Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving Dimensions Theory

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Dimensions Theory

Original research. smoddy 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If we were to get rid of original research, we would have to rid ourselves of hundreds of thousands of pages, and no progress would ever be made. The article is extremeley well refernced, citing many famous theories and quoting many famous physicists, from Einstein, to Wheeler, to Hawking, to Penrose, to Peter Lynds. Perhaps the article could add more links to these other sources. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.163.65.45 12:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:No original research. smoddy 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If you get rid of the Moving Dimensions Theory article, then you will have to get rid of hundreds of other pages including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_theory

Why would an Expansion Theory article be accpeted and the Moving Dimensions article deleted?

Also, there is no proof for String Theory nor M-theory, both of which constitute original research, so we'd have to start deleting those articles.

You seem to misunderstand what "original research" is. In Wikipedia terms, it means a theory or other such text that has not been extensively peer-reviewed. I am not wholly up to speed with what Expansion theory is, and it may not be peer-reviewed. However, there does seem to be a large amount of publicity around this, so it is notable in that regard. Wikipedia is not the place to initiate a scientific theory. We only document them, whether or not they are true. Cheers, smoddy 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Another version of this as a forum posting at [1] has been up since "06-02-05" and no-one has shown any interest in it. -- RHaworth 13:35, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

• Delete unless either:

• A publication history in mainstream peer-reviewed physics journals can be produced, and then only if rewritten in clearer form.
• It has at least one non-Internet publication behind it, it can be written up as clearly as Expansion theory, and it includes and links to real criticisms of its claims, and then should be categorised under Pseudophysics.

All I see when I do a search for Moving Dimensions Theory is postings to USENET (and responses that involve the word "crank") and web fora operated by the theory's supporters. The claims are difficult to parse and intermixed with a lot of bitching about the "physics bureaucracy", and I see at least one fallacy of definition. I'm not a physicist (although I sometimes play one on TV) but I see very little that qualifes as an explanation, just a lot of ergos and thuses. Basic rule: Science is what scientists can get published in a decent peer-reviewed journal. Popper is probably spinning in his grave at that assertion (thereby proving action at a distance), but for better or worse, that's the only real policy you'll see widely applied in the definition of science, and it's the one Wikipedia should stick to.

If, however, the author is trying to get the theory categorised as a crank hypothesis, I'm willing to run with it, if and only if it has a print publication record - not just websites and USENET posts - and if the article is clear and accurately reflects mainstream physics' opinion of it. Having a paper publication record is enough of a sign of commitment on the part of the theory's supporters that the theory may be worthy of a place as "notable pseudoscience".

Wikipedia has to have minimum standards. I think those standards are reasonable. --Diderot 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• No references for even provoking an answer by scholars of physics. Not relevant enough to keep as crank theory. Delete. --Pjacobi 14:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Let's be clear: the "no original research" policy does not preclude someone putting up an article about their own theory. It has to do with using either the scientific community's standards for notability or a general standard of newswortiness. This avoids WP being used as a tool to circumvent the standards of scientific research that are already in place. If you want to contribute to the debate about the problems with peer review on WP, that's fine, but you don't argue your point by violating WP:NOR. -Harmil 14:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR, as literature on "Moving Dimensions Theory" appears to be non-existant. — Asbestos | Talk 15:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the main reason for deleting the Moving Dimensions Theory entry has nothing to do with the scientific integrity of the theory, but only with the notion that it has not yet been accepted by the postmodern science community which prefers mythologies such as String Theory--a theory that lacks postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations.

MDT is brand new. It is an original theory. Laughter and vilification are to be expected, along with ad-hominen attacks.

MDT is being submitted to journals. But that could take years for publication.

MDT will open new opportunities for young physicists with its simple postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

It should be noted that Albert Einstein said, "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science."

Thus MDT offers an important advance.

Moving Dimensions Theory is an affront to postmodern sensibilities because it asks big questions--questions which have long ago been abandonded by the regimented, bureaucratized academy, which is funded not by innovation but by conformity. Moving Dimensions Theory provides a simple postulate that answers the following questions: Why is the speed of light constant in all frames? Why are light and energy quantized? How can matter display both wave and particle properties? Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? Why does time stop at the speed of light? How come a photon does not age? Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing? Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction? Why are mass and energy equivalent? Why does time’s arrow point in the direction it points in? Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at the velocity c? Why is there a minus sign in the following metric? x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2 What deeper reality underlies Einstein’s postulates of relativity? What deeper reality underlies Newton’s laws? What underlies the laws of Inertia? Why entropy? What is the geometry of motion--the prime mover of all motion? Why have Einstein, Godel, Wheller, Penrose, Hawking, and Barbour all stated that we need a new approach to time, and what might that approach be?

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." --Albert Einstein

Dr. Elliot McGucken is a trained physicist who has won several awards, both for research and teaching. He studied with John Archibald Wheeler at Princeton University where he graduated cum laude. He went on to receive a Ph.D. in physics. But Moving Dimensions Theory does not need Dr. McGucken--it stands on its own two feet, upon the shoulders of giants, bolstered by logic, reason, and physics.

If anyone wishes to argue against Moving Dimensions Theory with ad-hominem attacks, neither Dr. McGucken nor Moving Dimensions Theory will take it personally. But the theory is real physics--not pseudo physics nor "crank physics." It is new, but that does not make it wrong. If you refute it, or argue against it, do it with logic and reason, not with angst, vituperation, slander, ad-homimen attacks, name-calling, nor hearsay. Please--we must always maintain the highest level of cordiality and respect for fellow scientists and philosophers, so as to foster the advancement of knowledge.

"And if everybody says that you are wrong, then you are one step ahead. But there is one situation which is better still, when everyone begins to laugh about you, then you know you are two steps ahead." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi--Winner of the Nobel Prize

The fate of Moving Dimensions Theory is in the hands of the jury. The jury sentenced Socrates to death and abandoned Jesus to the cross.

But the ideas of both, based in logic and reason, withstood the test of time, and both are enshrined in the Princeton Chapel in stained glass--the chapel Einstein walked by every day on his way to Palmer Hall--the Princeton that accepted him and his theories when they were reviled, impugned, and denied by professors in Germany--the Germany that was back then considered to be the world's leader of scientific innovation. Einstein was called a crank and worse.

Though at first rejected, castigated, and impugned, the Truth has a way of winning over time.

So shall it be with Moving Dimensions Theory.

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." --Max Planck

If you will forgive me for saying so, Wikipedia is not a jury. We are, by our very nature, reactive, not proactive. If a topic becomes widely accepted (or even known), we will write about it. And that's write about it, not write it. We would write about the history of the theory, its context, and its effect on the scientific community, as well as how it interacts with other theories. WP:NOR basically requires citing. If you can cite a reliable source, we can publish it. If you can't, we don't. That's policy. There is no point fighting it. It is set in stone. Full stop. Period. Finito. Don't bother arguing. smoddy

• I have to agree with the other users on this on, we are an encyclopedia after all, not a medium for promoting unpublished theories. However, I wish you good luck in getting this out there so that we may one day be included in Wikipedia among others. Please note we are not rejecting your theory or downcalling it, it is just unencyclopedic as of now. Thanks for your intrest though but I shall vote delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• While theories are in fact, theories, something that people believe and sometimes prove. We're not arguing about the accuracy of the article, we're talking that it is just too unknown. We need a "paper trail," if you want to call it that, because we want to become an encyclopedia, something that others can refer to. In order to become a reference, we need to verify our facts and prove that we're not making stuff out of thin air. If you get that paper trail, the article will deserve a place here. Good luck, but until then, I have to vote delete. --Titoxd 21:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually no scientific theory can ever be proven.

Moving Dimensions Theory is a new theory. The general rules of wikipedia are appreciated, and this discussion demonstrates how thoroughly revolutionary MDT is. May it serve as one more record.

Slow down there, no scientific theory can ever be proven? Have you read Newton's laws of motion and all the other scientific laws? Again, we cannot put just anything in an encyclopedia, we have to make sure its encyclopdic. It's irrelavent how revolutionary this theory is, the fact remains it has YET to be published and ergo yet to achieve noteworthiness see WP:N. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "proof" and scientific laws, see: Thomas Kuhn. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the point that these are not absolutely proved is neither novel, nor worth disputing really. Epistemological arguments give almost everybody headaches. Xoloz 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• You can't rush science. This theory is currently way too new to go on Wikipedia. Perhaps after it's built up some publicity and debate, but right now, there exists little if any third-party material on the subject. Ergo, Delete. Binadot 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 23:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research until it's in the journals. Patience. --Etacar11 00:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research; the more he states his case, the more obvious this is. Xoloz 03:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Defense was insultingly formulaic, and failed to address the original research issue. The fact is that your arguments (including the flat-out wrong Schopenhauer defense) have been used by many hermit scientists throughout history, and none of them were right either. Your theories are worthless until reviewed by those in the field. After that, they may be vindicated (Konrad Wegener was), they may be ridiculed or ignored (as many more were), but at least they will be on record and thus sufficiently notable for encyclopedia conclusion. Meantime, lose the persecution complex and learn to play the science game -- the rules exist for a reason, and that reason is not to crush creativity and novelty. Haikupoet 04:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per smoddy et al. --Bambaiah 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NOR. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Xoloz. Dcarrano 18:06, July 22, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.