Talk:Omega Point (Tipler)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit on 01:56, 7 April 2010

I edited the recent inclusion of the text of "Kardashev Level III civilization" in the article by Keraunos, since this doesn't help further the understanding of someone regarding the Omega Point Theory, but instead does the opposite by introducing unnecessary jargon. I realize, Keraunos, that you have a yen for laying on the techno-jargon (including from science fiction) thick and heavy, but the article should convey understanding, and thowing out terms such as "Kardashev Level III civilization" isn't necessary for understanding the Omega Point Theory (indeed, Prof. Tipler himself hasn't used this classification scale in his writings).

A term such as "supertask" is helpful (even though Tipler hasn't used this term in his works), because it gives a name for an infinite number of tasks occuring in a finite proper time, which is the central and fundamental concept of the Omega Point Theory: i.e., one needs this concept in order to even begin to understand the Omega Point Theory, and so it's useful to have a term for this concept. Whereas one doesn't even need the concept of a classification scale of civilizations in order to understand the Omega Point Theory; and further, from a fundamental physics standpoint, as scale such as the Kardashev scale is arbitrary in that it doesn't represent fundamental physics concepts in how it chooses to demarcate civilizations. If one desired to classify civilizations from a fundamental physics viewpoint within the Omega Point cosmology, there would be (1) the pre-baryon-annihilation phase; (2) the baryon-annihilation phase, when immortality and interstellar colonization becomes practical, in which baryon annihilation is used for life's energy resource and for rocket propulsion; and (3) the collapse phase, when life's energy resource comes from the gravitational shear energy from the universe's Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations).

I included a wikilink to the "Kardashev scale" article in the text of "completely colonized", since then if people want to see how people such as Nikolai Kardashev and other thinkers have classified various levels of civilization they can still click on that article link, but without having to parse such non-fundamental jargon in the reading of the text. I also included "Kardashev scale" in the "See also" section.

You also deleted the part that according to Tipler, "this should likely start before 2100", which is important information for giving people an idea as to when this colonization should begin, so I added that back.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There seriously needs to be a second source

The only source of information we have about this theory is from Frank Tipler. This use of a single source I creates heavy bias in regards to the theory. Especially on its validity, which I place heavy doubts on.

Also if you noticed all the blocks of statements supporting Omega Point in this discussion page, appear to repeat itself as if it were simply copied and pasted. I suspect this to be the work a hard-die supporter of Tipler trying to promote the Omega Point on every chance possible.69.238.216.142 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 69.238.216.142.

Keep in mind that the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article doesn't take a position as to whether the Omega Point Theory is correct, as that's not the purview of Wikipedia. And the article does have the section "Implications from string theory", which points out that if string theory is correct then it would appear to rule out an Omega Point cosmology.

Also keep in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler isn't the only source of information on the Omega Point Theory, as his Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Hence, the many professional physicists charged with formally refereeing Tipler's papers on his Omega Point Theory could find nothing wrong with it.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory:

• Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode:1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Mirror link. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97-114.

Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, Bibcode:1992PhLB..286...36T.

Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119 (mirror link); an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; . Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.

Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001-94694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode:2001AIPC..586.....W.

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..141T. Mirror links here and here; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode:2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, Bibcode:2007MNRAS.379..629T.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. [...] you are just plagiarizing Tipler's words. 69.238.216.142 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 69.238.216.142. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, nor a place to air personal grievances. Your cooperation with Wikipedia policies will be appreciated.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but your behavior is similar to several users with the alias "[...]" that repeat the same "proof" word for word. I do not think it is a coincidence nor is it a case of plagiarism because I think you 71.0.146.150 are "[...]". I highly recommend not plagiarizing Prof. Tipler's words as well as provide other professors that support OPT if you wish to support this theory.69.238.216.142 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, 69.238.216.142, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, nor a place to air personal grievances. So you are here again asked to cooperate with Wikipedia policies on this.

Regarding multiple professors, apparently you are confused as to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a place to determine truth, but instead is based upon reliable sources, which Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory meets in spades, given that it has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Although the physics of the Omega Point Theory have also been endorsed by Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work) and Prof. Paul Richard Simony (head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University), and the first book that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory was published in (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986) was cowritten by Prof. John D. Barrow, and Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote in the "Foreward" to the book on p. viii that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" and on p. ix of said book Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]." So Obviously Prof. Barrow and Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had scientific merit.

Pertaining to your false and nihil ad rem claim of plagiarism, you are thereby violating Wikipedia policy regarding good faith.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as the Omega Point theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Veneziano's String Theory is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics." Pot meet Kettle.69.238.216.142 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Now your conduct here is becoming jejune. Please take your personal grievances elsewhere. Wikipedia is not sound-off board for you to engage in childish behavior.

Though your inversion of my writings makes your above post antifactual. String theory violates the known laws of physics, e.g., singularities are unavoidable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions, whereas singularities cannot occur in string theory. Nor has string theory ever had any experimental support. Whereas the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics)--which the Omega Point Theory is founded upon--have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Though your inversion of my writings makes your above post antifactual. Omega Point theory violates the known laws of physics, e.g., singularities are unattainable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions, whereas singularities have to occur in omega point theory. Nor has omega point theory ever had any experimental support. Whereas the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics)--which the String Theory is founded upon--have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.69.238.216.142 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The "theory" has had 15 years since it was proposed in 1995, if there's not a second source, it's in the realm of a crackpot. Crackpots are not notable. 74.33.98.208 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

74.33.98.208, so extreme is your visceral dislike of the Omega Point Theory that you couldn't even bring yourself to learn the most rudimentary facts about it, which if you were actually knowledgeable on the publication history of the Omega Point Theory you would know that it was first published in 1986, not 1995.

The Omega Point Theory actually has many reliable sources, including being peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.

Your repeated usage of the term "crackpot" violates WP:Civility.

Given your abusive insults, you obviously have a severe dislike of Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory, despite the fact that you don't even know the most basic facts about it. You are apparently here because Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently, as I see you have no other edit history on Wikipedia. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who had never heard of the Omega Point Theory before yet who upon hearing of it take an extreme dislike to it. Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and harassing behavior by new Wikipedia editors whose only edit history is this article. At least two of these I.P. addresses appear to be in use by the same person.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a search on Scopus for articles citing Tipler's work.

• "The structure of the world from pure numbers"/"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything"

1 citation.

• "Cosmological Limits on Computation"

10 citations (half of which are from articles of which one particular person is a recurring (co)author.)

• "Achieved spacetime infinity"

1 citation.

• "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists"

Not found on Scopus. (Published in journal concerned with science-religion dialogue)

• "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation"

4 citations.

• "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe"

Not found on Scopus. (Published in a NASA Workshop proceeding)

• "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant"

Not found on Scopus. (Published in AIP anthology)

• "Intelligent life in cosmology"

Not found on Scopus. (Published in astrobiology journal; impact unknown.)

• "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem"

2 citations.

The given sources have been cited very few times. Furthermore, a scan of the citing articles revealed that none of them took the Omega Point theory as a major point of discussion. I conclude that discussion of the Omega Point theory has received negligible attention from modern physics at best. Given that the Omega Point theory has only apparently been seriously discussed as a scientific theory in papers authored by a single academic (Frank J. Tipler) and has not received any further attention since then, it seems safe to conclude that it is a fringe theory attributable entirely to Tipler. (See WP:FRNG for discussion of fringe theories.)

On the other hand, Tipler and his Omega Point idea have had some traction with the general public due to his theological publications. The public reaction and support of Tipler and his ideas from a theological perspective probably qualifies as notable. Conversely, the amount of attention given in the article to the actual details of the physics is unwarranted because it is irrelevant to the public support of and reaction to the idea, reliant on direct incorporation of Tipler's tersely worded work, and inaccessible to anybody who is not a physicist.64.53.209.200 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 64.53.209.200. You're making up your own criteria, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory does not qualify under WP:Fringe. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals (see WP:reliable sources).

Regarding citations to articles, this is you making up your own criteria, as nothing is mentioned about this in Wikipedia. In WP:reliable sources, there's a paragraph that mentions citation indexes, but it's clear from the context that it's talking about the reliability of a journal as a source (e.g., "A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index ...").

Although your original research is irrelavant, your figures are at any rate innacurate, as Prof. Tipler's articles have received more citations to them than your figures indicate (based upon information from the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System and Google Scholar). Even most National Science Foundation-funded papers never obtain a single citation to them, so Tipler's papers on the Omega Point are doing far, far better than most peer-reviewed papers in this regard. Although all of this is irrelevant because there's no Wikipedia policy stating that something which has many reliable sources is fringe just because it does't have quite the number of citations to it in the primary literature that you think it should have--which at any rate is just some arbitrary, subjective and as-yet-unspecified number that you thought up, since your original research actually demonstrates that Tipler's papers on the Omega Point are far more cited than most scientific papers. In short, even though your original research here is irrelevant, you have disproved your own irrelevant thesis.

Lastly, just because you may not be able to understand the physics of the Omega Point Theory is hardly a coherent reason for diminishing the coverage offered on the physics, since the coverage as it's now been in this article for years hits on the key points, and so cannot be diminished without making it incoherent. What I might do is create an additional expository section explaining the physics in laymen's terms.

Your motivations for your desired edits appear to be a dislike of the Omega Point Theory, as I see you have no edit history on Wikipedia, but instead are apparently here because Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who had never heard of the Omega Point Theory before yet who upon hearing of it take an extreme dislike to it. Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and harassing behavior by new Wikipedia editors whose only edit history is this article. At least two of these I.P. addresses appear to be in use by the same person.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what fuck off [...]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.175.35 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP Sock Puppetry

71.0.146.150 seems to be the latest incarnation of the righteous defender of the ludicrous concept this article is about. From the text of the user, it appears to be the same user as 74.4.222.208 which was involved in several disputes a while back. Do a search on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for Tipler if you care. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 58.96.94.12. I have no control over what I.P. addresses my Internet Service Provider assigns me. The I.P. address 74.4.222.208 was one such address it assigned me. Your claim of "IP Sock Puppetry" violates the Wikipedia policy of WP:Good Faith, as does your latest article edit summary of "Fixed up the white-washing done by 71.0.146.150 ..."

Your above statement of "ludicrous concept this article is about" violates WP:Civility and WP:NPOV while showing a vitriolic dislike of the Omega Point Theory on your part, which shows that your edits are ideologically motivated.

You have already been warned on your talk page not to engage in further Wikipedia-policy-violating edits on the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article.

Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.

In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that "Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved." What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the "dispute" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message "You know what fuck off [some Anglo-Saxon name]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack."

So in fact there had been no authentic "dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article". The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."

In the edit summary of your first edit of this article, you state "Obvious really, who the hell is repeatedly removing this categorisation?", referring to the "Category:Pseudoscience" edit added by said person or persons engaged in vandalism, nonsense edits and disruptive edits. Your edit summary falsely makes it seem as if this edit has long been in the article, and that it has just recently been removed, which is incorrect. Your edit here also violates Wikipedia policy, such as WP:Truth and WP:NPOV. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so under WP:Reliable Sources does not qualify as "pseudoscience". Your phraseology of "who the hell" also violates WP:Civility.

Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior.

Therefore, due to the foregoing reasons, you are here requested not to further engage in such factually-incorrect and Wikipedia-policy-violating edits.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I and several other editors have attempted to both add the Pseudoscience categorisation as well as tag the article for imbalance and for providing unwarranted credibility to a fringe theory but these edits are immediately reverted by the user 71.0.146.150 who is probably also the 74.4 who appears in a couple of wikialerts on the subject. The same user has a history of attacking other editors and generally trying to WP:GAME to whitewash the article of anything critical of the concept. The following seem entirely appropriate additions to the page.

and the categorisation: "Category:Pseudoscience"

I noted the deletion discussion but this article does seem to violate the point under WP:UNDUE which is: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." - the ancillary article already exists which, once edited to add criticism, ought to be sufficient.

In any case, there seem to be only about three people that accept the idea including a very vocal and ubiquitous fundamentalist Christian who seems to follow it around the net and pop up to post walls of copypasta and biblical verses on the topic in a Kibo-esque fashion (as Google will make quite clear). Here's a descriptive quote from an editorial blog in the very prestigious Discover Magazine that demonstrates the scientific community's opinion of the subject matter: "Frank Tipler is a crackpot" 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.

In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that "Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved." What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the "dispute" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message "You know what fuck off [some Anglo-Saxon name]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack."

So in fact there had been no authentic "dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article". The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."

In the edit summary of your first edit of this article, you state "Obvious really, who the hell is repeatedly removing this categorisation?", referring to the "Category:Pseudoscience" edit added by said person or persons engaged in vandalism, nonsense edits and disruptive edits. Your edit summary falsely makes it seem as if this edit has long been in the article, and that it has just recently been removed, which is incorrect. Your edit here also violates Wikipedia policy, such as WP:Truth and WP:NPOV. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so under WP:Reliable Sources does not qualify as "pseudoscience". Your phraseology of "who the hell" also violates WP:Civility.

You claim WP:Undue Weight for the latest factually-incorrect edits, yet almost the entirety of the peer-reviewed papers in science journals are in support of the Omega Point Theory. There has only been one refereed paper in a physics journal that was critical of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, but the authors of that paper unwittingly gave an argument that unless the Omega Point comes about then the laws of physics are violated, and so thereby actually gave a powerful argument for the Omega Point Theory's correctness. Tipler cites this article in support of his Omega Point Theory in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics article.

Regarding critical reviews of Tipler's books, none of them have been refereed in science journals. They are book reviews that have not undergone the referee process that is required of actual papers.

Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior.

Therefore, due to the foregoing reasons, you are here requested not to further engage in such factually-incorrect and Wikipedia-policy-violating edits.

I will start a "Criticisms" section which details the above information, but do not add factually-incorrect and Wikipedia-policy-violating tags to this article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so 71.0.146.150 is also 74.4.222.208 and 74.4.214.199 and now Jamiemitchelle except strangely, this new account actually preceded the dynamic IPs you were using which makes it actual sock puppetry, at least as far as I can tell. Looking at the contributions for all these users, we can see a long history of personal attacks, blocks for the same and edit-warring over articles on Frank Tipler, Omega Point and Existence of God. In the latest one, you edit war anonymously then put up a request for semi-protection under your account and then as soon as the protection expires, revert the pseudoscience category and try to WP:GAME your way out of the neutrality tags. Are you mad? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your above post doesn't dispute anything on this discussion page. The I.P. addresses 71.0.146.150, 74.4.222.208 and 74.4.214.199 are indeed mine (or rather, I.P. addresses that I have had, or in the case of 71.0.146.150, one I think is still my I.P. address). I am honest about what I.P. addresses I have had, which were assigned to me by my Internet Service Provider without my control. So I'm not hiding my history. But your above post doesn't state that anything is wrong with the article as it is now. So what is your point, exactly? Do you have a point? If so, then please discuss it on this Talk page.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To all editors: please note that the concerns brought up by 58.96.94.12 were addressed in my last edit of the article. I added the "Criticisms" section, which details the only peer-review paper published in a physics journal critical of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory while also giving a number of non-refereed book review articles which have been critical of the Omega Point Theory. Keep in mind that Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so the "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Yet still, 58.96.94.12 complains, even though he as yet has not stated what is wrong with the current edit. It appears that 58.96.94.12 simply wants some notice or tag on this article telling people that it is bilge and that they oughtn't take it seriously.

I'm more than happy to work with 58.96.94.12, but he appears to be unwilling to be satisfied until he gets some edit which violates Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not happy to work with me or anyone else, as your multiple years of edit warring with everyone that dares to lay a keystroke on your pet article demonstrates. Here's a choice quote from you on this very subject: "Prof. Frank J. Tipler is about the farthest from a being kook as it is possible to be. Not only has Prof. Frank J. Tipler proven God to exist based upon the known laws of physics, but he also has discovered the correct quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics." Do you still wonder why I'm (and all the other editors you keep reverting are) not taking you seriously? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 58.96.94.12. Your above post doesn't state that anything is wrong with the article as it is now. So what is your point, exactly? Do you have a point? If so, then please discuss it on this Talk page. Regarding the "other editors" you mention that were sanctioned for vandalism and harassment, see my above post at 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not close to being neutral, and appears to have never been. The idea that the purposefully weak "criticism" section added by a highly biased editor addresses the problem is a joke. The article ought to be stubbified or pared down considerably, as it severely misrepresents the status of this highly fringe theory. To the unregistered user, your best course of action is to get an account, and after just ten edits and four days you will be able to work more effectively, begin to form a record of consistency with your editing, and will be taken more seriously. Tim Shuba (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tim Shuba. I just recently added quotes from some of the critical non-refereed book reviews.

Your above claims violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

You need to get over the idea that just because you dislike something that it's up to you to decide whether it's true or not, as that violates WP:Truth.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

...blah blah blah. I followed enough of this to be familiar with your style of argumentation, and am unimpressed. Subjecting this article to a wider audience of editors would likely go a long way toward improving it. What makes you think I dislike the concept? I happen to think it's wonderful and extremely amusing. So too are the fanatical attempts to portray it as something it is not. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tim Shuba. Your above claim violates WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

When it comes to editorship on Wikipedia, it's not up to you to decide whether something is true or not, as that violates WP:Truth.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)