User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2010

Quick question

If someone were to bring up a request that the topic ban for Brews Ohare and David Tombe be lifted, would you support it? I don't want to do anything which would be opposed.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No. First of all, I was not a party in the ArbCom case. Second, I think this place is better off without them, and enjoy getting some constructive work done without having to deal with there misguided view of physics and inability to interpret sources. TimothyRias (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had to deal with similarly misinformed people, and it's a hassle, but these same people can make constructive contributions too, like clarifying points for lay readers or adding diagrams. It's just part of life. Since you weren't involved in the original ArbCom case, I won't bother you again.Likebox (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

What do you think of this? I'm involved, so I don't know if my judgement's been clouded, but this strikes me as not only being extremely disruptive and misleading, but also non-factual. I've actually coordinated stuff for over two years now, Likebox showed up two days ago and wants to label himself as my superior (as a result of the infraparticle crap, see WT:PHYS). I'd revert, but I'm involved. Opinions? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Titles mean absolutely nothing. Likebox is basically making a total ass of himself and is doing a superb job of alienating other editors. Any intervention at this point will just stir up more drama. My best advice is to just be the bigger man here and let him be his pointy little drama queen. TimothyRias (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my plan, but then he added that lead coordinator thing, and that's getting to me because it does not reflect reality and I don't want newbies to go to a long term edit-warrer restricted by ARBCOM who doesn't know anything about the project when they are looking for advice. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked whether it was Ok, and they said go ahead. My dispute is not with infraparticle, it is with the abuse that Headbomb takes of his self-appointed title to block other editors and to pretend to speak for the community: here is a case. If his title is really meaningless, my own would be equally meaningless. I do not want newbies going to an administrative blocker of others who has contributed very little technical physics content when they want help writing physics.Likebox (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

2 fermions in 2-dimensional box

Please read the comment I wrote on the discussion page of Commons [File:Asymmetricwave2.png] about the impossibility to represent 2 fermions in a 2-dimensional box, and do as you see fit.   Trassiorf (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That page currently has no discussion page. Put the the description should read 1D box (have corrected it), somebody mistakenly changed it to say 2D box. TimothyRias (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging Schrodinger Equation

You should discuss your tags--- it seems like you went through the article, adding "citation needed" at every sentence, and stopped when you got tired. I sourced most of the things that are not common knowledge. If you want a good source, explain your dispute with the text in detail. If you have no detailed dispute, don't tag.Likebox (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags rarely need any explanation. If you are confused by one don't hesitate to ask.TimothyRias (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd ever met the man you would know how hilarious naming him as a proponent of sting theory is.

Er. "Proponent"? AFAIK he was (is?) giving lectures on strings (2004..ongoing ?), did relevant research. In the book I've referenced (1997) he states just the words: 'not TOE, intermediate step, valuable'. --Dc987 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not looking for 'proponents' who 'believe'. Can you suggest someone who is:

• not popularizer;
• publicly acknowledge that strings is a good/valuable step towards TOE.
• well known/cited research in the last decade;
• well known in general public;
• preferably with prestigious awards.

I thought that 't Hooft would satisfy. True, he is somewhat on his own and has even spoken positively about LQG, but as far as I know he had never dismissed strings. He taught strings recently. And has publicly acknowledged the value of the theory. He is also not a part of the usual strings clique, that puts his opinion still higher in my eyes.

How about David J. Gross? Less well known? --Dc987 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Has 't Hooft recently taught a string theory course? true. He also doesn't outright dismiss string theory. He is however also quite generally known for not liking string theory and being very critical of it. Putting him in a list of people think that string theory is the "right" theory would raise many eyebrows. TimothyRias (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

True. He is "not a big supporter" (his own words). Can you suggest someone else who is well known and not "Michio Kaku"? --Dc987 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to find example of well-known, still active, theorists that support string theory but are not considered string theorists themselves. :) Best bet would be Stephen Hawking probably. He is certainly well-known. Better known for his non-string achievements. Has published papers about string theory in recent years. Has given a lot of public lectures providing with opportunity of sourcing his opinion.TimothyRias (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Juan Maldacena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc987 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all competent physicists under age 50 believe in string theory, and believe it is the theory of everything. You can pick up the APS directory.Likebox (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. For all I care they can believe in certain heraldic animals staying in a certain superposition. --Dc987 (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that you don't need to spell out supporters names. It's everybody except for a few die-hards. Even some of the loop people came around (their approach is complementary).Likebox (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hi TimotyRias,

I saw your name in my watchlist. (Promoting the articles "the name of scientist whose names are used..." series) Well, since you are from Netherlands, maybe you can answer my question about a company from your country. The name of the construction company is Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij Voor Havenwerken (Have I spelled right ?) Any way I am searching desperately to find out what happened to the company. You see, they were the constructors of the harbour of Mersin, (Turkey) in 1950s. But unfortunatelly they almost don't exist in internet sources. I have a very vague idea that the company might have been sold to some other company in Spain. If possible, some details. Thank you. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, never heard of them. A quick search has not revealed any info about what happend to them (no references beyond 1975 or so). TimothyRias (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang

Hoi Timothy. I don't want to reopen the discussion again, but if you have any ideas about what to include in a section on discredited alternatives feel free to propose them. I thought yours was, unlike the rest of the thread, potentially a good suggestion. (I'm not editing much at the moment, so if you reply here please drop me a talkback note.) Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually remember editing either of those articles. Most have been on some Wikignoming spree. Anyway good to see you here Vyeh.TimothyRias (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. TimothyRias (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Matter

On "volume." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Geophysics

Isn't geophysics/rock mechanics also a branch of physics? (re: Talk:Soviet nuclear well collapses ) Or does the WP:PHYSICS not cover those branches? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your ranking of the collision cascade article

 Hi "Timothy",

I noticed you ranked the article "collision cascade" (written largely by me) as "C class" on the wikipedia quality scale. I am curious why you thought the article is that poor, and would appreciate you pointing out what the weaknesses cand shortcomings are. Naturally it may be difficult to understand for a layperson, but as the topic is somewhat special, I think this should be acceptable in wikipedia, considering the current very wide scope of the forum. I did try to make the article understandable to any materials physicists (the intended audience) by strong linking to related wikipedia pages, which give the framework of the topic. The reason I am somewhat disconcerted by the your weak judging of the article is that I have published more than 200 refereed scientific publications on this topic, so I think I know a fair amount of the subject. Of course it might be that you know more than me -- since you use an alias I cannot know your scientific competence in the field. So could you also please elaborate on what expertise you have on the topic.

Yours,

Kai Nordlund (which is my real name) Knordlun (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the speed of light but its value is fixed

Good point. I agree.

Let me ask for your thoughts about another aspect of this. As we know, c=299,792,458 metres per second. My feeling is that c is not exact since the metre is not exact. How does that sound to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. One of my responses to you on another matter might have gone unnoticed?[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interferometer picture

Hi Timothy, nice work, and much better than the original. There is however a little error: on the left side, the reflected vertical beam has its arrow in the wrong direction. It points up but should point down. I could correct it, but I'll leave that for you :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I had another look, and now I'm not sure anymore. Perhaps it does point down, but it's not at all clear. Perhaps you could make the arrows a little bit larger? DVdm (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked things a bit. Should be a little better now. Any other suggestions?TimothyRias (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent now. No other suggs for now :-) Thanks - DVdm (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Physics/Subfields

The article Physics/Subfields has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Improper use of article space. Content moved to template space.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TimothyRias (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of don't template the regulars, but I never thought we'd need a don't template yourself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bug with TW and prodding an article you just moved. TimothyRias (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request help at Dirac delta function

Hi Tim, I recognize that you are one of the few editors who is able to bridge the gap between mathematics and physics graciously. There seems to be a couple of disputes at Talk:Dirac delta function the root cause of which seems to be this difference of cultures. Also, a third set of eyes on the recently-revamped section Talk:Dirac delta function/Archive 1#Application to quantum mechanics would be most appreciated. The interaction regarding this section appears to have become inadvertently adversarial, and I think unconstructive. I would appreciate any assistance that you could offer. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be the unconstructive discussion style of the uninvolved editor, not a problem of cultures. I'll have a look at the section later.TimothyRias (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tim

Hello Tim,

why did you hide the article:

Vacuum first or matter

[hide]WP:NOTFORUM TimothyRias (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC) The vacuum (spacetime) tend to be continuous and homogeneous with regard to its energy (vacuum energy)--e:Y,?:G 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) and composition. Matter forms within vacuum. When matter forms, curvature in spacetime starts (or simultaneously)--e:Y,?:G 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC) to form (accumulate) around the forming, formed matter. Because matter took the space that it (matter) occupies form space by pushing outward spacetime. We should always think of density with regard to matter in vacuum, space,spacetime where vacuum, space, spacetime exerts an inward forces on matter i.e. universic pressure. Relative density of matter in spacetime= density of matter/density of vacuum where density of vacuum= vacuum energy/ volume. Relative density of matter in spacetime and universic pressure,are the origins of gravitational forces, if, with our without, the following could be true, at: {vacuum energy = Ev ≠ M C^2 and Ev < M C^2} the Ev < M C^2 and Ev ≠ M C^2 is to express a condition, a limit for the relative density of matter to operate, to be valid within the wave form energy value is isolated from the particle form energy value, duality of matter, even if it was very small in time, creating an oscillating gradient of mass concentration, to obtain the vacuum energy value only with no mass, to isolate the energy values of vacuum from matter as much as possible and if possible.

--e:Y,?:G 17:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) --e:Y,?:G 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--e:Y,?:G 07:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

e:Y, G:? --e:Y,?:G 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it violated talkpage policy. Please read WP:TALK and in particular WP:NOTFORUM.TimothyRias (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Entanglement

How can you say that concepts like "quantum effects are transmitted instantaneously" and "Until either of the particles is observed, they exist in a superposition of two quantum states" are not limited to any interpretation, such as the Copenhagen interpretation? Have you looked at other interpretations, such as the transactional interpretation? Your "appear to be" is yet another interpretation, I'd say. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The apparently instantaneous effects result from violation of the Bell inequalities. This is an empirically observable effect, independent of your interpretation of quantum mechanics. We observer spacelike separated events which are correlated beyond the Bell inequality bound, which means that they cannot be explained by any local theory, meaning that any theory explaining them must contain non-local (and thus instantanuous) effects.

In any case it will be wrong to attribute the effect to just the Copenhagen interpretation, since it definitely appears must of the popular interpretations. TimothyRias (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

question

why did you add COI to this article?

Stellar pulsation theory – Regular versus irregular variability

buchler@phys.ufl.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buchler (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear to cite yourself for the majority of the claims in the article. This by itself not necessarily a problem, but may indicate that you are very closely related to the subject. Caution is advised in such a case. Please read WP:COI carefully, and take appropriate caution to avoid future issues.TimothyRias (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reflist , flexible columns

In case you're administrator, could you please comment at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Removing access for Bender235? Thanks. —bender235 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

constant speed of light

Please correct my amateur theory, but if c = 1/√ε0μ0 in vacuum/free space then c is normally slower in any known non-vacuum medium, since either ε or μ will be greater than ε0 or μ0, and that it is accepted that no medium known today exhibits properties where ε or μ is less than ε0 or μ0 (respectively). If there was a way to discover or alter the permittivity or permeability of a medium to be lower than ε0 or μ0 (respectively), could it be possible to exceed the speed of light in that medium? I know that ε0 and μ0 are accepted as invariant constants, and I'm challenging that there may be other mediums with different values or that ε0 or μ0 could be altered by some, yet unknown method. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed some known media in which for some frequency range the speed of light (the phase velocity) is higher than c. This is discussed in some detail in the speed of light#in a medium. c still is the upper limit with which you could send information through such a medium.TimothyRias (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Math project redirects

Please note that the math project does not use "redirect-class" in our rating template. If an article is redirected, the maths rating template should just be removed from the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Inflation and Big Bang

Hello Tim

Since we are not supposed to discuss the topic itself on the topic's talk page, I'm coming here to continue the discussion with you. I found your comments on “entanglement” and “speed of light” here on your page refreshingly clear.

Thanks. (BTW I'll respond in between your paragraphs to make clear what I'm responding to.)TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, I am thoroughly out of date about inflation. My time as a cosmologist was in the early 70's! We did not even have baryosynthesis at that time. Well, some people may have heard of it, but not my adviser, obviously, or he would not have me consider an Universe with zero net baryonic number and domains of antimatter of the size of clusters or superclusters of galaxies (if there were galaxies of matter and others of antimatter within the same cluster, there is too much intergalactic gas within a cluster, that would produce too many gamma's from annihilation which are not observed - we were not THAT naive).

Well, we still don't have baryogenesis. We know under what conditions it could happen, but it just appears that the laws of nature (that we know of) do not satisfy those conditions. In particular, there is not enough CP violation.TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So what cosmologist call “Big Bang” when there is inflation is the reheating? Well, it is just a matter of terminology, isn't it? Since this is all we can have access to, why not call it the “Big Bang” indeed. Though of course what we really have access to is even much later, about recombination time (less than one eV) and even if we had neutrino telescopes they could only penetrate to the time when the temperature and the density allowed neutrinos to be strongly coupled, at temperatures in the GeV (BeV is a misnomer) range. Reheating itself can never be observed, and pre-inflation of course much less.

I think loosely speaking people refer to the hot dense expaning phase in which stuff like nucleosynthesis happened as the "big bang". (i.e. the stuff that is well described by the big bang model.) Different people use the term differently though.TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there was a “standard” inflationary scenario, or at least a class of such scenarios, that would be generally accepted by at least a majority of cosmologists, and that would make a definite prediction on pre-inflation time, at least to the point of whether there is an initial singularity or not. From what you say, it seems the answer is no (I mean, “no” to the existence of a more or less general concensus, not “no” to the existence of a singularity).

It seems that nowadays everybody and his momma has his or her own favorite model of inflation. There is some stuff people tend to agree on though. For example, it is generally accepted that inflation should be "slow roll" i.e. inflation should be caused by a scalar field 'rolling down' a gentle potential slope. Also, people agree (mostly) that inflation should have lasted at least 60something e-foldings of inflation to properly solve the flatness and horizon problems.TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, to me, a “Big Bang” should mean a singularity, an essential “origin of time”, even if QM give it some “fuzziness” à la Hawking (unless I also misunderstand Hawking). But of course discussion on terminology are pointless. Forget the name and let us concentrate on the concept itself. Inflation going back indefinitely in time? The concept seems weird to me. Somehow the fact that only hyper-high temperatures (when magnetic monopoles were created, say) could have been compatible with the vacuum in its “false vacuum” state and that inflation survived inflation-caused cooling by some “metastability” phenomenon (whether quantum tunelling or the more intricate “mixed inflation” mechanism) appeals to me more than a pure, empty, de Sitter Universe extending all the way back to infinity in time. This of course brings up the matter, how did the original singularity come out of nothingness. But this is a notion to which paleolithic (I mean, early 70's) noninflationary Big Bang scenarios had me reconciled with, perforce. How do you feel about that? Do you have any preferred scenario yourself? Good references? I agree, this is more theology than physics, but still. As you pointed out in a completely different topic, the fact that Bell's inequalities are experimentally violated is independent on what interpretation of QM one prefers! Discussing quasi-philosophical implications of QM, like nonlocal consequences of entanglement, can still be based on physics. So does physics has anything at all to say about the pre-inflation time?

I'm not a cosmologist myself (although I regularly talk to colleagues that are), so I don't really have a favorite model. But considering your question you might want to have a look at chaotic inflation. This is a fairly popular picture, which for example meshes rather well with the concept of a string theory landscape of string theory vacua. It also doesn't need an initial singularity. (Inflation is started by a vacuum fluctuation is some empty region of space.)

As for references, here is a link to some lecture notes from our local course on cosmology. In general, finding some current lecture notes (especially from PhD schools) is your best bet to getting a good introduction into what is currently happing in the field. Some reviews arXiv:hep-ph/9807278, arXiv:hep-ph/0210162 and arXiv:0708.2865TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea that just occured to me. The very word “reheating” which is routinely used to describe what happens when the energy of the “false vacuum” is thermalized. “Reheating”, not “heating”. Isn't it in some way giving at least lip service to some general agreement that the Universe was very hot before inflation? Since inflation was originally meant as a way to send very very far away magnetic monopoles and other unpleasant objects created at hyper-high temperatures very close to the singularity, the term somehow survived even in scenarios that do not have a singularity. But would it have survived if scenarios with singularity were not, more or less, the more generally accepted?

I think that is the original origin of the term. I don't think it still being in use is any sign of a general acceptance of an intial singularity though.TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Warmly Alfred (this is my real first name; my last name begins with R, and as you do, I'd rather not advertise it too broadly)

Alfredr (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefull this is helpful to you.TimothyRias (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers. I'll have a look at the references you suggest. Incidentally, I thought that CP violation in an expanding universe could create enough baryons... otherwise where is the antimatter? Especially since it looks impossible, in a Universe with zero net baryon number, to segregate matter and antimatter on structures large enough (at least clusters, preferably superclusters) without distorting the backgroung radiation spectrum orders of magnitude more than observed, as I found out 35 years ago.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.114.80 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I keep forgetting to sign in before editing.. Sorry Alfredr (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of comment on relation of general relativity to Einstein-Cartan theory

"Timothy",

You removed my comment on general relativity (GR) refering to the aritcle "Einstein-Cartan theory" (EC), claiming that I was referring to myself. Is this the full reason for the deletion, or do you disagree with the content of the article on EC?

I regret having to quote an article that I wrote. Let me quote from the editors comments on the article on EC:

Start of excerpt from discussion: I think the POV controversy for this subject is invalid. The individual(s) that are complaining about Petti's neutrality base it on 2 things. 1.Einstein-Cartan theory is tied to a famously failed unification scheme. 2.Petti has cited several of his own published articles in prestigious journals. [snip] Regarding point 2 of Petti citing his own papers: Sometimes a person has to take the bull by the horns and use his own expertise and previous work to right a long standing wrong. I'm sure if there were more courageous individuals in the recent past who were also willing to work on this scientifically "unacceptable" subject he wouldn't have found the need. While I don't understand all the math, and cannot say whether there are errors, the complainers about this article will have to do a better job of explaining themselves on a mathematical basis. If they don't, then I will take their previous criticism as being invalid and based on their own prejudices and will remove the criticism hovering above the header of the article. 75.7.28.25 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC) End of excerpt from discussion

This is really important stuff in GR-land. I published a proof that GR plus spin implies EC 24 years ago, that is recognized by some of the most powerful minds in theoretical physics. The criticisms are comically incompetent. What is one to do? Should I get someone else who understands the proof to post the change?

Thank you. rjpetti (rjpetti@alum.mit.edu) Rjpetti (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:PRIMARY. You're own comments indicate that there is no total community consensus on this subject, this clearly is a case where primary sources are not appropriate,and one should provide reliable secondary or tertiary sources for the statement. If this is as well established as you claim then this should be a breeze, if its not a breeze then your addition was clearly WP:POV, and since you are clearly promoting your own work a violation of WP:COI.TimothyRias (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For taking Speed of light to FA after everyone else had gotten sick of it. ― A. di M. (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)