Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplification of the spacetime continuum

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. G12. Bad science bad enough to make Phil Plait run screaming, and a copyvio to boot. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification of the spacetime continuum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article will need review from someone knowledgeable in the field, but it appears to be original research, is probably more appropriately added to an existing article, and lacks any sources. Does Wikipedia need this article? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update -There is a related article at Quantum spacetime mechanics which is already nominated for deletion in its own discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nope, it's complete OR, and not even good OR. For example: "The electron reaches the speed of light". Electrons have mass, they can't reach the speed of light. I'd be tempted to db-hoax it, really (although it doesn't actually qualify for db-hoax). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense OR. I especially like the part about "the 13 dimensional sphere of electrons orbiting the singularity at the speed of light". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I kinda like the line: "This could be balanced even with all the mass in the universe as long as the electrons maintain voracity..." Look out, all the mass in the universe, the electrons are starving and trying to eat you! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could be mistaken- I'm not really following the logic- but I think he says that time has mass. So either I understand less science than I thought I did, or the universe is way more awesome than I realized. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete More original research nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with our criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is poorly executed crank physics. The "I will be the first." admission by the editor in another, largely identical, article is by itself, even if one doesn't know enough physics to know that this is rubbish, an indicator that this is a novel hypothesis from one person's head, without expertise or formal peer review (or even publication!), in violation of our no original research policy. Being original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, by the way. And common sense tells me that this isn't a copyright violation because there's just one person writing this stuff, on both Facebook and Wikipedia. They are, after all, signed "Ryan Reschke", written in the first person, and the product of a Wikipedia account with the name Ryanr666 (talk · contribs). Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (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.