Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

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 --JForget 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

"Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. I'm fairly sure portions of this can be merged into zitterbewegung, but as I'm not a science expert or even that knowledgable, it would be beyond my ken. But as it stands, this is obviously an essay and violates WP:NOT. Prod removed by anon (most likely author). JuJube 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Essay advancing an original theory. --Alksub 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 07:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As above.Alberon 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --NeilN 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE BY W.GUGLINSKI:

Let us analyse Alsub's argument: Essay advancing an original theory

1- From the Alksub's viewpoint, we have to delete all the articles on cold fusion, because cold fusion is considered by the academicians till the present day as an experimental essay with no viability, and so cold fusion cannot be described in the Wikipedia pages.

2- The item Theory in Cold fusion page must be deleted, because everything written in there is only a theoretical original essay, since the cold fusion theorists cannot explain even that single theoretical question pointed out in Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion: The question then is, where will this additional mass come from?

3- The item Proposed mechanisms in the Condensed matter nuclear science must be deleted, because everything written in there is essays advancing an original theory.

But consider the following:

• A) All the articles concerning Cold Fusion and Condensed matter nuclear science are describing the following FACT: that many experiments, made by several researchers, are performed in the laboratories worldwide. This is a FACT
• B) Wikipedia is a place for description of FACTS
• C) So, cold fusion merits to be described in Wikipedia, no matter if it is viable, or not. Even if cold fusion is a fraud, it does not matter, because Wikipedia describes the following FACT: that cold fusion experiments are performed in the whole world, independently if cold fusion is real, or not.

That’ s why the articles on Cold fusion are not deleted from Wikipedia.

Now let me show that the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion is not an Essay advancing an original theory. Because actually the article is showing a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among the skeptics. And this is a FACT.

Actually it’s an important FACT , that people need to know, because:

• 1) There is a belief, among the skeptics, that cold fusion is impossible to occur, because there is a unsurmountable theoretical question: “The question then is, where will this additional mass come from?” This belief is a FACT.

• 2) But such a belief of the skeptics is wrong, because actually the question is solved by considering the electron’s zitterbewegung. This is a FACT, as shown in the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion.

• 3) Therefore the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion shows a FACT:. That it is wrong the belief of the skeptics.

• 4) No matter if cold fusion occurrence is possible, or not. No matter if Quantum Ring Theory is wrong, or not. The FACT is the following:
  • 4-1) there is a belief among the skeptics.
  • 4-2) the belief is wrong, because the question that supports their belief is answered by the electron’s zitterbewegung. This is a FACT. And therefore, because it is a FACT, it must be reported in Wikipedia.

That’s why the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. Because, as in the same case as happens with the articles on Cold fusion, the important is the description of the FACTS. And the article Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion describes the FACT that it’s wrong the belief of those ones who claim that cold fusion is theoretically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.62.83 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response tl;dr. JuJube 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Um, you got it all wrong. Wikipedia is meant as neither an arbiter nor a publisher of "facts." Our mission is to publish knowledge that is verfiable by reliable sources, and this includes notable scientific theories. The prohibition against original work, like this article, is in place because such work inherently violates everything I just said. The counterexamples you mentioned don't. Someguy1221 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research, little notability. Seems to be created to promote this theory, in violation of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. An extremely similar article has also appeared on Wikinews, despite the fact it is obviously not a news story. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory. Hut 8.5 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

AND THE CONSPIRACY GOES ON

Dear Wike members

You are not the only ones that conspirate against Quantum Ring Theory.

Even the cold fusion theorists conspirate against QRT, as everybody can see in the link below the letter posted to Christy Frazier, entitled CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

CONSPIRACY AGAINST QUANTUM RING THEORY

To: Christy Frazier

Managing Editor, Infinite Energy

cc. Bob Wever, Steven Krivit, Nancy Kolenda, David Bradley, Naveen Dankal, Peter Jones, Jed Rothwell, Antonny Leggett

Dear Christy

I have noted that there is a s conspiracy against my Quantum Ring Theory among cold fusion researchers and journalists that divulge the cold fusion experiments.

Interestingly, somebody has deleted my book from the bibliograpy of the Wikipedia page on cold fusion (my book has been added to that page in July-2007, by the physicist Trever McFaddon).

Many cold fusion researchers and journalists believe that cold fusion will be explained by a theory proposed by some eminent theorist of an important research institute. For instance, the journalist Bob Wever says in his blog Strategy Kinetics:

“Many believe that the work of MIT's Peter Hagelstein--a tenured professor of electrical engineering--is exemplary and if verified experimentally, stands in line for a Nobel prize.”

http://www.strategykinetics.com/2006/02/cold_fusion.html#more

So, there are theorists that hope to win the Nobel prize with a successful theory able to explain cold fusion. And of course that they don’t want my Quantum Ring Theory as an opponent.

Actually it is funny why the people believe that Hagelstein’s theory is able to explain cold fusion occurrence, since his theory is unable to explain even a single question like that arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch in his blog Chemistry Forum, where Mitch wrote:

“In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion”

http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

So, Hagelstein’s theory or any other theory on cold fusion did not convince Mitch on the viability in cold fusion.

But after reading the response to his question posted by me according to Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch wrote:

“I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay”. And we realize that Mitch is not quite sure anymore that cold fusion viability is impossible, after reading the explanation according to Quantum Ring Theory.

It is of interest to note that cold fusion researchers complain that there is a conspiracy of the academics against the cold fusion occurrence.

But the own cold fusion theorists have a conspiracy against the QRT, which is the unique theory able to explain the cold fusion occurrence.

It’s only a new paradox in the history of the science’s development.

Regards

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

• Response How is this any different than the "America did WTC" nutjobs? Can we close this now before we get another blitzkrieg of irrelevant factoids? JuJube 02:45, 9 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.