Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General time dilation (second nomination)

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 Speedy delete --Pjacobi 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete was disputed by User:JimJast but without addressing its reason (G4) --Pjacobi 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General time dilation

General time dilation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page recreaded without going through WP:DRV. Results of previous debate was a delete (see below). --ScienceApologist 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, long time no see. You didn't even try to take part in a consensus about redirecting my latest, completely kosher page, titled "Gravitational attraction" to the Newtonian gravitation with attraction instead of curvatures and I thought you should be the first one to cast a vote. Physicists were represented only by one guy from Harvard who unfortunately was also against GR since he didn't even know that there is no gravitational attractive force in GR. He thought that there must be since otherwise gravitons would be unemployed. That's how prejudice controls science even at Harvard. At the end GR lost 9:1 in favor of Newtonian attraction. Now this consensus is about Feynman being for flat spacetime (like Narlikar) in which curvature of space compensate for time dilations. So I think Feynman is going to lose this one too since no one might have ever heard about the guy (I put a link to him and Narlikar hoping someone might click it to learn that they were/are no dummies, even if I'm one for wanting to save science against uninformed editors). Jim 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General time dilation. --Pjacobi 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unexpandable, unsourceable and unrewritable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete due to recreation in spite of the above noted action. --EMS | Talk 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (If more reason is needed to delete this article, then I will point out that it makes reference to the "3-tensor of time dilation". This only shows that the author does not know what a tensor is and/or does not know what time dilation is. This material is totally OR and is wholely unsupported by general relativity theory and the Feynmann quotes cited.) --EMS | Talk 18:10, 31 March 2007 (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.