Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelastration

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Pelastration.

The result of the debate was to delete the page.


 * Pelastration - idiosyncratic, possible self-promotion?
 * Pseudoscience, delete. silsor 22:49, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * you should first look into the new concept before you call this pseudo. I offer a new unification mechanism that explains for example the spacetime dynamics that bring QM packages. I offer a strong and bulletproof engineering mechanism as an alternative to uncertainty. On holons: for the first time someone develops a "real" concept on the CREATION of holons and you want to delete it. That's really scientific inquisition. Why not delete every thread on holons? If you judge it self-promoting tell me which parts and let's discuss what to delete.User:Mu6
 * Mu6, until this theory is accepted by other scientists, it CANNOT be in Wikipedia. delete -- Tarquin 19:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Tarquin, can you tell me about Einstein's deformations of spacetime? Can you tell me about the difference between closed and open-end strings ... and explain me WHY gravity is not embedded into a open-end strings. It should. I offer a real - ONE postulate - unification system. Have you checked my website? Do you judge without checking? You call yourself a scientist? Then you check it. http://www.mu6.com . Then tell me about my illogic. You just voted for ignorance. About acceptance by other scientists ... how much ... before it is truth or accepted? I wrote about 150 patents and I am only interested in reality. Some of my creation sold more then 150 million pieces. How much creations you have made? If you consider yourself being a real scientist, don't act with prejudice and ... go and check that website! ;-) User:Mu6
 * That's a bit rich, a qualified political scientist trying to pull rank on Tarquin over physics. Check out Mu6's understanding of superstring theory, displayed here. He points out the fatal problems with string theory: "Have you ever heard the 'sound' of an un-connected violin string? I mean a string that is NOT connected to the wooden violin body? No sound, nor vibration at all! But in string theory that's a basic way it goes." -- Tim Starling 14:12, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research. "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge." -- Infrogmation 20:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Infrogmation, kill me and be proud. What I did is no longer research. It's a one postulate concept. It's done. It's in the public domain. A growing number of people judge it very important, also some people in microtubulines in brains. Also some famous Buddhist very closed to the Dalai Lama are very intrigued about my new approach. You tell me what consciousness is? Explain me. If you can't - or need QM HUP - I understand that ignorance is important to you. You want to ban me from WIKI? OK ... Wiki is not the world. But to show the 'Quality' of Wiki ... just check holon.  ;-) The football teams of Holon city are REAL science ... . Whaaawwww. If that is what you want on Wiki ... then just go for it.
 * Delete. And take the argument to talk page, not here. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete one mans ideas not science YET Archivist 22:27, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Mu6: Does this theory allow one to make any testable predictions that other theories do not? Have any articles about it been published in peer-reviewed journals? In what way does the theory relate physical measurements to one another, or explain them? What can you do with it? Tualha 23:13, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. It also seems that mu6 is the originator of this idea, if this is his website http://www.mu6.com/reincarnation.html .--Maximus Rex 23:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Tualha, (1) testable predictions. There are. I put a (non-public) webpage: http://www.mu6.com/prediction.html about the non-spherical orbits of electrons. That's an anomaly. It show that something special is going on. Nobody really explains. My approach may give a solution. For the rest my approach confirms everything that is realized by experiments in Standard Model. On the level of String/M-brane theory is confirms that all is just vibration but I throw out all illogic. Strings are just little tubes produced by the membrane which then couple to new units. Then you get QM packages. Linde will call them monopoles, some will call them islands, and other will call them condensates (BEC). But these are all other names for the same. It are building-ups of the spacetime membrane. So Bohm's implicate order is explained but also QM and GR (General Relativity). It's essentially the same concept. Another prediction is that Voyager 2 and 1 will stop somewhere. They are not photo particles but earthly bound matter, and the Voyagers are not powered anymore. Another prediction would be the Alain Aspect tests on slides. The emission of photons or electrons is ruled by the moment of transmission. There is no something like photon with a free will or 'knowing' something from the other. They are just 'made' at the same moment and governed by the same gravitational field. No magic at all.
 * (2) No peer reviews. My interest in this field is no business related, neither making promotion into the scientific world. I am in other business. My major job is inventing puzzles but also solving puzzles, and the universal interconnectivity is one of them. I know the logic is bulletproof. If I would have the material of such unbreakable membrane I can build a universe myself ... and you could also!
 * (3) In what way does the theory relate physical measurements to one another, or explain them? Don't know if I understand well. Measurements are relative since the total system is continuously in motion. When we measure - in our degree of reality - it is correct. Reality exists between the actors which have the same level of resonance. The importance of my approach is that "gravity" is finally explained in a simple way. Gravity is the expression of the stretchability of the spacetime membrane. Till now people said: an object creates gravity! That is of course wrong. Gravity is an embedded property of an object. An object is restructured spacetime membrane and thus when we measure a relationship between two object it is the spacetime layer between them that is deformed (in Einstein's expression).
 * (4) What can you do with it? I can do a few things with it: explain LIFE, explain CONSCIOUSNESS, explain GRAVITY ... solving an essential problem in phylosophie (Nothing becomes locally someting), explain the creation of holons ... but of course everybody can do that ... as leading String theorists say: ... in 50 years!

Mu6, please see What Wikipedia is not, point 10, which says:
 * "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge." -- The Anome 00:21, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anome do you mean that all items in Wiki passed the peer-review filters and censors? ;-)


 * It means that we only report on scientific ideas that have been in such journals. Evercat 00:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank your Evercat. In that case you will have to delete my entry. Heil to the ignorance! Heil to the majority. Heil to the mediocrity. It becomes clear to me that Wiki is not a reflection of what is living in knowledge ... but what have been confirmed by the guru's.


 * That's correct. Evercat 00:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Note that we can now invoke Godwin's law, and declare this thread closed. -- Karada 00:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I've not seen any mention of Hitler or the Nazis... Evercat 00:57, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Mu6's use of "Heil" seems to be just such a reference. Karada


 * Maybe. Mu6's English seems pretty idiosyncratic to me too, he (she?) may not have meant it as a Hitler reference. Tualha 01:26, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An example of Wiki's quality, please enjoy:

""Holon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[edit] Holon is a city in Israel, on the central coastal strip, just south of Tel Aviv, and part of the metropolis known as Gush Dan. It has about 200,000 residents. Holon has the second biggest industrial zone in Israel after Haifa. The city hosts about half of the Samaritan community.

Mayors of Holon since its proclamation as a city in 1950:

Dr. Haim Kugel 1950-1953 Pinhas Eylon 1953-1987 Haim Sharon 1987-1988 Moshe Rom 1988-1993 Motti Sasson 1993-?

Holon's leading basketball club, Hapoel, returned to the National League (2nd Division) after dropping down two leagues in the two preceding seasons, from Ligat HaAl (Superleague) to the State League (3rd Division).

Holon's leading soccer club, Zafririm, has been roaming between Ligat HaAl (Superleague) and the National League (2nd Division) since 1990.

Holon used to host the annual Storytellers Festival, now held in Givatayim. It also hosts the Yeme Zemer (days of singing) festival annually."


 * Is the above inaccurate in any way? Evercat 01:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Mu6 also selectively fails to cite the line at the bottom saying "for the philosophical concept, please see holons", which points to the appropriate article. -- Karada 01:04, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That must be a cache problem on my computer Karada. On the history page of Holon you will see that I ADDED the link to holons, but that was afterwards deleted by someone. So I tried to INFORM the visitors in a correct way.

But the real scientific revelance of holons is surely expressed by: (quote): Holon's leading basketball club, Hapoel, returned to the National League (2nd Division) after dropping down two leagues in the two preceding seasons, from Ligat HaAl (Superleague) to the State League (3rd Division).


 * Uh, hello *waves arms* - that article is about a city. Evercat 01:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And HOLON is also a term in conceptual thinking about organizations and holism. Therefor I added a link to "holons". Someone deleted that and afterwards adapted my link. That's OK to me. That wasn't self-promoting. That was just an important informative link.


 * We probably should disambig those somehow, and change Holons to the singular. After this is settled, preferably, and it can be done in a stable fashion, so to speak. I note that Holons does have google hits, and the concept seems to exist outside of Mu6's theory. Tualha 01:31, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's your baby, Tualha. Do the things you have to do. The holistic idea started about 80 years ago in South-Africa by a general called Jan Smuts. It was just an idea about interconnectivity. Later it was developed to holons as containing previous information. But till today ... there is NO concept behind. No mechanical design. That's what I offer. And it's not just a free idea ... it can be build in reality. More ... it is holistic reality. And that is a concept that goes more deeper and father then Wheeler, Smolin, Witten, Penrose, etc. I show it with logic and images. Pure logic. One postulate. QM has 20 or more, String has 20 or more ... to explain ... we don't know. I need only one ... and offering you what Uncle Albert was looking for. And ... you don't understand ... and refer to guru's like Wheeler, Smolin, Witten and Penrose. This is amazing to me ... you guys don't use your own independent thinking. Don't trust your own logic. Mama .. can I have a candy? Papa ... can I sing my song? Jezus ... become adult!


 * Actually, I do trust my own logic, and I can recognise nonsense when I see it. Evercat 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So Evercat you checked my website? Where is the non-sense? Please explain. If you don't explain to me ... that will show that you (1) didn't check my website or (2) you don't have arguments. So tell me about the non-sense, and maybe tell me also what gravity is, and what consciousness is and how life started. I am sure you figured out all these answers already. Probably the answer is God or G-d.


 * I'm an atheist. But this is a fine example of nonsense:


 * By the mechanism of Pelastration Spirit and Body are coupled to each other in a new human pellon (pellon: a new 'island' that is a new manifestation of coupled previous hyperspaces).


 * Evercat 02:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Evercat, at least I know you checked my site. 10 point extra! When spacetime couples the orientation of what tube is active or passive will be essential on the number of layers that will incorporated. That seems against common sense but just looking to the images will show you that. The difference between matter and energy is just a difference in density (the number of layers of spacetime membrane). The more layers ... the more mass a holon gets. The more layers a holon gets the less flexible. Mental taugths are just holons of different - less dense - structure. There is a general conservation of energy, and they are also vibration. The idea of hyperspaces is a general accepted approach (cfr. Michio Kaku).

Sigh. Delete. Don't bother arguing with me, Mu6, I'm not reading any more of this garbage. Tualha 03:34, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Evercat, maybe you can take a look to the webpage with numbers ( http://www.mu6.com/numbers.html ) which can lead to new encryption software and AI, and paradoxes (http://www.mu6.com/paradox.html ). There you can see what I am talking about. Mu6

I rewrote the entire article in encyclopedic style. The previous material was mostly an adverstisement and self-promotion. Optim 04:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- Thanks Optim. I really appreciate the time you spent. Indeed it looks now less self-promoting. There is only once a small failure in my name when written Leureyssens. I will correct that.
 * oops:) corrected. please sign your posts on this page so that we can know who's talking. if you are about to make any changes in the article, please write only in encyclopedic style (neutral point of view, no self-promotion, just give information to the reader). Optim 05:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've no objection to keeping this article. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or understand it. There are enough cautions on the face of the article, to express that the concept is far removed from mainstream science so that the unsuspecting public won't be deceived. Pelastration may very well be an ephemeral idea, but what should be recognized is that it is a part of the historical record. &#9774; Eclecticology 11:10, 2003 Dec 21 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with what you say. Optim 11:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * For your information: When I say DELETE, KEEP, NEUTRAL, NO VOTE it is a formal vote. When I say anything different, it is only my personal OPINION and should not be perceived as a formal vote. I was agreeing with the statements "I've no objection to keeping this article.", which, for me, is opinion and does not account as a formal vote (maybe I use the words in a special way, but that's how I work). I should have said no vote or neutral in this instance (I forgot). My formal vote is: NEUTRAL (feel free to delete it or keep it, I support the quick resolution of the argument and I want everyone to be happy in the end, whatever the solution is) Optim 17:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Totally disagree. It's a one-person theory, and the only information about it is that person's own website. -- Tarquin 11:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm voting to delete, it seems to be in clear violation of our policies against idiosyncratic ideas and original research. We include crackpot theories in the proper context only if they are sufficiently well known. -- Tim Starling 14:12, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not only is this (qualifier left to the imagination) theory not well known, but even on USENET newsgroups, no-one has bitten on his pathetic attempts to get someone to bite... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:13, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. See this email from Jimbo and also No original research. -- Tarquin 14:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mu6: Regarding Pelastration, I am just informing you that you can post your theory at www.internet-encyclopedia.org or www.everything2.com. Internet-Encyclopedia is very similar to Wikipedia but with different policy, and Everything2 is a discussion board or encyclopedia with lots of freedom. I have checked Internet Encyclopedia's policy and I think your theory will be welcomed there if written in a more or less encyclopedic style (you can copy-paste the current version or any older version of Pelastration and edit it as you like, as it is under the GNU Free Documentation License). By the way, there is a great magazine specialized in alternative science and similar areas such as parapsychology, named Nexus, its website is at www.nexusmagazine.com, and maybe you can publish your theory there. Another website that may like to include your theory is www.kheper.net. As you see, there are still users who vote to delete the article, so it may be eventually deleted. Peace Profound. Optim 16:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Some texts or essays on some topics relevant to this discussion may be published for public review at my user page until the end of the month. maybe the participants of this discussion may find them interesting. Optim 16:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * For your information my formal vote about the Pelastration is: NEUTRAL. (feel free to delete it or keep it, I support the quick resolution of the argument and I want everyone to be happy in the end, whatever the solution is). Optim 17:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I realise that it's frustrating to cope with deletionist prejudices. The idea appears to be nonsense, though I'm not in a position to fairly evaluate it. That being said it's difficult to understand why the proponents of scientific purity approach these subjects with such paranoia that every trace of these subjects must be throroughly censored. These ephemeral topics are a part of the social history of science, idiosyncratic as they may be. That, and not the theoretical specifics being promoted is what makes them valuable. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:12, 2003 Dec 21 (UTC)


 * I used to argue the same thing, once upon a time. But policy is policy -- it's a pre-prepared consensus which allows us to make decisions without endlessly bickering about each case. I suggest you take your anti-deletionist campaign to meta and the Wikipedia namespace, rather than harassing people who attempt to apply the policy on a day-to-day basis. -- Tim Starling 01:56, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

From What Wikipedia is not: This article appears to violate both these points, so - delete. Angela. 23:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Personal essays, that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. We're reporting on what is in the canon of human knowledge; unless you're unusual, your idiosyncratic opinions aren't part of this canon. See Wikipedia:No original research.
 * Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge.

Thanks you all for spending your time here. Special thanks to you Optim for the good advise and your reactions. I want to point although something that you maybe have not noticed, which is that "pelastration" is a physic mechanism that is NEVER described in science. The mechanism is never described in Topology, you can check 'CAPS' which the most resembling topological concept. The mechanism is never described in mathematics. You don't have to be a rocket-engineer to see that. So some 'deletionists' on Wiki will delete a new development in science, a new entry in the canon of human knowledge.Mu6


 * Yes, I'm afraid Wikipedia often deletes new entries in the canon of human knowledge. That's because Wikipedia isn't intended as a primary knowledge source, it's just a rehash of other sources. You need to publish your theory. To do this, you should probably start by writing about a small part of your theory in a bit more depth. I found your website to be very shallow, dealing a huge number of issues, but with each issue only very briefly. Producing a mathematical model for the proposed effect in the simplest case and comparing it to known experimental and theoretical results would probably be a good start. -- Tim Starling 01:56, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)