Talk:Yilmaz theory of gravitation

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Students beware[edit]

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)[reply]

Ah, you think you have to warn people of ideas which they might not be able to evaluate for themselves? :( --Cspan64 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well known facts about integrals in curved spacetimes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Huseyin Yilmaz[edit]

I think he is born 1926 and not 1924 (de:Hüseyin Yılmaz) and it should be confirmed if he is really dead (and if he is dead when he died).--Meilenweit (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the dates from his obituary: http://www.tributes.com/show/Huseyin-Yilmaz-95267841

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yilmaz theory of gravitation. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040920175932/http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html to http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html

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) 01:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]