User talk:Qxfard

Regarding new article Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity
Hi there, there's a discussion going on over here about whether it would be best to merge the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article into Modified Newtonian dynamics. Please drop by to let us know your thoughts. Regards. Gaba (talk)  02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Perhaps the MOND article needs a revision too. MOND is how Newtonian dynamics is modified. The conceptual problems of the MOND approach is to be highlighted. The experimental tests on the validity of Newtonian Dynamics in small acceleration should be added.

It should be clearly highlighted that another approach is to change the dynamics of gravity. A connection to the various covariant modified gravities (defined as theories of metrics, connection in the Riemannian manifold) is needed. The problems of these theories should be concisely addressed. Within this section it should be highlighted that MONDian gravity can be introduced by adding extra degrees of freedom (degrees in addition to the metric). The simplest one is the extension of Newtonian gravity (as partially covered in article). This approach implies introducing an scalar. Scalar-Tensor gravities can not describe gravitational lensing. So a vector is to be added to. This makes the Scalar-Vector-Tensor gravity. No body has ever told us that the MOND behavior should be due to an scalar. It should than be added we can add gauge vectors instead of scalar and make the theory covariant.

Every thing depends on how much you decide to extend and correct the MOND article.


 * The issue is whether the topic of the new article you created is notable enough to warrant its own article. Given that currently it is referenced only to one scientific paper (my guess would be this is your own paper) it appears it is not and so it would be better placed as a section of the main MOND article until (if) it gets to be notable enough. If there are isues with MOND, they need to be addressed separately. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please pay attention that the subject passes the main verifiable evidence of wikipedia, as stated in  notable enough. The subject is covered in a recognized peer reviewed publication. The subject clearly is not referring to a self-published concept. Why should Wikipedia   insist that a scientific theory, as accepted by a recognized peer publication, should not be promptly covered? Why do you insist that public or general interested reader should not have first-handed  access to the new theories or understanding accepted by the scientific community?

Lets make the stream of science more accessible to the general public. This is the soul and the aim of the Wikipedia as I currently perceive it.


 * Ok, a few comments.
 * I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, I'm saying it should perhaps be merged as a section in MOND given that it appears to be not notable enough to warrant its own article. A single publication in a scientific journal (even one as prestigious as JCAP) is not enough to assign notability to an issue.
 * Your user name points to you being the author of the paper in JCAP on which the article is based. If this is the case then first of all let me take off my hat to you, your list of publications is impressive. Second (and this is in no way a threat so please do not take it the wrong way) you should give WP:COI a read.
 * Please make sure to always sign your comments with 4 ~ signs at the end like so: ~ . That way Wikipedia automatically adds your signature to your comment.
 * I'll invite some other editors to comment on this issue. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (I'm here because of the request at WT:WikiProject Astronomy.) A single peer-reviewed paper by a single author does not establish the "significant coverage" required for notability; see the general notability guideline. The published paper is clearly a reliable source sufficient as a citation in another article, but Wikipedia's undue weight policy also applies. I wouldn't object to keeping Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity as a redirect to the MOND article, though. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 23:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573300928 your edit] to Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * { L}(x) = \left\
 * l \tilde{l}\,.