Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article promoting the author's views on how to tackle the Twin paradox and other issues in Relativity. The only ghits are to pages or comments posted by the author, nothing in google scholar. The references supplied don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources andy (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (my response to Andy Smith:)


 * You wrote: "References don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources".


 * My CADO article is a description of the material in reference 1. It was published in a refereed physics journal, more than ten years ago. Although the exact phrase "CADO frame" may or may not appear anywhere in that published paper, the phrase "CADO" is used pervasively, and there is no doubt that the definitions and results specify a frame of reference for an accelerating observer.


 * The CADO reference frame fills an important need: as far as I know, it is the only published definition of a reference frame that is consistent both with Taylor and Wheeler's results, in Example 49 of their SPACETIME PHYSICS book, and with the "gravitational time dilation" frame described on the "Twin paradox" Wiki page, both of which are widely accepted. Taylor and Wheeler use the same MSIRF concept, to define a frame for the traveleing twin, that I use (although they use different terms to describe it). But their analysis only addressed the idealized case of an instantaneous turnaround. The CADO frame extends their approach to any and all acceleration profiles, and such a generalization was needed and is important.


 * There have been other published reference frames defined for an accelerating observer, which, like the CADO frame, don't rely on fictitious gravitational fields, but (as far as I know) they are not consistent with Taylor and Wheeler's results, nor with the gravitational time dilation results. Michael Fontenot (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure original research. &mdash; RHaworth 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (my response to RHaworth):
 * In Wiki's description of the term "original research", it says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." My article, and my reference [1], both conform to that requirement. And in Wiki's description of "reliable sources" it says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Again, my reference [1] meets that test. Michael Fontenot (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense - reference #1 was written by you! You can't be your own reliable source. Please provide direct quotes from the other sources to show that they either use the term "CADO frame" or that they directly support the article - i.e. that they echo the thesis of the article in clear and unequivocal terms that any well informed, independent and reasonable third party would count as direct support rather than your own interpretation of what they might mean. andy (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

(My response to Shuba and Smith):

In each of the three references (Dolby&Gull, Minguzzi, and Taylor&Wheeler) that I have cited, in the subsection "Reference frames without fictitious gravitational fields, for the accelerating twin" (which I have added to the "Twin Paradox" Wiki article), the authors explicitly provide their answer to the question: "How does the home-twin's age change, according to the traveler, as the traveler's trip proceeds?". Any rational person reading those references cannot fail to conclude that those authors' three answers are all different. It is absurd to contend that some additional published source is needed, in order to reliably come to that conclusion.

In the section preceding my added subsection, there is a reference cited (Einstein, 1918) which gives the "gravitational time dilation" determination of the traveler's viewpoint. That reference answers the above question with the same answer that Taylor&Wheeler give, although the approach used in Einstein-1918 to get that answer is quite different (fictitious gravitational fields are utilized).

My CADO reference (which I cited in the subsection I added to the "Twin Paradox" article) explicitly gives the same answer that both Taylor&Wheeler and Einstein-1918 got: all three of those references say that the home-twin's age will change abruptly during the traveler's abrupt turnaround.

Dolby&Gull, and Minguzzi, clearly do not get that answer: they say that the home-twin's age changes only gradually, over a prolonged period of the trip, even when the traveler's turnaround is instantaneous. But they disagree with one another about how that gradual "her age versus his age, according to him" curve is shaped.

Michael Fontenot (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (sigh) As I explained on your talk page Wikipedia is not a place for promoting your own views even if you are certain that they are correct. Who, apart from yourself, takes your point of view? Who, apart from yourself, believes that your paper, around which the article is based, is "part of accepted knowledge" per WP:NOTESSAY? Who, apart from yourself, cites your paper in a reliable secondary source? andy (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete For the mentioned reasons. MadCow257 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as pure original —although correct and valuable— research. Sorry, Mike. DVdm (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; looks like just the kind of thing the OR label was invented for. bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: the article's author has been indef blocked for edit warring on a related article. andy (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (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.