Talk:Nonstandard physics

I have some remarks about this articles:

For Gravitomagnetism. The reason for the article was the next. In Wikipedia article Gravitomagnetism all the information is given from point of view of general relativity. But the same results take place on the base of Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG), which was developed by Oliver Heaviside. This is also underlined in Maxwell-like gravitational equations. The Wikiversity article Gravitomagnetism has addition which is absent in Wikipedia. For example, here is section “The interaction between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields”, and in the section “Higher-order effects” I add information about properties of gravitomagnetic (torsion) field.

I thought the article Gravitational induction be deleted in Wikipedia. But it was not so, and now are two version: Wikipedia article Gravitational induction and Wikiversity article Gravitational induction. Up to now no one add information to them, and the articles almost the same.

The articles Maxwell-like gravitational equations and Selfconsistent gravitational constants were carefully edited before to place to Wikiversity. I accept all the question about their mathematics and physical ideas. -- Fedosin 16:50, 24 March 2011, signature added by Abd 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question about the topic heading edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can understand that the admins have to walk a fine line when it comes to personal research, or perhaps fringe theories. However, I am pretty sure when people go to the non-standard physics page it's to learn what the people who don't agree with the current model have to say. Is there any way you could make the description a little clearer in the topic heading, that way when students or interested parties click on a link, they already know that what they are about to read isn't the same as everyone else's theories.

I do understand the claims of pseudoscience, however there is a large difference between pseudoscience and proposing a hypothesis to which a serious request is made for reasoned discourse. That is at the heart of the scientific method. If I claimed my research was complete, hen it would definitely be pseudoscience, but I really feel as though I am only setting out a reasoned and supported hypothesis for the benefit of all interested students and lay enthusiasts.

By placing topics under a person's name instead of under a subject heading it makes it very difficult for anyone who wants to engage in the scientific method to do so. Only through rational discussion and some peer review can Hypotheses become disproven, or become fully proven theories in their on right. As I am also doing experimental research and using what I learn from theirs and what I can extrapolate from reasoned discourse to create new technology I as hoping for a better chance to learn and research.

I am not sure what Mr.Fedosin feel about this topic, but if he's conducting scientific research as well, perhaps whichever subject he is actively working on could also be moved back into the non-standard physics topic?

It feels like that would fit with the Socratic method of learning by doing.

Whatever is decided, as I have had very good experience so far with the tolerance and wisdom of the admins, I will of course abide.Derenek (discuss • contribs)

The description may be improved. An element in our developed practice is attribution. That is, if there is an essay and it is attributed to you, that is verifiable. Now, consider if you state something in the description that is controversial. A user thinks your paper is completely bogus, pseudoscience, that you are incompetent, and may be thinking much else. That user has an equal right to enforce site neutrality. So it can create conflict, which we avoid. That does not mean that the description may not be improved. However, this page was really obsolete, being kept for historical reasons, possibly to be eventually deleted. "Nonstandard physics" is too vague for my taste. We might use a category tag for that. What has become our practice is to create essays underneath what are otherwise standard resources. We do not necessarily judge essays as nonstandard, but if an essay claims it is standard physics, we may want to make sure it is clear that this is the author's opinion, not Wikiversity's judgment.

You are free to edit the description. Just use substantial effort to anticipate objections and seek to make it neutral, and do not revert war. I'll see what you write, and will support you, as will others. We really want Wikiversity to be a safe place to learn (and teach). If a student writes an essay, and a janitor -- or other student or even a professor -- throws it in the trash as useless garbage, we can all understand that the student may feel unsupported. If the essay is criticized, even strongly, that is part of the educational process. So see what Dave wrote on the user's talk page as a warning. It's very clear.

We are not supporting you because you are "right," or because we think you are an expert, and my opinions about that would be irrelevant. We are supporting you because you have a right to use Wikiversity for education, your own as well as that of others, and you have been cooperative, not resisting, for example, organization of your work in ways that could address legitimate concerns. This is nothing new, and it is not personal. We do this all the time, it has become routine here. It was not always that way. As you have time, look around. You can look at my history and contributions, you can look at my block log, you can start to see what has been written about Wikiversity history, and, of course, most of it is readily available in page histories. It took, shall we say, blood, sweat, and tears to build this tradition. It will take effort to maintain it, there are obviously those who think Wikiversity is a total mess, sheltering banned users, hosting complete garbage. If users only look at their own interests and take no interest in site governance (i.e., if they are normal wiki users), it could be lost. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. (Do not imagine you can infer my politics from that. It is simply an obvious interpretation of life.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I decided to take your advice and adjust the description of this heading, hopefully, it will fall into line with the purpose og wikiversity by encouraging learning and critical thinking of the readersDerenek (discuss • contribs)

Add topic