Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetrical Relativity: Difference between revisions

This is original research which lacks reliable sources and hence verifiability. I would hesitate to call it complete bollocks, because I do not wish to offend the author. (It is alsocomplete bollocks, apparently compounded by an inability to deal with criticism or concern). The related article, Relativity (consistent with the general principle), which is substantially identical and was created through a "cut-and-paste" page move, thus contravening the GFDL, is also being nominated. Byrgenwulf 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second article has been speedied per WP:CSD#G7. If this article is kept then the AfD then the author can move it to his preferred title. --Craig Stuntz 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that one was speedied. But now there is another one, with the word "the" in the title. It must go too. Byrgenwulf 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the article has been moved to Relativity (consistent with the general principle) by User:Danras, rather than cut-and-pasted as indicated above. Symmetrical Relativity is now a redirect. --Mike Peel 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure I understand the GFDL argument, but they're both OR and should go. As I explained on the Talk page, the term "symmetrical relativity" appears to be entirely made up, and the assertion that general relativity and special relativity are "equivalent" is an un-verifiable misunderstanding. I asked the author to cite sources, but instead he did a copy-and-paste move of the article and twice accused me of vandalism for trying to help fix the mess. --Craig Stuntz 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as I understand, part of the agreement under which we contribute, unless we stipulate otherwise, is that an edit history, which tracks what is contributed by whom, is kept. An article without an edit history doesn't have this record. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. Byrgenwulf 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to determine the accuracy of the article, but it's a whole lot of information to be completely unsourced. If someone can provide evidence that this is established in scientific publications, I'd be willing to reconsider. On the other hand, if someone can establish that this is, in fact, complete bollocks, I'd be willing to remove the "weak" from my position. Kafziel 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See my "strong delete" vote below. I believe that you will find justification for making this a non-weak delete there. --EMS | Talk 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, after review of EMS's points. Thanks for the clarifications. Kafziel 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (unless peer-reviewed references for it are found). OR. The concept of binary stars being created from a single star splitting is quite cute, but it sounds like the author's just gotten his astrophysics confused with his nuclear physics. --Mike Peel 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I am leaning strongly toward a delete "vote," I'm going to hold back to give the author a chance to tell us where this information has been previously published. It may merely need to be renamed. However, for the article to be kept, the references must be published in a reliable publication -- not another Wikipedia article, not someone's website, but preferably a peer-reviewed journal or scholarly textbook. Delete in consideration of comments below, by both EMS and author Danras. Sounds like OR to me. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This article reflects a series of fundamental misunderstandings about relativity and astophysics. to wit:
  • "GR is the same as SR" is quite false. GR is explains gravitation through the use of curved spacetimes, while in SR spacetime is flat.
  • The article refers to an "inertial force". However, inertial motion is how an object moves in the lack of a force.
  • "The general principal states that gravitational acceleration is equivalent to inertial acceleration." -- The general principle of relativity states no such thing. Instead this is a reference to the equivalence principle which states that free fall is inertial motion, and conversely that being at rest on the surface of the earth is being in an accelerated frame of reference.
  • "In Einstein's theory of gravity, gravitational mass is assumed to be equal to inertial mass." -- This is not assumed, but instead is a consequence of the equivalence principle.
  • "The gravitational mass of any object is determined by its gravitational field" is false. Gravitational mass is determined by how an object responds to an external gravitational field. (Note that this refutes the related quantum-mechanics based argument.)

I can easily go on. Overall this is an unsourced bunch of erroneous speculation. --EMS | Talk 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

• • Einstein's GR is not the same as SR. I specifically stated I was not using GR in that sense, and it is only the same on an abstract level.
  • Inertial force is a valid term. Forces that accelerate objects to inertial motion or change such motion are implicitly inertial forces.
  • I added end article references to the general principle of relativity. Einstein and others have formulated it differently in different writings but they all say the same thing. I do not know where your statement is coming from.
  • The equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass was added to Einstein's GR theory. It did not follow from any formulated principle. As I remember, Einstein agonized some over adding it, because it was uncalled for.
  • Both statements regarding gravitational mass are correct. One does not refute the other. There is no action at a distance. Knowledge of gravitational mass is transmitted through the field

Your statements are very concrete and suggest that you are unable to deal with the complexity of relativity. --Danras 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per EMS. This isn't just original research, its complete bollocks. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

EMS may be a nice person, but if you look to him to think for you, you are in trouble. --Danras 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EMS. linas 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Ditto regarding EMS. --Danras 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank EMS for giving reasons. I think most others will not give specific criticisms for fear of appearing stupid when their criticisms are knocked down. I think it can be agreed that most admit to being unqualified to make knowledgable assertions on this article.--Danras 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the largest critisism of your article (with respect to it being on wikipedia) is that it is unreferenced, and unverified - and wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. While I agree with EMS's comments above, they are secondary to the fact that your work isn't verifiable. If you can provide reputable sources for your article (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles), and show that it is notable, then this AfD would most likely end in a 'keep'. Otherwise, your work is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. --Mike Peel 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about physics, not about ancient history. If I stated that the Sumerians started painting their pottery around 2250 BC, that fact would need to be verified. Experimental evidence about the physical world is generally known, especially to individuals who would read a Wikipedia article about relativity. Special relativity is well known. The general principle of relativity is stated differently in different places, but is fairly well known in the history of relativity. It is often cited as the key idea that led Einstein to begin work on developing a general theory of relativity. Perhaps I can provide better references to that, but I do not think that is what you are looking for. I think you do not perceptually grasp relativity, and you want a peer-reviewed journal to explain mathematically why a square peg will not fit into a round hole. There may not be many, but I think readers with a high perceptual intelligence will have much trouble understanding this article. You seem to feel that common sense of intelligent people is original research. --Danras 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danras, perhaps you should look over my user page. I am not afraid of looking stupid, and I actually *am* knowledgable in the topic. I have a PhD in physics, I studied general relativity, and some fair amount of geometry since then, and I thought that EMS summed things up just fine. linas 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be smarter than me. I only have a B.S. in Physics. I went to graduate school for Physics, but dropped out after a year. One reason is I was being taught too much mathematics and too little about physical concepts. Mathematics would be fun as paid work for say, NASA, calculating rocket trajectories, but it is work. In general, I thought math was more of a trade skill, useful for the hired help. From outside reading, I knew about quarks, the color force, and related concepts such as asymptotic freedom, but there was never any mention of quarks. One time Steven Hawking came and gave a general lecture. After it, in the elevator, I mentioned to Dr. So-and-so, the Asst. Physics Dept. head, my admiration of Hawking's work on the thermodynamics of black holes. He thought that topic was too advanced. In addition, some of the instructors treated me and other students like children.

Since you accept EMS's reasoning, I have no problem calling you stupid. I would say it your face. Your PhD status does not mean anything to me, only whether your argument has merit. I find that many do not accept the dualistic reasoning implicit in relativity and quantum mechanics. For example in QM, light can act as a particle and as a wave. Some concretize the dualism and insist light is "really" one or the other. They will get into an argument about it. If you give an "it depends" answer, you are being purposely vague, and not answering the question. Mentally, "dummies" cannot keep track of two interpretations at the same time, and one can spot them when they insist on simple, singlistic, semi-classical interpretations. Other interpretations are heresy, or at least non-standard, because they allegedly imply the falsity of accepted interpretations. There is a threat of social ostracism for those who think dualistically, as such thinking confuses high status dummies within the science community.

You probably are better at math than I am, especially if you know much about tensor equations. I will look over your stuff and comment further if anything catches my interest.--Danras 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel, I don't think any amount of references can save this article from a delete. Don't even bother asking for them, because all that you will get is a cascade of justifications and defenses, each more time-consuming than the last. The article is just plain wrong. Lets delete it because its wrong, not because its unreferenced. linas 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linas, I ridicule you publicly. It is a particular pleasure, because you say you have a PhD in Physics. You are going to take the ridicule, because you are more afraid of appearing stupid if you defend yourself. However, maybe you will tire of being a sissy and I can provoke you into defending your position. You are like a retart that claps its flippers and says, "It's wrong." --Danras 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Before reading EMS's comment here, I had arrived at the same conclusion. I thank EMS for expressing the point succinctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this article begins with a factual inaccuracy and segues into Original Research after that. Anville 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]