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 of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, inaccurate, and apparently violates WP:NOR (see talk page) CH (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are google hits for "scalar gravity", but they aren't talking above this model. For example, this journal abstract [1] explicitly refers to scalar gravity as unphysical. -- SCZenz 02:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The topic is potentially encyclopedic, and I have little objection to seeing alternative theories of gravitation covered in Wikipedia, but as-is this article has serious issues as per nom. It needs a history of the scalar models (more than is in the intro), it needs documentation in the article as to just whose theory is being documented and when and where it was published, and it needs documentation as to the serious problems in has (such as certain inconsistencies with observation). So I am open to seeing this article kept if significant changes are made. Otherwise my vote will not stay weak. --EMS | Talk 06:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On futher consideration, I must conclude that this is an amateurish article created by an editor inexperienced in both general relativity theory and Wikipedia. Either that or that it is a hoax. [The article now includes the odd statement that is does not obey the equivalence principle, when in reality any metric theory of gravitation automatically will obey the weak equivalence principle; and then there is the metric signature of (-1, -1, -1, +1) instead of (+1, -1, -1, -1).] I may take a stab at rewriting it, but without a total rewrite, this article needs to go. (I will acknowledge that the anon whose article this is has been changing it, but he has utterly failed to address my areas of concern.) --EMS | Talk 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to scalar theories of gravitation (the name suggested by CH below), assuming that my rewrite sticks. --EMS | Talk 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Karol 08:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I find the evidence for OR unconvincing. Other issues are a cause for rewrite AND NOT delete. --MarSch 10:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Even if not original research, a theory that predicts the opposite of what actually happens is unlikely to be notable unless it was widely believed for a substantial period of time or was believed or proposed by one of the leading researchers in the field. -- Kjkolb 11:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it seems to have been discussed by reputable, non-crazy people. The article needs to be cleaned up, with an explanation near the top of the article that it is a disproven theory. I don't think the link to the book should be included, as it appears to treat the theory as true and seems to have been link spammed all over the place. -- Kjkolb 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as per CH's argument below. -- Kjkolb 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The evidence of OR is possibly true, however there is a body of abstracts and research being done on this topic outside of Mr. Bird. The current article, if kept, needs to be tagged because it is a load of drek, but the concept in and of itself seems notable even if it is eventually discredited.--Isotope23 17:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjkolb and Isotope23, I wonder if you missed my point. There are certainly well-defined scalar theories of gravity (I mentioned one in my discussion in the talk page), and there are also various scalar fields (but that is something else) discussed in general relativity and in other classical relativistic theories of gravitation, but the author of the article provided no citations in the reputatable research literature for the theory he wishes to discuss, and on the basis of his description, his account does not appear to me to define a theory at all, much less a viable one. So if you searched the arXiv for scalar gravity or scalar, I don't doubt that you found hits, but I do question whether you found discussion of the alleged "theory" our anonymous editor is trying to describe in this article. This is why I have nominated it for deletion: it appears to describe as a viable gravitation theory some "theory" which does not appear to be sensical, and for which the author of the article is apparently unable to provide citations to the research literature in physics. In fact, as I explained in the talk page, it appears likely that the only place where this "theory" is discussed is a web page, apparently put up by the very same person who wrote the article. Hence my invocation of WP:NOR. So my question for you two is: are you sure you found independent discussion in the research literature of the precise "theory" that the author is trying to describe? If so, can you please share the citation?---CH (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. My vote was based on the fact that scalar gravity as a subject, exists and is notable, not that this particular theory of scalar gravity is in anyway right or notable. I found no evidence that this theory is right. I did see the website and it appears to be nonsense, though I'm far from an expert. I suggest that the article be entirely rewritten, so that it discusses the scalar gravity theory that Einstein and Feynman were talking about, not this theory. If this is not possible, it should be deleted. What do you think? -- Kjkolb 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I mirror Kjkolb's sentiment. The article may be factually inaccurate, but since there IS a theory of Scalar Gravity that is generally accepted to exist, this is a good candidate for a cleanup and keep job, with the text of the article being replaced with a factually accurate document based on the body of research I mentioned above. I'd do it, but I'm not exactly an expert at physics so chances are any article I wrote would be riddled with mistakes. Long story short, I can't vote delete on a notable subject, even if the current article has serious problems.--Isotope23 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've finally cleared this up in a separate discussion with Isotope23, but for other readers, just to clarify: the statement that there IS a theory of Scalar Gravity that is generally accepted to exist is misleading. The key points are:

1. There is no theory (not even a failed theory) which is known in the physics literature simply as 'Scalar Gravity', and as far as I can see, the article disucusses an ill-defined 'theory' which is unknown to physics.
2. There are certainly well-defined Scalar theories of gravitation, and this topic is noteworthy if for no other reason than to
   • examine some simple theories of gravitation, such as the Watt-Misner theory I mentioned on the talk page, which are of pedagogical interest as theories which can, fairly easily, be shown not to be consistent with solar system observations,
   • explain some arguments why no pure scalar (or pure vector) theory of gravitation is viable.
3. The text of the article Scalar Gravity contains (as far as I can see) nothing worth keeping; even the title violates Wikipedia capitalization conventions. So anyone writing an article on the topic which we agree is notable, Scalar theories of gravitation, would have to begin by wiping the article and moving the page to a page with the new title. It seems simpler to delete Scalar Gravity and start again with Scalar theories of gravitation.

I can suggest two recent articles which would probably be useful to anyone starting to research theories of gravitation which are known in physics:

• Gönner, Hubert F. M. (August 10, 2005), "On the History of Unified Field Theories", Living Reviews in Relativity
• Will, Clifford M. (August 10, 2001), "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment", Living Reviews in Relativity A 2005 update can be found here.

Unfortunately, because pure scalar theories of gravitation are known to be nonviable, discussions of them are harder to come by, but some examples are:

• Nordström's theory of gravitation (an article by yours truly, with citations),
• Relativistic Scalar Gravity: A Laboratory for Numerical Relativity presents the Watt/Misner theory and explains why it is not viable as a fundamental theory.
• Scalar gravity with preferred frame: asymptotic post-Newtonian scheme and the weak equivalence principle presents another scalar theory. (I haven't read this paper, so I don't know if I'd consider it well-defined either, but I do consider the Watt-Misner theory well-defined, although it is not viable for reasons the authors themselves clearly explain.)

MTW is the textbook by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler cited in General relativity resources, and features a much-quoted discussion of scalar theories and vector theories (non-viable) versus tensor theories and scalar-tensor theories (some of which are viable as fundamental theories of gravitation).---CH (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23 - I do sympathize with you, but I think that we should either put up to shut up. This article cannot be kept in its current form, and I am not in a position at this time to edit it, being in the middle of a business trip. Hence my weak delete vote. I will happily change in to a keep, but only if the article changes. In the meantime, what is there has "OR" written all over it, and that must be dealt with one way or the other. --EMS | Talk 07:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article makes it clear that this is a mathematical theory which was considered by Albert Einstein before he came up with General Relativity. Therefore it is quite right to have an article about it. The article also makes it clear that the results of so-called Scalar Gravity do not agree with experiments. Further it makes clear that in order to test the GR concept of curved space you need a flat-space alternative to compare it to. There is no reason not to talk about this theory in case people mistake it as a true picture of reality. The article also has links to research published in physics journals which use scalar gravity.

The article does need more background and someone should add to it to supply such a background and why GR finally triumphed as the true theory.

I think this article could potentially be very interesting as a history of scalar theories of gravity. Although it does need much work. However I do not believe this is a reason for deletion at this stage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.137.135.0 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 November 2005

I wish you had signed this comment, whoever you are, but my problem with this is that the author presented no evidence for his claim and I don't think this claim is true. Again, please note that scalar theories were known to Einstein, but not, as far as I can tell, this "theory". Indeed, while there are well defined (but non-viable) scalar theories of gravitation, this "theory" is not one of them, as far as I can tell from the author's incomplete description. Again, the key point is: there are genuine gravitation theories which are notable, but the author of this article appears to be discussing a "theory" which is (a) nonsensical (b) uknown in physics, and therefore non-notable.---CH (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As-is it's a lecture and goes into massively more detail than a general readership will ever want. A summary could be merged into related topics, I guess. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where does minutae belong if not in an encyclopedia? It's clearly labeled as not in congruence with accepted theory and if anyone does indeed use it (as the article claims, even though the theory is flawed) it belongs here. Ifnord 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Inford, the problem is that this particular scalar theory of gravitation is apparently nonsense (not a "theory" at all). No-one questions that other theories, ones which have been seriously discussed at one time or another in the research literature, or which have some pedagogical virtues, would be notable, but this article contains nothing on which we can build to write an article discussing those theories. I hope you will reconsider and change your vote.---CH (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is valid, I now understand what you mean. However, I am swayed by Isotope23's position that the article itself is noteworthy even if the content is flawed at the present time. I will remove my vote altogether. Ifnord 04:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the article is OR. - Dalbury (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, and move if appropriate. - Dalbury (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provides some historical context and is worth keeping even with a cleanup and NPOV tag. Hopefully somone could come along and reasearch the topic. Falphin 02:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some above have argued that this article should be kept because there is a scalar theory of gravity, whatever problems there are with this article. There are in fact many scalar theories of gravity, most of which fail completely to meet general scientific standards, or to actually explain anything about gravity. I remember reading somewhere (sorry for the lack of citation here) that scientific journals receive more unpublishable (i.e., 'crackpot') manuscripts on theories of gravitation than on any subject other than perpetual motion. There are many self-published 'crackpot' theories of gravity out there, so getting many Google hits does not establish the viability of this or any other theory of gravity. In this case, I think the very elaborate formulas which have no explanation of what most the terms mean or why they are used in the formula, forces me to regard this article as nonsense. There might be justification to mention this particular theory, along with many other such theories, in an article on alternative theories of gravitation that are not accepted by the scientific community. As it stands, however, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many theories and the notable ones should be mentioned. Just becasue the article is incomplete doesn't make it unencylopedic. It has a good amount of google hits which established notability it may not estabish viability but that doesn't matter. The topic is still notable. I do believe the article belongs in wikipedia but it needs cleanup and neat NPOVing. Falphin 22:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If there is going to be an article on scalar gravity, then it will need to discuss: scalar gravity with preferred frame[2], tensor-scalar gravity[3], relativistic scalar gravity[4], general Lorentz-invariant scalar gravity[5], Maxwell-scalar gravity[6], and others I didn't take time to look up. As the title of Scalar Gravity does not conform to Wiki naming standards (it should be Scalar gravity, as the theory presented is not the only theory of scalar gravity), I believe it would be best to delete this article and let someone who knows their way around these theories create a review article of the better known theories of scalar gravity. - Dalbury (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with CH in that he claims that the article is about a non-sensical theory since the idea of describing gravity as a scalar field is clearly sensical and was known even to Isaac Newton. The point about the theory being non-scientific also baffles me as it clearly is about a testable theory. The point that this is not the scalar gravity theory that Einstein considered is also not true. Perhaps CH could make a link to the theory that he thinks Einstein did consider? I had a link to an article about how Einstein found General Relativity which would have cleared the matter up but I lost it! Sorry.

But this is all besides the point. The question is not whether the theory works or not. Otherwise, some might argue, there should not be an article on Communism because it is a 'crackpot' theory. The question is whether the article accurately documents this mathematical theory, which has historical interest, which I believe it does. -P

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.137.134.120 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 November 2005

62.137.134.120, whoever you are, you seem to think that I said "no scalar theories of gravity are well-defined", but I never said that and it isn't true! In fact I specifically mentioned a scalar theory which is well-defined. What I said was that scalar theories in general are known to be nonviable, I was referring to very well known arguments sketched the very widely read textbook by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (see General relativity resources). Please read this discussion before creating any more articles on gravitation theory in the Wikipedia, since these are elementary and crucial points.

You claim your article accurately documents this mathematical theory, but citing a web page is not the same as citing a paper published in a reputable research journal, or a widely-used standard graduate level textbook such as MTW. Indeed, I claim that your "theory" as you described it is not even well-defined, so I claim that it is not a theory at all, as phycisists understand that term, at least not yet. Here's what I suggest:

• fix the problems I pointed out at your own website or wherever,
• concoct a reason why your fixed up theory might be of interest, despite being nonviable (as any scalar theory must be),
• submit a paper to a reputable research journal in physics such as Classical and Quantum Gravity or General Relativity and Gravitation,
• await papers by other authors building on your work,
• if sufficient interest is generated, watch as some third party eventually independently decides to write an article on this (so far entirely hypothetical) body of literature.

See what I am saying? Science might sometimes seem to work slowly on human scales, but its self-correcting nature is probably the best thing about it, so we need to foster this process of error detection and eradication, even if our own "children" are numbered among its "victims". Fair enough? ---CH (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The scalar theory of gravitation which played a role in the birth of gtr which you had in mind is probably Nordström's theory of gravitation; see also the citations in that article.---CH (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless substantially rewritten, basically per CH. The article does not cite any references, bar one which seems to describe a different scalar theory of gravity. Yes, it may be true that an article on scalar gravity is warranted, but the current article is not suitable. More importantly, when somebody will start to write the article on scalar gravity that we want, the current article will be of no help, and it will confuse readers in the meantime. The author says: "The question is whether the article accurately documents this mathematical theory, which has historical interest, which I believe it does." It is not enough that the author believes so, we need to see some evidence of it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to scalar theories of gravity now that EMS has rewritten the article to get rid of the original research. Thanks! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per CH. Its rather cleverly written, using all the standard catch-phrases and symbols of physics, so if you skim it, it looks good. But the action is strange, with the phi^-1 in it, and no discussion of how that can be. I'll side with CH until some book reference is given that has this action in it. linas 01:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, Brans-Dicke has a phi^-1, so I dunno. Still want a book reference. linas 01:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If people are going to reject an article as crackpot then they shouldn't give crackpot reasons. From what I've read above it appears as if none of the commenters have a remote understanding of General Relativity or even basic A-level mathematics. I get the feeling that most of those objecting to this are interested amateurs who have read a few articles on the matter. I would suggest that those who strongly object should give references of their authority in the matter. Otherewise I can only assume that most of the abbusive commenters above are 13 year old boys who think they know more than they actually do. I have to say that using the abusive terms of some of the above that a lot of the comments are absolute "drek" whatever that is. Some new schoolboy slang term I expect. But I have to say that if these are the kinds of people who read wikipedia then I'm sure the article has no point being there otherwise it is simply being read by complete morons. So I vote for delete not because the article is wrong but that it is too good to be read by such loonatics. Honestly people like CH should have better things to do than accuse people of killing their children by reading an article on gravitational theories. CH I advise growing up, going to university, and actually learning about what you think you already know but clearly don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.137.135.52 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 November 2005

• Please do not make personal attacks. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- SCZenz 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see WP:CIVIL. And, incidentally, most of the people who have voted delete, from my observations, have clear experience with a broad range of topics in modern physics. (You can see Dr. Hillman's qualifications and experience from his user page, for example.) I will assume good faith and assume you didn't realize this. -- SCZenz 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since I used the word "crackpot" I think I should reply. I did not call you or your theory "crackpot". I was making the point that there are so many hits for "scalar gravity" on the Internet because there are so many self-published "crackpot" theories out there. If I did give you the impression that I was calling you or your theory "crackpot", I apologize. I do take offense at the tone of your comments about those of us who have expressed opinions against this article. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All members of the Wikipedia community are entitled to express their opinions on articles entered into Wikipedia. If you want your article to be commented on only by qualified physicists, then submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, then someone can write an Wikipedia article about the theory. Oh, and by the way, I'm 62, and although I was a physics major for only two years, I continue to maintain an active interest in all fields of science, so I guess that makes me an "interested amateur". - Dalbury (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The most abusive writing on this page is that of the anon above! Indeed, I find his accusation that Chris does not know his stuff to not just be rude but also another red flag that there is something very wrong about this anon. That Chris took one look at this article and posted an AfD on it speaks on its being deficient. I am not as capable as Chris, but the more I look at it the more problems that I see, with most of this article being so dense that it is useless as a part of Wikipedia even if it was right. Perhaps the biggest red flag is that this article remains without a References section, and its one referece (a link almost hidden in the introdcution) does not cover the material in this article. I stand by my vote. --EMS | Talk 20:58, 11 November 2005 (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.