Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Natural Relativity

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

The result of the discussion was delete. To make the reason clear, the relevant Wikipedia policy which means that this material is not acceptable, and will not become acceptable by rewriting, is No original research, which includes: "'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.'"

I have also deleted the sandbox copy. After this debate, there is no reason to maintain a copy under another title. if you need a copy, I will be happy to email one on request. JohnCD (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Natural Relativity


This is a crackpot theory that seems to be purely original research. It has no chance of ever getting accepted, and it's just serving as a waste of reviewers' time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 1. None of the reasons for deletion are valid. I am forced to conclude that no one has read even the first few lines of the article, which contains the reference to the original published paper. Therefore, 'OR' is not valid. 2. My request was for assistance in getting it into a form suitable for publication in Wikipedia, not for useless incorrect criticisms. 3. Huon asks 'says who?' twice. 'Who' is the published paper, properly referenced, in both cases, so 'OR' is not valid. 4. Huon again calls it 'OR', which I reject for the same reason as above. Also, there is no issue with G/g. Einstein's (and NR) relativity factors for the dimensions of G produce a total factor of gamma squared for a change in altitude, and so says the original paper, and a variable value of G means G is not a universal constant, and so says my article and the original paper. By "current scientific knowledge" (correct me if I am wrong) you are probably referring to a different theory, and that is totally invalid criticism. Different theories are expected to differ. Only violations of the laws of physics are valid criticisms. NR was built from the laws of physics, not from postulations (as were Einstein's papers). 5. Jackmcbarn's comments read like a devoted Einstein disciple, ignoring all undesirable facts, making statements designed to influence others to  kill the opposition as quickly as possible. My comments numbered 1, 2 and the last part of 4 above are particularly applicable. He claims to be an expert physicist with deep knowledge of relativity, but doesn't even obey the basic rules of criticism. Only violations of the laws of physics are valid criticisms. Presumably he means he is an expert on Einstein's crackpot theories. Even Einstein doubted his own work. Like Einstein, he doesn't seem to know what a law of physics is. This is explained in the original paper and in my article. Some examples of non-laws follow: the Lorentz-Einstein transformations are not laws, nor is gamma =(1-v2/c2)-1/2, nor is E=mc2. If you have read and understood the paper or my article you will know the reasons why. 6. I have been working on my article for many weeks. It is scientifically rock solid, but needs a lot of work to get it into shape as a Wikipedia article, which is what I asked for. What I got was being called a crackpot and given useless invalid, unfounded, criticisms. Please try to do better.(talk)Relativityman (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC) All the 'delete' entries above seem to refer to the previous versions, which, like the 'lost' version, I expected to be for discussion, not for killing. Please lose that Kill attitude. I still hope to produce an acceptable article. Relativityman (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely OR. Seems like a lab report to me. ///Euro Car  GT  20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note. User:FireflySixtySeven, you may be interested as you rejected this page for submission.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is Wikipedia a scientific journal. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. User:Huon has explained to the author here and here why this draft cannot be accepted. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply from relativityman to all editors opting for deletion:
 * A new version of this article was submitted on 23 July, but does not seem to have reached the eyes of the interested editors. Clearly I am having difficulties in the use of the Wikipedia system. Where did the 'resubmit' button send it? (A copy is now in my sandbox).


 * Delete, we're not the place for fringe theories. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and a single paper cited by nobody except its author, published in a low-impact journal, is not enough to label Einstein a crackpot and contradict widely-accepted theories. Huon (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And this holds for the new draft as well, which shares all the old draft's problems. Huon (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.