Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harold Aspden


 * Against Suppression of Science in Wikipedia 
 * Dear fellow editor, a biographical article has been added to Wikipedia about a physicist and electrical enginner born in 1928, with and outstanding academic backgound, with more scientific publications, patented free energy invents, and correct predictions of fundamental particles than any physicist alive today, known worldwide to the Physicists and Cosmologists community and hated by them.
 * Meanwhile, some known dogmatic editors, leaded by a fellow editor called ScienceApologist, responsible for promoting deletion of several sourced articles in Wikipedia which goes directly against his beliefs, are now keen to destruct the two major articles related to this 78 years old individual; these articles are Harold Aspden (see also Talk:Harold Aspden) and his most recent physics and cosmology book Creation: The Physical Truth.
 * Why are they so important? Please bear with us for a few lines, where we try to explain our point of view:
 * Did you know that the value measure of a great majority of quantum particles, that form the world we live in, where predicted by this old physicist decades ago, when no other scientific theory then as now can even dream to know how they work (e.g. the value of the proton-electron mass ratio' 10 years before it was measured, the value of the 'fine structure constant 13 years before, the existence of the 'electrostatic rotation about 40 years before, etc., etc.); and that the Nobel prize was even mentioned at one time:
 * "No doubt the theoretical attempts to calculate alpha will continue - possibly with a Nobel prize winning success. Aspden and Eagles obtained α-1 = 108π(8/1843)1/6." in The Fundamental Constants and the Frontier of Measurement by B. W. Petley of the National Physical Laboratory, UK... Do you know what happened to that prize?
 * Did you know that in 1977 the CERN found a fundamental particle with the mass of 2.60+-0.01 GeV/c2 (Physics Letters, 66B, 1977) and in 1982 it was found that there is 'the longest lived entry giving a fitted mass of 2583+-26 MeV/c2 (Prentice, Phys. Rep., 83, 102, 1982). And now you may now, that this particle, which misteriously is not recorded in the Particle Data Group, was of the two forms of the graviton predicted with the mass of 2587 MeV years before, in 1966, by this same old physicist giving the answer to the main unsolved issues of the current standard model of physics: what is gravitation and how does it work?
 * Did you know that the same Physics and Cosmology that this author, Harold Aspden has been advancing based upon algebraic equations and integral calculus, for more than 40 years and suppressed from the academic curricula all these long years, deciphers Nature's messages, as coded in the numerical values of the fundamental physical constants, introducing us to a whole new cosmological and physical concept of the universe and the physical world in which we live; that is, that there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the etheric, unseen ghost-like underworld, that we can sense by phenomena which standard model physics has been unable to explain, notably gravitation?
 * Did you know that the same Physics and Cosmology that this author, Harold Aspden has been advancing based upon algebraic equations and integral calculus, for more than 40 years and suppressed from the academic curricula all these long years, it presents an account of how the primary particle of matter, the proton, the nucleus of hydrogen atom, is created and how stars, including our own Sun, are formed; it explains how and why matter is subjected to force of gravity; it gives coherent explanations of many unresolved puzzles in today's physics, for example the nature of the photon, red-shifted light from distant stars (assuming the 'Big Bang' theory of an expanding universe to be unsatisfactory), periodic reversals of the Earth's magnetic poles, cold fusion (known also as 'low-energy nuclear reactions'), and "impossible" free energy devices?
 * Did you know that the same Physics and Cosmology that this author, Harold Aspden has been advancing based upon algebraic equations and integral calculus, for more than 40 years and suppressed from the academic curricula all these long years, it alerts to the serious risks of the recent pursuit of full-scale fusion power (thermonuclear) reactors [as the ITER Beast) and of high-speed impacts experiments in large colliders (as the LHC/VLHC). He further outlines technological basis and development in order to harness free and clean energy from the 'sea of energy', the aether, that regulates quantum activity, the deployment and reorganization of which accounts for the creation of matter?
 * Did you know that this author published more than 100 scientifc papers, many in the main mainstream peer-review journals (eg. 9 papers in @Physics Letters A since 1972; 24 papers in Europhysics Letters, former Lettere al Nuovo Cimento since 1975; etc.) and still those mention editors leaded by ScienceApologist in their rush to eliminate all this knowledge, like the fanatic bishop of the middle ages toward Galileo, state as the excuse: "not being notable" and "self-published"???
 * As we try to alert you through the above points is that the same SUPPRESSION that it is happening in the academic scientific community is happening here at Wikipedia under your eyes, against the Five pillars, suppressing data (articles with valuable sourced data) from different views existent in society, when it should be "unacceptable for Wikipedia to to be dogmatic or one-sided, in stark contrast to for example textbooks". The illustration given by the words of Prof. Neal Grossman (PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Indiana University, and is an associate professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago) seem the best ones to ask for your HELP avoiding the two articles, Harold Aspden and Creation: The Physical Truth, nominated for speedy-deletion, from being SUPRESSED:
 * "what does need to be explained is the academic establishment's collective refusal to examine the evidence and to see it for what it is. The academic establishment is in the same position today as the bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Why is this the case?".
 * Thank you and have a nice happy 2007 new year! --Utad3 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear to non-expert readers, the Utad3's comments here on Aspden are sufficiently far from the truth as to broder on incomprehensibility. Sdedeo (tips) 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a biographical article. Yet there doesn't appear to be a single sentence in the above that addresses our Criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Conversely, and somewhat ironically, it appears to make a solid case, with its repeated assertions that this person's theories have been ignored by everyone else, that including any discussion of them is a violation of our No original research policy.  If you wish to make a case for keeping, arguing that no-one apart from the inventor has acknowledged the theory is entirely the reverse of what one should be doing.  Rather, one should be citing sources to show that the theory has been peer reviewed, fact checked, acknowledged by other people, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge.  Similarly, one should be citing sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a biographical article. Yet there doesn't appear to be a single sentence in the above that addresses our Criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Conversely, and somewhat ironically, it appears to make a solid case, with its repeated assertions that this person's theories have been ignored by everyone else, that including any discussion of them is a violation of our No original research policy.  If you wish to make a case for keeping, arguing that no-one apart from the inventor has acknowledged the theory is entirely the reverse of what one should be doing.  Rather, one should be citing sources to show that the theory has been peer reviewed, fact checked, acknowledged by other people, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge.  Similarly, one should be citing sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)