This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tim Shuba (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 27 June 2010 (→Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba: this long term spam need to go). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:08, 27 June 2010 by Tim Shuba (talk | contribs) (→Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba: this long term spam need to go)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Omega Point (Tipler) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | 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. |
 Archives | ||
|
||
Edit on 01:56, 7 April 2010
I edited the recent inclusion of the text of "Kardashev Level III civilization" in the article by Keraunos, since this doesn't help further the understanding of someone regarding the Omega Point Theory, but instead does the opposite by introducing unnecessary jargon. I realize, Keraunos, that you have a yen for laying on the techno-jargon (including from science fiction) thick and heavy, but the article should convey understanding, and thowing out terms such as "Kardashev Level III civilization" isn't necessary for understanding the Omega Point Theory (indeed, Prof. Tipler himself hasn't used this classification scale in his writings).
A term such as "supertask" is helpful (even though Tipler hasn't used this term in his works), because it gives a name for an infinite number of tasks occuring in a finite proper time, which is the central and fundamental concept of the Omega Point Theory: i.e., one needs this concept in order to even begin to understand the Omega Point Theory, and so it's useful to have a term for this concept. Whereas one doesn't even need the concept of a classification scale of civilizations in order to understand the Omega Point Theory; and further, from a fundamental physics standpoint, as scale such as the Kardashev scale is arbitrary in that it doesn't represent fundamental physics concepts in how it chooses to demarcate civilizations. If one desired to classify civilizations from a fundamental physics viewpoint within the Omega Point cosmology, there would be (1) the pre-baryon-annihilation phase; (2) the baryon-annihilation phase, when immortality and interstellar colonization becomes practical, in which baryon annihilation is used for life's energy resource and for rocket propulsion; and (3) the collapse phase, when life's energy resource comes from the gravitational shear energy from the universe's Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations).
I included a wikilink to the "Kardashev scale" article in the text of "completely colonized", since then if people want to see how people such as Nikolai Kardashev and other thinkers have classified various levels of civilization they can still click on that article link, but without having to parse such non-fundamental jargon in the reading of the text. I also included "Kardashev scale" in the "See also" section.
You also deleted the part that according to Tipler, "this should likely start before 2100", which is important information for giving people an idea as to when this colonization should begin, so I added that back.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There seriously needs to be a second source
The only source of information we have about this theory is from Frank Tipler. This use of a single source I creates heavy bias in regards to the theory. Especially on its validity, which I place heavy doubts on.
Also if you noticed all the blocks of statements supporting Omega Point in this discussion page, appear to repeat itself as if it were simply copied and pasted. I suspect this to be the work a hard-die supporter of Tipler trying to promote the Omega Point on every chance possible.69.238.216.142 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 69.238.216.142.
- Keep in mind that the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article doesn't take a position as to whether the Omega Point Theory is correct, as that's not the purview of Misplaced Pages. And the article does have the section "Implications from string theory", which points out that if string theory is correct then it would appear to rule out an Omega Point cosmology.
- Also keep in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler isn't the only source of information on the Omega Point Theory, as his Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.
- Hence, the many professional physicists charged with formally refereeing Tipler's papers on his Omega Point Theory could find nothing wrong with it.
- Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory:
- Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode:1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
- Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Mirror link. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97-0.
- Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, Bibcode:1992PhLB..286...36T.
- Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119 (mirror link); an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; Error: Bad DOI specified!. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.
- Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 20-1, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode:2001AIPC..586.....W.
- Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..141T. Mirror links here and here; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
- F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode:2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
- Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, Bibcode:2007MNRAS.379..629T.
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.
- Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").
- Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.
- Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 . Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics.)
- Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.
- The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
- Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
- Note:
- 1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Scratch that. you are just plagiarizing Tipler's words. 69.238.216.142 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 69.238.216.142. Please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum, nor a place to air personal grievances. Your cooperation with Misplaced Pages policies will be appreciated.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- True, but your behavior is similar to several users with the alias "" that repeat the same "proof" word for word. I do not think it is a coincidence nor is it a case of plagiarism because I think you 71.0.146.150 are "". I highly recommend not plagiarizing Prof. Tipler's words as well as provide other professors that support OPT if you wish to support this theory.69.238.216.142 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, 69.238.216.142, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum, nor a place to air personal grievances. So you are here again asked to cooperate with Misplaced Pages policies on this.
- Regarding multiple professors, apparently you are confused as to how Misplaced Pages works. Misplaced Pages is not a place to determine truth, but instead is based upon reliable sources, which Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory meets in spades, given that it has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Although the physics of the Omega Point Theory have also been endorsed by Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work) and Prof. Paul Richard Simony (head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University), and the first book that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory was published in (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986) was cowritten by Prof. John D. Barrow, and Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote in the "Foreward" to the book on p. viii that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" and on p. ix of said book Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the ." So Obviously Prof. Barrow and Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had scientific merit.
- Pertaining to your false and nihil ad rem claim of plagiarism, you are thereby violating Misplaced Pages policy regarding good faith.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- "1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as the Omega Point theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Veneziano's String Theory is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics." Pot meet Kettle.69.238.216.142 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now your conduct here is becoming jejune. Please take your personal grievances elsewhere. Misplaced Pages is not sound-off board for you to engage in childish behavior.
- Though your inversion of my writings makes your above post antifactual. String theory violates the known laws of physics, e.g., singularities are unavoidable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions, whereas singularities cannot occur in string theory. Nor has string theory ever had any experimental support. Whereas the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics)--which the Omega Point Theory is founded upon--have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Though your inversion of my writings makes your above post antifactual. Omega Point theory violates the known laws of physics, e.g., singularities are unattainable in general relativity given realistic energy conditions, whereas singularities have to occur in omega point theory. Nor has omega point theory ever had any experimental support. Whereas the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics)--which the String Theory is founded upon--have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.69.238.216.142 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "theory" has had 15 years since it was proposed in 1995, if there's not a second source, it's in the realm of a crackpot. Crackpots are not notable. 74.33.98.208 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- 74.33.98.208, so extreme is your visceral dislike of the Omega Point Theory that you couldn't even bring yourself to learn the most rudimentary facts about it, which if you were actually knowledgeable on the publication history of the Omega Point Theory you would know that it was first published in 1986, not 1995.
- The Omega Point Theory actually has many reliable sources, including being peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.
- Your repeated usage of the term "crackpot" violates WP:Civility.
- Given your abusive insults, you obviously have a severe dislike of Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory, despite the fact that you don't even know the most basic facts about it. You are apparently here because Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently, as I see you have no other edit history on Misplaced Pages. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who had never heard of the Omega Point Theory before yet who upon hearing of it take an extreme dislike to it. Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and harassing behavior by new Misplaced Pages editors whose only edit history is this article. At least two of these I.P. addresses appear to be in use by the same person.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did a search on Scopus for articles citing Tipler's work.
- "The structure of the world from pure numbers"/"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything"
- 1 citation.
- "Cosmological Limits on Computation"
- 10 citations (half of which are from articles of which one particular person is a recurring (co)author.)
- "Achieved spacetime infinity"
- 1 citation.
- "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists"
- Not found on Scopus. (Published in journal concerned with science-religion dialogue)
- "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation"
- 4 citations.
- "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe"
- Not found on Scopus. (Published in a NASA Workshop proceeding)
- "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant"
- Not found on Scopus. (Published in AIP anthology)
- "Intelligent life in cosmology"
- Not found on Scopus. (Published in astrobiology journal; impact unknown.)
- "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem"
- 2 citations.
- The given sources have been cited very few times. Furthermore, a scan of the citing articles revealed that none of them took the Omega Point theory as a major point of discussion. I conclude that discussion of the Omega Point theory has received negligible attention from modern physics at best. Given that the Omega Point theory has only apparently been seriously discussed as a scientific theory in papers authored by a single academic (Frank J. Tipler) and has not received any further attention since then, it seems safe to conclude that it is a fringe theory attributable entirely to Tipler. (See WP:FRNG for discussion of fringe theories.)
- I did a search on Scopus for articles citing Tipler's work.
- On the other hand, Tipler and his Omega Point idea have had some traction with the general public due to his theological publications. The public reaction and support of Tipler and his ideas from a theological perspective probably qualifies as notable. Conversely, the amount of attention given in the article to the actual details of the physics is unwarranted because it is irrelevant to the public support of and reaction to the idea, reliant on direct incorporation of Tipler's tersely worded work, and inaccessible to anybody who is not a physicist.64.53.209.200 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 64.53.209.200. You're making up your own criteria, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory does not qualify under WP:Fringe. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals (see WP:reliable sources).
- Regarding citations to articles, this is you making up your own criteria, as nothing is mentioned about this in Misplaced Pages. In WP:reliable sources, there's a paragraph that mentions citation indexes, but it's clear from the context that it's talking about the reliability of a journal as a source (e.g., "A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index ...").
- Although your original research is irrelavant, your figures are at any rate innacurate, as Prof. Tipler's articles have received more citations to them than your figures indicate (based upon information from the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System and Google Scholar). Even most National Science Foundation-funded papers never obtain a single citation to them, so Tipler's papers on the Omega Point are doing far, far better than most peer-reviewed papers in this regard. Although all of this is irrelevant because there's no Misplaced Pages policy stating that something which has many reliable sources is fringe just because it does't have quite the number of citations to it in the primary literature that you think it should have--which at any rate is just some arbitrary, subjective and as-yet-unspecified number that you thought up, since your original research actually demonstrates that Tipler's papers on the Omega Point are far more cited than most scientific papers. In short, even though your original research here is irrelevant, you have disproved your own irrelevant thesis.
- Lastly, just because you may not be able to understand the physics of the Omega Point Theory is hardly a coherent reason for diminishing the coverage offered on the physics, since the coverage as it's now been in this article for years hits on the key points, and so cannot be diminished without making it incoherent. What I might do is create an additional expository section explaining the physics in laymen's terms.
- Your motivations for your desired edits appear to be a dislike of the Omega Point Theory, as I see you have no edit history on Misplaced Pages, but instead are apparently here because Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who had never heard of the Omega Point Theory before yet who upon hearing of it take an extreme dislike to it. Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and harassing behavior by new Misplaced Pages editors whose only edit history is this article. At least two of these I.P. addresses appear to be in use by the same person.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You know what fuck off . I want to see how much you can take before you crack.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.175.35 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dynamic IP Sock Puppetry
71.0.146.150 seems to be the latest incarnation of the righteous defender of the ludicrous concept this article is about. From the text of the user, it appears to be the same user as 74.4.222.208 which was involved in several disputes a while back. Do a search on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts for Tipler if you care. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 58.96.94.12. I have no control over what I.P. addresses my Internet Service Provider assigns me. The I.P. address 74.4.222.208 was one such address it assigned me. Your claim of "IP Sock Puppetry" violates the Misplaced Pages policy of WP:Good Faith, as does your latest article edit summary of "Fixed up the white-washing done by 71.0.146.150 ..."
- Your above statement of "ludicrous concept this article is about" violates WP:Civility and WP:NPOV while showing a vitriolic dislike of the Omega Point Theory on your part, which shows that your edits are ideologically motivated.
- You have already been warned on your talk page not to engage in further Misplaced Pages-policy-violating edits on the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article.
- Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.
- In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that "Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved." What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the "dispute" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message "You know what fuck off . I want to see how much you can take before you crack."
- So in fact there had been no authentic "dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article". The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Misplaced Pages policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."
- In the edit summary of your first edit of this article, you state "Obvious really, who the hell is repeatedly removing this categorisation?", referring to the "Category:Pseudoscience" edit added by said person or persons engaged in vandalism, nonsense edits and disruptive edits. Your edit summary falsely makes it seem as if this edit has long been in the article, and that it has just recently been removed, which is incorrect. Your edit here also violates Misplaced Pages policy, such as WP:Truth and WP:NPOV. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so under WP:Reliable Sources does not qualify as "pseudoscience". Your phraseology of "who the hell" also violates WP:Civility.
- Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior.
- Therefore, due to the foregoing reasons, you are here requested not to further engage in such factually-incorrect and Misplaced Pages-policy-violating edits.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
{{editsemiprotected}}
I and several other editors have attempted to both add the Pseudoscience categorisation as well as tag the article for imbalance and for providing unwarranted credibility to a fringe theory but these edits are immediately reverted by the user 71.0.146.150 who is probably also the 74.4 who appears in a couple of wikialerts on the subject. The same user has a history of attacking other editors and generally trying to WP:GAME to whitewash the article of anything critical of the concept. The following seem entirely appropriate additions to the page.
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
and the categorisation: "Category:Pseudoscience"
I noted the deletion discussion but this article does seem to violate the point under WP:UNDUE which is: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." - the ancillary article already exists which, once edited to add criticism, ought to be sufficient.
In any case, there seem to be only about three people that accept the idea including a very vocal and ubiquitous fundamentalist Christian who seems to follow it around the net and pop up to post walls of copypasta and biblical verses on the topic in a Kibo-esque fashion (as Google will make quite clear). Here's a descriptive quote from an editorial blog in the very prestigious Discover Magazine that demonstrates the scientific community's opinion of the subject matter: "Frank Tipler is a crackpot" 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.
- In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that "Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved." What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the "dispute" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message "You know what fuck off . I want to see how much you can take before you crack."
- So in fact there had been no authentic "dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article". The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Misplaced Pages policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."
- In the edit summary of your first edit of this article, you state "Obvious really, who the hell is repeatedly removing this categorisation?", referring to the "Category:Pseudoscience" edit added by said person or persons engaged in vandalism, nonsense edits and disruptive edits. Your edit summary falsely makes it seem as if this edit has long been in the article, and that it has just recently been removed, which is incorrect. Your edit here also violates Misplaced Pages policy, such as WP:Truth and WP:NPOV. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so under WP:Reliable Sources does not qualify as "pseudoscience". Your phraseology of "who the hell" also violates WP:Civility.
- You claim WP:Undue Weight for the latest factually-incorrect edits, yet almost the entirety of the peer-reviewed papers in science journals are in support of the Omega Point Theory. There has only been one refereed paper in a physics journal that was critical of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, but the authors of that paper unwittingly gave an argument that unless the Omega Point comes about then the laws of physics are violated, and so thereby actually gave a powerful argument for the Omega Point Theory's correctness. Tipler cites this article in support of his Omega Point Theory in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics article.
- Regarding critical reviews of Tipler's books, none of them have been refereed in science journals. They are book reviews that have not undergone the referee process that is required of actual papers.
- Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior.
- Therefore, due to the foregoing reasons, you are here requested not to further engage in such factually-incorrect and Misplaced Pages-policy-violating edits.
- I will start a "Criticisms" section which details the above information, but do not add factually-incorrect and Misplaced Pages-policy-violating tags to this article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, so 71.0.146.150 is also 74.4.222.208 and 74.4.214.199 and now Jamiemitchelle except strangely, this new account actually preceded the dynamic IPs you were using which makes it actual sock puppetry, at least as far as I can tell. Looking at the contributions for all these users, we can see a long history of personal attacks, blocks for the same and edit-warring over articles on Frank Tipler, Omega Point and Existence of God. In the latest one, you edit war anonymously then put up a request for semi-protection under your account and then as soon as the protection expires, revert the pseudoscience category and try to WP:GAME your way out of the neutrality tags. Are you mad? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your above post doesn't dispute anything on this discussion page. The I.P. addresses 71.0.146.150, 74.4.222.208 and 74.4.214.199 are indeed mine (or rather, I.P. addresses that I have had, or in the case of 71.0.146.150, one I think is still my I.P. address). I am honest about what I.P. addresses I have had, which were assigned to me by my Internet Service Provider without my control. So I'm not hiding my history. But your above post doesn't state that anything is wrong with the article as it is now. So what is your point, exactly? Do you have a point? If so, then please discuss it on this Talk page.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Done SpigotMap 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To all editors: please note that the concerns brought up by 58.96.94.12 were addressed in my last edit of the article. I added the "Criticisms" section, which details the only peer-review paper published in a physics journal critical of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory while also giving a number of non-refereed book review articles which have been critical of the Omega Point Theory. Keep in mind that Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so the "Category:Pseudoscience" tag is factually incorrect and violates Misplaced Pages's policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Yet still, 58.96.94.12 complains, even though he as yet has not stated what is wrong with the current edit. It appears that 58.96.94.12 simply wants some notice or tag on this article telling people that it is bilge and that they oughtn't take it seriously.
- I'm more than happy to work with 58.96.94.12, but he appears to be unwilling to be satisfied until he gets some edit which violates Misplaced Pages policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, you're not happy to work with me or anyone else, as your multiple years of edit warring with everyone that dares to lay a keystroke on your pet article demonstrates. Here's a choice quote from you on this very subject: "Prof. Frank J. Tipler is about the farthest from a being kook as it is possible to be. Not only has Prof. Frank J. Tipler proven God to exist based upon the known laws of physics, but he also has discovered the correct quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics." Do you still wonder why I'm (and all the other editors you keep reverting are) not taking you seriously? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 58.96.94.12. Your above post doesn't state that anything is wrong with the article as it is now. So what is your point, exactly? Do you have a point? If so, then please discuss it on this Talk page. Regarding the "other editors" you mention that were sanctioned for vandalism and harassment, see my above post at 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is not close to being neutral, and appears to have never been. The idea that the purposefully weak "criticism" section added by a highly biased editor addresses the problem is a joke. The article ought to be stubbified or pared down considerably, as it severely misrepresents the status of this highly fringe theory. To the unregistered user, your best course of action is to get an account, and after just ten edits and four days you will be able to work more effectively, begin to form a record of consistency with your editing, and will be taken more seriously. Tim Shuba (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Tim Shuba. I just recently added quotes from some of the critical non-refereed book reviews.
- Your above claims violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.
- You need to get over the idea that just because you dislike something that it's up to you to decide whether it's true or not, as that violates WP:Truth.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...blah blah blah. I followed enough of this to be familiar with your style of argumentation, and am unimpressed. Subjecting this article to a wider audience of editors would likely go a long way toward improving it. What makes you think I dislike the concept? I happen to think it's wonderful and extremely amusing. So too are the fanatical attempts to portray it as something it is not. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Tim Shuba. Your above claim violates WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.
- When it comes to editorship on Misplaced Pages, it's not up to you to decide whether something is true or not, as that violates WP:Truth.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Tags - pseudoscience or not
- Question: I protected this article a week or so ago, so it's been on my watchlist ever since. Reading the above discussion, it seems to me that there is one editor (Jamiemichelle, and IPs thereof) who objects to the "
{{Articleissues}}", "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags, and the "Category:Pseudoscience" - is that correct? I'm also seeing two editors (58.*, Tim Shuba) who apparently believe that these tags and cat should be added - is that correct? TFOWR 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, TFOWR. I recently added the "Criticisms" section, which details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and which also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.
- After said edits, both 58.96.94.12 and Tim Shuba have refused to state what they believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Misplaced Pages policy.
- The "Omega Point (Tipler)" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Misplaced Pages policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as "According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ..."
- And now that I added the "Criticisms" section, the article also details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.
- Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)
- Hence, to add those tags would violate WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources.
- Due to Tipler recently being in the news, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism, disruptive edits, nonsense edits and Misplaced Pages-policy-violating edits (e.g., the aforementioned policies) against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, due to such editors taking an extreme visceral dislike to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, even though they know next to nothing about it. Hence, they seek to diminish this article and to categorize its subject as rubbish because it conflicts with their worldview.
- In adding the "Criticisms" section, I have been more than reasonable and quite happy to work with people. I'm the only one in these recent discussions who actually is knowledgeable about the Omega Point Theory, which is what allowed me to write the "Criticisms" section, as I had that knowledge already at hand. If someone raises a legitimate Misplaced Pages-policy-conforming concern, then wonderful, splendid! But people such as 58.96.94.12 and Tim Shuba have not been interested in conforming to Misplaced Pages policies, as demonstrated by their refusal to state what is wrong per Misplaced Pages policy with the article as it is now. All they know about the Omega Point Theory is that they greatly dislike its implications because it conflicts with their Weltanschauung, and hence, again, they seek to diminish this article and to categorize its subject as rubbish because it conflicts with their worldview.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some of the comments above came after the criticisms section was added; indeed, they mention the new section. That said, "
{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain. The "Category:Pseudoscience" I'm far less sure about: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience is our guide, and it does not seem to cover this article's subject. As far as I can see, this is a fringe theory (in that it does not yet have wide acceptance) but it is not pseudoscience. TFOWR 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some of the comments above came after the criticisms section was added; indeed, they mention the new section. That said, "
- It's not a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)
- So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe.
- In the case of user 58.96.94.12, he has repeatedly called me such nasty names as "crackpot", "nutter" and "nut" even after he has been repeatedly warned by administrators not to engage in personal attacks. Even after all those administrator warnings, he is still continuing to engage in personal attacks against me, such as on his user Talk page: .--71.0.146.150 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, I.P. address 71.0.146.150 is me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi TFOWR, I think it is good to tag this article as pseudoscience to warn readers about the disputed nature of the content. Other then psychoanalysis as I quote from Fringe theories#Pseudoscience, this questionable theory does not have a lot of followers. I refer to the article http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/ from Sean Carroll (senior researcher in cosmology at CalTech) and the comment of user Fizyxnrd: "'Speaking as a physicist and someone who frequently receives emails full of "crackpot physics", I have to say that the burden of citation here is a heavy one. Because these theories are (to a professional physicist) so ludicrous, they do not merit the time to be specifically rebutted. Therefore, there do not tend to be references for Misplaced Pages to cite in criticism of such blatantly fringe ideas. Perhaps the criticism section could be taken care of by moving this article out of WikiProject Physics, as it doesn't belong there (or even in Pseudophysics).Fizyxnrd (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" from the archive of this talkpage.
- I gave earlier my opinion on this talk page (See Skolem Lowenheim in the archive) but was aggressively met by 71.0.146.150 who appears to be Jamie Michelle. Otto (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- In that blog post by Sean M. Carroll (who was denied tenure), he makes a number of factually incorrect statements, e.g., his statement regarding "no actual argument" is false. Two paragraphs before the excerpt Carroll gave, Tipler stated "Now let me outline the proof of my three claims above. I can give here only a bare outline. For complete details, the reader is referred to my book , and to papers (, , ) on the lanl database (available over the Internet at xxx.lanl.gov)."
- So Carroll doesn't actually know much of anything about Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory because he's never bothered to actually research it, and he apparently has no intention to do so.
- As TFOWR points out above, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory doesn't qualify as pseudoscience.
- Nor is it a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (See my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)
- So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe.
- The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality. For that, see:
- David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.
- Below is what the Royal Society of London says about Prof. Deutsch in its announcement of his becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2008:
Professor David Elieser Deutsch FRS
Visiting Professor, Department of Atomic and Laser Physics, Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford
David Deutsch laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation, and has subsequently made or participated in many of the most important advances in the field, including the discovery of the first quantum algorithms, the theory of quantum logic gates and quantum computational networks, the first quantum error-correction scheme, and several fundamental quantum universality results. He has set the agenda for worldwide research efforts in this new, interdisciplinary field, made progress in understanding its philosophical implications (via a variant of the many-universes interpretation) and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book The Fabric of Reality.
- From "New Fellows 08 Craik - Kaiser", The Royal Society.
- The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (Professor at the University of Cambridge) along with Tipler. Hence, Barrow must have thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.
- In the same book, Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on p. viii in the "Foreword". On p. ix of said book, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the ." So obviously Wheeler thought that the Omega Point Theory had merit.
- Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, has also endorsed the correctness of the physics of the Omega Point Theory. For that, see
- Chauncy Glover, "Man says equation proves God exists", Action News (WTEV CBS-47 and WAWS Fox-30, Jacksonville, Florida), May 17, 2010. Direct FLV video link (Prof. Simony's segment is from 3:10 to 3:40 min:sec).
- (Note that the text of the above article misattributes the statement "Everything in here is correct and his interpretation of the equation is correct. ..." to Tipler, when in fact as the video of the report makes clear, it was Prof. Paul Richard Simony who made this statement.)
- Again, keep in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.)
- So in fact, the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's many peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity.
- Note:
- 1. D. Deutsch, "Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 400, No. 1818 (July 1985), pp. 97-117.
- I've posted at WP:FTN, on a "more eyes have got to be good"-basis! TFOWR 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A great deal of material used as citations in this article does not specifically mention Tipler or his theories (e.g. scientific proof of God's existence, miraculous resurrection of bodies, etc.) but seem to be placed in the article to create the appearance that Tipler's ideas have some kind of mainstream acceptance. When reading the article itself, I get the strong impression of agenda-driven propaganda and coatracking rather than WP:FIVE. Tipler's "omega point" may or may not have been specifically criticized as pseudoscience, but it most certainly meets the criteria of a fringe theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you'll notice, LuckyLouie, the citation references are placed next to the relevant statement that is being cited. This practice is called the Scholarly Method, and it's also how scholarly books work. That is, specific statements are referenced. Obviously not all of the references will concern the whole of the topic of entire article.
- The Omega Point Theory is not a "fringe" theory because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (For more on these matters, see my above 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC and 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC posts.)
- So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is a consensus of editors that disagree. The article can and will be improved. Firstly, it relies too much on a single primary source (Tipler). The article also suffers from whitewashing of criticism, over-use of quotes and its associated copyright violation. Removing the extensive verbatim quotes from Tipler's writings and briefly summarizing his theories using secondary sources will bring us into line with policy and improve readability. Also, per WP:FRINGE, the article must clarify that these fringe theories are not accepted by the mainstream (and no, journal publishing is not an indication of mainstream acceptance). The criticism section needs to be expanded and integrated into the article lead. I'll make these improvements as time allows, but invite others to lend a hand in the interim. I also ask involved editors to scrupulously refrain from personal attacks or discussing behavior of other editors, as this derails progress with the article. Sockpuppetry and incivility violations can be dealt with in a separate venue.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, LuckyLouie. You didn't even know how the Scholarly Method works (e.g., your previous comment above about many of the citations not specifically mentioning Tipler or his work), and now you're all of a sudden an expert on these matters?
- The article contains no "whitewashing of criticism", nor have you provided any evidence of that. This is the fallacy of bare assertion by you. Now that I recently added the "Criticisms" section, the article details the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point Theory, and also gives quotations from a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler's Omega Point Theory.
- Nor are Prof. Tipler's papers primary sources: rather, they are secondary sources. According to WP:No Original Research (including the articles "Primary source" and "Secondary source", which are referenced in that Misplaced Pages policy), all of Tipler's peer-reviewed papers qualify as secondary sources, since he is not an experimental physicists reporting experimental results, but instead is a theoretical physicist publishing well-formed physical theories on the implications of the known laws of physics which are based upon thousands of prior experimental findings. To quote note No. 5 from WP:No Original Research, which is a quote from Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales: "Some who completely understand why Misplaced Pages ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." So by Misplaced Pages policy's definition of primary and secondary sources, Tipler's peer-reviewed papers are all secondary sources.
- Keep in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, which requires the referees to endorse the paper as sound. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. (Again, see my above post at 14:45, 30 May 2010 UTC for the details on these matters.) The scientists who refereed Tipler's papers are all professional physicists other than Tipler, and they endorsed the correctness of Tipler's papers in a formal capacity.
- And above I also I listed a number of other reliable secondary sources, such as The Fabric of Reality (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997) by Prof. David Deutsch, the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer; and The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), coauthored by astrophysicist Prof. John D. Barrow along with Tipler, and with a "Foreword" by Prof. John A. Wheeler, the father of most relativity research in the U.S. Then of course there are Tipler's 1994 and 2007 books, which are reliable secondary sources, as Tipler after all is the world's leading expert on the Omega Point Theory. (See my above 13:00, 24 June 2010 UTC post for details on these matters.)
- So in fact, the Omega Point Theory has been endorsed by many professional physicists, including the world's leading quantum physicist. In the case of Prof. Tipler's peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point Theory, this endorsement was in a formal capacity.
- Nor is the Omega Point Theory a "fringe" theory, because that implies that there's been much higher than majority opposition to it on the same level or higher level of academic merit than it has received. As regards peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there has not been. Again, there has only been one peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal critical of it. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below).
- So as it concerns the peer-reviewed science journal papers, it is criticism of the Omega Point Theory that is fringe. Which isn't surprising, since the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics, thereby requiring one to resort to fringe theories.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect edits by LuckyLouie
LuckyLouie added the tags "Articleissues|article=y", "POV" and "Unbalanced" to the article, which are factually incorrect and which violate Misplaced Pages policies of WP:Truth, WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Sources.
These edits are factually incorrect because no one has stated what they believe is specifically wrong with the article vis-à-vis Misplaced Pages policy. Vague bare assertions don't conform to Misplaced Pages policy.
LuckyLouie edit's summary for this edit states "Consensus is that these Tags apply. See Talk". There has been no one who has argued in favor of these tags. To date not even LuckyLouie has argued for these tags. 58.96.94.12 requested these tags, but he gave no argument for them.
As TFOWR stated in his 15:38, 22 June 2010 UTC post above:
That said, "
{{Articleissues}}" would need some explanation before adding it: I'd like to know what issues the article has (there's no point tagging an article for improvement if you don't also explain what needs improving). "{{POV}}" and "{{Unbalanced}}" tags may be warranted, if the criticisms of the "criticisms" section remain.
And so the consensus is in fact that these tags are inappropriate, since no one has stated what is wrong with the "Criticisms" section as it is now.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate edits by Tim Shuba
Tim Shuba keeps deleting the Theophysics website link in the "External links" section, which has been in the article there for almost three years.
Tim Shuba's first excuse for this deletion was that it is spam. It was explained to Tim Shuba that the link is not spam . Now Tim Shuba's excuse has changed to "inappropriate personal links" while citing no Misplaced Pages policy to justify his deletion. The website is hardly "inappropriate", as Tim Shuba falsely and bizarrely asserts, as the website's central topic is Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory: if this link isn't appropriate to the article, then no link possibly could be. Other than Tipler's own Tulane University website, there exists no other website whose main topic is the Omega Point Theory.
In Tim Shuba's latest edit summary for this deletion, he goes on to assert "many more of these need to be deleted", apparently referring to articles hosted on the Theophysics website. Of course, there's no basis in Misplaced Pages policy for this claim.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- The links to these personal websites have been repeatedly inserted by Jamiemichelle, and all should be removed. Linking to one's own site or a site one is related to without a transparent declaration is dishonest. Jamiemichelle has used different accounts and different mirrors to spam these sites. Some of the webcitation links are also spam from these sites.
I certainly recommend that others do web searches with these domains included in search terms, and discover for themselves the details. It is unlikely that the owner of these sites has the permission to keep copies of the all the files found there. Even if true, a personal site like this should not generally be a reference. The fact that someone has succeeded in spamming wikipedia for years is clearly not a valid reason to allow it to continue. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect-Class physics pages
- Low-importance physics articles
- Redirect-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- Redirect-Class relativity pages
- Relativity articles
- Redirect-Class Computing pages
- NA-importance Computing pages
- All Computing articles
- Redirect-Class Computer science pages
- NA-importance Computer science pages
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
- NA-importance Philosophy pages