Talk:Wolfgang Smith

Notability
This article properly describes the contributions this person has made to scientific research and why he is eligible for an entry in Wikipedia. It also now has a bibliography for anyone to verify the content of the article. -- Wolfgang84 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one minds, I guess I'll be "assuming" this page and doing many edits to it in the following days, as I'm studying some of Wolfgang Smith's articles. I've already done a first cleanup, with some rewriting and sectioning, adding many internal links and a few external ones. These are to some of Smith's articles on topology at the TAMS journal, what I believe fulfills the notability requirement. That's also why I removed said box. Once I'm (somewhat) finished I'll also remove the cleanup box.
 * PS.: I've also added a pseudo-signature to the above user's comment, as it hadn't one. -- alexgieg (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't change anything, but I am baffled by the last statement under philosophy, regarding his being an opponent of heliocentrism. Either that comment is simply BS, or some elaboration is required. Surely he does not think the Earth does not revolve around the sun. Can some one verify why that last comment was added? - tamaskee@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.186.162 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the statement anymore, so it was probably removed by someone as baffled as you, but it was actually 100% right, and there's nothing wrong about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.43.5 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Smith is NOT a 'geocentrist', or at least not in the traditional sense. What he argues in the paper he wrote (which is much deeper than the short abstract given) is that Geocentrism and Heliocentrism have both merits since they depend on the point of view of the observer, following Galilean and Einstenian relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.49.94.244 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the book "Science and Myth", Wolfgang Smith uses a fallacious argument in which he asserts peremptorily that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) attested that the Earth did not move and was stationary. This is obviously not true, as the experiment was carried out with the purpose of detecting the existence of the luminiferous aether by varying the speed of light in a laser interferometer, something that did not occur in the experiment. TiagoMoraes1409 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Tag
This article seems long enough now, perhaps its time to remove the tag at the top. I will take the liberty. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Physicist?
The article describes Smith as a "physicist" (among other things), but all the works listed are published in philosophy journals. I'm open to be proven wrong, of course. Otherwise, we should remove that description. Unparticle (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section on his philosophy uses a lot of jargon to explain what it is he believes. Some simplification may be helpful for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1005:2B6:305A:E3E8:9C:53E7 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)