| Revision as of 07:26, 30 March 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:03, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| *'''Delete''' as ]. --] 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as ]. --] 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as ], also possibly ]. ] 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as ], also possibly ]. ] 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' un referenced ] ] ] ] ] ] 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' un referenced ] ] ] ] ] ] 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | ||
Latest revision as of 07:03, 6 February 2023
- 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 delete - Liberatore(T) 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyclical time
Article was put up for prod as "Unreferenced pseudo-scientific nonsense", but the tag was removed without comment by the original author, so up for a vote it goes.
- Neutral DMG413 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as prod nominator. As far as I can tell, it goes to great length to argue that time is cyclical by invoking various famed physicists. Fails WP:OR and the real physics touched by this article is covered elsewhere (see my comment below).
Cleanup. The added references support keeping, there appears to be a real concept somewhere in there. However, the article is of very poor quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion.--Henrik 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete as original research and crankery. Brian G. Crawford 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Friedrich Nietsche (Eternal recurrence)
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Adams.htm
Henri Poincare: Poincare recurrence theorem
http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
Paul Steinhardt, Ph.D Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_index.html
Plato and Aristotle views on time and eternity
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8094(196401)14%3A54%3C35%3ATNAEIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Time in ancient historiography
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1966)6%3C1%3ATIAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
Please read this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
and: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html
Above links were added by: Riveros11 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 April 2006
Keep Appears to be referenced, but the article could be improved. Fishhead64 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per Fan1967's point. Fishhead64 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete Even with references, the article is an attempt to synthesize a number of very differing viewpoints, and does qualify as original research. - Fan1967 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, original and crackpot --Deville (Talk) 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sure we can use an article on this concept and I don't think it is trying to merge them all into one but explain them all (but going about it the wrong way). Kotepho 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable concept, referenced in the works of Strauss and Howe. Wiwaxia 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The author is a cult member and essentially trying to push their world view of a single constantly repeating 5,000 year cycle of time through the facade of psuedo-science. 195.82.106.244 13:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
More references:
http://www.olduniverse.com/home_page.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm
Note:Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe.
Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Albert Einstein, 1954) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.13.124 (talk • contribs)
Vladimir Dimitrov, Ph.D in Engineering about Poincare recurrence and time.
http://www.zulenet.com/VladimirDimitrov/pages/time.html
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm
http://www.olduniverse.com/home_page.htm
Note:Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe.
Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The arrow of time problem: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/VelRev/VelRev.html
Eternal recurrence:http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosophy/COURSES/NIETNET/RECUR.HTM
Boltzmann's theory recap: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/msg0014535.html
Finally: eternal recurrence simplified: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/archive/index.php?t-1879.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.13.124 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: We already have Poincaré recurrence theorem, Recurrence time and Loschmidt's paradox , which seems to cover much of what our friend here wants to discuss. Henrik 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that your link to Recurrence timeis not pointing to that article. Note that the Poincare recurrence theorem and Loschmidt's paradox articles pointed out above do not engage into the realm of time. In that respect, they treat this aspect without a deserved depth. Even though those theories are mentioned, the consecuences of reciting them have been obscured. Please check this link: http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/ There are many deep corollaries once the acceptance of the validity of the above discussed theories is granted. That is the information behind "cyclical time."
- Comment - I can't say I understand the interplay, but this article and AfD are somehow related to an ongoing edit war on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation between two of the IPs who have posted here, 70.119.13.124 (talk · contribs) and 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs). Maybe someone else can make more sense of it than I can. Fan1967 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The above comment by Fan1967 is little incorrect, I hope that I can clarify. This article - which I was only recently made aware of when attempting to find some avenue to enter into a discussion with this other contributor having left a few comments on their user page - and the AfD are not directly related to the article on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation. The initial AfDs were proposed by other entirely unconnected contributors. The only connection is the reasonable supposition that 70.119.13.124 (talk · contribs) is an adherent of the so called Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and I can qualify that he/she is promoting their party line. It is correct to state that this group do teach cyclic time as part of their faith, but in their case a single identical repeating cycle of 5,000 years. I hope this helps. 195.82.106.244 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete original reasearch. -- noosphere 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete quickly. Crackpottery. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Note that crankpottery is not a valid reason for deletion (there are many forms of notable crankpottery), however, this runs massively into WP:OR. JoshuaZ 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Carefully read my vote again and you will see a vaild reason in there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I need to work on seeing subtle (or not so subtle) cues like that. JoshuaZ 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NOR. --BillC 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NOR, also possibly WP:Verify. MilesVorkosigan 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete un referenced ⇒ SWATJester
Aim Fire! 23:55, 6 April 2006 (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.