Talk:Torsion field
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-08. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
[edit] Spin vs. Torsion
The user 208.100.225.180 insists that spin field is scientific, unlike torsion field, although throughout some of the references that he added to the article the terms are used interchangeably. Does anyone have specific definitions for those? Personally I think it's just an attempt to dissociate from the public scandal that torsion field was, but I'm biased towards science. Cubbi 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Sir,
- Read the referenced articles CAREFULLY. You are confused regarding the words "spin" and "torsion". These are two different actions. Spin is rotation about an axis. Torsion is twisting, resulting in torque, for example. Spin can cause torsion. Torsion can cause spin. But they are two different creatures, especially in terms of fields. I have published works in Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Russia, all involving the spin field and its analogs. I have personally demonstrated the spin field to many people during the past 10 years, by application of a device I imported from Khazakstan. Since I discovered that the effective range of the field produced by this device is limited to about 2.5 cm., I have not had a failed demonstration. You can reach me at rnboyd@iqonline.net I can offer you a personal demonstration if you are in the USA. I was part of the Sarfatti group when Shipov came to San Francisco from Russia to demonstrate his "torsion field" generator. It failed miserably. There can be no doubt that the torsion field is theoretically possible, but no one has ever demonstrated a functional torsion field generator. I have a functional SPIN FIELD generator.
- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY
- == SPIN FIELD ==
- ENTRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- I had the torsion field and the spin field nicely seperated out into two distinct entries, WHICH THEY ARE, and you came along and erased all my work based on ignorance regarding the distinction between the spin field and the torsion field. It appears that you do not understand either of them, based on your comments above. I have provided references found at the bottom of the article. Please find the time to read them and understand them. If you will send me your email address, I will forward you a copy of my St Petersberg paper dated August 2006, which is also relevant.
- Best Regards,
- Robert Neil Boyd, Ph. D.
- April 17, 2007 (April 17, 2007 (User:208.100.225.140))
-
- I reverted your april 17 change because: 1) This is a "torsion field" article, not a "spin field" article. 2) Most references use the words "torsion" and "spin" interchangeably. 3) You rewrote the definition of "torsion field" from the Controversy paragraph using the word "spin", even though it was based on the original torsion field publication (which, again, shows me that spin field is just a new name for torsion field). 4) Your changes to the Controversy paragraph made it illiterate. Please create a spin field article with original content (rather than an exact copy of "torsion field" article). Cubbi 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There's an existing entry called Spinor field 195.137.203.137
-
-
-
-
- It's different though. The "spin field" used by the guys here is a mystical physical field that makes water act like vodka and teleports people between planets, and spinors are, well, spinors. I'll disambig the spin field though. (Actually, I just remembered, some torsion authors do call their field 'spinor field') --Cubbi 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've read your references. The creator of your "spin field generator" writes "Every substance creates the spin-field in the space surrounding it when polarized by spins. (This field is also called ‘torsion field’ or ‘axion field’ in different works)." (http://www.pmicro.kz/~ufl/ALMANACH/N3_95/S4_1a.htm). Cubbi 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sir, (not cubbi) it seems you're focusing more on semantics and less on the actual differences between the two. Just because something doesn't work, doesn't neccesarily mean that it has to be removed from the wikipedia or not have an article, because it can still serve as a reference for those who want to know the original definition of torsion fields and their relation to spin fields. 212.219.39.146 10:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It seems that the primary purpose of the user named "Cubbi" is to lend confusions and disinformation whereas my purpose has been toward clarification and reproducable facts. "Cubbi" has an irrational focus on the failure of Shipov's torsion field generator and refuses to admit the experimental evidence of the spin field generator, while in fact, "Cubbi" does not understand the physics of either the spin field or the torsion field, as he demonstrates in his below comment "...I wish he could explain his formulas in simple terms in that paragraph.", making it painfully clear that "Cubbi" does not understand basic mathematical physics, especially differential forms, which are commonly used in the physics literature. "Cubbi" has also not taken any initiative to date, to request a personal demonstration of the spin field, which I have offered to any persons who will travel to the location of the apparatus. This failure does not lend any particular credence to his supposedly sincere desire for expressing the truth. RN Boyd 11-14-2007 7:00PM (208.100.224.69 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC))
[edit] More Spin Vs. Torsion
Be aware that there is a lot of disinformation being issued by RUssian sources about torsion fields.
- It is not clear to me that Akimov (who was evidently sponsored by the KGB) was or was not a charlitan.
Now, I have met 1 on 1, G. Shipov, one of his early co-workers. IT IS MY OPINION that SHIPOV is not a charlitan. HE IS A SERIOUS WORKER WHO INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT THAT THE PHYSICAL VACUUM CAN ADMIT AFFINE TORSION (GLOBALLY RESTRICTED TO ADMIT PARALLEL TRANSPORT). Although I am not sure that his dream of using torsion to propel space ships will be practical, he is a serious scientist. I EXTENDED HIS IDEAS TO INCLUDE A LOCALLY CONTINUOUS VERSION OF AFFINE TORSION, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PARALLEL TRANSPORT CONSTRAINT. SEE arXiv:gr-qc/0602118
- In all cases the concept of Affine Torsion is related to a basis frame [F] of functions
that serve as a Vector Basis (usually on a 4D variety of independent functions (x,y,z,t). Remember that Affine torsion is not (always) the same as Cartan torsion. In my opinion, affine torsion is related to electromagnetic charge, the field excitiation (D,H, not E,B) 2-forms G, and then to the Topological Spin 3-form, A^G, -- in the sense that if G = 0, then there is no charge (the closed deRahm integral of G), no D, H, and no A^G.
- The concept of Affine Torsion is not the same as Topological Torsion.
Affine Torsion is expressed as a vector array of 2-forms. The exterior differential of the Basis Frame [F] is closed, and produces the matrix of Cartan connection 2-forms. The antisymmetric components of the Cartan connection of 1-forms define a "vector" array of 2-forms, generally defined as Affine Torsion.
- d[F] = [F] [C]
[F] |ds> = |A> a vector array of 1-forms.
[F] [C]^|ds> = |dA>
Vector array of Affine Torsion 2-forms = |G> = [C]^|ds>
Note that the vector array of two forms = |G> can be mapped into the anti-symmetric matrix [G] of field excitations.
- If any component of the vector array of 1-forms A is not integrable,
such that the 3-form A^dA is not zero, then Topological Torsion does not exist. If any of the |A> are NOT integrable, then topological torsion EXISTS.
- Topological Torsion is a composition of 3-forms.
Affine Torsion is a composition of 2-forms.
- Spin (in my view) is not a 2-form.
Topological Spin is a composite 3-form, equal to the product of A^G.
Remarks have been made by certain Russians that Shipov is a fake and that many of the points in his CV are untrue. Yet a number of the diatribe of accusations have been shown to be false. I do not know the problem, but I suspect Russian disinformation.
ON ANOTHER LEVEL, for a thermodynamic system encoded in terms of a 1-form of Action, A, I have establihed that TOPOLOGICAL TORSION A^F ( a 3-form) is an artifact of Thermodynamic NON-Equilibirum. THIS is not the Spin 3-form, A^G. HOWEVER, the existence of Non-Equilibrium processes implies that Work 1-form of the First Law need not be closed. IN FACT it appears that the no0n-zero Topological Torsion of the Work 1-form, W^dW, is a requirement that the Process is not THERMODYNAMICALLY Reversible. (see my website)
regards
RM Kiehn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.203.137 (talk) 13:49, July 4, 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, isn't the person above is that very guy from the article? 195.137.203.137
-
- Yes, I made that paragraph since most torsion sources mention him as a reference, and I wish he could explain his formulas in simple terms in that paragraph. --Cubbi 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] {{totallydisputed}}
Something has gone wrong here. The article starts with a reasonable and sober introduction but then all sorts of nonsense are presented as research facts. The fig leaf "controversy" section doesn't help much then. --Pjacobi 09:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't this how all pseudoscientific articles are written? All sort of nonsense is presented as "fact", because that's exactly how the published references present it. If it was written from the point of view of rational people from the beginning to end, it would be called bias. --Cubbi 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
