Talk:Yilmaz theory of gravitation

‹See TfM›

Are you kidding? This article is not even vaguely written in a neutral tone, an 8-year-old with no knowledge of physics could see that. What is your beef? If the theory doesn't hold any water, why are you spending so much energy bashing it?

I propose the article be deleted if noone will bother to at least state what Dr. Yilmaz states in his theory before launching into criticisms. Am removing the article from "Fringe Physics" and pseudoscience lists.

Revision

I rewrote the article

• to be more WP:NPOV
• to give more information about one of the basic disputes,
• to put the citations and links into a format similar to other articles

I renamed the article because

• Yilmaz's paper is called "Toward a theory of gravitation'
• he does in fact claim to have produced a classical field theory of gravitation, or even a unified field theory,
• None of the cited papers call this thing "Yilmaz relativity"

I removed three links, to the useless and very misleading article by John Cramer, one to a very long and unorganized collection of gtr-related posts on controversies in general, and the tripod.com link. If someone feels very strongly that any of these should be added back, please explain your reasons on this page.

In my view, this topic has recieved as much attention as it deserves (essentially none) in the research literature, way more than it deserves in sci.physics.research (I am probably partly to blame for that). I believe that the current article does accurately describe both the lack of attention paid to Yilmaz's work in physics and the principle reasons for that inattention. Please note that the article does make it very easy for any reader with the proper background to obtain the available on-line papers/preprints, including two coauthored by Yilmaz.---CH (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Students beware

I completely rewrote the October 2005 version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. The Yilmaz theory is a controversial topic and still has a few cranky fans, so it is possible that at least some future versions of this article will present slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. I'd also urge students to be cautious in using any material from websites found by following external links from this article, since these may be cranky. Any of these sources may attempt to portray the Yilmaz theory as having a much more respectable status than is really the case.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well known facts about integrals in curved spacetimes

Hi, Raul, thanks for accepting my revision, but you misunderstood the integrals I had in mind! See the discussion in MTW. Right now, coverage in Wikipedia of these topics is weak or nonexistent, but we founding members of a forthcoming WikiProject hope to improve that.---CH (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Would the Path integral page be more appropriate?

(Comment added by User:RaulMiller, who forgot to sign it)

No ---CH (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)