1194:- The paragraph "Carmelian Cosmological Relativity is a serious attempt to deal with many of the most important and challenging unsolved problems in cosmology and astrophysics. Nevertheless, it is not a widely accepted theory. This is likely due to two reasons. First, it presents a serious challenge to the established standard Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (Λ-CDM) Big Bang theory. Secondly, Hartnett has adopted it as the basis for much of his work on a creationist view of the universe, since CGR provides a credible solution to the starlight problem present in Young Earth Creationist cosmologies. Hartnett describes this as applying "creationist boundary conditions" to Carmeli's theory, namely that the universe has a center and an edge." gives enough of a reason to delete. Any theory that says that the universe has an edge in order to justify the introduction of a creator is obviously completely lacking in any semblance of academic rigor. It is a see through attempt to take accepted theory and modify it to allow for a creator, for no reason other than belief. The modification of accepted theory is in no way come upon as a result of observation. This is clearly a fringe theory.
1415:. "An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic.... Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).... Independent sources are not necessarily "neutral" in the sense of being even-handed. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he or she may strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status, but if the author gains no personal benefit from these children learning how to read, then the publication is an independent source on the topic."
630:. I disagree with some of the strong characterizations of the publishers and journals that have been advanced here: World Scientific is, for the most part, a respectable outfit; the International Journal of Theoretical Physics is published by Springer (although it is far from their flagship journal). That having been said, browsing the Google Scholar hits for "Cosmological General Relativity" certainly leaves the impression of a walled garden. Are there any sources that address this theory in detail, apart from Carmeli, Hartnett and their cronies? I don't see strong evidence of this, and I am leaning towards delete.
1327:"Independent sources" does not mean that the authors do not have opinions. It means that the publisher has no financial interest in the subject. For example a website owned by the oil industry would not be independent in the subject of climate change because the oil industry has a financial industry in creating doubt. It does not mean that the authors of sources used cannot have an opinion on the subject. If you question that statement could you please provide a link to a policy or guideline that supports your interpretation.
893:. We should consider closely that the journal has suffered from problems associated with crank theory promotion. This is a theory which has, for better or worse, been proposed to overthrow a huge amount of standard lore in the scientific community. We are not equipped here at Knowledge to decide whether this work is crankish or not (you can ask me for my opinion in private, if you care), but its ongoing promotion by a
339:
he "applied creationist boundary conditions." Other than including the trigger word "creationist," what makes it a soapbox? If I were to remove all references to creationism from the article, it would be substantially unchanged. However, since
Hartnett is the primary researcher continuing Carmeli's work, and since Hartnett is a creationist, it seemed relevant to bring it up.
333:. There are a number of publications in other related journals on the subject that were not readily available to me that would very likely serve as alternatives to the arxiv-only versions; however, I can't afford to subscribe to that many pay sites. So I simply cannot agree with your contention that it is "simply sourced to preprint servers which are not peer-reviewed."
363:
overall distribution of thought (in the U.S., I think) on origins. It was roughly divided into thirds: about a third believed in a naturalistic evolution in a Big Bang universe, another third believed in intelligent design and a young earth creationist origin, and a final third believed in an old earth in a Big Bang universe, but with intelligently directed evolution.
1299:, which is the essay that WP:FRIND ("Independent sources") links to. We do not require that sources are written by people who are neutral about subjects, and the publications I cited are all neutral on the topic. In fact most reliable scholarly sources are not neutral, as their authors typically have opinions on the subjects about which they write.
1392:
Publishers are not the source. Authors are the source. It's not the identity of the publishers that determines independence; rather it's the identities of the authors themselves. As all the authors mentioned above are either close collaborators or students with
Carmeli, we would not say that the idea
805:
Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory. Incidentally, the most reputable newspapers also publish stories that turn out to be incorrect, and they publish retractions. These sources are considered accurate not because they never wrong, but because they are usually accorate and errors are detected and retracted.
560:
for "Cosmological
Relativity: A New Theory of Cosmology I" and not all of them are self-citations, so there is some amount of work being performed in the context of this theory. (I removed the blanket statements about creationism, since they were (a) irrelevant to the topic and (b) original research.
518:
Having thought about this I think delete. There are a lack of third party reliable sources on this theory. The theory goes against mainstream physics, e.g. Absolute time and absolute centre of the universe, Hubble's law as an absolute. There are no reliable third party references that talk about this
483:
To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally,
1018:
I would not consider sources written by
Hartnett and Carmeli as independent sources. Usually we should have sources on a theory besides the people who originated it. If it is fringe, as you say, then it definitely can't be based on the work written by the main proponents. And anyway the sources I
862:
It did not transition from a conspiracy theory magazine to a mainstream academic source when the new editor joined. Presumably he joined because it was already mainstream. Even if that were the case, the new editor could denounce all previous articles, and would not have to do it on a case by case
338:
As to your contention as a soapbox for creationism: yes, Hartnett is a creationist. However, my understanding is that that
Carmeli was an agnostic (though I can't remember where I read that). CGR itself is not a creationist theory. It only becomes a creationist theory in Hartnett's version, where
610:
The only mainstream journals are those that don't actually discuss the topic, but which are dragged into the topic by the unreliable ones. Also World
Scientific is a vanity publisher who spam researchers looking for submissions (for the academics, do a search for "World Scientific" in your email if
490:
If this is a theory held by a handful of scientists, and not widely discussed, or widely reported then it does not meet notability, and looks like original research. If it is a theory held by a few people against scientific consensus then that needs to be mentioned, and the size of the coverage on
368:
If your contention is that the article should be deleted because it is a creationist theory, then you have implicitly acknowledged it as notable on that count--creationism is a notable theory, and espoused by all major and most minor world religions. But again, CGR is not inherently a creationist
248:
Josh, thanks for the chance to review my sources and other work. I found that 4 articles I had cited as arxiv-only had in fact been accepted for publication. I looked through them to see what the breakdown of pre-print only versus recognized academic journal or other sources were. Here's what I
424:
Or are you nominating it for deletion simply because you personally do not believe in creationism? If I were to nominate every article for deletion that presented theories with which I disagree, that would make for a long list. But we don't nominate articles for deletion simply because we don't
328:
I have provided links to the pre-print versions as a courtesy to the reader, rather than links to paywall sites that only show the abstract. As an astronomer, I presume you are used to reading about theories such as MOND in the ApJ. However, the bulk of the work on this theory was published in
362:
You have proved my point on that. Many theories have been adopted as creationist even though their creators did not intend them to be so. In fact, the standard cosmological model is the basis for many old-earth creationist theories. I read an article a couple of months ago that looked at the
1042:
There could be dozens of relativity theories. Therefore we should not wonder that a notable physicist produced yet another relativity theory. String theory isn't physics yet, it is applied mathematics, as
Sylvester James Gates, Jr. said in his TTC course. Both string theory and this theory are
712:
So the theory has been published in reliable sources, even if it has attracted no attention beyond the researchers. However it is taken seriously by some outside the academic world, which might establish its notability. I would like to see evidence that reliable secondary sources mention the
523:
who keeps citing this cites the results in the two (non-springer) papers I looked at, without mentioning the theory. The creationist blogs are not reliable for something like this, they support it because it agrees with their world-view. If this were a notable theory, there would be mainstream
1365:
do not own
Springer and Springer does not promote their specific theories. It is not the same as using a book published by the Church of Scientology as a source for the Church. If you disagree then you can ask that Springer publications no longer be accepted as reliable sources. But your
866:
also had articles by Philip Pearle (Hamilton
College) and Euan Equires (University of Durham), Robert W. Batterman (Ohio State) and Homer White (Pikeville College), A Nariz (Innsbruck University), and others who were qualified in their fields and published in many other academic journals.
804:
The reality is that academic journals do publish papers whose methodology or mathematical calculations are later found to be wrong or whose research has been falsified. When this is uncovered, academic journals then retract their support for publication, as they did in the case of the
911:
Hartnett does not argue in his articles that have been published in numerous astronomical and physics journals that the earth is 6,000 years old and in fact acknowledges the universe is billions of years old. And the authors of the theory were not young earth creationists.
1341:
No, it's not just about financial interest, obviously. It's about whether or not there is a direct connection between the sources. For example, we wouldn't accept a mother writing about her son as an "independent source" even if their finances were separate.
837:'t Hooft's tenure there, but with presumably the source of its reliability still being 't Hooft's Nobel pedigree and the recent resurgence of that periodical under his regime. This seems rather implausible to me. Is it not much more likely that no one
1418:
Incidentally, if publishers are not the source, then how do you treat news items that are not signed by a reporter? How do you know that the reporter on U.S. politics is not a
Democrat or Republican and therefore too unindependent to write about
737:, so I think there are very good reasons for questioning this journal's reliability. Also, while "president of the Israel Physical Society" certainly sounds impressive, this society does not seem to be very notable. Their flagship journal, the
1103::Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources. The reliable sources listed in the article do not even mention this fringe theory, so there is no way of gauging its notability. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising.
671:
765:
555:
The list of sources given above by Al'Beroya is a bit of a red herring. Some of the citations are for general concepts, not the specific theory discusses in the article, and are thus irrelevant/misleading. However, GScholar does list
169:
204:
not adequately developed in the requisite journals (ApJ, PRL, etc.) This article looks superficially to be sourced well, but it's actually simply sourced to papers on preprint servers which are not peer-reviewed. Also, clearly a
1260:
is irrelevant--we are not peer-reviewing for a journal. We are not here to judge the correctness of scientific theories. NPOV (and even Scientific POV) means we discuss it properly in context, not that we do not discuss it.
374:
If your contention is that it should be deleted because it is a non-standard alternative to the standard cosmological model or Einsteinian general relativity, then you must also delete all articles in that same category:
1360:
would not assign a woman reporter to write about her son. On the other hand a section in an astronomy textbook explaining a theory developed by the author would be a reliable source for that theory. Carmeli, Hartnett
994:
published the Einstein-Cartan-Evans-Theory, which they later retracted. But there is no question about their current status as a reputable publisher and they continue to publish articles about Cosmological General
845:
notability, not less. But so far I haven't seen any substantially independent treatment of the subject, even published in a questionable place like FoP, despite Carmeli and Hartnett writing screeds about it.
449:
1002:
then it meets requirements for inclusion becasue it has been discussed in reliable soruces. That does not mean of course that the theory should be discussed in other articles about cosmology or metaphysics.
494:
this seems to be based upon the work of two scientists, and that article says "While Cosmological relativity is not yet generally accepted,....". In short this seems to be a little supported fringe theory.
1213:, it seems there is a fair body of work on the subject from a group of more or less independent authors taking the theory (somewhat) seriously. There is certainly enough coverage there to satisfy
1256:
Whether or not it is nonsensical as a theory, there have been enough publications that it is notable. It doesn't have to be widely accepted, it just has to be noticed. The argument by
163:
95:
90:
1277:
I don't see where we are capable of writing a good article on the subject since it hasn't been subject to the normal critical review we would require. That's the essence of
1117:
How can you say that "Carmeli’s Accelerating Universe is Spatially Flat Without Dark Matter", published in Springer's "International Journal of Theoretical Physics" (2005),
757:
Carmeli's 1996 paper was not publsihed when the journal published Evans' theory. Incidentally Carmeli also co-wrote "Cosmological Relativity: a New Theory of Cosmologly",
122:
99:
1019:
have seen look like primary sources rather than secondary sources. A good source would be independent literature reviews discussing the work of Hartnett and Carmeli.
82:
226:
1237:
I'm not sure I would consider that list to be "independent authors". It's more like a collection of fringe theory promoters, students, and friends of Carmeli.
733:. The citations in question were well before 't Hooft took on that responsibility. We must not forget here that this is the journal that published the crank
1043:
untested yet. We could remove creationist rant from the article, so its creationist implications are not the issue. If it is considered fringe, it could pass
52:. Editors disagree about whether this apparently fringe theory has been covered in reliable sources to an extent that makes it notable enough for an article.
962:
330:
129:
484:
when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.
897:
creationist should be a warning just as much as its publication in a journal that has suffered from past humiliation regarding publishing tosh.
184:
425:
agree with the theories presented therein. Especially theories repeatedly published in recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals. Since
151:
86:
416:
1082:. There is at least a bunch of other authors that repeatedly mention the theory. These include Pradhan, Oliveira, Amirhashchi, etc.
980:
524:
scientists disagree with it, or discussing how it fits in with general relativity. The draft that went into mainspace had the line
1430:
1402:
1375:
1351:
1336:
1322:
1308:
1290:
1272:
1246:
1232:
1200:
1186:
1157:
1143:
1129:
1112:
1089:
1074:
1056:
1030:
1013:
935:
921:
906:
876:
857:
816:
752:
724:
660:
641:
620:
602:
575:
543:
510:
240:
218:
64:
668:
145:
1177:. It is well structured and readable. But if it is too fringe, it regrettably has to go, but don't close this matter too fast.
797:
791:
78:
70:
17:
670:
Google scholar lists over 5,000 of their articles, and the hits on the first page are all cited in hundreds of other articles.
1026:
853:
748:
637:
141:
1366:
interpretation of policy is wrong. Now please find the wording in policy or guidlines that supports your interpretation.
1296:
616:
1120:
as well as dozens of similar articles in academic journals is "Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources"?
734:
384:
191:
344:
I noticed that another user deleted the last sentence from the section on Key Features. It originally included this:
1221:. It is certainly not mainstream and quite possibly total BS. However, those are not reason for deletion. Neither is
1398:
1347:
1318:
1286:
1242:
1139:
1070:
931:
902:
214:
778:
1544:
1426:
1371:
1332:
1304:
1222:
1153:
1125:
1108:
1009:
917:
872:
812:
720:
700:
404:
40:
1020:
847:
742:
631:
1394:
1343:
1314:
1282:
1238:
1135:
1066:
927:
898:
612:
376:
210:
1313:
From what I read, all the authors being cited are either students or collaborators. That is not independence.
157:
1450:
677:
408:
764:
Before publishing his theory in 2003, Evans had authored over 100 papers that are listed in Google scholar.
1134:
No one seems to think that a paper written by Hartnett qualifies as an independent source except for you.
955:
926:
I don't see where he acknowledges the age of the universe in his papers. Perhaps you could offer a quote?
704:
655:
829:'t Hooft is editor-in-chief. Now you have shifted the goalposts considerably, asking us to believe that
1540:
1229:
1210:
Looking at the list of articles citing the main paper about Cosmological relativity collected by SPIRES
1086:
707:
and has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.
692:
396:
36:
445:
1422:
1367:
1328:
1300:
1211:
1149:
1121:
1104:
1080:
1052:
1005:
913:
868:
841:
the theory in question? A correction of the kind published in the case of ECE would actually confer
808:
768:
716:
349:
Creationist origin theories are generally controversial in the scientific community, particularly in
1118:
967:
863:
basis. He would have done that had there been pervasive problems. The issue that published Moreli
782:
598:
529:
496:
388:
235:
177:
1356:
Under the law, a mother and son are deemed not to be dealing at arms length, so the editor of the
973:
1513:
570:
519:
in a objective manner. The work of Hartnett is not objective, it builds on the theory. A Pradhan
392:
1182:
890:
772:
586:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1539:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1226:
1083:
999:
949:
673:
664:
590:
557:
470:
462:
400:
1393:
has received the requisite outside review necessary for encyclopedic (tertiary) treatment.
1408:
1278:
1218:
1062:
1048:
1044:
441:
412:
350:
1295:
You are confusing neutrality and independent sources. The sources meet the criteria of
1471:
741:, does not even have a listed impact factor. The whole thing seems very questionable.
594:
466:
230:
206:
55:
1065:
since no one has identified any sources that are independent of Hartnett and Carmeli.
1268:
1214:
864:
729:
It is rather misleading to trot out 't Hooft's credentials as the editor in chief of
688:
663:, a highly reputable publisher of academic books and journals. It's chief editor is
562:
1412:
1178:
478:
474:
430:
201:
821:
This is all well and good, but in your original post, you asked us to accept that
681:
492:
116:
426:
1257:
1195:
585:, I unfortunately do not see a single article in a decent journal. At west
429:
constitute the bulk of the references, this article does not fall into the
833:
would judiciously publish corrections to papers that appeared a long time
1263:
786:
696:
1411:, which you introduced to the discussion, as well as the linked essay,
1047:, and the fact that it is fringe could be spelled out for the reader.
947:
The theory has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, including
1492:
1533:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
380:
611:
you don't already filter the spam). No quality control at all.
1407:
That is not what the policy says and again I ask you to read
691:
was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at
1472:"Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?"
526:
While the theory is neither widely known nor accepted,...
528:
this in itself questions the notability of the theory.
112:
108:
104:
176:
713:theory, even if only when discussing creationists.
298:- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soc. 1
265:- International Journal of Theoretical Physics 11
259:* National/International Conference proceedings 3
1148:I thought he was referring to the publications.
990:has a similar name to a questionable publisher.
283:- Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics 1
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1547:). No further edits should be made to this page.
801:- that's just a sample from the first two pages.
369:theory--it must be modified to make it into one.
561:One of the references was in fact a WP clone.)
190:
8:
986:Two of these sources have been questioned.
963:International Journal of Theoretical Physics
759:International Journal of Theoretical Physics
331:International Journal of Theoretical Physics
227:list of Science-related deletion discussions
225:Note: This debate has been included in the
683:A previous editor may be confusing it with
224:
676:jointly runs Imperial College Press with
975:The theory is also briefly discussed in
1442:
739:Bulletin of the Israel Physical Society
292:- Classical and Quantum Gravity 1
277:- Astrophysics and Space Science 2
667:, who is a Nobel laureate in physics.
318:* University/academic web page 6
7:
289:- Canadian Journal of Physics 1
761:(1999), also published by Springer.
271:- Astronomy and Astrophysics 3
1514:"Creationism and Creation Science"
1493:"Creationism and Creation Science"
417:alternatives to general relativity
24:
1451:"Creation-Evolution Controversy"
971:Frontiers of Fundamental Physics
321:* Blogs/other web pages 4
304:- Proceedings of Science 1
286:- Astronomical Journal 1
274:- Foundations of Physics 2
268:- Astrophysical Journal 4
262:* Scientific Journals 31
1173:: I have definitely seen worse
798:Journal of the Chemical Society
792:Journal of Physical Chemistry A
661:Springer Science+Business Media
491:wikipedia should reflect that.
295:- Contemporary Physics 1
256:* Pre-print/ArXiv only 7
79:Cosmological General Relativity
71:Cosmological General Relativity
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1061:I don't see how it could pass
1:
1431:20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1403:20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1376:20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1352:20:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1337:15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1323:13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
1309:17:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
1297:Knowledge:Independent sources
1291:12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
1273:05:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
1247:12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
1233:16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
1201:12:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
1187:12:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1158:16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
1144:22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1130:05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1113:03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1090:17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
1075:22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1057:02:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
1031:12:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
936:22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
544:16:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
307:- Z. Naturforsch. A. 1
280:- American Scientist 1
65:16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
735:Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory
703:is a Research Fellow at the
385:tensor-vector-scalar gravity
1014:17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
922:18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
907:23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
877:18:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
858:21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
817:20:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
753:12:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
725:20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
642:22:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
621:19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
603:18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
576:09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
511:06:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
450:04:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
427:reliable, published sources
241:02:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
219:00:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
1564:
977:Space, Time, and Spacetime
779:Kluwer Academic Publishers
315:* Video lecture 1
301:- Physics Review 1
202:original research proposal
461:The relevant polices are
415:, and most or all of the
405:quasi-steady state theory
1536:Please do not modify it.
377:non-standard cosmologies
32:Please do not modify it.
889:The relevant policy is
767:The publishers include
697:Israel Physical Society
409:variable speed of light
329:Carmeli's book and the
992:Foundations of Physics
979:(Springer 2007), p.37.
956:Foundations of Physics
831:Foundations of Physics
823:Foundations of Physics
731:Foundations of Physics
705:University of Adelaide
656:Foundations of Physics
1413:"Independent sources"
1409:"Independent sources"
825:is a reliable source
769:John Wiley & Sons
695:and President of the
693:Ben Gurion University
397:redshift quantization
783:Taylor & Francis
312:* Books 3
613:Second Quantization
389:steady state theory
1223:WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT
393:Brans-Dicke theory
48:The result was
998:If the theory is
574:
566:
431:original research
413:bimetric theories
243:
209:for creationism.
63:
1555:
1538:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1520:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1501:
1499:
1489:
1483:
1482:
1480:
1478:
1468:
1462:
1461:
1459:
1457:
1447:
1023:
988:World Scientific
950:World Scientific
850:
745:
678:Imperial College
674:World Scientific
659:is published by
634:
568:
564:
540:
537:
534:
507:
504:
501:
401:plasma cosmology
238:
233:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1545:deletion review
1534:
1529:
1528:
1518:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1497:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1455:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1105:Dominus Vobisdu
1021:
848:
743:
665:Gerard 't Hooft
632:
538:
535:
532:
505:
502:
499:
351:Western culture
236:
231:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1561:
1559:
1550:
1549:
1527:
1526:
1505:
1484:
1463:
1441:
1440:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1420:
1416:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1358:New York Times
1251:
1250:
1249:
1204:
1203:
1189:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1022:Sławomir Biały
1003:
996:
983:
982:
941:
940:
939:
938:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
849:Sławomir Biały
806:
802:
762:
744:Sławomir Biały
714:
709:
708:
647:
645:
644:
633:Sławomir Biały
624:
623:
605:
579:
578:
549:
548:
547:
546:
487:
486:
453:
452:
439:
435:
434:
421:
420:
371:
370:
365:
364:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
341:
340:
335:
334:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
260:
257:
251:
250:
245:
244:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1560:
1548:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1531:
1530:
1515:
1509:
1506:
1494:
1488:
1485:
1473:
1467:
1464:
1452:
1446:
1443:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
981:
978:
974:
972:
968:
965:
964:
959:
957:
952:
951:
946:
943:
942:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
878:
874:
870:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
807:
803:
800:
799:
794:
793:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
770:
766:
763:
760:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
715:
711:
710:
706:
702:
701:John Hartnett
698:
694:
690:
689:Moshe Carmeli
686:
685:World Science
682:
679:
675:
672:
669:
666:
662:
658:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
643:
639:
635:
629:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
580:
577:
572:
567:
559:
554:
551:
550:
545:
542:
541:
527:
522:
517:
514:
513:
512:
509:
508:
493:
489:
488:
485:
481:from FRINGE,
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
440:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
367:
366:
361:
360:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
343:
342:
337:
336:
332:
327:
326:
320:
317:
314:
311:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
261:
258:
255:
254:
253:
252:
247:
246:
242:
239:
234:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1535:
1532:
1517:. Retrieved
1508:
1496:. Retrieved
1487:
1475:. Retrieved
1466:
1454:. Retrieved
1445:
1362:
1357:
1262:
1253:
1207:
1197:
1191:
1174:
1170:
1100:
1039:
991:
987:
976:
970:
961:
954:
948:
944:
894:
842:
839:even noticed
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
796:
790:
773:
758:
738:
730:
684:
654:
651:
646:
627:
607:
582:
558:75 citations
552:
531:
525:
520:
515:
498:
482:
457:
456:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
995:Relativity.
895:YOUNG EARTH
589:, at worst
200:A complete
164:free images
1437:References
1049:Tgeorgescu
891:WP:REDFLAG
587:WP:TOOSOON
237:talk to me
58:Sandstein
1541:talk page
1519:17 August
1498:17 August
1477:17 August
1456:17 August
1208:Weak keep
595:Ymblanter
591:WP:FRINGE
471:WP:WEIGHT
463:WP:FRINGE
442:Al'Beroya
433:category.
232:Jinkinson
37:talk page
1543:or in a
1279:WP:FRIND
1219:WP:FRIND
1175:articles
1063:WP:FRIND
1045:WP:FRIND
787:Elsevier
565:VVERTYVS
123:View log
39:or in a
1179:YohanN7
1171:Comment
827:because
774:Physica
652:Comment
628:Comment
553:Comment
467:WP:NPOV
458:comment
438:Cheers,
207:soapbox
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1363:et al.
1215:WP:GNG
1192:Delete
1101:Delete
1000:fringe
835:before
795:, the
789:, the
608:Delete
583:Delete
530:Martin
516:Delete
497:Martin
249:found:
142:Google
100:delete
1269:talk
1258:AlanS
1196:AlanS
521:et al
479:WP:NN
475:WP:OR
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1521:2014
1500:2014
1479:2014
1458:2014
1427:talk
1399:talk
1372:talk
1348:talk
1333:talk
1319:talk
1305:talk
1287:talk
1254:Keep
1243:talk
1217:and
1183:talk
1154:talk
1140:talk
1126:talk
1109:talk
1079:See
1071:talk
1053:talk
1040:Keep
1027:talk
1010:talk
960:the
945:Keep
932:talk
918:talk
903:talk
873:talk
854:talk
843:more
813:talk
749:talk
721:talk
638:talk
617:talk
599:talk
477:and
446:talk
381:MOND
215:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1423:TFD
1419:it?
1395:jps
1368:TFD
1344:jps
1329:TFD
1315:jps
1301:TFD
1283:jps
1264:DGG
1239:jps
1150:TFD
1136:jps
1122:TFD
1067:jps
1006:TFD
928:jps
914:TFD
899:jps
869:TFD
809:TFD
717:TFD
699:.
687:.
593:.--
571:hm?
473:),
211:jps
192:TWL
121:– (
1429:)
1401:)
1374:)
1350:)
1335:)
1321:)
1307:)
1289:)
1281:.
1271:)
1245:)
1185:)
1156:)
1142:)
1128:)
1111:)
1073:)
1055:)
1029:)
1012:)
969:]
953:,
934:)
920:)
905:)
875:)
856:)
815:)
785:,
781:,
777:,
771:,
751:)
723:)
640:)
619:)
601:)
465:,
448:)
411:,
407:,
403:,
399:,
395:,
391:,
387:,
383:,
379:,
229:.
217:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1523:.
1502:.
1481:.
1460:.
1425:(
1397:(
1370:(
1346:(
1331:(
1317:(
1303:(
1285:(
1267:(
1241:(
1230:R
1227:T
1225:.
1181:(
1152:(
1138:(
1124:(
1107:(
1087:R
1084:T
1069:(
1051:(
1025:(
1008:(
966:,
958:,
930:(
916:(
901:(
871:(
852:(
811:(
747:(
719:(
680:,
636:(
615:(
597:(
573:)
569:(
563:Q
539:1
536:5
533:4
506:1
503:5
500:4
469:(
444:(
419:.
353:.
213:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.