Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Volfson

YANNAGI (Yet another non-notable antigravity invention).

No reliable third-party sources

And, without necessarily attributing reliable to them, please discard the the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. They don't have a connection to this specific invention, they are only put into external links sections of every antigravity article. Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either.

Pjacobi 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pjacobi. I've been watching this article to make sure someone didn't start adding back dubious additions, such as calling Volfson a physicist. I've flagged Phonon Maser for deletion for much the same reasons as this article (not to mention that a real phonon maser would be something very much different). Michaelbusch 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I wonder if I could get a Wikipedia article with my theory that gravity can be manipulated by leaving out tiny cakes for the massless gravitation faeries that keep the universe working. No? Delete. --humblefool® 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's how gravity works, isn't it? Delete. Hasn't this lot or something very like it been deleted before? Tonywalton  | Talk 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Let's see you get a U.S. patent, then 3 independent articles in the mainstream media. I will gladly write the article. Ever read the editorial in the New York Times in 1920 ridiculing Robert H. Goddard's theory that rockets could reach the moon? In their scientific opinion, rockets could not work in a vacuum because there would be nothing to push against.Edison 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge into this article the Phonon Maser article. The editors of Wikipedia absolutely are not the arbiters of scientific validity. Claims by an editor that in his expert opinion it won't work is the very definition of Original Research. We only have the right to determine whether or not some person, patent, etc. is notable, based on the presence or absence of citations in mainstream publications. The AfD nomination claims "non-notable" and "no reliable third party sources," but there in fact are reliable thrid party sources to show notability now cited in the article. The article includes references showing this individual was issued a U.S patent, which is certainly verifiable, then the patent was written about, in some detail in the following major publications or the online versions thereof: National Geographic News,the British newspaper Telegraph, and the major science journal Nature (print edition). These three articles makes a strong case for keeping the article about Volfson. In addition there are about 3,000 Google hits, and it was discussed at many websites. It may be pseudoscience, but that is not the criterion for including or deleting an article. We have and will keep articles on many discredited or plain wrong theories such as Phlogiston. Rather than deleting the article with a claim that it lacks "scientific validity," edit boldly and include in the article the criticisms of the invention in the references, so the article serves the important function of debunking any doubtful claims. This is not to say I think his ideas will work. Edison 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If at all, this may give a small sentence at US patent office. The short news stories [1] and [2] focus on the failings of the patent office. That's the only verifiable fact on this invention. --Pjacobi 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep • Some comments show exactly the problem with the american scientific community, apparently no one is keeping up with the work of Dr. Ning Li... I know it's difficult when she is under DOD contract. Check it out, note the similarities. Check out Volfson who has co-authored two "mainstream" physics-heavy patents, both with proven prototypes, and a couple of papers on geophysics. If the US government is paying for similar research, Volfson should at LEAST keep a Wikipedia article. Reactions such as these are EXACTLY why 99% of all Physic research is regurgitation —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicP31 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. I am not impartial, so I remove my vote. However, the statement that I am the inventor of a single non-notable and inoperateble device is incomplete. The last time I checked with the USPTO site, it listed the following patents:

1. 6,962,737 Simulated stained glass modular electroluminescent articles 2. 6,960,975 Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state 3. 5,965,897 High resolution storage phosphor x-ray imaging device 4. 5,656,814 Versatile method and device for thermoluminescence comparative analysis 6. 4,826,044 Dispenser for viscous fluids 7. 4,411,044 Cord weight pulley 8. 4,399,855 Roll type closure assembly for a window

All these patents (along with some foreign patents) are to my name only except for ##3 & 4 on the list where I am listed as a co-inventor. Most of the patents are physics-related. All the patented devices other than the item #2 were built and worked as intended.

The device of item #2, the "antigravity" Spaceship, worked too. But it cannot be demonstrated as it broke through the ceiling, the roof and flu away toward Mars. The "antigravity" Test Chamber is used by the CIA in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for questioning of the enemy combatants. The "antigravity" Phonon Maser is hidden in the secret undeground lab.

The device of item #6 was sold for many years as Colgate Toothpaste pump. The pump was very popular and sold in the millions in many different countries (the product currently sold under this name in the UK is slightly different from the originally-produced pump). Volfson,boris

  • Delete. I'm afraid the above entry only confirms my opinions. Further discussion does not seem to be required. Also, Mr. Volfson should review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Michaelbusch 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Keep. Edison's remarks are thoughtful and salient. This is the sort of thing one would want in a civil forum. In response to pjacobi: If you read the text of Volfson's anti-gravity patents, there is extensive reference to, and use of, both of the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. Podkltnov's work was the inspiration for Volfson's. The following are directly from the "theory" page linked to his site (borisvolfson.com). Emphases added by me:

"A series of experiments, performed in the early 1990’s by Evgeny Podkletnov, reportedly resulted in a reduction of the weight of objects placed above a levitating, rotating superconductive disk subjected to high frequency magnetic fields. (“Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70K Under E.M. Field”, E. Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep 1997). The drawback of the technology described in Podkletnov’s above-mentioned paper is the weakness of the resulting effect. Even though Podkletnov has reported .3%-to-2.1% weight reduction with the device described in the above-mentioned 1997 paper, many scientists point to a likelihood of error in Podkletnov’s measurements."

and

"Also in Nov. 2005, scientists led by Clovis de Matos and Martin Tajmar and funded by the European Space Agency, published a paper on their research of gravitomagnetism. They measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field in a laboratory by rotating a superconductor ring at 6,500 revolutions per minute. The scientists found that, under certain conditions, the gravitomagnetic effect is much greater than expected from general relativity. However, at just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the effect, which the scientists identified as the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, is very weak. Unlike Podkletnov who used the Type II superconductor, de Matos and Tajmar used a Type I superconductor (“Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass Inside a Superconductor”, C.J. de Matos and M.Tajmar, Physica C Volume 432, Issues 3-4, 15 November 2005, Pages 167-172). The relative weakness of the artificially-generated gravitational effect makes it necessary to consider amplification before this effect could be used in many practical applications."

Moreover, Volfson provides a well-documented path though his reasoning. See his step by step inferences from work of his predecessors: http://borisvolfson.com/GravityTheoryPaper.html.

I am not a physicist. However, I know that without imagination, physics would stagnate (and often has). It's still incomplete and confounding. We still don't have a unified field theory. Even the "standard model" has been found wanting.

I am not suggesting dumping currently accepted theories regarding gravity. Darwinian theory is also gappy, but this doesn't warrant disregarding constructive, well-supported parts -- in fact, we rely on them. We should embrace attempts like Volfson's to creativly extend existing theory, provided there is sufficient justification. (An examination of the path he provides, referenced above, would be warranted.)

Mathematics and logic have lead, in the past, to new empirically interesting ground. Group theory, for example, provided particle physicists a fruitful heuristic for empiricle research ... in spite of group theory not being an "empiricle" science. Volfson's work follows an analogous route.

Hostile arguments like some provided by other commentors contribute nothing to a search for truth and understanding, but contribute to the growing climate of incivility and to rigidity of thought. Consider the values behind the attitudes displayed. Consider allowing others to judge for themselves from the evidence he provides. If you find actual errors in the science or logic, please document them. It's more useful to offer constructive suggestions, and to avoid criticism base on mere failure to match current accepted theory. That does not provide anything fruitful.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekind cut (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Extrordinary claims require extrodanary evidence. I see no evidence other than a patent, and that means nothing. Only assertions. Let it be well known and verified first, then go into an encyclopedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. HEL 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rough Consensus?

After six days, I count eight votes for deletion and three for keep. Admins, does this count as rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:39, 12 November 2006 (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.