XOR'easter (talk | contribs) →Special for XOR'easter: also |
91.169.1.118 (talk) |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:Yeah, not looking good so far. To put it bluntly, ''I'' don't have to convince ''you.'' On the contrary, ''you'' have the responsibility to convince [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimetric gravity|the rest of the community]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
:Yeah, not looking good so far. To put it bluntly, ''I'' don't have to convince ''you.'' On the contrary, ''you'' have the responsibility to convince [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimetric gravity|the rest of the community]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Note what [[WP:BRD]] says: {{tq|If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again.}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889534650&oldid=888967669 edited], with a misleading edit summary; I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889594120&oldid=889594030 reverted]; you went on to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889604840&oldid=889595286 revert again]. You're in the wrong here. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
:Note what [[WP:BRD]] says: {{tq|If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again.}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889534650&oldid=888967669 edited], with a misleading edit summary; I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889594120&oldid=889594030 reverted]; you went on to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&type=revision&diff=889604840&oldid=889595286 revert again]. You're in the wrong here. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Let's see closer. Let's start by copying the content you vandalized because of your own personal war against Petit's works, to put it bluntly (May I guess they are so much better than yours? - Yes I know, you will try to deny it): |
|||
<ref>{{Cite journal|last=D’Agostini|first=G.|last2=Petit|first2=J. P.|date=2018-06-06|title=Constraints on Janus Cosmological model from recent observations of supernovae type Ia|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-018-3365-3|journal=Astrophysics and Space Science|volume=363|issue=7|pages=139|doi=10.1007/s10509-018-3365-3|issn=1572-946X}}</ref> Among them, the [[Janus cosmological model]] is the most advanced model.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Paul|first=Bruno|date=2019-03-21|title=Bibliographie du modèle cosmologique "Janus" ~ Bibliography of the "Janus" cosmological model|url=https://www.academia.edu/38606197/Bibliographie_du_mod%C3%A8le_cosmologique_Janus_Bibliography_of_the_Janus_cosmological_model|journal=Academia.edu|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> It has then been evaluated by peers up to the point to be deeply and publicly discussed among cosmologists.<ref name="PBS">{{Cite episode|last=O'Dowd|first=Matt|author-link=Matt O'Dowd (astrophysicist)|title=Sound Waves from the Beginning of Time|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpUxoeooZk&feature=youtu.be&t=965|access-date=8 February 2019|series=PBS Space Time|date=7 February 2019|minutes=16|quote=An alternate model that how negative mass might behave: in so-called 'bimetric gravity' you can have positive and negative masses, but each is described by its own set of Einstein field equations. That's kinda like having 'parallel spacetimes', one with positive and one with negative masses, which can still interact gravitationally. In these models, like masses attract and opposite masses repel… and you don't get the crazy 'runaway motion' that occurs if you put both positive and negative masses in the same spacetime. So no perpetual motion machines… It can also be used to explain dark energy and dark matter. An example is the [[Jean-Pierre Petit#Janus cosmological model|Janus model]] of [[Jean-Pierre Petit]]. This is a much more sophisticated model than the one by [[Jamie Farnes]]. It is however just as speculative.|publisher=[[PBS]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061204113609/http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html|title=Analyse d'un article de cosmologie de Jean-Pierre Petit|last=Riazuelo|first=Alain|date=2006-12-04|website=iap.fr|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061204113609/http://www2.iap.fr/users/riazuelo/cosmo/jpp/p2.html|archive-date=2006-12-04|dead-url=|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Farnes|first=J. S.|date=2018-12-01|title=A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework|url=https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/12/aa32898-18/aa32898-18.html|journal=Astronomy & Astrophysics|volume=620|pages=A92|doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201832898|issn=0004-6361}}</ref><ref>Thibault Damour, IHES, 01/04/2019, http://www.ihes.fr/~damour/publications/JanusJanvier2019-1.pdf</ref><ref>Frédéric Henry-Couannier, Consistency of JP. P and S.H Janus anti-gravity theories. ''darksideofgravity.com'' (17 June 2017). <nowiki>https://www.darksideofgravity.com/Consistency.pdf</nowiki></ref><ref>J.P.Petit, G.D’Agostini, and N.Debergh, « Physical and mathematical consistency of the Janus Cosmological Model (JCM) », ''Progress in Physics,'' vol. 15'','' issue 1, <nowiki>http://www.ptep-online.com/2019/PP-56-09.PDF</nowiki></ref> |
|||
These models, and others ones, have been introduced to develop an answer to the crisis in the current [[Lambda-CDM model|standard cosmological model]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Clifton|first=Timothy|last2=Ferreira|first2=Pedro G.|last3=Padilla|first3=Antonio|last4=Skordis|first4=Constantinos|date=March 2012|title=Modified Gravity and Cosmology|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2476|journal=Physics Reports|volume=513|issue=1-3|pages=1–189|doi=10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.techno-science.net/actualite/big-bang-mission-planck-questions-restees-sans-reponse-N12293.html|title=Du Big Bang à la mission Planck: Questions restées sans réponse|website=Techno-Science.net|language=fr-FR|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/articles/un-univers-sans-matiere-noire-0|title=Un Univers sans matière noire?|website=CNRS Le journal|language=fr|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/JANUS.HTM|title=JANUS-FACED COSMOLOGY|website=www3.amherst.edu|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/espace/astrophysique/faut-il-une-nouvelle-physique-pour-expliquer-le-monde_131697|title=Physique : faut-il abandonner l'hypothèse de la matière noire pour expliquer l'Univers ?|website=Sciences et Avenir|language=fr|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/the-dark-universe|title=Is the search for dark energy a dead end?|website=Cosmos Magazine|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/the-dark-matter-crisis/|title=What is Dark Matter? Even the Best Theories Are Crumbling|date=2018-09-21|website=The Crux|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/05/the-case-against-dark-matter|title=The case against dark matter|last=Monday|first=Tyler Krueger {{!}} Published:|last2=May 07|website=Astronomy.com|access-date=2019-03-26|last3=2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bosma|first=A.|date=1998|title=The Dark Matter problem|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812015|journal=Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy|volume=72|issue=1/2|pages=69–90|doi=10.1023/A:1008366614769}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://theconversation.com/dark-matter-may-not-actually-exist-and-our-alternative-theory-can-be-put-to-the-test-110238|title=Dark matter may not actually exist – and our alternative theory can be put to the test|last=Smirnov|first=Juri|website=The Conversation|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/26/theres-a-debate-raging-over-whether-dark-matter-is-real-but-one-side-is-cheating/|title=There's A Debate Raging Over Whether Dark Matter Is Real, But One Side Is Cheating|last=Siegel|first=Ethan|website=Forbes|access-date=2019-03-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-matter-worth-searching-for-null-results|title=What if everything we know about dark matter is totally wrong?|last=Moskvitch|first=Katia|date=2018-09-28|work=Wired UK|access-date=2019-03-26|issn=1357-0978}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lopez-Corredoira|first=Martin|date=2018-08-28|title=Problems with the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses, and alternative ideas|url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09823v1}}</ref> |
Revision as of 20:51, 26 March 2019
![]() | Physics C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Astronomy C‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Science C‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Space (defunct) | |||
|
![]() | Mathematics C‑class | |||||||||
|
Older version of the article with content to be reused
This AfD discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bimetric_gravity led to revert the article to a much lesser content. For those interested in the field, the improved content is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bimetric_gravity&oldid=879702243 Sooner or later, it will be reused here or there. --145.242.20.217 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not without a solid consensus that the "reused" content, which was removed for good reason, is actually compliant with Wikipedia's policies. And citation spamming with every paper, news story and blog post that mentions a tangentially relevant topic is not the foundation of a working editorial relationship. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Special for XOR'easter
Describe below which "refs include unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material", and bring evidence with each of your asserts (your own sentiment about what your are naively considering unreliable, unreviewed, pop-science hype and WP:FRINGE material is not at all an evidence, of course). Try to convince us. Have a nice day. --91.169.1.118 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let's see. D'Agostini and Petit (2018) is a recent, unevaluated primary source, and the only citations to it have been by the authors themselves. For our purposes, that's worthless. Next is a bibliography hosted on Academia.edu, which counts for nothing, and it degenerates into a ramble at the end which makes enough claims about enough people that relying on it would violate WP:BLP as well as WP:RS. The sentence
Among them, the Janus cosmological model is the most advanced model
is completely unsupported by reliable sources and cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. The archived web page by Riazuelo may be acceptable under WP:SPS, but it calls Petit's work garbage, and you might not want to include that one after all. Riazuelo concludes that "JPP" makesPlusieurs erreurs de base ... qui disqualifient irrémédiablement le modèle
. Farnes (2018) mentions Petit and d'Agostini only to dismiss their theory in a single sentence as "incompatible with observations". If this citation is supposed to support the claim that the Janus cosmological model has beendeeply ... discussed among cosmologists
, well, it doesn't. Next we have Damour (2019), who says thatle "modèle Janus" est physiquement (et mathématiquement) incohérent
. None of these amount to support for the idea that the Janus modelis the most advanced model
, to say the least. Next we have another primary source, not even formally published, by a collaborator of Petit. Then we have a primary source, published yet too new to have been evaluated by the wider community, which I removed already. - Yeah, not looking good so far. To put it bluntly, I don't have to convince you. On the contrary, you have the responsibility to convince the rest of the community. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note what WP:BRD says:
If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again.
You edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; you went on to revert again. You're in the wrong here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)- Let's see closer. Let's start by copying the content you vandalized because of your own personal war against Petit's works, to put it bluntly (May I guess they are so much better than yours? - Yes I know, you will try to deny it):
[1] Among them, the Janus cosmological model is the most advanced model.[2] It has then been evaluated by peers up to the point to be deeply and publicly discussed among cosmologists.[3][4][5][6][7][8]
These models, and others ones, have been introduced to develop an answer to the crisis in the current standard cosmological model.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
- ^ D’Agostini, G.; Petit, J. P. (2018-06-06). "Constraints on Janus Cosmological model from recent observations of supernovae type Ia". Astrophysics and Space Science. 363 (7): 139. doi:10.1007/s10509-018-3365-3. ISSN 1572-946X.
- ^ Paul, Bruno (2019-03-21). "Bibliographie du modèle cosmologique "Janus" ~ Bibliography of the "Janus" cosmological model". Academia.edu.
- ^ O'Dowd, Matt (7 February 2019). "Sound Waves from the Beginning of Time". PBS Space Time. PBS. 16 minutes in. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
An alternate model that how negative mass might behave: in so-called 'bimetric gravity' you can have positive and negative masses, but each is described by its own set of Einstein field equations. That's kinda like having 'parallel spacetimes', one with positive and one with negative masses, which can still interact gravitationally. In these models, like masses attract and opposite masses repel… and you don't get the crazy 'runaway motion' that occurs if you put both positive and negative masses in the same spacetime. So no perpetual motion machines… It can also be used to explain dark energy and dark matter. An example is the Janus model of Jean-Pierre Petit. This is a much more sophisticated model than the one by Jamie Farnes. It is however just as speculative.
- ^ Riazuelo, Alain (2006-12-04). "Analyse d'un article de cosmologie de Jean-Pierre Petit". iap.fr. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
{{cite web}}
: Check|archive-url=
value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Farnes, J. S. (2018-12-01). "A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 620: A92. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832898. ISSN 0004-6361.
- ^ Thibault Damour, IHES, 01/04/2019, http://www.ihes.fr/~damour/publications/JanusJanvier2019-1.pdf
- ^ Frédéric Henry-Couannier, Consistency of JP. P and S.H Janus anti-gravity theories. darksideofgravity.com (17 June 2017). https://www.darksideofgravity.com/Consistency.pdf
- ^ J.P.Petit, G.D’Agostini, and N.Debergh, « Physical and mathematical consistency of the Janus Cosmological Model (JCM) », Progress in Physics, vol. 15, issue 1, http://www.ptep-online.com/2019/PP-56-09.PDF
- ^ Clifton, Timothy; Ferreira, Pedro G.; Padilla, Antonio; Skordis, Constantinos (March 2012). "Modified Gravity and Cosmology". Physics Reports. 513 (1–3): 1–189. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001.
- ^ "Du Big Bang à la mission Planck: Questions restées sans réponse". Techno-Science.net (in French). Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ "Un Univers sans matière noire?". CNRS Le journal (in French). Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ "JANUS-FACED COSMOLOGY". www3.amherst.edu. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ "Physique : faut-il abandonner l'hypothèse de la matière noire pour expliquer l'Univers ?". Sciences et Avenir (in French). Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ "Is the search for dark energy a dead end?". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ "What is Dark Matter? Even the Best Theories Are Crumbling". The Crux. 2018-09-21. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ Monday, Tyler Krueger | Published:; May 07; 2018. "The case against dark matter". Astronomy.com. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
{{cite web}}
:|last3=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Bosma, A. (1998). "The Dark Matter problem". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 72 (1/2): 69–90. doi:10.1023/A:1008366614769.
- ^ Smirnov, Juri. "Dark matter may not actually exist – and our alternative theory can be put to the test". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ Siegel, Ethan. "There's A Debate Raging Over Whether Dark Matter Is Real, But One Side Is Cheating". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ Moskvitch, Katia (2018-09-28). "What if everything we know about dark matter is totally wrong?". Wired UK. ISSN 1357-0978. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
- ^ Lopez-Corredoira, Martin (2018-08-28). "Problems with the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses, and alternative ideas".
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)