558:
of any content it. Non expression of opinion can not be interpreted as non consent, because it can quitely be regarded as unilateral consent. You freely interpreted it as dissent, by your own faulty assumption. That's a cardinal rule to avoid. You committed the cardinal sin to qualify yourself as being an editor. You may have to remove yourself being any part of an editor or anything for that matter.
557:
Knowledge is a Joke. Period. It will be gone. You don't have an inch of idea what you are talking about. You violated the first ethics of being any part of an encyclopedia. Namely, you don't judge materials submitted without first, second, third and many other's opinions while yourself being ignorant
433:
You are not the first person to chafe at these rules, nor will you be the last. I myself have my own OR that I am doing, but it is not even published. I will tell you that I will never start an article on my own work myself: a sanity check for its having become notable is someone else seeing fit to
234:
I think it has already become a part of a human knowledge. Regardless of controversy or not it is permanently recorded in a renowned
Journal. The level of controversy depends largely on its merit as a truly viable theory that really representing the nature. Something like Fischibach's theory of fifth
218:
controversial does not "cut the mustard" with us. Instead, this topic becomes acceptable only if and when it becomes controversial. The policies are here for a reason, and that is because for every one thing like this that will be worthwhile, there are thousands of things that never will be, and no
542:
itself remains gone, while this deletion log is retained in the
Knowledge space as a permanent record of why it was deleted. Beyond that, it is not impossible for a previously non-notable topic to attain notability, but for speculations like dipole antigravity I will admit that its becoming notable
336:
Look, if you cite this theory in your paper, you immediately become a heretic in the gravitational physics community. Not because it is a wrong theory but because it is obviously and stupendously the right theory but politically incorrect. An encyclopedia has the responsibility to let people know of
90:
The anomalous dipole gravitational effect from the rotating hemisphere can only be measured by the ultra sentive gravitometer not by your sense of touch or feelings in the skin, although it depends on the size and the rotational speed of the hemispheres, it is a second order gravity effect and you
60:
The article is empirically falsified. An ultracentrifuge rotor - approaching a spinning hemisphere - does not manifest anomalous gravitation effects. Given a homogeneous isotropic mass distribution (radius=R, spherical coordinates , maximum surface gravity is not a hemisphere - it is the bulging
427:
make relativity a topic that cannot be ignored. Maybe in 1907 the controversy is brewing, but I am not sure as to what level it was being dealt with in the literature. I do know that starting around 1910, relativity was a subcategory for articles being abstracted, making it more than notable at
140:
A note to the both of you: This issue here is NOT whether this theory is true, but instead whether it is notable. If this had sparked a major scientific debate or gotten plenty of press coverage, it would be eligible for inclusion in
Knowledge due to its being notable even with its being proven
26:
The article is based on the publication of the theory in the journal
Physica Scripta {Non-Newtonian Force Experienced by Gravitational Dipole Moment at the Center of the Two Mass Pole Model Universe, Eue Jin Jeong, Phys. Scr. 59 No 5 (1999) 339-343} peer reviewed and a renowned physics journal
466:
Dark matter problems, jets from the black hole accretion discs, anomalous red shifts, gamma ray bursts, while all these issues are either direct or indirect consequences of dipole gravity, all those problems have been left out of touch of general relativity only to be handled by tons of ad hoc
495:
We are talking about 3-5 meter diameter solid metallic hemisphere (ultra precision micro balanced) mounted on a magnetically levitated wheel bearing enclosed in a ultra high vacuum sealed chamber to reduce the air friciton and a ultra sensitive gravitometer which may be one of those that was
332:
It is easy to knock down a silly (nonsensical) theory out of the circulation by simply pointing out a few key inconsistencies in it. I haven't seen any of those. All of these discussions(?) is about if it has been cited by others and by how many times etc etc.
451:
Except that if they had come out openly to support
Galileo, they would have faced the same fate like him. There are thousands and thousands of supporters of the theory of dipole gravity out there. They will not come out until this theory gets a big publicity.
184:
Well, we can start a hotted debate here, can't we? It is already published in the major journal regardless of false or truth. Knowledge can only say it is a published article in the refereed journal and it is potentially very controversal with no judgement.
351:. Yours is an "extremely limited minority" at this time. Also, the focus here is not on truth but on verifiability. Unless this is written about by others in the peer-reviewed literature, we have no comfirmation that this is a notable topic. --
455:
I really don't care whatever you guys decide to do. It's not my business. If
Einstein had lived long enough, he would have been very happy to see the theory of dipole gravity came out of his own, demonstrating the true beauty of it.
567:
TalkBack: Knowledge - a dictatorship of idiots! | reader response ...Knowledge - a dictatorship of idiots! Reader post by: Misouinfo. Posted on: April 7, 2007, 7:37 PM PDT. Story: Coop's Corner
Podcast: Folly of Web 2.0 ...
459:
Those
Princeton, Wheeler group of people did very little to expand general relativity beyond the black hole and its hairs for the last 90 years. And those quantum bubble wormholes, whatever that might be.. LOL.
365:
Galileo was an "extremely limited" minority, actually he was the only one when he was tried by his accusers. So was Jesus Christ. But the eventual losers were the blinded ones who judged them. Truth rules.
577:
Knowledge removed this article? IMO that is foolish, a reflection of the idiocy of present humanity. IMO the published work of Dr. Eue Jin Jeong is to good for wikipedia. No, I am not Dr. Eue Jin Jeong.
36:
and type in Eue Jin Jeong for the author search and you will see the title and the author of the paper and the abstract. You can purchase the article in the pdf format from the
Journal directly.
219:
way to tell between them in advance. The decision long ago was to wait for the few things that gain traction and become highly controversial to show their worth by actually doing so. --
188:
I don't see why it should hurt the readership of
Knowledge. Knowledge can flourish by controversy. Leave it there and see what happens. I begin to see the beauty of this forum.
512:
I was looking for this page and it was gone for a long time. I don't know why these people(whoever running wikipedia) decided to put it back. Has it become "notable" now?
337:
a physical theory that has been published in the major journal even if it is a voice of a minority. You may be missing a huge chunk of important truth by not letting it.
214:
a forum. Instead Knowledge is an encyclopedia and as such is here to document existing human knowledge instead of potentially emergent knowledge. That this theory is
241:
I serioulsy suggest Dr. Kip Thorne to revise his text book, "Gravitation". He knows this theory and he could not dispute it in the several personal email exchanges.
476:
At a fraction of the cost of LIGO, general relativity can be proven without a shadow of doubt by using a hemispherical wheel and a ultra sensitive gravitometer.
499:
The detector has to be flexible and be able to move around all different angles and distances to measure all the angular and length dependencies of the force.
317:
BTW - You should sign all of your talk page posts by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) at end. Thay will be replaced with your user-id and a timestamp automatically. --
419:, I would bounce SR just the same as I am bouncing your ideas, for much the same reasons and without regrets later. In 1908, the endorsement of
463:
While those subjects may have been interesting intellectual curiosity, none of them touched the real issues the present cosmology faced today.
115:
I hope someone in the physics community with high degree in physics comment on it. In fact, can someone bring Dr. Kip Thorne on this debate?
82:
17:
238:
The theory is viable and has great potential to change the lanscape of the future physics. Let it run and see the controversy blooming.
530:
203:
131:
385:
492:
Precaution: but I don't want people to think it will be such an easy experiment that they might be able to do it in their garage.
244:
I think it is a scholastic dishonesty knowingly concealing the important physical discovery from the public as a public servant.
91:
have to remember you can not feel the gravity from your 2000 lb car by your sense but it is still there and pulls you toward it.
259:
107:
52:
551:
506:
486:
442:
359:
341:
325:
310:
227:
177:
502:
I'm sure there are tons of brilliant minds who can figure out the most suitable configurations for this experiment.
169:
a research journal, nor is it a school. It is not our job to rule on whether something is really true or not. --
165:
and a short explanation as to why). Just be advised that "this is true" and "this is false" don't wash here.
78:
526:
381:
199:
127:
74:
539:
522:
399:
338:
289:
potential to change the landcape of physics until and unless other physicists start taking it seriously.
195:
123:
503:
483:
377:
515:
Knowledge proved itself that it is a JOKE. They obvioulsy don't know what is notable and what is not.
518:
496:
developed by Ho Jung Paik at the University of Maryland for the detection of minute gravity effect.
373:
255:
247:
191:
119:
103:
95:
70:
48:
40:
544:
435:
352:
318:
303:
220:
170:
548:
439:
356:
322:
307:
224:
174:
412:
64:
Sphere, r(theta) = 2Rcos(theta) Schmoo, r(theta) = 5^(1/3)Rsqrt (6/5)(5/8)^(1/3) = 2.6% better
424:
299:
154:
564:
You are not the only one who thinks wikipedia sucks, read following interesting comments,
251:
99:
44:
348:
30:
Did this person Jim Black ever read the content of the paper or the article in detail?
279:
a crystal ball. It cannot say whether this theory will come to have an impact or not.
276:
270:
211:
166:
146:
142:
295:
150:
470:
The current state of the matter in this field is truly a cosmological anarchy.
398:
has a lot of support in the scientific community of the time. His standing in
282:
Being an obscure Knowledge article will not help your theory gain any traction.
420:
34:
408:
395:
369:
What's the use of 1000 garbage papers, when one paper rules them all.
235:
force raised a lot of attention only to become a trash physics.
416:
479:
This theory can save billions of dollars of tax payer's money.
269:
I strongly suspect that you are Dr. Eue Jin Jeong. Please see
157:. Feel free to state an opinion in the project page (either
27:
published by the Royal Academy of Scineces in Sweden.
33:
Go to the official Physica Scripta journal web page
538:You are going to have to explain this remark.
8:
294:Overall, this work just plain is not
7:
467:assumptions as you see them today.
407:I think that a better example is in
18:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion
141:totally and absolutely false. See
24:
533:) 15:44, June 13 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
543:is highly unlikely to occur. --
262:) 21:02, April 10, 2007 (UTC)
206:) 18:13, April 10, 2007 (UTC)
1:
473:And the LIGO is in LIMBO.
592:
507:20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
487:20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
443:17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
360:04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
342:01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
326:21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
311:21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
228:19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
178:17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
552:16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
434:create the article. --
521:comment was added by
250:comment was added by
194:comment was added by
349:WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
61:half of a "schmoo",
540:Dipole antigravity
413:special relativity
402:was somthing else.
394:LOL! I think the
534:
482:Think about it.
425:Hermann Minkowski
390:
376:comment added by
263:
207:
136:
122:comment added by
112:
98:comment added by
87:
73:comment added by
57:
43:comment added by
583:
516:
423:and the work of
389:
370:
285:This theory has
277:Knowledge is not
245:
212:Knowledge is not
189:
167:Knowledge is not
135:
116:
111:
92:
86:
67:
56:
37:
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
582:
581:
580:
517:—The preceding
415:. If this was
371:
246:—The preceding
190:—The preceding
117:
93:
68:
65:
38:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
589:
587:
576:
574:
573:
561:
555:
554:
511:
491:
448:
446:
445:
430:
429:
404:
403:
363:
362:
331:
329:
328:
314:
313:
300:scientifically
292:
291:
290:
283:
280:
274:
233:
231:
230:
183:
181:
180:
75:70.187.130.244
63:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
588:
579:
571:
570:
569:
565:
562:
559:
553:
550:
546:
541:
537:
536:
535:
532:
528:
524:
523:70.246.94.110
520:
513:
509:
508:
505:
500:
497:
493:
489:
488:
485:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
441:
437:
432:
431:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
367:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
339:69.148.169.32
334:
327:
324:
320:
316:
315:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
242:
239:
236:
229:
226:
222:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
196:69.148.169.32
193:
186:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:69.148.169.32
121:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
35:
31:
28:
19:
575:
566:
563:
560:
556:
514:
510:
504:70.249.35.26
501:
498:
494:
490:
484:70.249.35.26
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
400:"the church"
378:70.249.35.26
372:— Preceding
368:
364:
335:
330:
286:
243:
240:
237:
232:
215:
187:
182:
162:
158:
118:— Preceding
114:
94:— Preceding
89:
69:— Preceding
66:
59:
39:— Preceding
32:
29:
25:
298:, not even
216:potentially
428:that time.
252:Tachyonics
155:WP:SCIENCE
100:Tachyonics
45:Tachyonics
421:Max Plank
531:contribs
519:unsigned
409:Einstein
386:contribs
374:unsigned
260:contribs
248:unsigned
204:contribs
192:unsigned
132:contribs
120:unsigned
108:contribs
96:unsigned
83:contribs
71:unsigned
53:contribs
41:unsigned
572:Agreed.
396:Galileo
296:notable
271:WP:COI
163:Delete
153:, and
147:WP:ATT
143:WP:NOR
16:<
549:Talk
527:talk
440:Talk
417:1905
411:and
382:talk
357:Talk
347:See
323:Talk
308:Talk
302:. --
256:talk
225:Talk
200:talk
175:Talk
159:Keep
151:WP:N
128:talk
104:talk
79:talk
49:talk
545:EMS
436:EMS
353:EMS
319:EMS
304:EMS
221:EMS
171:EMS
161:or
547:|
529:•
438:|
388:)
384:•
355:|
321:|
306:|
287:no
258:•
223:|
202:•
173:|
149:,
145:,
134:)
130:•
110:)
106:•
85:)
81:•
55:)
51:•
525:(
380:(
273:.
254:(
198:(
126:(
102:(
77:(
47:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.