| Revision as of 02:50, 12 December 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:46, 26 December 2016 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 4) (botNext edit → |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
{{Connected contributor|Mr RD|Brian Buckley|declared=yes|otherlinks=COI declared at .}} |
|
{{Connected contributor|Mr RD|Brian Buckley|declared=yes|otherlinks=COI declared at .}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== Questions/Suggestions Round 1 == |
|
|
Again I am new to Misplaced Pages so please be gentle with me. I have read through the Misplaced Pages guidelines but figured it best I ask for the interpretation here on the talk page before I try editing the actual article.. (yikes! with great power, comes great responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
So the article here does reference the 1984 review published in the Harvard Crimson about Santilli’s book, Il Grande Grido ("the great-ornery") : Ethical Probe on Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A, an Insider's View |
|
|
|
|
|
I will provide a quick excerpt from that review to lead into my questions: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''“..The book's title is well chosen, for it is really written as a cry in the wilderness. Faced with systematic rejection from what Santilli claims are vested interests that exercise almost monopolistic control over physics research in the U.S. he saw no other option but to make a public appeal for recognition and redress of what he calls "scientific corruption at the highest levels of academia. |
|
|
|
|
|
::''It is not unusual for visionaries or malcontents in the scientific community to make outrageous claims about disproving established theories, but Santilli's credentials are far too respectable and his claims too simple and well-documented for him to be dismissed as such a crackpot. |
|
|
|
|
|
::''There is no denying that II Grande Grido is a polemic. Santilli is clearly outraged and puzzled by much of the 'scientific corruption' about which he writes-his appeals to the reader often betray a naïve faith in the inherent fairness of American society. Above all however Santilli is sincere. He has never learned formal English and admit from the start that his book is written in "broken" and "crude" language, but the issues he raises are so serious that they speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Santilli does not make outrageous claims about physical theories. Rather, he explains:'' |
|
|
'' |
|
|
::''This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme hostility I have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the conduction, organization and promotion of quantitative theoretical, mathematical, and experimental studies on the apparent insufficient of Einstein's idea in the face of an ever growing scientific knowledge.'' |
|
|
'' |
|
|
::''II Grande Grido is divided into three parts in the first part Santilli tries to explain in layman's terms some of the physical problems that he feels are being ignored. In the second part he recounts his personal experiences with leading academic institutions including Harvard and MIT with physics publications such as the Journal of the American Physical Society with U.S. government laboratories and with government agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. In the third part he presents some tentative recommendations for improving intellectual freedom in the U.S. physics community.” – Harvard Crimson'''' |
|
|
|
|
|
*1 Would it be ok if I added a link to the actual book? (which is publically available for free pdf viewing on various servers) |
|
|
*2 Could I add something about how, according to the book’s publisher, several bookstores in the Harvard area refused to carry Santilli’s book ? |
|
|
::''“You may find it difficult to find II Grande Grido in Cambridge. According to the book's publisher, several area bookstores have refused to carry Santilli's book for fear of alienating their Harvard customers. It would be a shame if after all his efforts. Santilli's case were never heard. However, the book can be purchased at the I.B.R. at 98 Prescott St. in Cambridge. If Santilli is right, it is a place a lot more people should be visiting.” - Harvard Crimson'' |
|
|
*3 As mentioned in the book review, there are 3 supporting volumes of correspondence from which the source concludes that Santilli’s charges were not made frivolously. |
|
|
::''“Santilli's charges are far reaching--from the misconduct of individual physicists regarding his own work to general and perhaps conspiratorial activities at many institutions throughout the U.S. These charges are not made frivolously, he has amassed three volumes of correspondence, referee reports, and official documents corroborating every factual statement in his book.” – Harvard Crimson'' |
|
|
'' |
|
|
:::This should be mentioned for balance. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::These three supporting volumes print out into 3 large phone book sized documents that contain photocopies of years of correspondence between Santilli and several major players in physics (including Steven Weinberg) and every major laboratory around the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
*4. The authenticity of these photocopied records has never been called into question so I am wondering if we could cite them in the main article? |
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least, this collection of correspondence should put a nail in the coffin of the camp currently trying to claim Santilli is not a notable scientist. |
|
|
|
|
|
IL GRANDE GRIDO: ETHICAL PROBE OF EINSTEIN'S FOLLOWERS IN THE USA, AN INSIDER'S VIEW.(in English) -Ruggero Maria Santilli Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA,ISBN0-931753-00-7 |
|
|
http://www.scientificethics.org/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the links to the documentation: |
|
|
|
|
|
*VOLUMES I - http://www.scientificethics.org/Volume1.pdf |
|
|
*VOLUMES II http://www.scientificethics.org/Volume2.pdf |
|
|
*VOLUMES III http://www.scientificethics.org/volume3.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
If a second tap is needed for some reason, the following “Poem” about Santilli by Harry Lustig (Secretary‐treasurer at APS from 1985 to 1996) has been listed in the references of this article for some time: |
|
|
|
|
|
''H. Lustig (2005). "A proper homage to our Ben". In H. Henry Stroke. Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics: 51 (Advances in Atomic, Molecular, & Optical Physics). Academic Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0120038510. "Ruggero Maria Santilli of The Institute for Basic Research, who complained bitterly about the rejection of his papers 'disproving' Einstein's relativity, which he attributed to Jewish domination of APS' journals."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t see how anyone can credibly attempt to claim that Santilli is not a notable scientist when he is the punchline for jokes told between American Physical Society members. |
|
|
|
|
|
As a concluding remark, I think it is important to debunk the rather widespread myth that Santilli is claiming to have ‘disproven’ Einstein Special Relativity’. I have been diligently reviewing his papers and lectures for some time and Santilli clearly states that SP is exactly valid for the conditions it was conceived for and verified to work in, by Einstein et al. In fact, he calls it the “rock” or foundation of modern physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
Even valid theories have limitations though. For example, C is hardcoded into E=mc2 as a constant So the equation is limited for use only under conditions where C is traveling at constant speed in vacuum. Santilli’s covering preserves the axioms of SPR and lifts it with new mathematics which allow for C to be local variable. Nothing wrong with doing that if you can solve the historical Lorentz problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
The rejected paper discussed in the article with the APS was titled “A possible, lie-admissible, time-asymmetric model for open nuclear reactions”. This paper was under tax payer support from the DOE. You can find the published paper (published outside of the APS journals of course) on Springer website: |
|
|
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02887014 |
|
|
|
|
|
Santilli had been petitioning for more scientific experiments to further confirm/deny Rauch’s 1976 (Determination of Scattering Lengths and Magnetic Spin Rotations by Neutron Interferometry Author(s): H. Rauch, G. Badurek, W. Bauspiess, U. Bonse, A. Zeilinger ) which showed the deformation of the neutron under sufficiently strong nuclear forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, there can be no such thing as deformation (in QM) as the theory simplifies things by representing physical particles using dimensionless point-like structures that are perfectly ridged and can’t cannot undergo deformation (which doesn’t stop nature from doing what she does regardless of how complete we think our theory is ) Once you have deformation, symmetry is broken and QM is no longer exactly valid under those conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
The concepts are fairly easy grasp and definitely not anything someone should summarily assume just has to be “quack” “flim-flam” without any inspection. |
|
|
I am here to help with the info/science – hopefully others here can help with the technical editing side of things. |
|
|
I am really looking forward to contributing time to Misplaced Pages and help making things better! |
|
|
Thanks! ] (]) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Rather than asking other editors to respond to each of your suggestions for additions to the article, you should educate yourself on our guidelines for what is a reliable source for a fact cited in a[REDACTED] article ], the guidelines for which sources of information establish notability for our articles, ], and the guidelines which govern biographies of living persons in[REDACTED] ]. It's what we'll do in evaluating any changes you make to this or any other[REDACTED] article, so you'd save your time and ours by reading these guidelines, and evaluating each of your suggestions yourself before changing the article. |
|
|
:Informally, having read your comments, they go to points which are irrelevant to the article. The article concerns Dr. Ruggero Santilli, not his theories. His theories are already mentioned in the article to the extent allowed by the ] guideline: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." |
|
|
:One of the points made and documented by reliable sources in the article as it stands is that the subject has complained about difficulty in having these ideas published in journals which carry peer-reviewed content which is accepted by the relevant academic community in question (that of physics). |
|
|
:You apparently wish the subject's theories to be covered in greater detail than the ] guideline permits. Unless you can find sources which comply with ] showing that these views enjoy general acceptance among the physics community (in other words, those physicists whose views form the generally accepted consensus on the matters you discuss), you should not modify the article to include those views. ] (]) 21:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
You realize the ''Harvard Crimson'' is a student newspaper, right? And that the paper's author (judging from the dates of his other writings for the ''Crimson'') appears to have been a college sophomore at the time of writing this piece? Why should we take it seriously as a ] about a scientific issue? —] (]) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:], please re-read the list of references to the article, the list of "Selected Publications", and our guideline ] very carefully. You seem to have overlooked that the former Reference 2 did actually cite ''Il Grande Grido'' (page 6) to support the first line of the article's "Biography" section. It was not a direct link to the book, but instead points to the third entry under "Selected Publications," a direct link to . To save us all some trouble, I deleted reference 2, as the page it cited in didn't point to the subject's early life (which it was cited to support in the text), but was a photocopy of a short memo from Dr. Steven Weinberg dated 1977 confirming the subject's acceptance as a research fellow at Harvard University. |
|
|
:The logical place for ''Il Grande Grido'' to be cited would directly after an assertion of fact it is cited to support. As a primary source, it ''should not'' be cited as the ''sole support for any fact in the article for which there is no reliable secondary source'' (see ] for how we define that term). Neither the subject nor anyone else should cite the subject's books as sole support for statements about <strike>him</strike>, other physicists (see ]), or his theories. That includes the subject's own publications listed under "Selected Publications" - the fact of their existence is already acknowledged there, but you shouldn't do what the editor who cited ''Il Grande Grido'' after the first line in the "Biography" section did, and use any of those "Selected Publications" as the only reference cited in support of a fact in a[REDACTED] article, under ]. There ought to be a reliable secondary source which by itself is sufficient to support the fact. If the primary source material does anything but confirm what the secondary source establishes, it shouldn't be used to as a cite to support a statement in a[REDACTED] article (please see ]). |
|
|
:While we use the terms "should" and "should not" in our guidelines to avoid inflexibility where situations aren't anticipated in the guidelines, one situation very explicitly anticipated in the guidelines is <strike>the subject of a biographical article</strike> or one of his supporters or detractors inserting information in that biographical article which cannot be proven by an independent source. It's as much for the subject's own protection as to keep[REDACTED] from being used as a free public relations firm (see ]). |
|
|
:I hope you do exert the required effort needed to edit[REDACTED] articles in a helpful manner, and are successful in doing so. Welcome to wikipedia! ] (]) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:My apologies for an oversight - our guideline ] ''does'' allow editors to use self-published material as sources of information about themselves, but there are limitations: |
|
|
:*The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. (for example, no claims to having discovered special cases in which general or special relativity don't apply, as you proposed, unless you can cite reliable secondary sources saying these claims are generally accepted by the physics community) |
|
|
:*It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities - in other words, you can't cite ''Il Grande Grido'' for its intended purpose as an indictment of other physicists (see ] as well), or "to put a nail in the coffin of the camp currently trying to claim Santilli is not a notable scientist"). |
|
|
:*It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (arguably, the subject's statements about his own theories of "magnecular bonds" can't be cited beyond the existing documentation in our article that the theories exist and a very brief description of them - we can't have walls of text in this article about the exceptions the subject says exist to relativity, for example). |
|
|
:*There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (no one can produce ''inauthentic'' evidence into the biography of a living person, in any case, under ]). |
|
|
:*The article is not based primarily on such sources. (another objection to citing ''Il Grande Grido'' and other of the subject's own works here). |
|
|
:I hope this information helps. ] (]) 18:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== If Misplaced Pages had articles on every person with an idea, it would be overwhelmed by crackpottery - should they be consolidated? == |
|
== If Misplaced Pages had articles on every person with an idea, it would be overwhelmed by crackpottery - should they be consolidated? == |
It is unclear to me why the person this article appears to be about merits mention in an encyclopaedia. While he appears to have some - novel - concepts, it does not appear that these have been supported by evidence or by peer review. No evidence is presented of why the subject is more than a theorist whose theories are unproven - many of these exist, as you can see simply by reviewing self-published books on Amazon, but it is not clear that their inclusion in an encyclopaedia adds value to that collection of useful information.
I see from the article that the subject is apparently of the view that the entire world is against him - and has used lawyers to try to push his case against those who disagree with his 'novel theories'. I even see from an article on Popehat that the subject is suing Pepijn van Erp; a Dutch sceptic who expressed a negative opinion of his work.
One worrisome part of this Misplaced Pages entry is the suggestion, in section 3, that "papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg". So the subject is not only suggesting that the scientific community is systematically ignoring "novel theories which may conflict with established scientific theories", but he appears to be extending this into an anti-Semitic argument.
While I note that there have been two nominations for deletion - with the second considered in August 2016 - I am not convinced that these have adequately considered the concerns raised by those who were pro-deletion. Additionally, the options of retain vs. delete are very black and white - there is no 'middle path'. Maybe Santilli is 'notable' according the dictionary encyclopaedia definition. I suggest that by providing scientists whose work is unsupported and unproven with the same status of scientists whose work has been used for decades or centuries, Misplaced Pages becomes less useful. Should articles such as this maybe be placed as sub-articles in a category of (e.g.) 'Unproven scientific ideas and scientists'? That is, retain the article but make clear that its importance/significance does not match that of proven science and/or the proven work of scientists. In two weeks (or twenty years), when the subject of an article within that category is proven/peer reviewed/accepted by the scientific community, then it can be 'promoted' to the main encyclopaedia. In the meantime, readers are not left confused by the lack of relative importance of such subjects.
I look forward (hoping it is not simply ignored and forgotten) to the well-considered and quite possibly well-deserved opposition this suggestion will hopefully draw from the myriad Wikipedians who have used and developed Misplaced Pages for many years now and have very good reasons against such a concept of rating an entry's 'relative merit'. Ambiguosity (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}
