Discussion on Wikipedia Talk Page on MMX concerning Roberts (2006)

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Is Thomas J. Roberts (2006) paper a reliable source?
I'm talking about this reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#cite_note-Roberts2006-54 and conclusions mentioned in this article. I don't this it's reliable, because a) It's on arxiv.org and not peer-reviewed, and b) It's in conflict with the papers from Shankland et al. (1955) and Consoli et al. (2013).

References

Shankland et al. (1955): https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167 In their statistical analysis, they find a signal.

Consoli et al. (2013): https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3508 They point out an error in a method Roberts used.

--Sebastian Pliet (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far from "very accurate" and contradict Consoli et al's assertions which are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al. has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument. I note also that Eur. J. Physics has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication in a reliable journal does not guarantee reliability of any individual paper. I'll bring your questions up with Tom. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

[Dono.]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 6:27:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> I note also that Eur. J. Physics has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication

I agree 100%, as an aside, Consoli has been at this nonsense for the last 30 years. His paper is nothing but yet another steaming piece of shit.

[Dono.]

Ah, the explanation:

Article-processing charges (APC)

To publish open access in The European Physical Journal Plus, authors are required to pay an article-processing charge.

The APC for all published articles is as follows, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable:

£2180.00/$3280.00/€2590.00

You pay the outrageous fees, you can publish any shit

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Ah, yes. This was not Eur. J. Physics, but Eur Phys J Plus.
Much worse.

[Dono.]

Yep, one of those predatory journals. And Consoli has been at this for more than 30 years.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:
For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far from "very accurate", and modern measurements contradict Consoli et al's assertions which are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al. has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument. I note also that Eur. Phys. J. Plus has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not guarantee reliability of any individual paper. I'll bring your questions up with Tom. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 15:23:55 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:37:14 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 6:48:50 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 8:40:50 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 6:27:40 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I note also that Eur. J. Physics has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication
> > > > > I agree 100%, as an aside, Consoli has been at this nonsense for the last 30 years. His paper is nothing but yet another steaming piece of shit.
> > > > Ah, the explanation:
> > > >
> > > > Article-processing charges (APC)
> > > >
> > > > To publish open access in The European Physical Journal Plus, authors are required to pay an article-processing charge.
> > > >
> > > > The APC for all published articles is as follows, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable:
> > > >
> > > > £2180.00/$3280.00/€2590.00
> > > >
> > > > You pay the outrageous fees, you can publish any shit
> > > Ah, yes. This was not Eur. J. Physics, but Eur Phys J Plus.
> > > Much worse.
> > Yep, one of those predatory journals. And Consoli has been at this for more than 30 years.
> I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:
> For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far from "very accurate", and modern measurements contradict Consoli et al's assertions which are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al. has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:23:55 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:
> For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far from "very accurate", and modern measurements contradict Consoli et al's assertions which are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al. has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument. I note also that Eur. Phys. J. Plus has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not guarantee reliability of any individual paper. I'll bring your questions up with Tom. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To Tom:
For many reasons, Wikipedia prefers that editors use secondary source references
rather than perform their own syntheses of the literature. I note that your paper has
been referred to in an IOP Science book:
https://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-1-64327-738-7/chapter/bk978-1-64327-738-7ch8

The above book is not available in my local university library. If you approve of the
chapter, could you make the chapter available to me so that I can refer to the
chapter as the principal source, with your paper being referred to as a backup?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 19-okt.-2021 om 16:12 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

"There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and
is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored
by established subject-matter experts."

To keep the ref in the article you might have to make a convincing
case for an exception on the talk page entry.

Dirk Vdm

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:12:36 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> To Tom:
> For many reasons, Wikipedia prefers that editors use secondary source references
> rather than perform their own syntheses of the literature. I note that your paper has
> been referred to in an IOP Science book:
> https://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-1-64327-738-7/chapter/bk978-1-64327-738-7ch8
>
> The above book is not available in my local university library. If you approve of the
> chapter, could you make the chapter available to me so that I can refer to the
> chapter as the principal source, with your paper being referred to as a backup?

I decided to purchase a hardcopy of the book. It should be arriving tomorrow.
Measuring Nothing, Repeatedly
Null experiments in physics
Allan Franklin and Ronald Laymon
Published December 2019 • Copyright © 2019 Morgan & Claypool Publishers

Sounds like an extremely interesting topic and a possible starting point for
a new article in Wikipedia.

[Jimi Bugg]

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> I decided to purchase a hardcopy of the book. It should be arriving
> tomorrow. Measuring Nothing, Repeatedly Null experiments in physics
> Allan Franklin and Ronald Laymon Published December 2019 • Copyright ©
> 2019 Morgan & Claypool Publishers
>
> Sounds like an extremely interesting topic and a possible starting point
> for a new article in Wikipedia.

to me it sounds stupid. Which country are you, wanting to pay for
something measuring nothing??

[Python]

> <click>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> <click>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> <click>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> <click>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> <click>

> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> <click>

Yawn.

[Maciej Wozniak]

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

My copy of Measuring Nothing, Repeatedly arrived. This appears to be a reliable
secondary source that, in addition to extensively discussing the MMX and its
replications, references both Shankland (6 pages) and Roberts (5 pages) in
discussing Miller's results. There is a lot to digest here. It will be some time
before I can re-write the Wikipedia section in dispute.

[Maciej Wozniak]

In that time in the real world - GPS clock will keep measuring

[Rique Pazo]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 09:54:21 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com

>> My copy of Measuring Nothing, Repeatedly arrived. This appears to be a
>> reliable secondary source that, in addition to extensively discussing
>> the MMX and its replications, references both Shankland (6 pages) and
>> Roberts (5 pages) in discussing Miller's results. There is a lot to
>> digest here. It will be some time before I can re-write the Wikipedia
>> section in dispute.
>
> In that time in the real world - GPS clock will keep measuring t'=t,
> just like all serious clocks always did.

moreover he must be crazy spending time and money on books named
*Measuring_Nothing_Repeatedly*.

[Dono.]

The amount of bullshit published by M. Consoli is astonishing : https://inspirehep.net/authors/1013140

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Sebastian Pliet wrote:
I don't think it's a reliable second source. The authors are a historian and a philosopher, and it seems to be a history book. In a scientific context this is more of a tertiary source, because Shankland's and Roberts' papers are reviews, thus secondary sources. I don't have the book, but i believe they just summarize. (...How much is from wikipedia?) How can a tertiary source be reliable, when the secondary's source reliability is in question? --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I responded:
Shankland and Roberts both contain novel analyses of Miller's results, so they are not reviews. The vast majority of primary source papers contain at least some discussion of the previous literature, but the presence of some discussion of previous literature does not make such papers secondary sources. A review article basically summarizes the previous work and places the work in context. Both Shankland and Roberts go far beyond merely putting Miller's work in context. Allan Franklin is a former higher energy physicist at the Univ. of Colorado, and many current faculty at the Univ. of Colorado helped him in his research putting together this book. He is not merely a historian. Despite Consoli et al's eminent qualifications in quantum mechanics, his 30 year history of publication concerning ether-drift experiments and possible existence of a preferred reference frame strike me as pure crackpot. Expertise in one branch of physics does not automatically quality a person in all branches of physics. There are many cases in point that I could cite. In the end, it up to the Wikipedia editor to make judgement calls about how to present the material in a fair manner, not allowing fringe positions to acquire wp:UNDUE emphasis. Consoli's position is very much fringe. Roberts' work is mainstream. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

[Dono.]

Well done, you could also add the references to Consoli's fringe stuff that I provided in the previous post.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:35:51 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

> Well done, you could also add the references to Consoli's fringe stuff that I provided in the previous post.

From a quick glance, his fringe work on ether-drift and preferred reference
frames comprises only about 1% or so of his output. I would not consider
myself competent to judge 99% of his work.

[Dono.]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:03:34 PM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:35:51 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
>
> > Well done, you could also add the references to Consoli's fringe stuff that I provided in the previous post.
> From a quick glance, his fringe work on ether-drift and preferred reference
> frames comprises only about 1% or so of his output.

This is the part that is relevant to the wiki discussion

[Tom Roberts]

On this holiday weekend I finally have some time to devote to this.

On 10/18/21 8:27 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Is Thomas J. Roberts (2006) paper a reliable source?

Yes :)

> I'm talking about this reference
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#cite_note-Roberts2006-54
> and conclusions mentioned in this article. I don't this it's
> reliable, because a) It's on arxiv.org and not peer-reviewed,

Yes. I submitted it to Rev. Mod. Phys. (where Miller published his
results), but they rejected it as not of current interest. In 2006 I was
just starting a new job in physics, and this paper was far removed from
that, so I did not pursue publishing it.

> and b)
> It's in conflict with the papers from Shankland et al. (1955)

Not really. They did not do the error analysis. What conflict to you see?

> and
> Consoli et al. (2013).

Yes. Essentially any valid paper on SR will be in conflict with that
paper. The authors simply do not understand that Special Relativity and
Lorentz Ether Theory are experimentally indistinguishable, and they
spent 70 pages attempting to avoid that fact.

> References
>
> Shankland et al. (1955): https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167 In
> their statistical analysis, they find a signal.
>
> Consoli et al. (2013): https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3508 They point out
> an error in a method Roberts used.
>
> --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
>
> For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat
> deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far
> from "very accurate" and contradict Consoli et al's assertions which
> are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al.
> has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern
> measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting
> aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to
> eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument. I
> note also that Eur. J. Physics has frequently published articles on
> special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication in a reliable
> journal does not guarantee reliability of any individual paper. I'll
> bring your questions up with Tom. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk)
> 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In their first paragraph Consoli et al say "it is not obvious how to
distinguish experimentally between the two formulations [Einstein's and
Lorentz's]". They just don't understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so.
No mumbling about "condensation of elementary quanta", or anything else,
can change the basic fact that the two theories are mathematically
equivalent for any experimental prediction. This would only be possible
if there is significant "physics beyond the standard model" that involve
violations of Lorentz invariance; at present there is no evidence of
either..

On their p33, Consoli et al claim my Fig. 3 does not include
"first-harmonic effects". While I have not studied their paper to
determine the truth or significance of that, IT IS IRRELEVANT, because
a) That is clearly an instrumentation effect -- any real signal
cannot possibly have a non-zero first harmonic (their term).
b) I am criticizing Miller's analysis, not that of Consoli et al
(published 5 years after my paper).
c) If a real instrument has a significant first harmonic, it
must be because SOMETHING CHANGES during a 180-degree
rotation. Such a VARYING interferometer is a major problem,
as the experiment demands rigidity and stability. As can be
seen from my Figs. 2 & 3, Miller's interferometer is NOT
stable, and its drift is clearly NOT linear (not even within
a turn). But as section IV of my paper shows, it is possible to
separate the temporal drift from any orientation dependence.

MILLER assumed linearity, which means he ignored the differences between
dots and lines of my Fig. 3, which is as large as 0.5 fringe -- huge
compared to his claimed variation (amplitude ~ 0.06 fringe in my Fig. 1,
remembering his data are 0.1 fringe).

On their p33, Consoli et al present a different analysis of Miller's
data, in which they claim significance. That is IRRELEVANT to my paper,
which is discussing MILLER'S analysis. But it is worse than that: In
their Table 6, Consoli et al have hidden the 6-fringe drift of the
interferometer between turn 1 and turn 20, which dwarfs their values.
They did this by dividing by 2𝛌 -- they never justified that, and it is
clearly unwarranted because the fringe position 𝛌 could be zero, or
100, or any other value depending on where one started counting.
Moreover, like Miller they are ASSUMING a linear drift during each turn,
for an interferometer that is manifestly not drifting linearly (see my
Fig. 2, a plot of his raw data).

In later posts you said the following:

> I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:

How do I see that, and other editors' talk about this content page? When
I click on the "Talk" link of this Wikipedia page, I see my own Talk
page (empty), not editors talking about that specific page. I thought
there would be a single page summarizing various editors' comments on
this specific content page.

> Book
> https://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-1-64327-738-7/chapter/bk978-1-64327-738-7ch8

I have requested it via inter-library loan. May take a week or more.



BTW in 2006 I gave a colloquium on Miller's results at Case Western
Reserve University, where both Michelson & Morley and Miller performed
their experiments. Their Physics Department was VERY interested to learn
of an explanation for Miller's anomalous results. Prof. Fickinger and I
spent a few hours in their Archives, which have Miller's original data
sheets. We searched for runs with no adjustments [#], and found several
dozen, including some runs with less than 1/2 fringe variation. I was
never interested enough to analyze them.

[#] Miller knew his instrument was drifting. When it
got large enough he would place a coin on one arm to
re-center the image. This happened in >90% of his
runs, so the majority of his runs are not really
using a single interferometer.

Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

The discussion should not be about the reliability of your paper (it is reliable), it should be about the reliability of Wikipedia. By virtue of insisting that the references are published (who decides about the reliability of the journal? after all the fringe Consoli paper was published) your paper is eliminated while the fringe Consoli paper is accepted. This means that the "editors" of Wikipedia need to take a serious look at what they are doing if they want to be taken seriously. At the minimum, they need to have a rule that eliminates papers like the one by Consoli as valid references.

[Dono.]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

> On this holiday weekend I finally have some time to devote to this.
> On 10/18/21 8:27 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > Is Thomas J. Roberts (2006) paper a reliable source?
> Yes :)
> > I'm talking about this reference
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#cite_note-Roberts2006-54
> > and conclusions mentioned in this article. I don't this it's
> > reliable, because a) It's on arxiv.org and not peer-reviewed,
> Yes. I submitted it to Rev. Mod. Phys. (where Miller published his
> results),

One thing that you could do is to resubmit to Rev. Mod. Phys. asking them to retract the Miller paper and to give you credit for the retraction reason. According to the COPE rules they will be compelled to do just that. This way

-the Miller nonsense will be done for good
-you will get your deserved credit

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 26-nov.-2021 om 23:26 schreef Tom Roberts:

[snip]

>
> How do I see that, and other editors' talk about this content page? When
> I click on the "Talk" link of this Wikipedia page, I see my own Talk
> page (empty), not editors talking about that specific page. I thought
> there would be a single page summarizing various editors' comments on
> this specific content page.

Yes, the talk link on the top *right* takes you to your personal user
talk page.
The talk link on the top *left* in the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
takes you the article talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Most recent section at the bottom.

Dirk Vdm

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> In later posts you said the following:
>
>> I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:
>
> How do I see that, and other editors' talk about this content page? When
> I click on the "Talk" link of this Wikipedia page, I see my own Talk

> page (empty), not editors talking about that specific page. […]

You have to select the “Talk” *tab* next to the “Article” tab, NOT
the “Talk” *link* on the top next to “Contributions” or your username.


PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 27-nov.-2021 om 00:54 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> In later posts you said the following:
>>
>>> I made some corrections to my Wikipedia Talk Page response:
>>
>> How do I see that, and other editors' talk about this content page? When
>> I click on the "Talk" link of this Wikipedia page, I see my own Talk
>> page (empty), not editors talking about that specific page. […]
>
> You have to select the “Talk” *tab* next to the “Article” tab, NOT
> the “Talk” *link* on the top next to “Contributions” or your username.

ECHO!
echo!
echo!


Dirk Vdm

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:26:35 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On this holiday weekend I finally have some time to devote to this.
> On 10/18/21 8:27 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > It's in conflict with the papers from Shankland et al. (1955)
> Not really. They did not do the error analysis. What conflict to you see?

I obviously didn't make things clear.
The original post was by Sebastian Pliet, who has "published" extensively
on vixra and zenodo

Here is a link to the Wikipedia talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Is_Thomas_J._Roberts_(2006)_paper_a_reliable_source?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:52:38 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> The discussion should not be about the reliability of your paper (it is reliable), it should be about the reliability of Wikipedia. By virtue of insisting that the references are published (who decides about the reliability of the journal? after all the fringe Consoli paper was published) your paper is eliminated while the fringe Consoli paper is accepted. This means that the "editors" of Wikipedia need to take a serious look at what they are doing if they want to be taken seriously. At the minimum, they need to have a rule that eliminates papers like the one by Consoli as valid references.

Trying to create such a rule is probably impossible.
The existing rules provide, at best, a rough framework under which
Wikipedia editors work in trying to put together articles that present
a neutral and fair point of view, and most editors would acknowledge
that the rules cannot be applied in a mechanical, mindless fashion.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/26/21 4:52 PM, Dono. wrote:
> The discussion should not be about the reliability of your paper (it
> is reliable), it should be about the reliability of Wikipedia. By
> virtue of insisting that the references are published (who decides
> about the reliability of the journal? after all the fringe Consoli
> paper was published) your paper is eliminated while the fringe
> Consoli paper is accepted. This means that the "editors" of Wikipedia
> need to take a serious look at what they are doing if they want to be
> taken seriously. At the minimum, they need to have a rule that
> eliminates papers like the one by Consoli as valid references.

Good point.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/26/21 5:13 PM, Dono. wrote:
> One thing that you could do is to resubmit to Rev. Mod. Phys. asking
> them to retract the Miller paper and to give you credit for the
> retraction reason. According to the COPE rules they will be compelled
> to do just that. This way
>
> -the Miller nonsense will be done for good > -you will get your deserved credit

Not gonna happen. At a minimum it would require A LOT of work from me,
and I'm just not interested.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/26/21 5:39 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 26-nov.-2021 om 23:26 schreef Tom Roberts:

Thanks. I didn't notice that tab.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/26/21 5:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> How do I see that, and other editors' talk about this content page? When
>> I click on the "Talk" link of this Wikipedia page, I see my own Talk
>> page (empty), not editors talking about that specific page. […]
>
> You have to select the “Talk” *tab* next to the “Article” tab, NOT
> the “Talk” *link* on the top next to “Contributions” or your username.

Thanks. I missed seeing that tab.

Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

Where did you get "mechanical, mindless"? You obviously understood nothing of the proposal. At least Tom understood.

[Nabor Nave]

no, it's not. You paper the errorbars too large, intentionally.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Propose a workable rule.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/27/21 12:11 PM, Nabor Nave wrote:
> [to me] You paper the errorbars too large, intentionally.

No, the errorbars are what they are, coming direct from the data, as I
explained in the paper. Neither Miller, Michelson&Morley, nor
Illingworth had any significant signal, as for all three the variations
are MUCH smaller than the errorbars.

None of those authors calculated their errorbars. Admittedly it was rare
to do so back then; today it is mandatory for such papers. Had they done
so, they would have realized the futility of their results.

Tom Roberts

[rotchm]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:11:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/27/21 12:11 PM, Nabor Nave wrote:

> Tom Roberts

Tom...Tom.... So smart yet so gullible. You replied to the obvious nym shifting troll.
He suckered you in to reply to him and you fell for it.

Report him spam instead.

[Brigdare Doss]

You don't understand shit, you illiterate imbecile. Deleting stuff posted
by Tom Roberts, amazing how stupid you can be, you sack of shit.

[Brigdare Doss]

That's the point, you started he investigation in intent to make those
errorbars larger, not smaller. You got what you want to get.

And btw, an errorbar isn't showing something must be wrong. You seems to
forget. Essentially an errorbar is showing nothing about the validity of
a measurement.

[Brigdare Doss]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/27/21 12:11 PM, Nabor Nave wrote:
>> [to me] You paper the errorbars too large, intentionally.

Are you replying to you?? You imbeciles must be death_vaccinated. Wake up
for fuck sake.

[Dono.]

I did, you are too dense to get it.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

You proposed nothing.

You stated, "At the minimum, they need to have a rule that eliminates
papers like the one by Consoli as valid references." That's not a
valid proposal for a workable rule.

[Dono.]

The proposal is that you, the "editors" , work together in weeding out crank references. It is not very difficult, except when some of the "editors" are incompetent to perform the task.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

That's not a "rule". That is merely a description of how consensus
is supposed to work in Wikipedia. The rules in Wikipedia have been
hammered out over years of debate and consensus, and they are
still evolving.

The Wikipedia rule on "reliable sources" is a Content Guideline:
"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt
to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and
occasional exceptions may apply."

Every decent Wikipedia editor knows that there are times when one
should enforce the rules, and times when one does not. In practice,
invoking the rule on "reliable sources" is a shortcut justification for
chopping out attempted introduction of crackpot material. One
simply notes that a problematical sentence or paragraph is not
backed up by a reliable source and makes note of that fact in one's
edit comment.

What we have here is the rare situation where a crackpot editor wants
to invoke the rule to justify removing references to Tom Roberts' article
which was published in arXiv, while justifying inclusion of material
based on Consoli which was published in a refereed journal.

Here, the long process of consensus comes in. Common sense
generally wins out in these debates.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 10:59:16 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> Here, the long process of consensus comes in. Common sense
> generally wins out in these debates.

Sure it does; your idiot guru didn't prevent it just by announcing
it's a collection of prejudices .

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:59:16 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> What we have here is the rare situation where a crackpot editor wants
> to invoke the rule to justify removing references to Tom Roberts' article
> which was published in arXiv, while justifying inclusion of material
> based on Consoli which was published in a refereed journal.
>
> Here, the long process of consensus comes in. Common sense
> generally wins out in these debates.

Tom entered into the discussion that I've been having with Sebastian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

[Dono.]

Well the "editor" Sebastian Pliet, "knows" the Roberts paper, he even published" an analysis (on vixra, no less). No wonder wiki is a mess.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I continued the conversation for a bit. But it would be a mistake to
let it go on any longer. Sebastian won't let go of the idea that Miller
was detecting something astrophysical in origin.

[Richard Hertz]

VIXRA? Isn't that ARXIV for outcast amateur physicists? Even I can "publish" on vixra, or you, fucking reptilian lifeform.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Winston Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of government -
except for all the others that have been tried."

You can say much the same about Wikipedia - it *is* a mess, but it is
nevertheless a far more useful and comprehensive encyclopedia than
all of its competition.

Note that Sebastian has not succeeded in getting his crackpot views
accepted into the main MMX article. Right now, I stand in his way, but
even if I were to die tomorrow from ventricular fibrillation (a very real
possibility that I need to accept), a platoon of page watchers (287 total,
25 active) will take my place. Some of them you may know. For
example, Dirk Van de moortel has been on Wikipedia for more than 16
years, and is a highly active page patroller guarding thousands of math
and physics-related pages against vandalism and crackpottery. A few
former contributors to this newsgroup are also active on Wikipedia.
We are all volunteers working for a common goal.

[Dono.]

I suggest that you do, so we can continue making you into a pinata.

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 6:25:32 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.co:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:59:16 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

> > >
> > > > What we have here is the rare situation where a crackpot editor
> > > > wants to invoke the rule to justify removing references to Tom
> > > > Roberts' article which was published in arXiv, while justifying
> > > > inclusion of material based on Consoli which was published in a
> > > > refereed journal.
> > > >
> > > > Here, the long process of consensus comes in. Common sense
> > > > generally wins out in these debates.
> > > Tom entered into the discussion that I've been having with Sebastian
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
> > Well the "editor" Sebastian Pliet, "knows" the Roberts paper, he even
> > published" an analysis (on vixra, no less). No wonder wiki is a mess.
> >
> > VIXRA? Isn't that ARXIV for outcast amateur physicists? Even I can
> > "publish" on vixra, or you, fucking reptilian lifeform.

And why not? It is a convenient public archive.
Something on Arxiv, without a published follow-up in a refereed journal,
is no better, in principle, than something on Vixra.
All it shows is that the author has a better? academic standing,

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:36:11 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 8:31:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > VIXRA? Isn't that ARXIV for outcast amateur physicists? Even I can "publish" on vixra,

> I suggest that you do, so we can continue making you into a pinata.

Maybe I'll do, reptilian lifeform. Proving that Einstein committed fraud on his Mercury's paper where he seek to
plagiarize Gerber exact formula by reverse engineering it, scumbag.

The actual value of the precession is -14.33" of arc/century, but he cooked it to get the FALSE VALUE of 43".

The mathematically inept charlatan had to resort to cheating and fudging to get Gerber's formula, because his
approximation WAS WRONG. The entire paper is a collection of fudges, cooking and cheats.


The paper was questioned by many in the first decade after 1915, as well as the prediction of star light deflection of 1.75” when passing
by the surface of the Sun. But, with time, and giving the adoption of relativity by most of the physics community, critics were buried by
scientific press and MSM. But Mercury’s perihelion was the Achilles' heel of Einstein’s GR and, in the last 50 years, without addressing
directly the issue, many scientists addressed the same problem: How to solve an elliptical integral that has no known analytical solution?

Most of the published material in the last 5 decades didn’t dare to rebuild an analytical solution as Einstein did, because it’s impossible.

Almost everyone addressed the problem by using the Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917), which is quite different from the original
Schwarzschild’s metric (Feb. 1916). It was corrected by Hilbert in July 1917, and named HIS solution after his Gottingen’s colleague
Schwarzschild, to honor him.

The integral of dφ is an Abelian hyperelliptic integral, which solution has been studied by the most prominent mathematicians like Jacobi,
Abel, Weierstraß, Riemann, Gopel, Rosenhain, Baker and modern physicists like Weinberg (1972), Misner&Thorne (1973), Wald (1984),
Taylor (1992), Magnan (2010), Kraniotis (2018), etc.

Every attempt, in the last 50 years, using the same Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric, with different approaches to solve the elliptic integral:
substitutions and approximations to get the same result of 43”/cy, but no one dared to develop a simple analytical solution (Gerber), like
Einstein did in 1915, because they are honest people.

Also, any criticism over Einstein’s work can have dire consequences for those working with the establishment.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:36:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:36:11 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 8:31:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > VIXRA? Isn't that ARXIV for outcast amateur physicists? Even I can "publish" on vixra,
>
> > I suggest that you do, so we can continue making you into a pinata.
> Maybe I'll do,

Please do, so we can continue to beat the shit out of you. Besides, more peope will learn about how big of a cretin you are.