User talk:MRE/LeSage gravity

First impressions

Not bad. This is now mostly history, but it does cover the flaws and is therefore pretty much NPOV IMO.

One serious compliant: The lead is too big. I think that the details of the theory should be kept in a section called "LeSage's theory" along with other details of the theory from the "Early Development" section. In fact, I think that the lead in User_talk:71.132.13.87 (under "proposed edits") is the one to use.

I also would like to see a "Current status" section (before the "References" section) noting that LeSage gravity continues to lack mainstream support.

I have taken the liberty of removing the "page locked" notice and the NPOV warning from your draft. After all, this page is not locked, and as I mentioned above your writing so far is reasonably NPOV. So I thank you for this draft. --EMS | Talk 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about the intro - it's a bit dull. I'll try to get to it over the weekend. I reinserted the last paragraph from the Dec 31 version which someone removed. I've also added refs, but they aren't yet complete. Do you have a "quick tips" on handling the links to footnotes?MRE 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is now a very elegant method for creating footnotes using the tags <ref>, </ref> and <references/>. In a nutshell, this is a software supported footnoting system. You place the text to be put into a footnote at the site of its first use in between the <ref> and </ref> tags, and then put the <references/> tag where you want the notes to apprear. See Wikipedia:Footnote for more information. --EMS | Talk 02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Black holes and "Present status"

MRE - Most of this page looks to me to be in very good shape, although you need to provide footnote references for much of it. Even so, I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the contents, but it needs to be backed up none-the-less. My one serious quibble is with the black hole discussion. That screams original research to me. Either you must provide a mainstream reference for it, or it must be dropped out of there. Note that "Pushing Gravity", while an acceptable source for documenting the current state of theorizing on LeSage gravity, is not acceptable for documenting what I see as a secondary consequence of gravitational shielding. (I see this as a place where you are trying to justify LeSage gravity instead of merely documenting it.)

Also, the "present status" section is way too supportive of LeSage gravity. My suggestion is to start with a paragraph that notes the historical and continuing lack of acceptance that this theory has, such as:

LeSage gravity has never had mainstream support, and that lack of support continues to this day. Today, most work on gravitational theory is done in the contexts of general relativity and quantum gravity. Although this model has resurfaced several times in recent decades, it still is not taken seriously by the vast majority of physicists.

Then you can go on to talk about the current reseachers as you now do. However, I would also like to see the sentence starting with "Still, with many unsolved problems ...." dropped. Once again, you have crossed the NPOV line, and are giving the theory an endorsement. --EMS | Talk 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put as many refs there as I can. The black hole discussion is not really so radical. It follows logically from Le Sage's theory. When you ask for a mainstream ref on this, do you mean a ref where someone has previously addressed black holes in the Le Sage context, sort of in a semi-historical fashion? The discussion does appear in my historical paper in PG, if that's any help. For other historical/analytical discussions on this I'd have to check. I think the black hole mention is sort of important from the standpoint of what Le Sage gravity predicts, but I can omit it if need be. I'm okay with your suggestions about the current status.MRE 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On the black hole business: It being documented in your paper in PG creates problems with WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please omit it. IMO, it adds little of substance and does a lot to drag down the standing of this article. I repeat: PG is an acceptable source only for the "Current status" section. If there are any other clainms that are only documented in PG, then they also must be removed to the "current status" section if not outright omitted. Once again: This article is meant to describe LeSage gravity, not promote it. (OTOH, I will admit that it cannot go out of its way to discredit LeSage gravity either.)

On a related note: The "current status" section is somewhat too limited and pale to me. You can expand and flesh it our a bit. TVF's showing that the particles must go at least 2×10¹⁰c has mainstream publication, and so it a significant result. However, I would not mind the finding that the Pionner anomaly can be described by using particles traveling near c itself also being mentioned in that case. (I may be willing to work woth you, but please don't mistake me for a supporter of LeSage gravity.) BTW - I have also told (Paul?) LeSagian that I can tolerate a description of important recent results in the "current status" section as long as they are presented as claims instead of facts. Also note that wulie I can accept that section being bigger, if it becomes more that 4-5 paragraphs bit I may complain about that.

In the meantime, I will ask that the main article be unlocked. The mainstram but nutcase anon has apparently chosen to respect my recent requests that he/she "put up or shut up" by shutting up, and Paul is also willing to work with me. More importantly, this version already is a significant improvement over the current article. --EMS | Talk 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take out the black hole part and expand the last section. You've mentioned that PG is acceptable only for the current status section. It is my strong feeling that it is also highly acceptable and recommendable to Wikipedia as a history source as well. The papers by Jim Evans, Frans van Lunteren and Roberto Martins have been very well-received in the history of science journal reviews. I would like to use citations here to their articles, as the information cannot in many cases be found elsewhere, at least in English. The crank anon was bluffing his way here IMO. If you like I can send you PDFs of the papers so that you can see for yourself that they are high quality. I could also send you a copy of PG, but that wuld take longer. If you'd like to contact me on this my e-mail address is matt.edwards@utoronto.ca .MRE 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles named above appear to me to be acceptable as secondary sources. I will demure on reading them at this time, as I am here to moderate and am not sure that I can judge the authenticity of their contents or suitablility in this venus unless they are obviously "crank". In the meantime, I think that we should avoid calling the mainsteam anon names like "crank". We don't like his reference to broken ceramics, and should therefore avoid similar labels. I know I said that he was acting like a crank, but even that is much more offensive language than I care to use, and much prefer to avoid doing so (but boy did he get under my skin).

In the meantime, the page is unlock. So copy this article over as soon as you are ready. --EMS | Talk 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Before copying over do we need to discuss the issue of protection for the article? I think semi-protection could be sufficient, at least for now. Also, I have some issues concerning the title of the article. Le Sage's name over the years got shortened to LeSage and then by many "Lesage". The term "Lesage gravity" seems a little better than "LeSage gravity". At the same time, I prefer talking about "Le Sage's theory" rather than "Lesage's theory" or "LeSage's theory", since his name was really "Le Sage". We finally opted for "Le Sage's theory" in PG, partly because the historical articles had it that way. I think it might be better to retitle the page "Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" and then create the redirecting links using the various name variants and for the term "LeSage gravity". How we spell it here could have a big impact on how it's spelled in the future.

I would like to take out the link to "Lesage's shadows". It has some good material, but the poor stuff in it distorts the truth. There is also no author given for it. Also, if you don't mind, I would remove the link to "Obsolete Theories" at the bottom. That merely implies that the theory is totally extinct, like the flat earth, when it still has a few serious proponents.MRE 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, on the issue of protection: I stand by my feeling that the fight which caused the page to be protected is over, and that not even partial protection is needed at this time. So far, since it was unprotected two days ago, the page has been untouched. IMO, if I should be proven wrong, then semi-protection can be imposed, if necesary.

On renaming the page: I approve of "Le Sage's theory of gravitation", and correcting the other redirects. I will do this soon.

On "Leasge's shadows" you write:

It has some good material, but the poor stuff in it distorts the truth.

I would me more impressed by this if others did not say much the same about PG. I would prefer that you leave it in and let people make up their own minds about it. --EMS | Talk 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, no protection, but I hope you'll be here when the next food fight erupts! (Actually, I was only throwing pieces of pie shells that #63 threw at me). I had taken out Lesage's shadows, but will put it back if you prefer. I've made some changes to the predictions and current status sections to bring LeSagians views in. Are these OK? I'll be done soon and will copy over later today.MRE 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Polishing off

You are close to being done with this. My final suggestions are:

• split the "References" section into a "Footnotes" and "References" sections;
• remove the "reference" section that only lists PG (you are citing elsewhere after all); and
• condense the "current status" text on Mingst and Stowe. You are giving it too much attention and it is making that section a bit too big for my liking. A single paragraph which is about half the size of the current two would be appropriate.

Of couse, I also want to see you keep your promise to restore the "Lesage's shadow" link.

Beyond that, you can move this over whenever you are ready, and IMO the sooner the better.

Finally, don't worry about the #63 anon. Just let me know when he/she reappears, but my guess is that he is off licking his wounds, and will be some time in returning, if he/she does.

BTW - The renaming has been done, but I am still clearing out the double-redirects. --EMS | Talk 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In the section "Le Sage's Basic Theory", second last line, there is a superscript 2 (for squared) that needs to be corrected, but I can't see how.MRE 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. There are two ways to do this:

1. Place the text to be superscripted between ^and tags. (This is what I did. Compare the versions to see it.)
2. Use the math mode. This is done by using a TeX-like syntax surrounded by the tags <math> and </math>. So $R^{2}$ is created by typing in <math>R^2</math>. (The math tags can be auto-generated for you by clicking on the "sqare-root of n" button above the edit window.)

See the "Editing help" link below the edit window for a help page describing these and much, much more. (You can also find a page where the trick you want to do is done, and use the "edit this page" button to examine the page's source.) --EMS | Talk 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh - Not to nitpick you, but I think that you have over-condensed the Mingst and Stowe discussion. The problem is that you are not mentioning the researcher's names now as you are doing elsewhere in the "current status" section. (IMO who is doing this research is more important that the specifics of their proposals.) Just be fair within that section for the people whose ideas you feel are worthy of a breif discussion, and keep it to fair size (which it currently is) so that people don't get this impression that this is a more important avenue of research than it is. Thanks --EMS | Talk 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the section in question is not understandable now. Here's my suggestion

In the case of a Le Sagian flux moving at speeds comprable to light, Mingst and Stowe have suggested that the drag effect mentioned above tend to push back (an action/reaction effect) on that element of the field creatinjg the drag. As when swirling your hand in water, this circular back-action results in inducing a vorticity in the medium, reducing or possibly eliminating drag under these conditions. Therefore not all orbits are stable in Le Sage's model. It is only when all these elements (drag/aberration/back-action) balance that stability would be achieved. If drag wins, orbital radius decreases; if aberration wins, orbital radius increases resulting in a slow inward or outward movement which continues until a stabilty is achieved, or the gravitating bodies collide or escape each other.

Another interesting feature of the model identifed by Mingst and Stowe is in the interactions of the Le Sage medium with a rotating material body. Again, this should induce a twisting or vorticity in the resulting interaction component of the medium. Long before it was discovered as an artifact of the equations of general relativity, they argue that this rotational torque (called frame-dragging) was an inherent result of the Le Sage's model. User: LeSagian

Please move this over ASAP

Matt -

I think that it is time do the move. (In this case, just copy and paste over the source for the current article, but you must reference this page in the edit history when you do so so that someone can come here are see how this version was developed if they should care to.) I also advise replacing this page with a redirect to the actual article after the move has been done (or have me do that for you).

Remember that you can continue to edit the article after it has been moved. Even in in its current shape, this version of the article is much, much better than what is currently in the article space. --EMS | Talk 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it! Still need to clean up some of the references. Could you do the redirects? Also, there is a separate page on Georges-Louis LeSage that should also be renamed. Thanks for all your assistance. You really saved the day here.MRE 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I moved the article before noticing LeSagian's comments above. Could I leave this with you? MRE 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)