Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory (2nd nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted, I counted 11 to 5 legitimate votes in favour of deletion. - SimonP 14:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Harmonics Theory

A previous version of this article and 6 related articles were nominated for deletion on 18 May 2005. (

Please carefully review all of the following previous discussions before joining this decision. Our goal is not to rehash the previous debate but to make a new decision about this new article.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory
• Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory
• Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow01
• Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow02
• Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow03
• Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow04
• Talk:Harmonics Theory
• Talk:Harmonics Theory/Sandbox
• Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2

• I recall the sandbox version being vastly superior to the article presented. The theory, no matter how left-field, is worthy of an article due to how well-known it is in certain fields. For those reasons, I think that it should be kept, though I acknowledge it may still need considerable work. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research. If it's well-known in "certain fields", why can't I find any references to it besides those written by Mr. Tomes himself? Where's the peer-review? Where are the verifiable sources on the subject not connected with Mr. Tomes (which includes negative reviews of the theory that are instigated by Mr. Tomes)? Actually, let me correct myself: there is a "harmonics theory" concerned with the effect of nonlinearities in electrical power systems - see here and here. This has nothing to do with Mr. Tomes' crackpottery theory or this article. Soundguy99 03:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable crackpottery of the kind that appears to be particularly seductive to those not well versed in the physical sciences. The sandbox article is better, but as always, we delete because of problems with the subject, not the article. This subject can't be rehabilitated into an encyclopedia article. Quale 05:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? There is no requirement that the model described by the article be correct for it to remain in Wikipedia.
    pop-tarts or harmonics theory) can get a concise description of what it is. In this case, any NPOV article will be along the lines of "harmonics theory is a model that claims X, and that is not accepted by mainstream science". The only question is whether harmonics theory is notable enough for people to look for it in the first place.--Christopher Thomas
    20:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As you say,
      Intelligent Design), but WP should not provide a soapbox for non-notable crankery to try to gain legitimacy. I have no ill will toward you, and I realize that you had to work hard to try to create an encyclopedic article out of the idiocy that was the original text. Unfortunately I just don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Quale
      05:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain again. Mostly, this boils down to difficulty demonstrating either that HT is or isn't notable.
  • Arguments for deletion:
    1. Notability status is controversial (per previous VfD discussion). Certainly it isn't referenced much outside the discussions of cycles enthusiasts.
    2. As the /Sandbox version wasn't acceptable to at least one person with strong feelings on the issue, it seems likely that contested edits by both sides will occur in the future, making the viability of the article questionable.
  • Arguments against deletion:
    1. The /Sandbox version I created is, to the best of my ability to create, something encyclopedic and NPOV, that doesn't itself contain original research.
    2. If harmonics theory is deemed notable, or at least is hard to demonstrate to be non-notable, then the article has merit.
  • I'm puzzled at statements that the /Sandbox version is original research, as it provides a second-hand reporting of the views held by Mr. Tomes and the followers he controversially cites, as opposed to containing the vast amount of original discussion of the model that the original version had.

--Christopher Thomas 06:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing vote to delete, as it's become clear that Mr. Tomes won't accept anything but his own version of the article, with its POV and factual problems. --Christopher Thomas 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep After reviewing the previous discussions, I am persuaded by Omegatron's memory hole argument. The current version, if anything, debunks the theory. A known, foolish concept is still deserving of entry, if only to be debunked. Xoloz 07:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to Delete in solidarity with others, because of Mr. Tomes' disruptiveness. Xoloz 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I can only echo Quale's sentiments.... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I see multiple problems: 1) There does not seem to be a community of scholars pursuing this topic. That makes it "original research". 2) its dressed in pseudo-scientific clothing, while asking to be taken seriously. This means its intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading. 3) It makes wild-eyed unfounded assertions. If the first sentence of the article said something like "Harmonics theory is a wacky but popular bit of pseudoscientific culture jamming...", then there might be grounds for accepting as an article. But it doesn't appear to be popular, and it sure ain't culture jamming. linas 22:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I could understand these objections if made to the original harmonics theory article, but I frankly fail to see how you derive these statements from the current version (formerly Harmonics Theory/Sandbox). To address your specific statements:
    1. The original version of harmonics theory was indeed original research. The version at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 still is, as it contains a lengthy presentation that duplicates much of the information in Mr. Tomes's web documents. I fail to see how the current harmonics theory page is original research - it presents a concise summary of the claims and mechanism without going into any form of derivations or detail. To call it a republishing of Mr. Tomes' work is an exaggeration of extreme proportions.
    2. The current harmonics theory article (formerly Harmonics Theory/Sandbox) makes no claim that harmonics theory be taken seriously. To the contrary, where the summarized claims of harmonics theory are listed, the discrepancy between these claims and the view held by the vast majority of scientists is clearly noted. Any sane person reading this article will correctly perceive that the tenets of harmonics theory are not accepted by most scientists. What is misleading about this?
    3. I fail to see any "wild-eyed unfounded assertations" in the present version of harmonics theory. As far as I can tell, you're still looking at the old version (written by Mr. Tomes).
  • --Christopher Thomas 23:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To rebut:
    • 1. The article itself states that it is original research: Harmonics theory has been embraced, to a small extent, by individuals and groups interested in non-mainstream, "alternative" science, but not enough for others to work on or extend it. If no one else is bothering to pursue the thing, then it is original research.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Let me try to explain this concept to you as simply as I can: An article containing Klingon opera would be original work. An article noting that Klingon opera has been composed would not be. Am I making this distinction sufficiently clear? If an encyclopedia article about HT is to exist at all, it must present enough information about HT to indicate what HT is, so that readers can decide whether to bother following links to external information. I believe that the current version of harmonics theory has pared back HT-related material to the minimum possible while satisfying that constraint. Check /Sandbox2 to see the kind of article that _used_ to be there. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy the analogy. As far as I'm concerned, an article could include the entire score for a Bethoven quartet. Its the notability in this case, not the originality that matters. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • 2. The article maintains a serious tone througout, and thus is expressly intended to be taken seriously. The only disclaimer, and a weak one at that, comes in the penultimate sentance: It has been almost entirely ignored by the scientific community. And that's not much of a disclaimer. There's lots of serious, legit, high-quality science that gets ignored by the scientific community. Harmonics theory, by contrast, is pure bunkum, and the article should have unambigously said so.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you produce evidence that it is bunkum? Answer... because there is none. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • The article on
        N rays are accepted to exist, in fact stating the opposite. Likewise, the current harmonics theory article repeatedly states that HT's claims are not compatible with mainstream science's. What more do you want, that wouldn't break NPOV/personal attack policies? --Christopher Thomas
        00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've told you previously, the N-ray affair is in no way comparable to HT. Its a "look at the wookie"/"don't think of an elephant"/"red herring" type argument. Its possible that the article on N-rays is poorly structured; I did not study it carefully. N-rays deserve an article because its an infamous episode in the history of physics research that most young physics students learn about. The HT article is misleading by presenting the subject matter as if it were science, when it is not. Furthermore, to present HT as if it were a blunder of the scale or magnitude as N-rays is also misleading. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • 3. There are multiple wild-eyed assertions: "Prediction of a particle with a mass of approximately 34.8 MeV". Particle physics is a lot more subtle than that. Ditto for "quantization of the redshift" or "explanation of the Hubble constant". It is insane to make these kinds of pseudo-scientific predictions while at the same time attempting to destroy the edifice of modern physics practice.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The "wild-eyed assertions" is a slur. If you look at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 you will find the following text:

• quote .. Prediction of a particle with a mass of about 34.76 MeV in 1994 at FSC conference repeated later in sci.physics [1]. In 1995 KARMEN reported an experiment that "suggests the decay of a new particle x, produced in π to μ + x with mass of x=33.9 MeV" [2]. .. end quote.

If you were to follow the lnks [1] and [2] and read them and the quote then you would have to come to the conclusion that a prediction was made. Not a claim of a prediction. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Because you appear to keep missing the appropriate text, I'll highlight it here:
        1. The resulting spectral power distribution is not consistent with the power distribution derived from applying conventional materials science to the scenarios in question
        2. Prediction of a particle with a mass of approximately 34.8 MeV. This is claimed by Tomes to have been observed after his prediction at the KARMEN neutrino experiment. The relevant paper [1] (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9503295) does not announce a discovery. ... No subsequent announcement of particle discovery occurred.

• Your text is so garbled that no-one could possibly realise that the facts are: (1) I had nothing to do with KARMEN. (2) I made a prediction in 1994 of a particle at about 34.76 Mev still visible with google (3) KARMEN subsequently did observe something at 33.9 Mev that verified my prediction (4) they didn't know about me (5) They did state "suggests the decay of a new particle x, produced in π to μ + x with mass of x=33.9 MeV". Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • 1. Astronomers dispute Arp's claim that these redshift quantization levels exist. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you miss my point. The whole HT topic is a Potemkin village. It is not a "theory", and it makes no "predictions". Taking random statements and calling them a "theory" doesn't make them an actual theory. Making other random statements and calling them "predictions" doesn't make them predictions. The falsehood in this article is that of pretending that there exists a theory when in fact one does not. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the above PROOF that a prediction was made of a particle (unless you think I have google in my control). Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Check the article history. The original version that I'd produced had "claimed prediction of" everywhere, as well as a "this is considered a pseudoscience" statement. It's been editied by others. Feel free to rephrase the statements appropriately. This is, after all, the purpose of having a freely-editable encyclopedia.
      • How you can interpret "HT says X, most scientists say Y instead" as an endorsement of HT is a mystery to me.
      • -Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And a quick remark about N-rays: the N-ray incident is infamous, and is taught in college classrooms, and is the subject of numerous books. That historic event is in no way comparable to "harmonics theory". linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a Notability concern, and one that I wholly agree with, as stated (repeatedly) in my comments on this page. My objection is that you appear to be proposing deletion for reasons other than HT's non-notability. Delete if you like, but delete for the right reason. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole matter has gotten tedious. I don't want to continue this debate any further. Please don't continue drawing me into it. The article has many serious, fundamental flaws, all centering around the honesty and truthfulness of the presentation. Notability is only a tiny little part of the problem; a far greater problem is that it is fundamentally inaccurate and incorrect. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how these statements are consistent with the current version of the article. What factual errors are in the article? It states, correctly, that Mr. Tomes has claimed X, Y, and Z, making it clear that these claims are not accepted as fact by mainstream science. Mr. Tomes has indeed made these claims, repeatedly. The article does not present them as fact, and your continued claims that it does cast serious doubt on either your integrity or your statement that you'd actually read and understood the article text. Understand that these statements _are_ an attack, by _you_, on _my_ integrity as an editor, and so you are expected to be able to justify them.--Christopher Thomas 21:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mr Tomes has proven that some of the stated "claims" are not claims but facts. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a saying in the physics community for stuff like this: its

Paul Erdos) linas

04:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do not not the meaning of not even wrong. If predictions are made they can be right or wrong. Not even wrong referes to waffling, which this theory is not. It makes very clear predictions, some of which remain to be tested and some which have. Unfortunately ignorant people think that "I have not heard of this before" is the same as "this must be wrong". That does not follow. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 22:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've tweaked harmonics theory to have something closer to its original strength of phrasing re. the claims of harmonics theory not being accepted as valid mainstream science. I'd thought that this was still sufficiently clear in the version that survived the previous rounds of editing, but apparently it was ambiguous to at least one voter. The problem is now resolved. --Christopher Thomas 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • At Quayle's suggestion, I've added a resonance tutorial link to illustrate what the mainstream view of the behavior of resonant systems is. I've also clarified which links reflect mainstream views and which reflect HT proponent views. --Christopher Thomas 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dcfleck: I'm afraid I agree enough with linas's viewpoint to feel that with all of the "claimed"s stripped out, the article gives the misleading impression that the predictions listed were derived by means consistent with the scientific method. What's actually happened is that Mr. Tomes has claimed that HT predicts them while not showing any form of derivation from the physical properties of the systems involved, either in response to my requests or those of his Usenet critics. Thus, saying "HT predicts X" is considerably less accurate than "HT claims to predict X". Similarly, it does seem to meet the definition listed under pseudoscience (claimed by its proponents to follow the scientific method, claimed by most other people to not, very limited following), so I'm puzzled as to why this was removed if the article is to be NPOV. --Christopher Thomas 04:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I was making a (possibly misguided) attempt at compromise, by removing the words that Tomes appeared to object to most strenuously; I realize that that was pushing a borderline article even closer to the edge. But as Tomes has now steamrolled all of our edits, I guess it's a moot point. --Dcfleck 00:12, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• I am confused as to who moved the sandbox article to replace the original. I have listed a number of serious errors in the sandbox article in the Talk:Harmonics theory#Sandbox2 discussion. Is it acceptable to make these corrections now? Is it OK to replace sandbox with sandbox2? Ray Tomes 11:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Is it OK to replace sandbox with sandbox2?"

  Well, you can always try to improve an article that is on VfD. However, I would expect that sandbox2 will meet with even stronger disapproval than the current article. --Dcfleck 12:33, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• The present version is full of garbage. Saying "it is claimed" everywhere does not make something NPOV. It makes it wrong when the evidence is incontovertable, such as in the case where Christopher states that I claimed to predict a particle of mass 34.8 Mev. I *did* predict a particle of mass 34.76 Mev before the discovery of a particle. The evidence still exists in google and the link is in the page Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2. There are many other similar errors in the main article now. I would rather have that page deleted as it is rubbish for anyone who wants to seriously investigate Harmonics Theory as many do. Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 should be made the main page and people should discuss the necessary changes to make that acceptable. My vote is to change to Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 and make the necessary changes to satisfy people of NPOV. See also Talk:Harmonics Theory for many more criticisms of the present article. Ray Tomes 02:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the changes you wish to make (Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2) will land this article right back into vanity/original research territory, which is what got the original article deleted. The current article (again, in my opinion) is the most favorable treatment you can expect on Wikipedia, and voting is still heavily against it.

I don't think that you, Ray Tomes, can step back and look at this in an impersonal and Wikipedia-neutral fashion. --Dcfleck 14:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

• You are partly right. But I am quite willing for others to modify the sandbox2 version to make it acceptable to others. However that modification should not represent the views of only Christopher. So far that it the case. Ray Tomes 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a fair or accurate statement.
    Harmonics Theory article. I'm sorry you think it's "garbage"; I think it is far superior to Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 in both style and content. It is more clearly written, and does a better job of placing HT in relation to current mainstream science. --Dcfleck
    03:08, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

• I am not saying thatnit is Christopher versus the world. But no-one else has really made any effort to change the style (which has been objected to) without also (as he has done) drmatically changing the meaning in a way that makes all the statements wrong. I have repeatedly listed these errors (when I loaded sandbox2 for example) and not a soul has disputed a single one of them. If the objetion to the present (sandbox2) article is style then why is this so? Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and then refer the matter to the arbitration committee. ~~~~ 16:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Can someone tell me about the arbitration committeee please? This might be a better option, because at present I feel that 3/4 of those voting are just people passing through and are quite ignorant. I would favour a committee they stays put long enough to read a reply. Ray Tomes 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

passing through and quite ignorant - sounds like a personal attack on a whole group of people here ; I've over 1200 edits on Wikipedia so far on a number of subjects, so you'd better check out your facts before making statements like this one in future. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP - the current Sandbox2 Version

All those who have voted for deletion, please read the recent entry made on the talk pages, regarding the mathematical basis for the Harmonics Theory, a list of resouces in the mathematical field that are related to the mathematical basis of the theory, and finally an independently derived assessment of the behaviour of the series of numbers known as "number of ordered factorisations", in which by means of computational analysis, the basis of Ray Tomes "Harmonic Mainline Numbers" are identified, and their amazing properties briefly outlined. External references to these independent pages supporting the Harmonics Theory (as per Sandbox2) are provided on the Harmonics Talk page. PRF Brown 16:05 5 Jun 2005 (Falls Creek, Australia)

• Not to bite the newbie, but 6 of the above user's 8 contributions are to Harmonics Theory Talk and the VfD's. Soundguy99 01:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He is in fact the person who put the original Harmonics Theory page in wikipedia (but I don't think he had a user name then - just IP address). He has made substantial efforts to understand and test the theory and thoroughly checked and confirmed the mathematics and displayed the results on his web pages. Therefore he is well qualified to make representations. Ray Tomes 21:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP current Sandbox2 version. I'm a bit confused between the various versions, but think that the topic deserves to be in wikipedia. It is interesting stuff, has been discussed on the internet quite widely, as has as much right as any other topics to be covered in an encyclopaedia. Caroline Thompson 11:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Please keep Sandbox2; thanks, Tjs11

• (Tjs11's only edit on Wikipedia.) 134.244.168.222 18:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Tomes article has generated a lot of quite disproportionate controversy & having looked at his web pages, he does seem to have something, a something that might be treading on a few established toes. It seems that any genuine new model of things (in any discipline - and this work crosses disciplines) generates this kind of heat; this alone is good enough reason to keep: Use the Sandbox2 version. (Dave Williams)

• (Dave Williams's only edit on Wikipedia.) 134.244.168.222 18:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Harmonics Theory was modified substantially by replacing with Sandbox2 and making sme changes to that. Ray Tomes
  07:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP latest version (edited from Sandbox2). I have been reading a bit of physics recently dating back to 1920s (the 'Born Einstein Letters' are very interesting). Significantly there is quite a lot of references to de Broglie and Schrodinger, and the wave nature of matter (Schrodinger was very unhappy with Born's probability wave interpretation, believing that matter was a wave structure of space). My point in mentioning this is that 80 years on, Physics still faces many problems, and the wave aspects of matter have largely been ignored (Milo Wolff and Carver Mead are two notable exceptions). So it seems to me that it is important that these wave aspects of matter interactions are explored and their knowledge presented in Wikipedia. And one very central aspect of wave interactions is Harmonics Theory. I find the latest version of the page to be well written, in a sensible matter of fact style that suits an encyclopedia entry, so I think it is important that the page is kept. (I also think that Dave Williams comments (above) are pretty astute.) Haselhurst 00:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE, delete, delete. I give up. It seems clear to me now that Tomes and his sock puppets will allow no version of this page to exist that does not grant a false appearance of scientific legitimacy to his pet theory. Do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push your crank theories. Get the wider world to pay attention, somehow, and then come back. --Dcfleck 00:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

• Harmonics Theory article and has contributed to checking the accuracy maths of the theory which makes him far better qualified than you to make judgements; the other two have actually looked at it and are regular wikipedia supporters. I request that you remove your offensive claim of sock puppets - it amounts to a claim of fraud by me, is a personal attack, and I shall make a complaint if you do not do so. Ray Tomes
  11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• O.K., if
  Meatpuppets, as you yourself admit, Mr. Tomes. I'd also like to point out that your rants on this page and your wholesale edits of the Harmonics Theory page have caused two editors (Christopher Thomas and Dcfleck) who were making serious, good-fatih efforts to edit the page so that it was acceptable have now given up and are voting to delete this article. Ranting and raving are not viewed kindly here. Soundguy99
  15:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know who Tjs11 and Dave Williams are. I do not admit what you say. Only one person who was not previously on wikipedia came as a result of my actions to the first delete vote (and not to this one yet). He was someone who knows a lot about Harmonics Theory, having been at a conference where I spoke and exchanging email etc with me over a long period. I think that having the odd one person who knows something about the subject rather than just a passing glance ought to be regarded as a big plus and not be called by rude names. Ray Tomes 12:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• When you argue in generalities you fail to say anything - why don't you give evidence of "a false appearance of scientific legitimacy"? I have not seen a single scientific statement by you - just name calling. Scienxce is not about name calling and snap judgements about what is right and wrong. If you think that in 5 minutes of examination of something you know more than others who spend years or months on it then you are deluded. And quite a lot of the woder world already pay attention. Evidence of this has been repeatedly given (and "accidentally" deleted by people with views like yours). Ray Tomes 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Original Research, possible pseudo-science. No eveidence this has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just an observation for the administrators. When the Harmonics Theory page was replaced by the original sandbox page it got 8/8 votes for deletion. After being replaced by the original sandbox2 page somewhat modified, it has had 5/7 votes for keep. This supports my contention that it is a better page. Several people have criticised the style of this later page. It would be very helpful if they actually quoted the parts that offend them and said why. Then the page could be ammended to be more acceptable. I repeat that saying NPOV! NPOV! does not actually assist in making the changes needed. Ray Tomes 04:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Here's an alternate view of history: During the
  meatpuppets), 3 new negative votes, and one previous positive vote changed to a negative vote. Please note that the strong objections of the editors voting "no" on sandbox were not dealt with in any way in sandbox2; in fact, the features they objected to became even more pronounced. --Dcfleck
  12:35, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

• Peer reviewed journals. There exist no peer-reviewed journals relating to cycles. The FSC did have one which ceased publication before Harmonics Theory was ever published. Something that I am fairly sure is not understood by anyone here that has voted for deletion is that there is a very substantial body of interdisciplinary cycles research from
  Edward R Dewey, Alexander Chizhevsky, Raymond Wheeler, Piccardi, Simon Shnoll and others that show that there are a lot of things happening in the universe that are not explicable by any existing theories before HT. For those that want to investigate this, I strongly recommend reading the excellent paper by Edward R Dewey available at [3]
  . Dewey was a very careful researcher and took frequent advice from statisticians, physicists and others (as you will see in the article). AFAIK, there does not exist in the world today a living English speaking person that would be capable of being an adequate referee for a physics journal for this material. Therefore it ought to be accepted that it is impossible to meet this request and the question of original research examined instead.

• This is ludicrous. There are many general scientific journals as well as physics journals that would be appropriate for this paper. I believe this has never been in a peer-reviewed journal because it would never pass the peer-review process. I'm sure the Time Cube has also not been published in a journal because there are no journals on Cubic Time. - What rubbish. It is my option that if a scientific subject can't be or isn't peer-reviewed, it is not appropriate for inclusion in a encyclopedia. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What you say only applies to incremental research, not research that is considered highly original. Nobel Laureat Brian Josephson recently spoke out about the very serious problems for even well known authors getting new ideas published. This is a recognised problem. Do a google search. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Original research is defined as quote: "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)". This does not apply to the Harmonics Theory. It has been published elsewhere. It has been published by the Foundation for the Study of Cycles (in its time the foremost organisation concerned with cycles) in its conference proceedings. It has been published in the proceedings of a number of other conferences, including ones supported by Apeiron Journal and a Sierra Nevada University in California. I have spoken on the Harmonics Theory in conferences: FSC, Irvine, California; FSC, Princeton; Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Russia (this was a special seminar on Harmonics Theory only); Cycles conference, Stavropol, Russia; Moscow University, Moscow; Sierra Nevada University, California; FSMN Auckland, New Zealand; and others. Without exception I have received high praise from these audiences ranging from "this is the best presentation of cycles that we have ever heard", "you should be given a nobel prize" and from a group of physicists, astronomers and bio-physicists "we are convinced there is something in your theory". Many of these conference proceedings have been published. In Stavropol I was an invited keynote speaker to a conference with perhaps 500 participants. Such invitations are not issued to crackpots.

• Claims are supported. After Christopher Thomas criticised my claims re prediction of a new particle, I found that my post to google is still able to be seen from 1994, before the discovery of a particle was reported in 1995. I also showed that despite his claim that it is not a particle, the words particle are used by the original paper and later ones. In fact a search on google for "particle 33.9 Mev" finds more than a thousand references. The Harmonics Theory has considerably more succesful explanations and verified predictions than GR had until some 40 years after GR was first put forward. There are also a number of new tests with clear predictions of Harmonics Theory that have been put forward. Much of this has not been put in the article because of requests for restricting space.
  • The various people, including me, who question your predictions mainly object to the fact that they seem to be pulled out of thin air, as opposed to being derived by the usual manner of applying the model of a new concept to a physical model of the phenomenon being studied. I've tried to explain this to you several times, but you appear to not be willing to accept that this is needed for a scientific prediction. Regarding the KARMEN paper, despite multiple attempts at explanation, you don't seem to understand what the paper is actually saying. It doesn't claim that the particle interpretation it proposes is correct - merely that it might be correct, or might not be, while suggesting follow-up research to settle the question. I have several published, refereed papers under my belt - believe me when I tell you that I know how the process works. Finally, please consider the possibility that when a large number of people are concerned with the methods you've used to draw your conclusions, that their concern might actually be well-founded. If you apply a properly rigorous approach to your research, you might find that your work is more accepted. Among other things, this involves fully deriving predictions in the way that I've described to you, and when announcing (and publishing) results, starting out with the assumption that they're not the result of your model, and methodically examining and ruling out other explanations until only your model remains. Claiming that there are no alternate interpretations merely suggests that you haven't considered any, which is frowned upon. --Christopher Thomas 07:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• When I added extra pages to give the derivation of the mathematics and the redshift in greater detail this was criticised. The explanation of the redshift prediction is clearly contained in the two parts (1) Mathematical derivation of harmonics (which has been fully researched and checked by PRF Brown) and is presented in its entirety in the first diagram of the current page (the rest is just arithmetic but was deleted in the first round) and (2) The redshift recognition that the fundamental wave corresponds to a frequency halving (z=1). If you are looking for a whole lot of complicated differential equations, there aren't any. Redshifts are predicted for (1+z)^H=2 where H is a strong harmonic. That is it. I attached a graph that shows the exact spectrum but that was on a page that has been deleted. Isn't it ironic that the only person here that has actually checked the maths of this has had his vote disallowed for being new. He came on wikipedia to place the harmonics theory article and was not allowed to vote for it to be kept. This means that wikipedia policies are not working. I intend to look at this aspect of wikipedia policy after the dust settles. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I will try to spell this out for you as clearly as I can: You claim that harmonics interact with each other in the way that you specify. However, you fail to demonstrate that they do act in this way. To make that demonstration does require the "complicated differential equations" that you seem to object so strongly to, as without showing that your idea of how harmonics interact springs forth from the dynamics of the system you're applying it to, you end up lacking a rather critical part of the foundation for your subsequent claims. When writing your math page, you put a lot of effort into answering a question that wasn't asked, while continuing to not address the one that was. --Christopher Thomas 23:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christopher, I never claimed that "harmonics interact with each other", that is your claim. I told you that it is wrong and that you had not understood. Waves generate harmonics because of non-linearity. These harmonically related waves then do the same. There are two aspects to the theory that should be understood:

• Firstly, the idea that that waves generate harmonics in the manner described is taken as an axiom. This is just as Einstein did with the speed of light in all reference frames. He looked at what happens if this assumption is made. In both HT and SR the consequences of the axiom are a wealth of explanations of previous problems and verified predictions of new phenomena. This is what sets HT apart from things like the big bang which invariable fails in its predictions and needs tinkering and epicycles. There are no complicated differential equations in this part, just combinatorials. In both SR and HT the axiom is able to be understood in terms of existing theory once some mental blocks are removed. In the case of SR the mental blocks are still there in the general community as you are probably well aware.
• Secondly, it is desirable to see how HT fits with existing physics. That is a difficult job and not claimed by me to be fully accomplished. I have listed the areas that need more attention, but that material has been deleted. In the case of GR and QM the fitting together is still not accomplished to everyone's satisfaction, so this should be no surprise. Complicated differential equations are likely to be required to achieve such a union of domains. I have made and can make more suggestions in this regard but it is well beyond the scope of a simple article. It simply needs noting with something like "The question of how HT might mesh with GR is an open question". But it is in general accord with GR but not the big bang. Ray Tomes 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Claims of Crackpottery, Pseudoscience etc. - Ignorant people state such things when they have no logical arguments. One such ignorant person made a "list of crackpots" in about 1994 with my name on it. One person complained that he was not on that list. He said that he too was an original thinker and deserved a mention. He was added. The list includes genuine crackpots and good researchers. This list has been perpetuated over many years. I challenged a particle physicist who had a copy on his site. He spent three months investigating the particle prediction mentioned above and his conclusion was that my prediction was justified by Harmonics Theory. He agree that I was practicing science, was not a crackpot, and saw that it was just a different branch of science than what he was familiar with. There have been several other similar cases with physicists and astronomers.

• You may well be on to something. Every new theory started as an idea. But this is not the place for unproven theories come back when you have peer-reviwed status. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a proven theory; all theories are unproven. However Harmonics Theory is as well established by its successful predictions which cannot be made by any other theory (Thomas point above) as GR is. It has been accepted as highly useful by a number of qualified people. An encyclopedia should contain exactly this sort of thing so that people that hear about it or are searching for related concepts can find out more. If an encyclopedia does not include articles on lesser known areas of knowledge then it is quite useless. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• People who quickly form opinions after a glance or two at articles that are in fields that they know nothing about and then vote for deletion are not performing a service for wikipedia. If wikipedia is to only have the LCM of what people know then it does not serve its intended function. People want to look up an encyclopaedia to find out answers to questions that they do not know the answers to. That means using experts wisely. It means presenting material that not everyone agrees with, but labelling it as such. I refer to the astrology article. This is almost unreadable because the anti-astrology astronomers and physicists (who actually have never done any study of astrology) put so many disclaimers on everything. It is enough to mention once at the start that astronomers and physicists believe astrology to be bunk and that they have also never studied it. That is the truth. Then leave it to the astrologers - it is their subject and they may be deluded, but they have a mass delusion that they can agree about and that is what people go to that article for. Ray Tomes 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the astrology article. If you do, then you should edit it. But I strongly disagree that we should allow people to report their beliefs as fact. This is an encyclopedia - we must maintain a scientific viewpoint. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia is not a scientific document. It is about all branches of human knowledge and astrology as it is practiced is such a branch. The fact that it is bunk is not relevant to its right to be in an encyclopedia. You do want your beliefs reported as fact - give the same right to others with a single disclaimer at the front. If you disagree with this, then would you accept the same sort of thing being done to the big bang article as the astrology one? I can promise you that it has an equally large number of unsupportable statements. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big bang has been peer-reviwed and has stood the test of time. Astrology has not; neither has Harmonics Theory.

Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's unfortuniate that the scientists involved can't find a place to get the research peer-reviwed. But it's really not our problem. It is Wikipedia policy that facts must be verifiable or presented in as high unverifiable (like Astrology). You clearly will not accept this kind of wording for Harmonics Theory. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib

) 01:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I wont accept the words "Tomes claimed to predict a new particle" because I proved that I did predict it before its discovery. It is verifiable by anyone who clicks the link to google. Ray Tomes 09:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The problem is not _when_ you made your claim. The problem is that your claim was never a scientifically derived prediction, for reasons which I've tried to explain to you repeatedly. You will find that you actually _do_ need to show the steps that I've mentioned if you want a prediction to be taken seriously. Otherwise it looks like you pulled arbitrary numbers out of the air until you got a match by chance (which folds back to the "cherry picking" problem mentioned on the talk pages). If you want HT to be taken seriously, I've already told you what you'll have to do. --Christopher Thomas 16:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Christopher,you have changed your story and claim repeatedly on just this one issue. And you never acknowledge your errors. When you say "you actually _do_ need to show the steps that I've mentioned" you are a pretender. Your claim was entirely different. How can I add material that shows how I derived the prediction when I am fighting a rearguard action of having it all deleted as fast as I add it? I am happy to add material showing exactly how I derived the prediction, although much of it is already in the original prediction sci.physics article in 1994. But you are not really looking for what you say. You are really slinging mud. Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The big bang predicted a CMBR of 50 K. Before that Eddington predicted 3 K based purely on the temperature of intergalactic space resulting from scattered starlight. Now the big bang is claiming an accurate prediction! It is bunk. The explanation has been known nearly 70 years and needed no big bang theory that is out by over an order of magnitude. What you find in articles on the big bang is revisionist history not the facts. It fails every test and a new epicycle is added. Inflation, dark matter, acceleration, etc etc big bang bung Ray Tomes 09:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put this somewhere before, but cannot find it, so am adding something similar again. My request to anyone that would pass judgement on Harmonics Theory is that they read this article first. [4] The Case for Cycles by Edward Dewey (0.9 MB pdf file). This 36 page document is a review of Dewey's findings over 25 years. He followed the format suggested by nobel physicist Richard Feynman. This is really the CYCLES BIBLE and is a must read for all serious students of cycles. From Cycles magazine 1967. If people vote on deletion or carry out deletion without reading this, then they certainly do it from a place of ignorance. The fact is that most people are not aware of interdisciplinary cycles research and the tremendous results it has achieved. Dewey is foremost of those achieving these results. Ray Tomes 00:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vote to KEEP. While I don't know how well founded this theory is, its author has a LOT of hits in Google.com, and this would lead me to believe that it is not a vanity page. As a former scientist myself, I think that the fact that others seem to cite this author and vice verca leads me to believe that it is not "original" research or trivial, non-notable material per se. I vote to keep. My own research on a lot of matters (political ,scientific, legal, etc.) is posted on my own websites, to satisfy the liberals and conservatives alike. (I advocated the recount of a democratic candidate once as well as a pro-life issue.) --GordonWattsDotCom 07:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this reminds me of the endless battles over Reciprocal System of Theory which proved that pages that are only of interest to a small band of dedicated adherents can never be NPOV. - SimonP 14:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.