Category:Inexplicable physics pages

This category remains for historical purposes, it should not be used for existing pages. Rather, see Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/10#Inexplicable physics articles for the ultimate disposition of 24 pages so tagged (plus another, next on the RfD archive page). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This category was created, 06:54, 7 April 2010‎, by User:Sj to apply to pages created by IP and the following is the original research or opinion of Sj even though it was unsigned. This category will be emptied, because it is POV. The comments here may be moved elsewhere after the cleanup is complete. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of these inexplicable physics pages are either copies of Wikipedia articles with original research subtlely interleaved, or articles that were deleted from or rejected from Wikipedia.

These pages are all a mixture of real physics, fringe presentations and interpretations of fundamental physical principles, and original research. They are combined in such a way that it is difficult to separate simple and well-known observations from novel links or ideas which may or may not be correct. The language is a mixture of perfect English (which inevitably comes from another source -- often Wikipedia, from current or past-and-deleted articles, but sometimes possibly a copyvio) and broken English (with quirks such as '80-ties' for the decade of the 80s, and ungrammatical sentences).

Many of these pages were initially posted as Articles for Creation requests on Wikipedia, then deleted as fringe material that only linked to itself and did not sufficiently identify its fringe status (despite its interesting and motely constellation of references).

• Sections devoted to 'resonators' related to whatever the nominal topic is
• Sections related to tiny and gigantic scales, quantum scales, &c
• Extended references to work by physicists from the end of the 19th century, especially Heaviside.

Most of the pages include material from Wikipedia pages (which is all well sourced and referenced) and interlaces inexplicable statements and original research. Some of them are more clearly OR than others, and the 'research' in question isn't presented as research but as known fact and equations (which don't always make sense).

The initial en:wp deletion discussion and review is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants.

Related discussions by the author about science conspiracies include this interesting diff.