From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as I can see from the title of the document quoted - it's not a repost.
I could possibly merge the article with Minkowski space but it's not the same. It needs a separate page.
Unreliable references??? Scribd.com is a very reputable storehouse of quality information.
The text quoted is available both on Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com
All references are reliable.
The objections are not valid.
The banner 'marked for deletion' was removed.
What the editor is doing is essentially 'conventional bigotry'.
Further marks for deletion will be taken as bias against valid alternatives = scientific censorship.
This is NOT a speculative, fringe, quack, or otherwise wasteful endeavor.
It's valid scientific and engineering principles applied to an area desperately in need for valid alternatives.
&Delta (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to be Original Research. Scribd.com is not a reliable source, it's a self-publishing repository and is very upfront about it. Please add some reliable references or this will taken to AFD, again. MuffledThud (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
essetially nonsnse, no 3rd party references - was the complaint this time.
2nd concern addressed - 4 3rd party refs added (2 books and 2 ext links).
1st concern shows the editor essentially knows nothing of the field.
deletion banner removed again&Delta (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 SUPPORT AGAINST DELETION
As Wikipedia have asked I am not deleting their notice. I am against deletion for these reasons: 1> It denies Michael the right to free speech and deletion would give his views more substance. 2> While I agree with some of Michael's points I have disagreed with others at:
Complex Quantum Mechanics Yahoo Group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/complexquantummechanics
I take no offence in Michael contradicting me so I do not see why anyone else should.
3> As far as I am aware Wikipedia allows political comment. If Wikipedia wishes to exclude such comments it should apply the rules to everyone fairly.
4> I admit Complex Quantum Mechanics and variants of it (like Michael) are ruffling feathers. Is that a bad thing?
5> If Michael has managed to get a book published he is doing even better than me. If his work was so offensive would the publishers have agreed? Perhaps to sell books but it is very unlikely given the subject matter.
6> If the topic is lacking substance that is a scientific misjudgement. If we start to censor everyone on that basis we will only allow the main orthodoxy to post anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexross53 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would strongly advise anyone who wishes to argue that this article not be deleted do so at the [AFD page], where they are more likely to be heard. Anaxial (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 i fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies
i, sam micheal, fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies. it is a Wonderful wonderful resource for the world. i would donate $ to the project if i had reliable income. but .. there are many speculative ideas (which are incidentally proposed by conventional ppl) on Wikipedia. there are many articles full of original content and speculation. for instance, look up "Jewish messiah" or some variation of that. banner for original content. that's why i inserted that banner on my page. now, that does not justify my article. what justifies it is how we spend $ in physics. the world has spent BILLIONs of $ on the LHC. the sole purpose of the LHC is to look for Higgs bosons. the problem with that - in my humble opinion - Higgs does not exist. now, there are some conventional ideas/explanations for 'no Higgs'. CERN published a workshop proceedings back in '06 about Higgs (just the 'workshop' alone - the number of participants and cost - must have been enormous). a website for it is: http://www.unc.edu/~gravity/Higgs/Higgs2.pdf this shows you how much convention cares about Higgs. again, i understand the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. however, young ppl and ppl just learning about physics need to see viable alternative views. Micheal_space is about that. this article is the summation of years of collaboration within and independently of the NPA (natural philosophy alliance). of course, i cannot represent the NPA with this article. it is one branch/offshoot of our ideas. it, in no way, represents NPA or even a smidgen of our philosophies / physics ideas. but it rests soundly on engineering principles and practices. it stands on its own. the actual inspiration for the article comes from letters/publications from Robert Oldershaw. bottom line is: we'll know in a few months who's right or wrong. please leave the page up until proven wrong.&Delta (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 list of professional support for engineering approach
Idrees Husain, midreeshusain at yahoo.com
Phil Lawson, stfactor at yahoo.com
Michel Grosmann, kaydom at noos.fr