This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I just made a template for the historical articles about physics. It can be found Here. I would like to know what do you think (comments, critics, and so on) before creating it and adding it to other pages. I left out many other timeline articles. Also many of the articles in that template need help so it could be useful to have more visibility. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Done -- ReyHahn ( talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
A review of this draft would be appreciated. The draft has been nominated for deletion as fringe science. It appears to be almost entirely the work of one person, D.C. Adams. I haven't researched his qualifications, but I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Is it fringe science? Has it had enough attention to be academically notable? Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen a thing? It seems like an elaborate name for a homework problem.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Lengthy argument with more heat than light
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @ Mr. Swordfish,Dolphin51: This is on the suggestion of Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish a continuation of a discussion on Talk: Lift (force): New Theory of Flight. The discussion concerns the deletion from the Wikipedia article Lift (force) of any form of reference to a New Theory of Flight published in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics 2016 and in the book Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow, Springer 2007. The Wikipedia article Lift (force) concerns explanations of the creation of lift of a wing as the basic element of a scientific theory of flight and has to struggle with the fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight, only a collection of theories, which are all known to be incorrect/incomplete/unsatisfactory, expressed to the general public in articles in NYT 2003 and Scientific American 2020 with headlines of type “Nobody Can Explain Flight”. The article is backed by Doug McLean serving as scientific expert with the book Understanding Aerodynamics and articles in The Physics Teacher, see Key Statements by Aerodynamics Expert McLean. The article starts out “There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift” but does not offer any commonly accepted scientific explanation. Instead are presented shortcomings of well-known popular explanations based on Newton’s laws of motion and Bernoulli’s principle. The article is not satisfactory by suggesting that there is a theory, but leaving out what this theory says and where it is published. It is very remarkable that today close to 120 years after the Wright Brothers Flyer took off, scientists still cannot agree on "what keeps planes in the air". It appears as a major debacle of science/aerodynamics asking for correction. The New Theory of Flight gives an answer to the open problem of the generation of large lift at small drag of a wing based on solid mathematics and computation with detailed explanation in physical terms. Here are key questions to be answered by Wikipedia: 1. Is there a commonly accepted scientific theory/explanation of flight? If Yes, which is it and where is it published? If No, why does Wikipedia inform people that “there are several ways to explain lift”, while hiding the Scientific American/NYT articles and New Theory of Flight? 2. What is the reason to hide the New Theory of Flight from meeting the public (in an open discussion of its merits) on Wikipedia, in a situation with No the answer to question 1? SecretofFlight ( talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this comment? New Theory is published in leading scientific journals/book. The key question for Wikipedia to answer is 1. What is the answer? If the answer is No, question 2 must be answered. What is the answer in clear text? SecretofFlight ( talk) 20:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is a cover-up of the undeniable fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight, which is evidenced by the fact that no such theory is presented, only a collection of theories shown to be incorrect/incomplete. The headlines of Scientific American/NYT of type "Nobody can Explain Flight" tell the truth, a truth which is hidden by Wikipedia by "There are several ways to explain lift". Wikipedia thereby takes the role of spokesman for an aerodynamics community for which that lack of convincing theory of flight is a major debacle. But the mission of Wikipedia is to inform the people of the World in an objective way and like Scientific American tell truths, not to cover up lack of science as is done in the present article and thereby disinform people. What is now needed is an open debate on the content of the article and it starts with the people behind the article (Dolphin51, Mr. Swordfish and McLean) getting out from hiding to answer my questions 1 and 2. What are the answers? Disinformation is not the purpose of Wikipedia and when present as in the lift article, must be corrected. Must be corrected. In particular, Wikipedia expresses a principle of neutrality, which means that in cases of scientific dispute both sides should be represented (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.) SecretofFlight ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedians in charge of the Lift (force) article, Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish supported by aerodynamics expert Doug McLean, are hiding and refuse to answer my questions, in contradiction to what was said on the Talk page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be run and not in the interest of the people of the World using Wikipedia for correct neutral information. The present article propagates serious disinformation on the basic scientific question of "what keeps planes in the air?" of prime concern to all people traveling by air, disinformation which can only be corrected in a direct dialog with the Wikipedians in charge starting by answers to question 1 and 2. What are the answers? Wikipedians in charge must answer or be replaced. SecretofFlight ( talk) 12:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
What strikes me in this discussion with Wikipedians, is that I am met by a swarm trying all tricks possible to silence my voice when I raise a serious case of disinformation. Is there no Wikipedian who would stand up for the principle of correct neutral information with no tolerance for disinformation (deliberately incorrect information)? Even only one could make a lot of difference. SecretofFlight ( talk) 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No more talk is needed. Wikipedia is just the wrong place to discuss new theories. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC).
@ User:SecretofFlight your activity has become disruptive please do not continue this discussion or you account will be blocked. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Draft:The CHSH Game? Is this a notable topic or should it be merged with CHSH inequality? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 10:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that The CHSH Game page was created, what was the final decision?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
In response to the Mass dimension one fermions AfD I created Draft:ELKO Theory as the no-nonsense version written using symbols and formulas and concepts accessible to conventional (grad) students in physics. Before I got very far with it, I discovered that the existing articles about Majorana and spinors and gamma matrices were lacking, and thus spent the next few months enhancing and enlarging those. By the time I got done, I never got around to finishing the ELKO theory page (I had hoped to explain how its the "other" eigenstate of the charge-conjugation operator; but that required explaining why Majorana is one of them. I finished the work on Majorana, but not on ELKO.) A bot reminded me, just now, that I have not touched the article for 5 months ... anyone care to review, critique, and best-yet - just move this to article space? I believe that everything it says is correct. The only "problem" is that it could say much much more. The other problem is I've run out of steam, run out of spare time to do much more in that direction. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I just made a template for the historical articles about physics. It can be found Here. I would like to know what do you think (comments, critics, and so on) before creating it and adding it to other pages. I left out many other timeline articles. Also many of the articles in that template need help so it could be useful to have more visibility. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Done -- ReyHahn ( talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
A review of this draft would be appreciated. The draft has been nominated for deletion as fringe science. It appears to be almost entirely the work of one person, D.C. Adams. I haven't researched his qualifications, but I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Is it fringe science? Has it had enough attention to be academically notable? Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen a thing? It seems like an elaborate name for a homework problem.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Lengthy argument with more heat than light
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @ Mr. Swordfish,Dolphin51: This is on the suggestion of Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish a continuation of a discussion on Talk: Lift (force): New Theory of Flight. The discussion concerns the deletion from the Wikipedia article Lift (force) of any form of reference to a New Theory of Flight published in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics 2016 and in the book Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow, Springer 2007. The Wikipedia article Lift (force) concerns explanations of the creation of lift of a wing as the basic element of a scientific theory of flight and has to struggle with the fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight, only a collection of theories, which are all known to be incorrect/incomplete/unsatisfactory, expressed to the general public in articles in NYT 2003 and Scientific American 2020 with headlines of type “Nobody Can Explain Flight”. The article is backed by Doug McLean serving as scientific expert with the book Understanding Aerodynamics and articles in The Physics Teacher, see Key Statements by Aerodynamics Expert McLean. The article starts out “There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift” but does not offer any commonly accepted scientific explanation. Instead are presented shortcomings of well-known popular explanations based on Newton’s laws of motion and Bernoulli’s principle. The article is not satisfactory by suggesting that there is a theory, but leaving out what this theory says and where it is published. It is very remarkable that today close to 120 years after the Wright Brothers Flyer took off, scientists still cannot agree on "what keeps planes in the air". It appears as a major debacle of science/aerodynamics asking for correction. The New Theory of Flight gives an answer to the open problem of the generation of large lift at small drag of a wing based on solid mathematics and computation with detailed explanation in physical terms. Here are key questions to be answered by Wikipedia: 1. Is there a commonly accepted scientific theory/explanation of flight? If Yes, which is it and where is it published? If No, why does Wikipedia inform people that “there are several ways to explain lift”, while hiding the Scientific American/NYT articles and New Theory of Flight? 2. What is the reason to hide the New Theory of Flight from meeting the public (in an open discussion of its merits) on Wikipedia, in a situation with No the answer to question 1? SecretofFlight ( talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this comment? New Theory is published in leading scientific journals/book. The key question for Wikipedia to answer is 1. What is the answer? If the answer is No, question 2 must be answered. What is the answer in clear text? SecretofFlight ( talk) 20:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is a cover-up of the undeniable fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight, which is evidenced by the fact that no such theory is presented, only a collection of theories shown to be incorrect/incomplete. The headlines of Scientific American/NYT of type "Nobody can Explain Flight" tell the truth, a truth which is hidden by Wikipedia by "There are several ways to explain lift". Wikipedia thereby takes the role of spokesman for an aerodynamics community for which that lack of convincing theory of flight is a major debacle. But the mission of Wikipedia is to inform the people of the World in an objective way and like Scientific American tell truths, not to cover up lack of science as is done in the present article and thereby disinform people. What is now needed is an open debate on the content of the article and it starts with the people behind the article (Dolphin51, Mr. Swordfish and McLean) getting out from hiding to answer my questions 1 and 2. What are the answers? Disinformation is not the purpose of Wikipedia and when present as in the lift article, must be corrected. Must be corrected. In particular, Wikipedia expresses a principle of neutrality, which means that in cases of scientific dispute both sides should be represented (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.) SecretofFlight ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedians in charge of the Lift (force) article, Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish supported by aerodynamics expert Doug McLean, are hiding and refuse to answer my questions, in contradiction to what was said on the Talk page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be run and not in the interest of the people of the World using Wikipedia for correct neutral information. The present article propagates serious disinformation on the basic scientific question of "what keeps planes in the air?" of prime concern to all people traveling by air, disinformation which can only be corrected in a direct dialog with the Wikipedians in charge starting by answers to question 1 and 2. What are the answers? Wikipedians in charge must answer or be replaced. SecretofFlight ( talk) 12:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
What strikes me in this discussion with Wikipedians, is that I am met by a swarm trying all tricks possible to silence my voice when I raise a serious case of disinformation. Is there no Wikipedian who would stand up for the principle of correct neutral information with no tolerance for disinformation (deliberately incorrect information)? Even only one could make a lot of difference. SecretofFlight ( talk) 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No more talk is needed. Wikipedia is just the wrong place to discuss new theories. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC).
@ User:SecretofFlight your activity has become disruptive please do not continue this discussion or you account will be blocked. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Draft:The CHSH Game? Is this a notable topic or should it be merged with CHSH inequality? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 10:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that The CHSH Game page was created, what was the final decision?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
In response to the Mass dimension one fermions AfD I created Draft:ELKO Theory as the no-nonsense version written using symbols and formulas and concepts accessible to conventional (grad) students in physics. Before I got very far with it, I discovered that the existing articles about Majorana and spinors and gamma matrices were lacking, and thus spent the next few months enhancing and enlarging those. By the time I got done, I never got around to finishing the ELKO theory page (I had hoped to explain how its the "other" eigenstate of the charge-conjugation operator; but that required explaining why Majorana is one of them. I finished the work on Majorana, but not on ELKO.) A bot reminded me, just now, that I have not touched the article for 5 months ... anyone care to review, critique, and best-yet - just move this to article space? I believe that everything it says is correct. The only "problem" is that it could say much much more. The other problem is I've run out of steam, run out of spare time to do much more in that direction. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)