Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertial degravitation

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. Coredesat 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inertial degravitation

Inertial degravitation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Complete bollocks. (For starters, there's no such thing as centrifugal acceleration in space). Google confirms the diagnosis. MER-C 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Tagged as WP:CSD#G1 for an unsalvageably incoherent page. --DAJF 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Not quite a speedy, but it's confusing for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter (like myself).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - All pages that liberally use math symbols are in some sense equally incoherent. (Look at the history of B,C,K,W system for a prime example.) I'd want expert opinion before ;deleting them, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I know enough physics to understand it somewhat, but I have no idea how they even got to the first line. MER-C 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's fifty years since I was a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. A mysterious 1/2 appears between the two versions of the formula for g(r,v), and "the module of an isotropic distribution of speeds vectors" is (to use another old British expression) a load of old codswallop.

In any case, even if the maths is right, what it says is trivial: if an object is not following a free-fall path, some force (or "weight" as the article puts it) is involved.

Googling "Degravitation" finds a real, and trendy, subject, much more abstruse than this: "...an interesting new approach to solving the cosmological constant problem ...usually phrased as the question why the vacuum energy is so small. ...theories where gravity is strongly modified at large distances, above some distance scale L usually assumed to be of similar size as the observable universe." See [here], if you want more. "Inertial degravitation" on the other hand, just leads back to this article. JohnCD 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, and seems to be bad science ffm 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nom. Andante1980 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains nothing but patent nonsense. Gandalf61 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. As far as I know/can find out, he term 'inertial degravitation' doesn't exist outside of a few fringe antigravity 'theories', which makes it at best WP:OR and at worst WP:NONSENSE. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• deontologically, cannot vote... Hi all. I'me the author of this article. To answer to JohnCD who said he was a mathematician since 50 years, the value 1/2 comes from [cos(pi/4)]^2. This term is a classical one in physics, particularly in thermostatistics, to reduce of one order the dimension of the energy (kinetic energy) - from 3D to 2D or 2D to 1D... I regret that the attached pictures have been deleted before the discussion... Deontologically - please restore them during the debate (version of Nov 4th)...User:FHol 22:37, 17 November 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.