Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory

Well searching for "ray tomes" and "cycles" is the wrong thing. We are concerned with "harmonics theory" here. I did a search for that and here are a few of the URLs that are not my pages, they are people quoting me or my pages or commenting on the harmonics theory (mostly in a nice way but a couple not):

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ Physics-Cycles-Harmonics-Universe.htm

http://rgrace.org/1/21universal.html

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_p.html

http://onlypill.tripod.com/id38.html

http://www.trufax.org/frames/toc2.html

http://fusionanomaly.net/harmonics.html

http://www.soulinvitation.com/schumann/schumann.html

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/ phys/projects/yep/music/muinet.html

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/harmonics.html

http://www.redbendad.com/

http://www.synapse9.com/linksci.htm

http://www.adze.com/sotns/1997/3.html

http://www.sozra.com/cymatics.html

http://www.isibrno.cz/~gott/gardens.htm

http://www.keelynet.com/interact/Arc_1_98-7_98/00001649.htm

http://home.tiscali.be/sourceofwholeness/

http://www.life-cycles-destiny.com/ links/biorhythm-life-cycles.html

http://www.dithered.com/attic/crackpot/kosmo_link.html

http://www.fluctuations.org/cgi-bin/ ASATeFboard.cgi?print+200004/00040001.txt

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tomes.txt

http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/permaculture/ mailarchives/permanet.1/msg00193.html

http://rgrace.org/99/99FFFelectrons.html

http://www.geocities.com/fsmn_nz/RayTomes_WSM.html

http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/ archives/1996.07/msg00007.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/ t-14385_Harmonics_of_the_Universe.html

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/enigma/issue9/natural.html

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wsm/FSMN_WSM_RT.pdf

http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/add.htm

http://www.keelynet.com/urls/url.htm

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/File043.html

http://www.geocities.com/fsmn_nz/RayTomes_Rhythms.html

http://www.sturmsoft.com/other_thinkers.htm

http://www.padrak.com/ine/UNIVCONF97.html

http://www.aw-verlag.ch/LinksREezE.htm

http://www.theos-world.com/archives/html/tw199812.html

http://www.lermus.ru/users/trunaev/personal.htm

http://saturn.vcu.edu/~chenry/Jerry%20Iuliano.htm

http://www.crank.net/science.html

http://www.news2mail.com/sci/geo/geology_messages.html

http://top-astrology.info/astrology-harmonic-physics.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/cycle-studies

http://www.poeticmyth.org.uk/Metempsychosis.html

http://www.globalspec.com/definition/ Aerospace/A/anomalistic_years

http://n-mobile6.1.guidesoftware.biz/422.html

http://www.spectrumology.com/Site/

http://mathforum.org/epigone/sci.math.num-analysis/whalnygu

http://mailgate.supereva.it/sci/sci.econ/msg303646.html

http://pub79.ezboard.com/fsis60378frm2. showMessage?topicID=16.topic

http://foopq.isa-geek.net/LudwigPlutonium/File043.html

http://www.hnn.us/comments/8112.html

http://www.wordiq.com/web/ Foundation+for+the+Study+of+Cycles.html

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2138

http://www.globalnews.it/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article& group=sci.physics&item=64571

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/File036.html

http://www.theos-world.com/archives/issues.html

http://www.2013.net/base/pioneer01c.php?PROJECTSEL=Other

http://www.vested-tyme.net/KEELYNET/ENERGY/TOMESUFT.HTM

http://www.xbkchat.com/xbkforum/viewtopic. php?p=1855&sid=e949fdc074dc24177672b62f9eaf2f78

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5710

http://support.biga.ru/zone-x/team/resource/ library/sites/www.fusionanomaly.net/harmonics.html

http://www.icybermusic.com/cymatics.html

http://www.wordiq.com/web/ foundation+for+the+study+of+cycles.html

http://mathquest.com/discuss/sci.math/a/m/121615/121615

Keep. User:PRF Brown The Harmonics Theory has its place in an encyclopaedic work of this nature. Mathematically, it is supported by the theory associated with the number of ordered factorizations of natural numbers. See specifically the Integer "core" sequence number A074206. Here is an independent page which provides a structural environment for the HT:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/harmonics.htm

Additionally, I have independently confirmed some of the computational analysis upon which the exposition of the HT rests, and the results of this independent computational analysis is here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/harmonics_01.htm

- - Note: User:PRF Brown's second and third edits. --Carnildo 19:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

To Omegatron:

Thank you for your efforst so far. If it is deleted that is all a waste. With regard to links try google with "harmonics theory" or click link below http://www.google.com/search?q=%22harmonics+theory%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Altogether 1490 links. Four of the early ones are my pages. About half the first 100 are references to my site (old site or new site). If I have to I will make a list of sites, but the amount of disinformation is getting so great that it is hard to keep up with.

To Gaspacho:

Your claim is so full of errors that it is hard to know where to start. Obviously written by a person who takes no care with facts at all.

Statement:"... an unpublished theory ..." Wrong. It has been published a number of times: 1. In proceedings of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles 1989 (or 1990?) 2. In cycles conference proceedings 1996 Stavorapol Russia 3. In Conference proceedings 1997 supported by Apeiron Journal

Statement: "controversional claims answered with "I, Ray Tomes, say so."" Wrong: That was an answer to "who says so" and so is factually correct.

Statement: "Some users have been trying to fix it" Wrong: Several people have been involved in a sensible discussion on the paper and have politely discussed relevant issues such as to whether there are many links to my site (tes, very many) and such issues as well as how best to present the material and asking for validation of claims. This has all been very reasonable, but actually no-one has made any changes to the article other than an odd word. However your comment comes out of total ignorance and you didn't bother to try and get a single fact right in what you wrote.

To Christopher Thomas:

I appreciate your efforts which are very different to Gaspacho's. However the sandbox version actually has a very large number of factual errors in it. There is no point going in to them at the moment. However it the outcome is to use that as a basis it needs a lot of work first.

When I quoted the number of external references I originally said about 100. Then I found a much larger number (~1490) to "harmonics theory" and almost half of the first 100 were to my stuff. I didn't check out the rest.

I would also mention that I have been a keynote speaker at a cycles conference in Russia with about 500 people present. People do not get invited to do such things if they are not held in high regard by their peers. For people that know nothing about cycles to vote for deletion because they don't understand something will turn wikipedia into a mini-notebook. (The last comment is not aimed at you Christopher).

More later. Ray Tomes 08:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the original research to see what that was about. It stated: "... that have not been published in a reputable publication ..." and as Gaspacho misinformed everyone by stating that it was unpublished, all the people that voted on the basis of this "original research" aspect have been misinformed. I request that they reconsider their votes.

I have sitting in front of me the 1989 Annual Conference proceedings of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, a reputable publisher until its demise in the late 1990s. I have found a book source on the net that sold this very article, but alas have lost the link. Ray Tomes 09:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Firstly i should say that I have known Ray Tomes (on the internet) for past 7 years and I have found him to be a polite and genuine 'alternative' theorist with interesting ideas. I do not agree with everything he writes, but think that Harmonics is an important subject that should be investigated and published on Wikipedia. However, my problem with the Harmonics Theory is that harmonic decay is an empirical thing (applies to matter interactions) and I am not sure that you can apply it to Cosmology / Space the way that Ray does. i.e. That there was originally One wave that started our Universe and Harmonically decayed to form various wave frequencies and structures of our current world / universe.

Further, as i understand harmonics (which is a bit limited) harmonic decay can only occur in closed / bound systems, and from my understanding of Metaphysics (which is much more substantial) and the underlying dynamic unity of reality, I am inclined to the view that Space (assuming it is the One thing that exists) must be infinite, eternal, and continuous. Thus as I see things Harmonics would not form in the way Ray has proposed from one Wave (which i cannot even imagine in Infinite Space).

My thoughts are that the Harmonics Theory should be more cautious with its claims in area of Cosmology, and develop the harmonics theory based on matter interactions first, then over time the more speculative (can't empirically verify) work on Cosmology could be added as future areas to research.

This is my rambling few cents worth on why i think the article deserves to be kept, but should be cleaned up to have the more speculative areas removed. Haselhurst 10:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Geoff, it matters not whether someone thinks the universe is finite or infinite because we simply do not know. This is equally true in big bang theory. However even in a large space waves form with characteristic lengths that have nothing to do with the size of the container. In the ocean, waves form according to wind speed supposedly - but a funny thing is that certain wave periodicities around 13 seconds are extremely common and have nothing to do with the ocean sizes. Therefore there may be "characteristic" wave sizes even if the universe is infinite.

Harmonic production is purely a result of non-linearity. GR is acknowledged as a non-linear system. It is inconceivable that waves in GR would not form harmonics over a long time period. The results of harmonics theory are substantial at large scales in the universe and it is the only theory that explains why structures form at the distance ratios actually found between hubble scale, galaxies, stars etc Ray Tomes 11:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to remind the new posters about Wikipedia's view on Wikipedia:Sock puppets. Votes considered by the admins to be likely to be "sock puppets" are substantially derated in weight, if I understand correctly. --Christopher Thomas 21:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are not illegal, but voting with them is (for obvious reasons). - Omegatron 22:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am guessing that sockpuppets means extra logins which could be used to cheat. I just want to say that it isn't me and I do not know who Doctor North is. The only action that I have taken regarding this vote for deletion is to send a message to the cyclesi yahoo group and a few friends who have some understanding of what harmonics theory means. Some of them were already active in wiki. Ray Tomes 03:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using a sockpuppet is when a user makes additional logins for some purpose. Drive-by voting, which is what appears to be happening here, is when a user invites non-wikipedian friends to come by and vote. Both are strongly discouraged. --Carnildo 04:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did invite people that are knowledgable in the subject, not just people to say yes, but to say what they thought. One of these actually made some criticism. AFAIK no-one from the cyclesi group has actually voted. Of the 4 internet friends, one was the original poster of the article and all the others were previous wiki contributers. So I hope that this does not breech any rules. It seems to me to be useful to have at least a couple of people with knowledge of cycles (which is what it is about) contribute, but in fact it seems that will not be the case. Ray Tomes 04:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

related articles[edit]