Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid space theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid space theory

Liquid space theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sources do not even mention the subject of the article. Likely either a hoax or a neologism - Google only finds Wikipedia mirrors for "Liquid space theory", which seems implausible for a true scientific theory. Jakew 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as either possible hoax or OR. Although I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the formulae mentionned or whether they are plausible, my reasoning comes from the fact that the first source links to a forum post written by the author of the article, and the third source claims to be "proof" of the theory, and yet never mentions "liquid space". If this theory is genuine and has been proven, then there would certainly be more and better references out there. Tx17777 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, very dubious at best. Realkyhick 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete google pretty much agrees, very dubious [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete More plausible than Timecube? Yes. Notable and verifiable? no.--Bfigura (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. He also did his math wrong; according to the formula for force, no force can ever be applied to a stationary object (news to me). Someguy1221 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, I see now all he did was replace "mass" in F=ma with the relativistic expression for kinetic energy, and let that follow through for the derivation of other physical quantities. It's quite nonsensical. Someguy1221 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete So someone heard one day that the term "fluid" can be applied to a gas as well as a liquid, did some mathematics, and next thing you know, we have an article... but where are the sources, the published research, the excited discussions in science digest magazines? The sources that are provided offer such gems as this: cosmic poetry Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR (FWIW, appears to be reinventing the luminiferous aether, as a predicted consequence in one of the external links is that the speed of light depends on direction). Gandalf61 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.