I used to hang out on sci.physics, but was driven away by the crackpots. IIRC al.sci.physics.new-theories was created especially to keep them off sci.physics.relativity. It didn't work, they just crossposted. I think we need a separate policy just for physics crackpots, because they are in a class of their own.
I'm in favour of wiping the talk page of special relativity. ( it's strange that they always go for special relativity not general relativity)
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Starling [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 September 2003 02:07 To: [email protected] Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [[email protected]: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--]
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
A quick google search shows that this guy is a sci.physics.relativity crackpot. See:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=XySVa.41611%24F92.4248%40afrodite.te lenet-ops.be&rnum=2
----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce [email protected] -----
From: "Roy Royce" [email protected] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600 To: [email protected] Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--
Dear Mr. Wales,
Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies
to
the addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it seems to be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical -
facts
to the Wiki special relativity article.
That's right, it's impossible to add facts permanently if they are considered by community consensus to be inaccurate. It's the nature of the process. Sounds like he's experiencing some Usenet withdrawal symptoms.
I cordially invite you to check out the validity of the following
statements
for yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above):
[1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one
way).
[2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the
lack
of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should wonder why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!)
If anyone cares, this is what he's talking about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0ac0bee.0211081401.61c7eee9%40posting. google.com&rnum=1
Suffice to say that he doesn't seem to have any supporters on s.p.r, where he's been plugging his theories for years. The tactic he's using is a typical red herring: he suggests a direct test of some aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even technically impossible. He ignores the huge body of slightly less direct tests of the same theory, and then obliquely suggests some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test. Everywhere he goes, he feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are out to suppress the "truth" he has discovered. It's a common story.
My request is that someone please add these facts to the Wiki special relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any encyclopedia.
Anyone can add them, and anyone can take them away. Luckily for us, Wikipedian co-conspirators greatly outnumber the enlightened individuals who want to expose the shocking truth.
-- Tim Starling.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l