Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrestrial Based Relativity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrestrial Based Relativity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to have been written by the person who devised the theory, and links only to a website with his presentation of the theory. It does not appear to have been published or discussed in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and receives only a handful of mentions on blogs or websites . Does not satisfy the basic requirement of notability by having substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is not a forum for initial presentation of new scientific theories. Edison (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a verifiable theory, outdating Special Relativity. As well eliminating Special Relativity's Twins Paradox.  It is in the interest of sharing new information on the subject that it was submitted.  If someone can verify that it is incorrect, then it should be edited or deleted.  Special Relativity is only assumed to be 100% correct and is still debatable.  TBR does debate the validity of Special Relativity.  I say let the article stand and see what experts think of the actual theory, before deciding to delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  Nothing must be included in Wikipedia that has not been peer reviewed, fact checked, published, and acknowledged outside of Wikipedia first.  Your article should be deleted from Wikipedia. The places for publishing novel theories in physics, and peer reviewing them, are physics journals.  Please use them.  This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  Please go elsewhere to publish your novel theories to the world.  This is not the place.  Uncle G (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Theory is at http://www.fourthway.us/Relativity.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research and cannot be verified. There is no publication of such theory in any academic journals. Dekisugi (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments by Dekisugi. Mh29255 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, even if it it true and correct. Such matters should be published in primary or seocndary sources first. Also, there is a substantial problem with WP:COI - the author of the paper on line is also debating keeping the article he wrote here at WP. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Publication in an academic journal would not be necessary but the article does not mention anything else than a single website. I know about a Czech author who claims he found alternative to Special TR and published two books about it. The TTB theory doesn't have any such coverage. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this very onesided discussion actually comprehends the theory. It is verifiable by the Haffle and Keating experiment results. Discoveries are documented in Wikipedia. If TBR is valid, it is a discovery. IMO, there is no one yet in this conversation qualified to prove or disprove it's validity or significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In wikipedia you have to abide by wikipedia rule, and inclusion of article is strictly followed in care of notability. Original research are not allowed here. The theory may be true, but the matter is of notability. Provide references by which its notability can be established.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Sorry, Steve. We're not professors or scientists. We're just a bunch of editors who like to share reliable knowledge for everybody. We're not interested in the theory itself, whether it is correct or has some flaws. If you are a scientist who developed this theory, then you'd probably known yourself that this is not the correct media to publish it. Dekisugi (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: with millions of articles Wikipedia needs to follow rules to keep the boat afloat. Every topic should obtain enough of real-world significance first, at least that's the ideal. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Real world significance? One point of TBR is that there is no linear motion in the Universe [motion in a straight line]. It literally cannot be accomplished. Even in drawing a line with a ruler, the earth has turned, and revolved around the sun. You have drawn an arc. This and other significant points in the theory lead to the logic of the true nature of motion, force, time dilation, etc. If it is correct showing Special Relativity to be less than fully descriptive or correct, we should keep the faulty theory link here and delete the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: ...but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Dekisugi (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears we've come to a relatively strong consensus to Delete. I'm having a hard time coming up with a test on which it DOESN'T fail.  I'll be surprised if it lasts the hour.  Ψν Psinu 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since no one seems to have mentioned WP:FRINGE, allow me to be first to say that it doesn't contain enough independent source material to meet that criterion. Accounting4Taste: talk 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says "help wikipedia change the world." New information does just that.Steve D. Gage (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if you look at it more closely, they're implying that money does that, a far more accurate assertion. Also, since you're a Man of Science, by now you should have realized that you're pushing against the limits of the Sixth Law of Wikidynamics: "The strength of the protest of the originator against an AfD is inversely proportional to the merit of the item." Consider yourself advised. Ψν Psinu 11:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per most delete recommendations above. I don't want Wikipedia to try to change the world if that would mean ignoring our policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, original research, or conflict of interest. If TBR achieves some level of acceptance by the scientific community, it can have a Wikipedia article at that time. On the other hand, if the scientific community actively denounces TBR (not just ignores it -- but rejects it in a well-publicized manner), that would also justify having an article about TBR, since it would then be a notable fringe theory. Right now, all we know about TBR's level of acceptance is that the creator of the theory published it on his own web site. That's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as just another crackpot theory whose creator exemplifies on his webpage his lack of understanding of Einstein's relativity (and non-notable, improperly sourced, etc). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.