more correct than (11). Stine's experiments were designed to confirm aspects of Davis' hypothesis. To the extent they succeeded, they simply support the notion that Dean's demonstrated device MIGHT have worked in accordance with that hypothesis. In other words, Stine's experiments could only be taken as indirect evidence in favor of Dean's claims (in effect) that his drive exhibited nonstandard behavior. I now await remarks from the opposing POV.

In the absence of opposition comment regarding the Woodward effect, your point is well taken with regard to (4). I therefore moved this point into the "disputed" column. I originally phrased the wording somewhat tentatively by using the word "might". What wording would you suggest?

Perhaps we ought to specify who the other members of the "team" were in regard to (9) and (12). The rest of your comment involves quotes which ought to be referenced. Were these from unpublished notes? If so they must have been published, else how would we know about them? As I recall that was one of Gwernol's big gripes - the use of unpublished sources.

I moved (6) from the "disputed" category to the "not disputed" category. (pending further comment from the opposition) As far as I can see, this adequately addresses the desire of skeptics to refute the validity of the Dean drive but without personally attacking Dean or using over-the-top hyperbole. The aim here is an NPOV article that reflects the views of all sides.

Since you do not object to (8), should we move it to the "not disputed" column? (Bearing in mind, of course, that the opposition may want to make it more explicitly negative - probably by removing the "Many believe ..." prefix.)

OK, I agree that (10) is the preferred wording because it is more NPOV and reflects the more negative prevailing view. But I still want to leave this for further discussion from those who oppose any hint that Dean might have been at least partially right.

It occurs to me that Gwernol (and perhaps other skeptics) will not comment but simply be content with sitting back, reverting, blocking and in general preventing more proactive people from contributing to an article whose content they object to. Inasmuch as I intend to take this dispute to the next level if no agreement is reached, I think in the absence of any participation by the skeptical opposition, we ought to assemble the objections Gwernol has penned into one section (minus the personal attacks and threats) so that they can be summarized and addressed. If anybody objects, they can join the discussion and we can add their views to the end results. 63.229.113.180 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

About the Woodward effect, because it is theoretical and controversial, it should not be given a large focus in the article. That's why I wrote (elsewhere above) "... there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the controversial Woodward effect. ..." If you re-read the stuff surrounding it, you will see that it is simply mentioned and not much else.

Regarding quotes, the sources of the quotes ARE and WERE mentioned in the main article. However, at the time Gwernol complained, they had not been FORMALLY referenced there. Now formally referenced are the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics, May 1962 Analog, and June 1976 Analog. Most quotes are from that third magazine. Note the June 1960 issue is still mentioned without formal reference; that is the issue in which the editor of Analog, John W Campbell Jr, first introduced the Dean Drive to his readers (and the cover of that issue had for a time been part of the article). In this discussion page I have also quoted from the April 1978 Analog; I happen to possess a copy of each magazine listed here (except June 1960 Analog). Davis' notes are quoted in the June 1976 Analog, along with a description of the members of his research team, although that article was actually written by G. Harry Stine. Some of those magazine articles have been copied and posted on-line (some links can be found near the top of this discussion page). Copyright violation may have occurred in posting those copies.

I don't know why you moved (6) without changing "did not" to "could not". A relevant point concerns a quote that is in the Wikipedia article, where Davis and Stine agreed they had witnessed a "real anomaly". They saw the demonstrated device behave in a way that *DEAN* considered to be "reactionless", but they weren't willing to accept that as the actual explanation of the demonstrated/observed behavior. I ask you to look at that Nuclear photonic rocket article, and consider the possibility of such a rocket emitting infrared. From a distance, if you saw it accelerate, you would SEE no exhaust, right? Because infrared is invisible to the human eye, it would be a reaction drive that LOOKS like a reactionless drive. There is no doubt that observers of the demonstrated Dean Drive thought it looked like a reactionless drive. Those who *DIDN'T* observe it *ASSUME* it didn't even actually do that much, because their "working data" for reaching any kind of conclusion was mostly only Dean's patent. And of course there is the highly respected Law of Conservation of Momentum, which is precisely why Davis and Stine , a scientist and an engineer respectively, were reluctant to fully embrace Dean's claim that his gadget behaved truly reactionlessly. So, it happens that "could not" is a less "firm" kind of statement than "did not", and thus I think it is a more appropriate phrase in item (6).

Regarding (8), and in light of what I wrote in the previous paragraph about people assuming the Dean Drive didn't even behave anomalously, "believe" MUST be the accurate word. For them to do more than "believe" that, they would have needed hands-on access to demonstrated-FAILING device. And they didn't have that.... Let's see the opposing side offer a supported-by-data rationale why "believe" should be replaced by something stronger!

Regarding (10) and (11), there is one thing in the June 1976 Analog that I forgot about. I quote [with edits]: "... in May 1961 we decided to take a very close look at precisely the harmonic drive mechanism that was used in the Dean Drive [and his patent]. This is a device known as a "Buehler Drive" and it is commonly used throughout industry to generate vibrations or oscillatory motion. I consists of two counter-rotating eccentric masses. I designed the device and had it built [...] In our meeting on Sept 28 1960, Norman Dean claimed that the classical situation of a simple harmonic motion drive is incorrect. Classically, when the [eccentric] masses are displaced to their maximum extent to [one direction], the carriage [holding the rotating eccentric masses] will be [in sync] at its maximum displacement to the [other direction]. [...] Dean claimed that the motions [could get out of sync by a "phase angle" of 45 degrees at 1500 RPM] ... When simple harmonic motion is considered as the driving force in Davis [hypothesis], this phase angle does indeed appear [in the math]... but not to the extent claimed by Dean. With our oscillating device, we were looking for a phase angle." End of edited quoting. They were able to reliably obtain a 3-degree angle with both that oscillating device and a second one having a different design, and this was in good agreement with Davis' calculations. They were not able to verify Dean's claim of a 45-degree phase angle. Stine's article describes something of a "spat" about that when descriptions of Dean's "phasing behavior" and Stine's gadget were published in the reader's feedback ("Brass Tacks") section of certain issues of Analog (which I do not possess, but Stine's article references them as the May and Sept issues of 1963). NEVERTHELESS, please remember that Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not allow *ANY* degree of phase angle in *ANY* mechanical system! So, is (10) more correct than (11), or is (11) more correct than (10)? You decide! (The thing I had forgot about was Dean's involvement-from-a-considerable-distance in Stine's phase-angle tests.) Here is a link to a .pdf file that describes (among other things) two eccentrics working together to create oscillatory motion along one dimensional axis:<br\>

http://www.ntn.ca/Catalogues/NTN/C-4100%20Spher%20Roller%20Brgs%20for%20Vibrating%20Screens.pdf <br\>

Regarding people like Gwernol acting as you described, you could always just post a properly NPOV article-introduction and see what happens to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.73.117 (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Analog "Submarine" Cover

Does anyone have a good idea of how to make this well-known cover showing a U.S. submarine (powered by a Dean drive) in the vicinity of Mars available to readers of the article? I believe that presentation of the cover in this context is fair use. Others may disagree. The cover was present in the article for a long time before it was removed in the current debate.

One possible way of avoiding yet another heated debate about copyright verses free speech might be to use a link to a relatively stable online source where this cover exists. Does anyone know if Analog has an image of this cover in their online archives? 63.230.204.90 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

I hate that they got rid of the Analog cover! The page was about the Dean Drive and the Analog cover was from a 1960 edition where it was talked about. There was no legal problem with the cover. That guy Gwernal destroyed the page they are trying to put back now. Why does Wiki let people like that to trash pages like this one???

189.176.186.99 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This Dean Drive article has history value even though these people can´t see it. There is a link to the Analog cover earlier in the discussion page.

http://www.efanzines.com/JTE/set60/01060.jpg

I agree that they should put it back. And they should stop deleting everything because they don´t like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.183.36 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Found in the History Tab

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_drive&oldid=216548324

This is a very thought out article that was ripped down and deserves some reconsideration, with the right references of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.244.231 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what is it about the article you refer to that is HISTORICAL? 63.230.204.90 (talk)[USER I]

I found it on the history tab for this article.

Oh, I thought for a moment that something IN the article had historical significance. I wish we had a timeline for the Dean drive. It might provide some historical perspective, even if it only appears on the discussion page in the end. 63.230.204.90 (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

That is correct! no one has been deleting anything on the discussion page. Nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.244.231 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to Resolve Disputed Matters

Actually, that's not quite true. I've had content left on the discussion page recently removed during the ongoing dispute (See request). Such deletion is always a problem when there are individuals bent on surppression rather than an exchange of ideas. 63.229.113.180 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

You've made this accusation several times. Would you care to provide a diff that backs it up? I have seen no removal of content from this discussion page. Its a fairly serious accusation, and one you should provide evidence to support. Gwernol 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still monitoring Gwernol. Wish you would participate in resolution of the main issues rather than addressing minor items that only add to controversy. I don't have any interest in keeping the pot boiling, but since you ask, just consult the material behind the history tab:

21:42, 8 June 2008 Gwernol (Talk | contribs)(Most recent comments go at the bottom of the talk page

and

21:39, 8 June 2008 209.181.97.245 (Talk)(→Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Challenged)

While the comments occurred during the heat of the discussion, They were intended to be be juxtiposed with my comment on regarding unjustified tagging for illustration of the comment that followed. You deleted it from that position because you didn't think it ought to be there. That reflected your editing NOT mine. From my perspective that was a deletion since it no longer reflected either my intent nor did it have the desired illustrative impact.

I am not inclined to argue the point, however. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is dead and I'd like to move on to resolving the main issues. Would you PLEASE participate in a resolution? We are now at a point where I think Nurotoxin and others involved in the discussion may be willing to work together with you to reach a concensus.

Nobody is asking you to change your mind about the issues. We only want to come up with specific wording that results in a balanced (NPOV) article that provides readers with all the elements of the Dean drive story. If there were no controversial issues to discuss, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Your comments are valuable precisely because they represent an opposing view that must be taken into account.

I do hope that you will add your comments to those now ongoing in the appropriate forums. [Special:Contributions/70.58.112.58|70.58.112.58]] (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

(deindenting) As I have repeatedly noted, I have discussed the substantive issues on this talk page. The result of engaging in discussion have been repeated personal attacks against me, accusing me of censorship, lying, vandalism and not understanding the policies of Wikipedia, amongst others. It takes two to have a debate. Since those who disagree with me are unable to hold a civilized and constructive conversation, I have no wish to take further part in it. As a case in point, you have claimed several times that I have removed comments from this talk page. I have not done so. The single example you cite is this edit where I moved a comment from the top of the page to the bottom. Not only does this comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on talk pages, but it made that comment more visible. Your claim and the claim of others was that content was deleted from this page. That is clearly untrue. Are you going to apologize for making that groundless accusation? I strongly object to being told I am censoring others' comments. There is no evidence of this: if you were serious about holding a rational debate, you and others would withdraw these unfounded allegations. Instead they are still being repeated. This is the third time that an accusation against me has been shown to be groundless.

Interjection by User I

You may believe what you like. Nobody is going to challenge that, it is after all your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I notice you are putting much more time and effort into defensive writing and much less into constructive engagement. I also have an opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I am not attacking you. YOU brought up the subject. From this point on, I will not comment on any similar matters because it seems to me as though you are using these issues as an excuse to avoid real discussion and I do not wish to enable further withdrawal from the more important matters at hand.

To facilitate your entry into a real discussion, I am prepared to retract my statements regarding the allegations as you demanded in your response above. I have stated that I was willing to do this before and I now make good on that pledge. I have no interest in perpetuating petty squabbles. I formally withdraw my former accusations and apologize for any other slights. It was not my intention to inflame the situation.

I still strongly believe that you should have engaged in discussion regarding the more drastic changes you made. Had you relied less on confrontational editing and more on cooperative discussion, others might well have reacted less strongly. You of all people should understand that such actions as have occurred here have caused others in this discussion to feel the same way you do and react accordingly.

Now that I have done what you have asked me to do, will you please engage in a constructive discussion? I and others in this effort would really like to hear some proposals from you regarding wording for the more difficult parts of the article that will strike a more neutral tone AND address the controversial subjects as well.

We don't need to suger coat anything. But we DO need to address the matters that are the elephant in the room. I do not believe in suppression of inconvenient facts precisely because it is these facts that leads mainstream science inexorably towards a better understanding of the world. As long as the sources of these facts meet real (as opposed to interpretive) Wikipedia standards, I see no reason why they should not be discussed in the article.

End Interjection by User I 71.35.28.231 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone here proposes an edit that improves the neutrality of the article, we will be taking a step forward. The proposal that this version of the article meets Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, maintaining a neutral point of view or avoiding original research is so far from accurate that its hard to know what to make of it. This article, like all other articles, can only reflect what is available from independent, published sources. That means the Dean family papers - neither independent, nor published - cannot be used. It means that the material from Pournelle, Goswami, Mills and Analog magazine must be used. It means that the various theories connecting the (purely mechanical) Dean drive's operation to quantum effects cannot be included - they are original research. Neutral does not mean that all claims have to be treated equally. We do not treat the claim that the sun revolves around the earth with the same seriousness that we treat other theories of celestial mechanics. Dean's claims are extraordinary, so they need extraordinary proof before we can present them as anything except in interesting historical sidenote and a failed idea. Gwernol 11:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, please help us to write a better article. So far, I nor anyone else has been given any constructive critizism about what we put up, we need guidence. You have a quick and to the point way of editing the article without much input on why it was taken down. What can we put up, how can we publish unknown works to satisfy Wikipedia's standards? The reason so many of us are upset is that when we add things to the article they are taken down without much input on how we can improve or make it worthy. I appologize for how we have been treating you, but remeber every action has an equal and opposite reaction that includes the human psyche. -Nurotoxin (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that request. I believe that "someone" referred to above regarding suggested wording that improves the neutrality of the article should be Gwernol. As long as the others in this discussion can constructively engage with him and we can move together towards wording that resolves the dispute, we can achieve something we can all live with. 71.35.28.231 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [User I]

I looked at that "this version" that Gwernol linked, and one thing in it, about Dean claiming that action and reaction are non-simultaneous, is actually supported in Davis' published May 1962 Analog article (thereby meeting Wikipedia "verifiability" and "original research" standards). I suspect Gwernol is failing to understand the distinction between the FORCE that causes action and reaction (the force always exists perfectly simultaneously), and the PHYSICAL RESPONSE to an applied force. If two very different objects have some force come into existence between them, why should we expect the objects to respond simultanously? Suppose one is a steel bearing-ball and the other is a 40-pound cannonball. Suspend both on wires so that they touch, and pull the bearing-ball away and let it loose. Take high-speed pictures. At the moment of impact a single force comes into existence that is simultaneously applied to both objects. If you recall some basic physics, one can lean against a wall and theoretically be applying a force to it, but if the wall doesn't move, SOME might say that you actually aren't (I remember hearing in school that since F=ma, then if there is no "a", there can be no "F"). Others would say that the wall is associated with an equal opposing force. In this case the cannonball is much bigger than the bearing-ball; the applied force cannot affect the far side of the cannonball instantly (without violating Einstein's light-speed limit). Yet where is "time" a factor in F=ma? Newton ASSUMES an object instantly and in its entirety responds to an applied force! Well, it is hardly "original research" to claim that Newton is wrong and Einstein is right, about macroscopic things happening instantly. So, put any FINITE speed-of-force-affecting-an-object into the equation (like Davis did), and guess what happens? The smaller bearing-ball will obviously totally respond to the applied force faster than the larger cannonball. NONSIMULTANEOUSLY they respond to the applied force, that is. In the first moments just following the impact, the cannonball is like the wall mentioned earlier; it is associated with a force that helps the bearing-ball to bounce. In a few more moments the force of that impact has time to affect the totality of the cannonball, and THEN it starts to swing on its suspended wire. A high-enough-speed camera should be able to catch that nonsimultaneous-ness in the act; Newton, of course, had no tools available to notice such a tiny difference in response times.

The only other question is, what is Gwernol's definition of NPOV? Facts are supposed to be PRESENTED in a Neutral way in a Wikipedia article. But if the facts themselves support a particular conclusion (or point of view), Gwernol has absolutely no case in (apparently) attempting to suppress them, or to present only CLAIMS (not facts) that support the opposite conclusion. Example: Cramer CLAIMS that the Dean Drive was "shown not to work" but he presents no facts in his article to support that claim. Why, therefore, is this Wikipedia article written to include only the "shown not to work" but not include the fact that that statement is only a claim? I'm going to tweak that; let's see how long it lasts, and what excuse (if any) Gwernol or some other like-minded NON-NPOV person uses to justify reverting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And the answer is: Gwernol told another lie. Tsk tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated personal attacks reveal a great deal more about you than they do about me. Once again, please justify your claim that I have "lied", or retract it. You have been caught making false claims about me before and haven't had the honor and decency to apologize when caught out. Will you do so this time?

If you want to read my definition of what a neutral point of view is, in regards to Wikipedia, then here it is: WP:NPOV. Nothing more, nothing less. The text you just disputed is not sourced to Cramer, it is sourced to Goswami. Goswami says: "Dean's drive doesn't work". Therefore the article must say that Dean's drive doesn't work. Inserting your own caveats that are derived from your own research is exactly original research. Reporting what the source actually says is maintaining a neutral point of view. Gwernol 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

QUOTING GWERNOL: "The article as it exists reflects the source. Your additions are original research" The first part of that is true; the second part is the lie, and it is easily proved to be a lie. The Wikipedia article reflects the source (Goswami or Millis), in stating that "the thrust generated is understood (etc)". But that source (either source, actually), is just a CLAIM, exactly as Dean's own published statements are claims. The Wikipedia article label's Dean's published statements "claims", but you want us to believe that it is "original research" if other people's published statements are labelled "claims"? THAT IS THE LIE (of hypocrisy, the essence of NON-NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to misuse the talk page in this manner, I'll semi-protect the page to prevent you from posting. PhilKnight (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dean's claims are labeled as claims because they are not sourced to independent, published sources. Goswami's work is published in an independent source so we can state it as fact. That's the difference. This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Gwernol 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to PhilKnight thinking that it is "misusing" a page in which discussion is SUPPOSED to allow Truth to prevail over Lies, to prove someone is telling a lie and therefore qualifies as a "liar". Do you think POLITENESS will cause a liar to quit lying? Only EXPOSURE works! Next, obviously some people do not understand the meaning of the word "claim". Everything ever written as if it was a fact is a CLAIM, first and foremost. Check the dictionary definition and see for yourselves! Dean made various statements that were certainly published (and in a referenced source, too, such the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics, thereby revealing another lie by Gwernol). I think none of those statements have been quoted directly in the article here, but certainly they have been DESCRIBED. Just as statements made in Gwernol's preferred sources have been DESCRIBED. Both sets statements are claims, pure and simple. It is of course possible that certain claims can ALSO be facts, but that NEVER changes the essence of the fact that the claims are still claims. Person A might hold an apple and state it is yellow; Person B might be in the vicinity and make his own claim that Person A's claim is a fact, but Person C at a distant location and informed by voice-telephone can only consider both the claims to be only claims. STATEMENTS OF FACT ARE ALWAYS AT LEAST CLAIMS, while claims might not always also be facts. (As an imagination exercise, replace "an apple" with "a demonstrated Dean drive" and "yellow" with "exhibiting anomalous behavior", and ask why statements by Goswami, a Person C, should not be called claims, while statements by Stine or Davis, both being Persons B, and Dean, the Person A, should be called claims.) And so, because claims are defined in many a dictionary compatibly with my description here, in conclusion I repeat that it is a lie to say, in essence, "It is 'original research' to say that things written by Goswami or Millis or Cramer (or Adams, another Person C who was author of article referenced by Goswami and possibly by Cramer) are claims." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article. Regarding your comments, I suggest you focus on article improvement, instead of attacking other editors. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And right there, is exactly the reason why attempting to engage in discussion on this page is pointless. Instead of trying to reach consensus, anybody who disagrees with the IP editor above is subject to screaming invective and repeated personal attacks. This IP is clearly not interested in a civilized debate, only in trying to bully other editors into accepting their point of view. Until this behavior stops, I see no point in continuing to engage here. Many thanks to PhilKnight for his efforts to find a reasonable solution, and I'm very sorry you got drawn into this morass. Gwernol 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This morning I wrote, most civilly, "Why, therefore, is this Wikipedia article written to include only the "shown not to work" but not include the fact that that statement is only a claim? I'm going to tweak that; let's see how long it lasts, and what excuse (if any) Gwernol or some other like-minded NON-NPOV person uses to justify reverting it!" Then I made a change to indicate, basically, that Dean's claims were being countered by other persons' claims, and it got reverted. The excuse used was "original research". I then posted a statement to the effect that Gwernol, who did the reversion, told a lie. Gwernol responded, "please justify your claim that I have "lied"" --and I did exactly that. It took two attempts, since I didn't know I had to point out the meaning of "claim" in the first attempt. I do not see any counter-argument regarding my proof that Gwernol told a lie. I only see PhilKnight swallowing the lie (by apparently preventing someone who knows what "claim" means from correctly placing it in the main article), and Gwernol complaining that being proved a liar AS CHALLENGED counts as a "personal attack". Tsk tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Deindenting) I just read the above exchange and have a few comments I'd like to offer. First, I agree with PhilKnight regarding personal attacks. Emotions are running high and we are just beginning to get some engagement with Gwernol. While I can understand the desire to communicate intensity of your feelings, the wording you chose was not helpful and merely reinforces the belief which Gwernol has expressed, namely that he is being unfairly attacked.

What we want is for all parties in this dispute to come together for a resolution. All of us have valuable contributions to make and all of us have strong viewpoints. This isn't going to be easy and it will be made all the more difficult if we continue using language that can be misconstrued as a personal attack. There has already been enough of that to go around from everyone.

Whether it is by words or by actions, what we DON'T need are provocative measures right now. The best thing that we can all do is shed the propensity for squabbling and get down to the business of addressing those SPECIFIC points in the article that are causing so much of problem in reaching a neutral, fair and complete article that can stand the test of time.

Nurotoxin also has it right. Gwernol needs to stop being so defensive and participate in the discussion. I believe that we all got off on the wrong foot and we need to put aside the petty squabbling to achieve an article that is something better than mere skepticism and a poster child for Wikipedia standards.

The standards are important, yes, but I doubt that they were intended to be used as a barrier to informative writing. Carl Sagan (among others) has stated that "Extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence." But it's not enough to quote only accepted mainstream views. There is published, legitimate evidence that all is not as it should be in the standard model.

It is precisely these kinds of discrepancies, such as the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury and the controversial evidence for continental drift that lead to better science and major revisions of the standard model. That can't occur if these discrepencies are simply surpressed merely because they are not widely accepted or fully explained by science in its current state. I believe we MUST address NOT ONLY the accepted mainstream viewpoint, but also the more controversial evidence as well.

That was what I was hoping would happen when I drafted the "Consensus Points" in the discussion above. I doubt we can agree on specific wording changes UNTIL we identify specific points we disagree on. I believe it is CRUCIAL that we direct our efforts towards this task.

How about it? Can we proceed? Or are we just going to continue squabbling over how badly each of us is treating the others? 71.35.28.231 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[User I]

I'm interested in seeing how Gwernol tries to defend his claim that it is "original research" to put in the main article the simple fact-of-English-language that what Cramer and Millis and Adams and Goswami wrote qualify as "claims". It MIGHT be "original research" to indicate that their claims are "UNSUPPORTED claims", but it is not "original research" to simply label their writings as "claims". An article cannot possibly be NPOV if only one side's statements are called "claims", so why is Gwernol's NON-NPOV reversion being allowed to stand, of the change I made yesterday morning?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.28.10 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Gwernol never did participate in this discussion even though he recieved the apology he demanded. And he never apologized to other editors for the unfounded acusations he made against them (see: request) Whatever he may say, it seems clear that he never intended to justify what other editors consider abuse of his administrative responsibilities. 65.101.0.149 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [User I]