Deepthought137

Image copyright problem with Image:GEM wiki fig2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GEM wiki fig2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• request for help

I forgot to make this as public domain and now when I attempt to correct this it bounces it can i simpy mark this as public domain?

AfD nomination of GEM unification theory

I have nominated GEM unification theory, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEM unification theory. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment Thankyou for this opportunity to participate in the Wikipedia process, whatever its final outcome concerning my article. In hindsight, I realize that the GEM theory , at this stage, barely qualifies for inclusion based on the important criterion of noteablity, in terms of being noted by independent observers. I basically felt, with the recognition it got by Space.com ( Leonard David had studied me for years, and is no one to give recogniton quickly to anyone) and based on my sense that, after much work and publications, the theory was "complete" ( no physical theory is never complete, but it can be an integrated, compact idea- I also have recently satisfied objections based on the standard model) plus recent refeered publications and the excellent reception it got at the last conferences where it had been presented, AIAA JPC 2007 and STAIF 2008, that the theory was ready for wider exposure outside the space plasma and propulsion community. The theory is noteable in one sense, it makes "outrageous" claims but based on straightforward physical models. No one else has found a formula for the gravitation constant "big G" that is even close to that from GEM. Gerardus 't Hooft told me over coffee at the Coral Gables conf. (2003) , that he had been thinking of a similar formula for G but he had 1/α (~ 137) from quantum mechanics instead of 42.8503... in the formula and had decided not to publish it because it was not accurate. He did not like my neglect of quark theory either. I ,of course, listened intently to this.

I have decided to make the theory either "famous or infamous" by the end of this year. I will be presenting the theory to the physics community again, in its newest form at the American Physical Society Meeting in Portland Oregon may 15-17. I also have submitted yet another article it to International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and I am awaiting refree reports. I am working to maximize press coverage of this, so if you see headlines (hopefully good) and also hear the predicatable cries of "Bah Humbug!" from my learned colleages in the string theory community, you will know I have succeeded. If this happens, where best for the eager public to gain basic knowledge of the theory that to look it up on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is very important to the world, it is literally "The Book of All Knowledge of the Web", and the web is now the "Corpus callosum" of the mind of humanity. It is the first place i look for a summary about any subject. I believe Wikipedia makes the world a much better place every day. Like the web that hosts it, it is a little "woolly" around the edges and is constantly evolving , and thus constantly unfinished. I recognize that it must be self policed, occasionally with great zeal, if it is not to degenrate into the chaos that is the normal state of the net. Thus, I have tried to respond positively to criticisms and contribute a worthy article, and i will work to improve it to the highest WiKi standards.

I have, in particular, included the criticisms I have received concerning the theory over the years, (some from noble prize winners )particularly the problem of the fundamental nature (no decays) of the proton versus the standard model so that the reading public will be cautioned from embracing the theory hastily. Other problems, such as tone and grammar ( always a problem) I will also address and also try to look kindly on any helpful editing. Bearing in mind that the theory has yet to be very noteable, I will confine my linking to the pages of unified field theory and plasma universe where it most naturally rests. If it becomes more noteable, others can link it further. Again, thankyou for your consideration of this and willingness to let me improve the article to match Wiki standards.--Deepthought137 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your desire to get noticed, but Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge of things that have already been noticed. Otherwise it becomes an advertising venue. Once you or your theory gains significant recognition and specific media coverage, then you'll be notable and can be included in Wikipedia. As it stands, neither you nor your theory would qualify for inclusion. However, best of luck in the meantime. As for your theory, you'll have to convince a lot of people that the evidence for quarks (etc.) is invalid or misinterpreted, so you'll have to have bullet-proof arguments. ABlake (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment actually, the problem with the standard model has pretty much gone away. I have no problem with the standard model, the evidence for the quark model is overwhemling, it just that the math in the GEM theory turns out to use the proton mass rather than quark masses. In my latest journal article http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287024 it is seen that the proton can be included as being made of quarks that act a subdimensions of the 5th dimensional "hidden dimension" . In the GEM theory the physical parameter connected to the hidden dimension is ,q, electric charge itself . Dimensionally

$q{\sqrt {\frac {G}{c^{4}}}}=distance$

gives the dimensions of a length. Since charge can be treated as a spacetime length in a "curled up" dimension then it is understandable that one can have subdimensions of lenght, just as a distance can be made of x,y,and z components, so the quarks act like three sub dimensions. The theory has thus sacrificed simplicity for accuracy in a complex world, as all theories must.

"seek simplicity and then distrust it..." A. Einstein

A more detailed discussion follows: In the new picture in GEM the electron and proton split out of the vacuum from a lightlike spacetime interval of length

$t_{o}^{2}-r_{o}^{2}=0$

this means it splits into a timelike part (the electron) which behaves like time , having only one internal dimension. The spacelike part of the split ( the proton) has like the radius of a sphere, three subdimensions x, y, z. In the GEM the electron is timelike and the proton is spacelike so in terms of charge , charge neutrality gives

$-q_{e}^{}=q_{p}=q_{x}+q_{y}+q_{z}=1$

the quark charges, since they are like x, y, z subdimensions of space. Also since the spacetime interval involves squared distance

$q_{e}^{2}=q_{p}^{2}=q_{x}^{2}+q_{y}^{2}+q_{z}^{2}=1$

In the theory this is done by variational methods, and yields conditons on the quark (subdimension) charges

$q_{e}=-1,q_{x}^{2}=-1/3,q_{y}=2/3,q_{z}=2/3$

So the quarks have now appeared in the GEM theory as subdimensions of the hidden Kaluza Klien 5th dimension , which is a compact image of 4- d spacetime. The charges of the quarks from the standard model fall out also, as well as the fact that protons are very stable. They are as stable as electrons because they are the corrsponding opposite end of a split spacetime interval. They are three-d objects and must preserve that three dimensional quantitly. --Deepthought137 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to GEM unification theory, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Field propulsion

I have nominated Field propulsion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)