Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refractive Relativity Theory

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refractive Relativity Theory

One person's theory. No secondary sources. --Pjacobi 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete possibly WP:OR, certainly WP:NN — less than ten hits on Google. --BrownHairedGirl 15:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Vizjim 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Refractive Delete :) c - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and it seems it was copied from somewhere. --Tone 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR and NN. DarthVader 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• No-Delete. I am Eckart E.Colsman the author of this contribution. I, Eckart Colsman, found out that the Wikidea Organization thinks of deleting my articles about the "Refractive Relativity Theory" (RRT). These ideas of the RRT I presented in some American Physics Society (APS) meetings - the first one in Fall 1991 at the Bates College in the USA. In my website www.colsman.us.tc/ . I explain the consequences of the idea of replacing the “warping of time” with the variable velocity of light. I got over the years some enthusiastic response to this new approach to the General Relativity Theory. – I plan to write more articles which fit better the Wikipedia discussion/source platform . - I can’t imagine that some one likes to delete my articles from the Wikipedia system, just because there are no abundant sources or links. Please, approach new ideas with an open mind! -How else can we make progress of understanding the physics of the universe! --
• Do Not Delete __David Cohen. This theory presents an lternative to relativistic time warp and replaces it with c warp. The dimension of space-time, ct remains the same as does the Lorentz transform. This is another way of looking at the bending of light in a g field. c would be near zero at the instant of the big bang and time would be allowed to preceed the big bang.
• Delete. OR and NN. @ Eckart: Publish in some well reputed journal, then rewrite the WP-article citing your paper as a source; not the other way round. Cf. WP:OR. You might also care to know about this. Cheers, --DerHerrMigo 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DerHerrMigo Zero sharp 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete . All these arguments stated above have nothing to do with the Refractive Relativity Theory. Writers, who believe to have to publish a negative commentary, should read the work previously, should understand it and should, if necessary, inquire with the author. The commentaries should be competent and pertinent. Emotional remarks are inappropriate, because they don't serve the matter. I hope for a factual and scientifically sound discussion of the work. --BvB 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're missing the point. This is not to discuss whether RRT is sound physics or not. What we do discuss is whether RRT is considered sound physics in the generally accepted literature available. RRT isn't mentioned at all in the generally accepted literature available, so it shouldn't be mentioned in WP either. You don't even have to be a physicist to discuss this (I happen to be one, anyway). But then we've already discussed this on de:... --DerHerrMigo 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete I am Eckart Colsman the author of the RRT idea. These ideas are not “one person’s idea”. They were discussed in private correspondence and the result are the papers presented in my home page ( www.colsman.us.tc/) . I explain how the time warp is replaced by the c warp, and what consequences are resulting. If there are some non-sequitur situation, I like to know about it and discuss it! -- As a person who never was associated with an academic research institution, I am a layman for the established close knitted physicist community. Maybe some of the Wikipedia community can find a reputable physicist who studies the ideas of the RRT and recommends to be published. I am in a catch 22 situation! But this happened to lot of now well-known physicists like Hubble and even Einstein! - Replacing t with c as a variable is a plausible and logic step and worthwhile to find out where it is leading to. I found astonishing results! But our thinking is so used to the contra-intuitive thinking that we have a hard time making a paradigm shift to get out of this rut of thinking. -- We all should try to understand Einstein’s Relativity Theory instead just admiring him, and try to find a theory of unification between the GRT and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, Einstein was looking for. Finding a unified field theory would be the best monument we can build for Einstein –he deserves a big one. Let’s all work together on this big monument! Eckart Colsman Eckardo 19:43, 15 May 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.