User talk:Bossk2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi

Regarding the article Theory of one divided by zero, I've nominated it for deletion because the theory appears not to exist. If you think this is a real theory please supply a reference to the theory. If this is a joke please stop. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this article DJ Clayworth. The article is not a joke, it is a reformation of our views about the number one divide by zero which is arguably the biggest mystery in math and science. The author of the theory has realized that 1/0 represents the concept of "everything," just as 0 represents the concept of "nothing." This should make sense to you. Using this realization he has been able to make many insights. The theory is very important and is meant to help people understand things, and the article you see is not complete yet but is currently being expanded. The theory is about to be published online as an e-print at the article section of toequest.com. I promise you it is a real theory. Would a reference to this e-print suffice to keep this article from being deleted? Thanks in advance.

Not really. toequest.com is not a refereed journal nor a credible news source. To deserve an article a theory does not only have to be real, it has to be notable. That means it has to have a lot of attention paid to it. If this theory were really very important there would be articles on it in scientific journals. If there are not please do not clutter up Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I may note that this theory is very imortant and VERY notable and may indeed end up in a scientific journal but this author has already created it and must receive historical credit for it's creation. Furthermore there are other articles on wikipedia which are about false and uninteresting theories and if they are allowed to remain then surely this theory should also remain since it is much more important and actually the correct theory of everything. Removing this article would be a great injustic to the free evolution of knowledge and would also be erasing historical facts. This article should remain to note the original author of this most important theory. -Bossk may 07 '06

When this theory has been published in a scientific journal, then you can come back and create an article for it. If you know of any other articles in Wikipedia about 'false' and 'uninteresting' theories then please draw our attention to them in the usual way. Finally please sign your comments by adding four tildes after them, like this ~~~~ DJ Clayworth 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you DJ Clayworth. Let me just mention that your main concern was that this is a real theory and not a joke. I assure you it is a real theory, and it does not have to be in a scientific journal. For example, please take a look at the picture link which shows the number circle. THe number circle is meant to be a replacement of the number line. Now I can assure you that the number circle exists in theory whether or not it is in a scientific journal. Scientific Journals are not important, knowledge is. Bossk2 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Bossk2 11:48 may 08 2006

The problem here is that anyone can come up with a theory. The theory then exists, and in that sense is a 'real theory'. However for a theory to deserve an article it must be important. If I think of a theory this afternoon, that doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the information in the universe. To show that your theory does deserve an article you have to show that it is important, which really means that people are paying attention to it. Without some indication that that is the case this article does not belong here.

Having said all that I'm going to do you the favour of moving this debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where the whole community can get to decide. DJ Clayworth 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your concern and interest Mr. Clayworth. The author of this theory did not come up with it overnight, and even if he did, I think it is evident that the theory is important and not a joke or something that is wrong. The theory, according to the author, is a result of natural divine revelation. In other words, pure insight and intuition which is the source of all life's creations. If the article is put in a public forum for debate then maybe people will have access to the ideas and will also have the opportunity to steal the ideas and claim credit (not that they would necessarily do this, but it is possible). Therefore the more people who read this article, the more important it is that it remain so that the original author can receive credit to the idea. The author is not seeking a Nobel prize or other false values, he only wishes the information to be used for the benefit of mankind. Sincerely, the author's spokesperson, Bossk2 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Bossk2 3:12 PM, may 08 '06

Bossk2, please have a look at this policy. Wikipedia is not the right place to publish new and original thought. There are plenty of websites out there that will allow you to do so. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice and Guidance Mr. Clayworth. I can not speak enough good things about wikipedia and the good people like you who form it. Surely these ideas are not new or have been thought of before by other beings, but if not I suspect it is not something that anybody can not realize for themselves. Therefore I still do not know if I would call it original research, more like "divine natural revelation," which can occurr by anybody and which is inevitable to occurr sooner or later by somebody. I figured sooner would be better than later to share this realization with the largest audience. Also this theory will hopefully be put into a book soon and published, or submitted to peer review journals, and when that time comes we will have a legitimate reference for the article. In the meantime, perhaps we can decide to keep the article, or perhaps continue discussing it in the category for deletion. THis way people can take part in understanding the idea and perhaps even help advance it. Also I am still working on the article and will be providing equations which explain the unifiation of forces and every other aspect of the theory of everything, since that is what the theory of one divided by zero is. But remember, anybody can realize it, and it is not original research, but is something that belongs to everyone and that everybody takes part in. What do you think?Bossk2 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2