Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar Repulsion Force

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 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Repulsion Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable as a theory against WP:N. It doesn't seem to have been accepted in mainstream international science. There is a mention in a Harvard abstract[1] but Google hits are very few. Probable conflict of interest by editor User:Dr.N.Chandra.Shah. See also proposed deletion of Dr.Navinchandra K.Shah dated 2007-01-08. Is the theory worth a debate in the context of Dark matter?? Mereda 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the List of science-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An admittedly brief effort to find sources was futile. I don't expect to find much, though. As I read this, it claims that stars emit a repulsive effect with four times the intensity of their other energetic emissions combined and "0.9 million times" more force than their gravitational presence. I don't need to be a published physicist to know that would present a problem for things that orbit them. Serpent's Choice 09:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable pseudoscience. Bollocks. MER-C 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no indication this is in any way a mainstream theory. For what it's worth, the "Harvard abstract" mentioned above is only a listing on the Astrophysics Data System, which lists the proceedings of essentially every conference in astrophysics ever, so doesn't really establish notability. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom. The part about the mass is ridiculous. Danski14 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE. THE DISCOVERY OF STELLAR(S)THERMONUCLEAR(T)REPULSION IN SHORT STREPULSION FORCE IS LONG BACK ESTABLISHED FACT. THE BOOK TITLED "INTRODUCTION TO THE STREPULSION FORCE" WAS REVIEWED BY INDIAN UNIVERSITIES AND WAS RELEASED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA'S MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. THE THREE RESEARCH PAPERS WERE REVIEWED BY SMITHSONIAN-HARVARD UNIVERSITIES CFO AND THE ABSTRACTS ARE ENTERED IN THREE NASA-ADS.THERE IS THE LARGEST SCIENCE WEBSITE IN THE WORLD PREPARED BY WITH COLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL STREPULSION-PHYSICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THIS IS " www.strepulsion.com" FOR REQUIRED INFORMATION AS YOU FEEL PUZZLE WITH "DARK-MATTER' OR ANY OTHER FACTORS, PLEASE READ ALL PAGES OF WEBSITE. THAN ONLY DECIDE. I FEEL DELETION IS GREATEST INJUSTICE IN PART OF SCIENCE WORLD. BY DELETION, AUTHORS WILL NOT BE THE LOOSERS BUT LOOSERS WILL BE THE WIKIPEDIA AND ITS READERS.DISCOVERY OF STELLAR REPULSION FORCE IS CONSIDERED BY MANY SPACE SCIENTISTS AS THE REVOLUTIONARY EVENT IN MODERN SCIENCE. DONT DELETE BUT INSIST AUTHORS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR YOUR PROBLEMS. THANKING YOU, SINCERELY YOURS PROF.GEORGE ROBINSON, E-MAIL:science@strepulsion.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.155.202 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nomination and all above. Anville 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Also it's complete bollocks. HEL 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Also violates WP:N. And the proponent hasn't discovered his caps lock key. HEL 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I will admit that this being "complete bollocks" is not a reason for deletion. However, it's blatantly violating WP:V and WP:N are. I would also reference the the proposed WP:SCIENCE guidelines, and the failure of this subject to meet any of its listed criteria for inclusion. --EMS | Talk 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). EMS | Talk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There is no citation of any published work whatsoever, just the claim it was presented at several congresses. If the proceedings were published, give the reference so we can look at the evidence that the theory even exists except in WP.DGG 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [2] --Pak21 09:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Pak21. It is easy to see from the abstract to which you linked that the creators of Stellar Repulsion Force deny, almost in the same breath, universal gravitation and inertia both:

In the solar system, the sun exert SRF while planets exerts Gravitation. The sun repells planet-satellites while they attracts the sun. So planets-satellites neither fall upon the sun by gravitation nor flungaway by Repulsion. At orbital distances both reverse forces counterbalances each other. So planets and satellites remain at mean distance in their orbits.

Interaction of SRF with gravitation resulted into retraction force (RTF). RTF keep bodies at mean distance in orbits and keep them in spherical motion. RTF acts on planets at ratio -inversely proportional to square-root of distance from the sun. So planets revolve at this velocity around the sun. The mass of the sun is 99.85% of the solar system, If the sun also exerted gravitation, then, all planets-satellites should have collapsed into the sun and that would be the end of solar system. centrifugal is fiction. The sun repels planets - it does not attracts.

This is a shockingly high degree of nonsense. We're talking surreal numbers just to describe the magnitude of it — transfinite ones for the bollocks, and infinitesimal ones for the logical coherency quotient. I said delete before, and I'm saying it again. . . . Anville 22:03, 13 January 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.