Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AbraCaDaBraZac (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 31 October 2016 (→Reference 5, http://thunder-energies.com/company.html is a dead link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 22 August 2016, see discussion. keep, 8 March 2007, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruggero Santilli article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Magnecule page were merged into Ruggero Santilli. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Mr RD (talk · contribs) / Brian Buckley Brian Buckley This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at here.)

Honest mistakes or intentional misrepresentations?

1. Santilli is not only "nuclear physicist" as stated in his heading of his Article. Just a look at the Article's references proves that this is wrong. Santilli isinternationally known to be a "theoretical physicist."

3. Following the statement

For example, he argues that the covalent bond is impossible in quantum mechanics, as he cannot conceive of a manner in which two same-charged electrons can come together to cause an attractive interaction.

rather than quoting Santilli CV (which is Ref. ), the editors have repeatedly rejected the quotation of the joint papers by Santilli and Don Shillady Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University achieving the first and only known attraction between the two identical electrons of the covalence bond

R. M. Santilli and D. D. Shillady,, "A new isochemical model of the hydrogen molecule," Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 24, pages 943-956 (1999)

 R. M. Santilli and D. D. Shillady, , "A new isochemical model of the water molecule," Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 25, 173-183 (2000) 

David Epstein view that these papers should not be quoted because the Article is on the man is very dmaning because a separate article on hadronic chemistry has been denied by Misplaced Pages.

3. In connection with the statement

A rebuttal of Calo's claims was also published by a J. V. Kadeisvili. Member of Dutch scientific skepticism society Stichting Skepsis Pepijn van Erp failed to find any credentials of Kadeisvili despite multiple requests, which have led him to believe that there is no such person.

while giving utmost credibility to the college student Pepijng van Erp, the editors have automatically rejected the quotation if the eulogy delivered by Santilli for J. V. Kadeisvili during the invited lecture at the AIMS 2014, Madrid, Spain, "Advances in the Lie-Santilli isotheory." world-lecture-series(dot)org/advances-in-the-lie-santilli-isotheory Why? Because such a quotation decreases the credibility of Pepijn Van Erp that Kadeisvili did not exist?

Also, it is not true that M. O. Cloonan let unsettled the existence of Santilli magnecules. as one can see from his papers on magnecules:

M. O. Cloonan,"Application of the Cplex-isoelectronic theory to electrocyclisations, sigmatropic rearrangements, cheletropic reactions and antiaromaticity: Consistent with Santilli’s hadronic chemistry," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 , 3026 (2006),

M. O. Cloonan, "A new electronic theory of pericyclic chemistry and aromaticity is proposed: The Cplex-isoelectronic theory. Consistent with Santilli’s hadronic chemistry," Int J Hydrogen Energy, 32, 159 (2007),

M. O. Cloonan, "Origin of the endoselectivity observed in pericyciclic reactions based on the CPlex-Isoelectronic theory,” Hadronic J, 32, 125 (2009),

AbraCaDaBraZac (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)AbraCaDabraZacAbraCaDaBraZac (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference 5, http://thunder-energies.com/company.html is a dead link

Reference #5, http://thunder-energies.com/company.html, is a dead link. If an alternative source for the information it supports inline is not produced within a reasonable amount of time, I'll another editor not involved in the current AfD discussion on this article should consider deleting the relevant section as unsourced per[REDACTED] guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The proper way of handling this is to tag the dead links with template {{dead link}}; better yet, to execute due diligence and fix the problem by yourself. See WP:DEADREF for the guideline. Anyway, I fixed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Waiting till we resolve the AfD issue here. but you're right. I need to curate the entire reflist and see what else is dead. loupgarous (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see you'd fixed it - thanks! I think it's probably good practice from here on in to defer any more changes till we get a "keep" or "delete" on the AfD discussion. That'd save us a little work and not cause anyone to think about our votes on the AfD discussion as potential CoI. loupgarous (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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! Maester Anderson (talk) 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 WP:RS, the guidelines for which sources of information establish notability for our articles, WP:NOTABLE, and the guidelines which govern biographies of living persons in[REDACTED] WP:BLP. 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 WP:FRINGELEVEL 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 WP:FRINGELEVEL guideline permits. Unless you can find sources which comply with WP:RS 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. loupgarous (talk) 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 reliable source about a scientific issue? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maester Anderson, please re-read the list of references to the article, the list of "Selected Publications", and our guideline WP:RS 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 the Internet Archive's copy of Il Grande Grido's Web page. To save us all some trouble, I deleted reference 2, as the page it cited in volume 1 of Il Grande Grido 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 WP:WPNOTRS for how we define that term). Neither the subject nor anyone else should cite the subject's books as sole support for statements about him, other physicists (see WP:BLP), 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 WP:RS. 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 WP:WPNOTRS).

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 the subject of a biographical article 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 WP:PROMOTION).

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! loupgarous (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for an oversight - our guideline WP:SELFSOURCE 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 WP:BLP 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 WP:BLP).
• 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. loupgarous (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Chemistry articles
• Low-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles
• Articles with connected contributors