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. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorentzian Relativity[edit]

Non notable fringe theory, see also Tom van Flandern. The (valid) history of science aspect is covered elsewhere and this article doesn't add anything to it. --Pjacobi 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Lorentzian relativity to the list. It's apparently intended to be a redirect page to the one listed above. --Christopher Thomas 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made Lorentzian relativity into a proper redirect page. Anville 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional affected page: LR disambiguation page, which includes a link to Lorentzian relativity. The link may have to be updated or removed, depending on the result of the AfD. --Christopher Thomas 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable perhaps in Pjacobi's mind, but not to this user, nor in in the mind of many others. Deletion of this entry will not add to the body of knowledge, but merely to the power of the "tyranny of the mob" of the self-appointed intelligentsia. If the theory is found lacking, truth will out. Until then, it is a competing theory to Einstein's.

It is also interesting to note that Pjacobi's objection to this article was posted *within minutes* of it's entry. --Dnarby 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applauding the Wikipedia quality control efforts. --Pjacobi 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure how using a snarky, sarcastic tone is going to help make your case. It seems instead that perhaps a civil tone would be more constructive. --Dnarby 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to Tom Van Flandern. A quick search gives about 500 123 hits for LR, vs. tens of thousands for Van Flandern himself. --Christopher Thomas 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Tom Van Flandern I agree with Christopher Thomas. I'm not sure how LR can be called a theory. If, as stated in the article, it has the same mathematical form as STR, it follows that LR is nothing more than a 'rotation' of perspective. After all, the choice of clock synchronization procedure is a degree of freedom. Choosing Einstein syncronization leaves the form of Maxwell's equations unaltered which makes that choice compelling. Alfred Centauri 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SCIENCE and its valid material is already better covered in aether theories. --EMS | Talk 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SCIENCE and WP:FRINGE. The subject may merit a sentence or two at Tom Van Flandern. Anville 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.