773:. Don't shoot the messenger. I just helped him post the information, I didn't make it up. This information was given to the public once before and that publication was "GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS" Vol 6 no. 4 July/August 1995. The posted information was a reflection of that publications dissemination of the journals of Theodore Theodorsen. Theodore Theodorsen was a quiet man with little to do with the spotlight. His vision and teachings are to this day being used in mathematics. Again this information is for the world to have. I don't claim to be a math wizard, but I believe that there are many things that are left out of the public domain for wacky reasons. I am not a Wiki wizard and have a lot to learn. I do know one thing. If you delete this mans work you will end his contribution to the future thinkers of tomorrow.
770:. The man Theodore Theodorsen was a great man with countless insights into mathematics. Unless someone is willing to prove this man wrong than this article should stay as a benchmark of out diverse knowledge of relativity. Albeit alternative knowledge. This article was given to me to post "NO" copyright or publication rights exists. The present holder (owner) of this information has freely given this information to the public domain. The owner is the son of Theodore Theodorsen. Any dispute on this matter should be directed to him. @
333:. A lack of google hits is not definitive, given the age of the material. However, theories in the area of Physics and Relativity have a long shelf life, even if proven wrong. The fact that no current or recent papers reference this work, even if only to refute it, is troubling. It's like there's a big, sucking hole in the universe where mention of this paper should be, and that hints at a possible exaggeration of the notability (or existance) of this topic.
717:
Everyone is being very polite about this pathetic article. It's probably not a hoax but there's not a single word in it that can be relied on. And even if it were gospel truth it's based round one non-notable paper that was mentioned in passing in a small
Norwegian conference and then republished in
157:
The theory looks bonafide, as there is plenty of sources available to support it, outside of google. But the fact remains it looks like stream of consciousness copyvio. We need a mathematician/physicist to look to determine the validity of the article. If the article can be cleaned, copyvio and the
553:
I have spent the afternoon in the local university library working my way along 12 shelf feet of their books, old and new, on relativity, without finding any trace of
Theodorsen's theory. It seems not to have made the slightest impact. That being so, I can't think it notable, or that there is any
130:
Expired PROD. I have no expertise at all in this area, so I'm bringing it to AfD for consensus. From the PROD reasoning: "No evidence of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. There are no such references in the article and searching for
593:
Sorry, but I reverted your reference in the main article. It relies on the
Relativity article which everyone seems to agree is very dodgy. We don't actually know anything about this paper other than its existence. Worth contacting the DKNVS and
285:. I posted the original prod. From the sound of it he was a notable aerodynamicist but went seriously off piste over relativity. His only publication on the subject seems to have been in a fringe journal - in any case there are
871:
I just assumed my vote counted also. I was never hiding who I was to the discussion board. If you look at the edits you can see for yourself gaccolla is listed everywhere. I am sorry to all for the confusion if any existed.
384:- how on Earth can you say "Seems notable"? The article does not give a single valid independent reference - most of the references are just standard works on relativity. His only published work on the subject seems to be
718:
a fringe journal of
Einstein-sceptics many years later. Theodorsen's "real" work is highly notable and frequently cited but this oddity of a paper (about which we have no reliable facts anyway) sank like a stone.
708:
434:
I imagine the pd-self tag refers to the image, not to the mathematical content of the image. But that's the wrong way to add mathematical equations to a
Knowledge (XXG) article; he should be using <math:
650:
Vol 6, no. 4, p. 63 in 1995. None of these, presumably, are the first publication. I will ask DKNVS if they know when that was. If that can be tracked down, I think TT's interest in relativity, (but
388:
and there is no evidence that anyone has ever cited it, which is the only true measure of scientific notability. It's indexed in a few minor publications - searching Google finds 10 hits for
96:
91:
100:
123:
83:
646:
We know of three possible publications of the paper: in the DKNVS journal in 1977, in the book "A modern view and appreciation of the works of
Theodore Theodorsen" in 1992, and in
796:
If you'll read the comments above, you'll notice that while concerns of a hoax have abounded, the primary concern for which this article will be deleted is the apparent lack of
548:(The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters) in June 1977 - probably to celebrate his 80th birthday that year; but it seems unlikely that that was first publication.
392:, most of them duplicates of entries in "Proceedings of the Theodorsen Colloquium" and a fringe, non-peer reviewed, journal called "Galilean Electrodynamics". And that's all.
727:
575:
If anyone thinks it worth while, I would be prepared to contact DKNVS and ask them for details of the paper, so that we could insert a better reference to it.
264:
aerodynamics. The only reference to relativity in his main article was added only on 27 September by anonymous IP 167.206.147.218. The only paper by him that
139:
relevant ghits. Probable copyvio - large parts of the article appear to be copied from
Theodorsen's published works and are presumably still copyright."
495:
Per andy. This is a hoax. I was fooled by the equation images and not being familiar with the subject. So I've changed my vote. Creator of the article,
881:
817:
785:
760:
681:
667:
641:
607:
584:
526:
487:
466:
446:
425:
369:
343:
325:
300:
277:
241:
192:
167:
148:
65:
699:. I vaguely recall reading this before.... Hmmm. Leaning to keeping it for at least a few days. 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) signed
655:
544:
write such a paper. But we don't know when or where it was published: the reference in the article is to a "Theodorsen
Colloquium" of
522:
365:
339:
17:
87:
506:
79:
71:
895:
268:
article cites is from 1977, when he was 80. I haven't time to read this article fully today, I'll look at it tomorrow.
36:
704:
624:
know about it, actually: we have it, or large extracts from it, here in front of us. I think it's most unlikely that
291:
ghits for his work in this area and no relevant references in the article. Anyway the article seems to be a copyvio.
260:
was an aerodynamicist. In his main WP article, there are external references to his published papers, and they are
800:
of the theory. Not every theory originating from a notable person gets an article; only those theories that are
894:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
442:
225:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
838:
700:
654:
the detail of his theory), is worth a short paragraph in his main article, and possibly also a mention in
516:
453:
The point is that if it's not his maths then he can't give copyright permission for the images. And if it
359:
321:
237:
478:
Clearly non-notable fringe theory (or hoax). It's also more or less complete bullshit, if anyone cares.
813:
483:
188:
163:
854:
723:
677:
603:
462:
421:
296:
144:
563:
438:
309:
257:
53:
877:
781:
758:
500:
61:
416:
equations, not
Theodorsen's (which makes the article a hoax) or they're in breach of copyright.
740:
632:
know is whether, when or where it was published. But I'll ask DKNVS if they can tell us that.
537:
512:
355:
334:
317:
233:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
559:
809:
663:
637:
580:
479:
406:
273:
184:
159:
399:
850:
719:
673:
599:
458:
417:
292:
140:
805:
696:
220:
801:
797:
873:
846:
842:
834:
830:
777:
748:
625:
496:
402:) has uploaded lots of images of equations to the article. He's tagged them all with
57:
352:
Seems notable, although the article needs a major revamp and additional sources. —
117:
771:
744:
659:
633:
576:
269:
845:, has an overlapping edit history on the article, and may be connected with
647:
205:
179:
Please realize that the sources given aside from
Theodorsen's own work
545:
228:
says that that book includes a paper by Theodore Theodorsen called
554:
point keeping it in all its mathematical glory. I propose that we
183:
Thus, they lend nothing to the notability of the theory at hand.
223:
the subject areas covered by this book do not include relativity.
888:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
558:
a brief reference into Theodorsen's main article, (which I have
232:, so he seems to have had something to say about the subject.
658:. But the article under review here should go, anyway.
113:
109:
105:
747:, as soon as a suitable ref. to the article is found.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
898:). No further edits should be made to this page.
739:as a minor comment into the main article, per
695:: This is definitely NOT a hoax, but possibly
628:has laboriously made all this up. All that we
598:inserting a reference into the main article.
390:"Relativity and classical physics" theodorsen
8:
566:, for anyone to improve or revert) and then
509:) should be given a warning for trolling. —
540:'s note above it is clear that Theodorsen
546:Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab
412:. So therefore they are either really
133:"Theodore Theodorsen" relativity -wiki
80:Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory
72:Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
204:Here is a book discussing his work.
158:suitable sources found, I say keep.
206:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930403851
656:Alternatives to general relativity
24:
457:his maths the article is a hoax.
536:No, it's not a hoax - thanks to
386:Relativity and classical physics
230:Relativity and classical physics
48:, with no prejudice to a small
1:
882:23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
818:19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
786:21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
768:MERGE is acceptable by author
761:20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
728:17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
709:14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
682:23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
668:22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
642:10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
608:22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
585:22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
527:22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
488:19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
467:18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
447:18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
426:17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
370:14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
344:03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
326:03:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
301:00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
278:23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
242:11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
193:19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
168:23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
149:22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
66:11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
915:
396:Further comment re copyvio
833:is the article's creator
672:Sounds reasonable to me.
891:Please do not modify it.
648:Galilean Electrodynamics
32:Please do not modify it.
255:I think this is a hoax.
52:comment being added to
841:comes from NY as does
743:, and as done once by
400:Single Purpose Account
827:Note re recent !votes
181:all predate his work.
861:November 2007 (UTC)
839:User:167.206.147.218
534:Comment and proposal
310:Theodore Theodorsen
308:a brief summary to
258:Theodore Theodorsen
54:Theodore Theodorsen
513:Aššur-bāni-apli II
436:... </math: -->
530:
529:
373:
372:
342:
906:
893:
806:reliable sources
755:
701:Bearian'sBooties
511:
510:
411:
405:
398:. The author (a
354:
353:
338:
121:
103:
34:
914:
913:
909:
908:
907:
905:
904:
903:
902:
896:deletion review
889:
862:
804:by third-party
749:
409:
403:
356:Aššur-bāni-apli
94:
78:
75:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
912:
910:
901:
900:
869:
868:
860:
859:
858:
823:
822:
821:
820:
775:
774:
764:
763:
733:
732:
731:
730:
712:
711:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
670:
644:
613:
612:
611:
610:
588:
587:
572:
571:
550:
549:
531:
490:
472:
471:
470:
469:
451:
450:
449:
439:David Eppstein
429:
428:
393:
376:
375:
346:
328:
303:
280:
247:
246:
245:
244:
209:
208:
198:
197:
196:
195:
171:
170:
128:
127:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
911:
899:
897:
892:
886:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
867:
864:
863:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
824:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
772:
769:
766:
765:
762:
759:
756:
754:
753:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
729:
725:
721:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
690:
683:
679:
675:
671:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
570:this article.
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
528:
524:
521:
518:
514:
508:
505:
502:
498:
494:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
473:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
408:
401:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
371:
367:
364:
361:
357:
351:
347:
345:
341:
336:
332:
329:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
252:
249:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
226:This web site
224:
222:
221:this web site
219:According to
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
169:
165:
161:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
890:
887:
870:
865:
826:
793:
776:
767:
751:
750:
741:Clarityfiend
736:
692:
651:
629:
621:
595:
567:
555:
541:
538:Phil Bridger
533:
519:
503:
492:
475:
454:
413:
395:
389:
385:
381:
362:
349:
348:
330:
318:Clarityfiend
313:
305:
287:
286:
282:
265:
261:
254:
250:
234:Phil Bridger
229:
218:
214:
201:
180:
176:
154:
143:
136:
132:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
857:) 23:00, 23
810:Someguy1221
480:Someguy1221
185:Someguy1221
160:scope_creep
802:verifiable
798:notability
316:the rest.
50:referenced
620:Well, we
155:Weak Keep
56:article.
847:Gaccolla
843:Gaccolla
835:Gaccolla
794:Comment.
752:Tim Ross
626:Gaccolla
523:contribs
507:contribs
497:Gaccolla
366:contribs
340:Evidence
177:Comment.
124:View log
58:Davewild
866:My Vote
693:Comment
476:Delete.
407:PD-self
382:Comment
215:Comment
202:Comment
97:protect
92:history
745:JohnCD
660:JohnCD
634:JohnCD
577:JohnCD
568:delete
560:boldly
556:insert
493:Delete
331:Delete
314:delete
283:Delete
270:JohnCD
251:Delete
101:delete
46:Delete
737:Merge
697:WP:OR
630:don't
562:done
306:Merge
145:Cobra
141:Glass
135:gets
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
878:talk
855:talk
851:andy
814:talk
782:talk
724:talk
720:andy
705:talk
678:talk
674:andy
664:talk
638:talk
604:talk
600:andy
596:then
581:talk
564:here
517:talk
501:talk
484:talk
463:talk
459:andy
443:talk
422:talk
418:andy
360:talk
350:Keep
322:talk
312:and
297:talk
293:andy
274:talk
266:this
238:talk
189:talk
164:talk
137:zero
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
874:GPA
831:GPA
778:GPA
652:not
542:did
437:. —
435:-->
414:his
262:all
122:– (
880:)
849:.
837:;
829:-
816:)
808:.
784:)
726:)
707:)
680:)
666:)
640:)
622:do
606:)
583:)
525:)
486:)
465:)
455:is
445:)
424:)
410:}}
404:{{
368:)
335:ZZ
324:)
299:)
288:NO
276:)
253:.
240:)
217:.
191:)
166:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
876:(
853:(
812:(
780:(
757:·
722:(
703:(
676:(
662:(
636:(
602:(
579:(
520:·
515:(
504:·
499:(
482:(
461:(
441:(
420:(
363:·
358:(
337:~
320:(
295:(
272:(
236:(
187:(
162:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.