Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/List of pseudoscientific theories
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Physics/List of pseudoscientific theories page. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
I removed the category speculative physics. In principle there is nothing wrong with such a list (although I'm not sure how one should judge whether a theory belongs on this list or not) In this case, however, the list contained only three entries, while there are hundreds of speculative (non-crackpot) theories out there (with speculative mean just as speculative as mirror matter theory, which was one of the theories listed).
I.m.o. it is not correct to single out one theory out of hundred equally speculative theories as being speculative.
It would be ok. to compile a comprehensive list of non-crackpot speculative theories. But then I would suggest to remove the first sentence This is a pile of wacko nonsense that needs watching...
Count Iblis 12:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kirlian Photography can be regarded as an amusement or artistic effort [and also there are "Kirlian Cameras" on sale (just probe the Web) so it is sometimes done with ordinary photography, not contact printing nowadays.] Anyway there are a host of ways that legitimate amusements or artistic efforts can be co-opted by - shall we say - oddballs. Fortune-telling, astrology, and numerology are amusements for some, pseudoscience for others. Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem "Xanadu" has been interpreted as ethereal travel to another world, but the poem is not pseudoscience. Suggest this one (Kirlian) be dropped from this page Pdn 1 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)
Renamed the project page
[edit]The reason is that the name of the list we are watching was changed to list of pseudoscientific theories Count Iblis 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that anti-gravity should be added to this page somewhere. Not quite sure if this is pseudo-science, or crackpot, though. Lunokhod 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)