Talk:Einstein–Cartan theory/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Record of previous claims that this article needs work

Needs clarification

Needs clarification, elaboration (maybe split since already long), links to related articles.

Reply: Many links are inserted. If you want more, please add them or tell me what you want. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]

Needs less technical introduction

Reply: It would be nice, but I think it is optional. This article is of interest only to people who know general relativity fairly well. Please suggest changes. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]

Citation format

Citations should conform with WikiProject GTR.---CH (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I don't know your conventions and I could not easily follow your link to find out, so I stopped pursuing this. [User: R. J. Petti, jpetti@alum.mit.edu]

Flaws in non-quantum general relavitity?

And I just noticed "one known flaw"--- I wish! See objections to general relativity and especially its talk page (the article itself is currently terribly imbalanced and rather incoherent).---CH (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Please tell me what are the other known flaws in non-quantum general relativity. I know only of the inability of GR to handle spin-orbit coupling, which is fixed by EC theory. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]

C Code

I have found that the equation can be represented by a C code with

INCLUDE (objects), Main (Kernel, singularity) and a brace ( for C code molecules).

(unsigned comment by 71.131.226.30)

I hope you realize why this statement doesn't make any sense as it stands. But maybe you already knew that when you wrote it... ---CH (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply: These comments seem misplaced. There is no mention of C code in the article on Einstein-Cartan theory.

O(p,q) or SO(p,q) or neither?

An anon changed SO(p,q) to O(p,q) on the grounds that the latter is the orthogonal group, while the former is usually called special orthogonal group. In fact, even without reading the article one has to suspect that the connected component of the orthogonal group might be the group intended. Someone with more time and energy please figure it out and fix the problem! ---CH 16:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: O(p,q) is fine. The point is minor. [User: R. J. Petti rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]

Work of Myron Evans

VOLKER204@CS.COM A dispassionate analysis of Myron Evans' work on this is needed. As Einstein showed gravitation is curved spacetime, Evans indicates electromagnetism is spinning spacetime. Geometrically, it makes good sense. Which equations will prove to be absolutely true remains to be seen.

Reply: What is the work of Myron Evans? This article in EC theory has nothing to do with electromagnetism, except that electromagnetism fits into EC theory as well as it fits into general relativity. [User: R. J. Petti rjpetti@alum.mit.edu] Rjpetti 05:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Agreed. The editors of the Myron Evans article make him out to be some kind of a quack, yet his work is similar (at least to a layman like myself) to the subject matter in this article. I'm sure some of the editors are the same for both articles. This is a place for free information exchange and debate. This isn't a scientific journal, and careers aren't on the line. This can be an anonymous forum. The Myron Evans article is link page to dogmatic scientific rhetoric written by people who either don't understand his work or think they have something to prove. They do not believe in true scientific advancement let alone healthy debate.

Careers may not be on the line, but indulging crackpot leads to public misunderstanding. Evans has leveraged his "new physics" into sales pitches for fraudulent devices which everyone can verify for themselves simply do not work. One would hope that one who describes himself as a layman should respect the judgment of experts. As a layman, he should take notice that physicists have no axe to grind against Einstein-Cartan theory as such and are generally tolerant of wild ideas. He may also peruse the blog of Myron Evans until a picture of this unfortunate soul's state of mind comes through. All of this is circumstantial, of course (except the fraudulent activities of Evans), but as a layman one has to make a judicious call on which of several self-proclaimed experts to trust. It should go without saying that the layman is not being disparaged as such. He may well have his own profession and sensible theoretical physicists will defer to his greater knowledge whenever a question resides in his domain.

I just took a cursory look at Myron Evans' webpage. He's definitely a crackpot who knows how to copy equations from articles and textbooks and use jargon but doesn't know what he's really doing. It's true that he copied equations from articles on EC theory, but he clearly doesn't know what they mean. AnonyScientist (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Evans protests: "ECE theory is based directly on Cartan gemetry [sic], which is why it has been overwhelmingly accepted internationally by all the best universities, institutes and similar in the world. Wikipedia on ECE is a failed troll site set up by a few people like Bruhn whose only aim in life was destruction – a low point in the history of science [...] They attacked Cartan geometry because I used it in an imaginative way. Nothing as stupid as this has ever happened in science." 137.205.101.77 (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Einstein–Cartan theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)