Talk:Reactionless propulsion: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Title and scope: new section) |
imported>Dmitrii Kouznetsov (reply to questions) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Best wishes, Constable [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | Best wishes, Constable [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
: Thank you, Hayford, for the explanation (First, I misunderstood the recommendations about the subpages). Also, I like your improvements. [[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]] 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Title and scope == | == Title and scope == | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Most of the Russian references about criticism belong in a Bibliography subpage. In general, however, CZ discourages non-English references because it cannot be assumed other Citizens can read them. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (''Engineeering Workgroup Editor'') | Most of the Russian references about criticism belong in a Bibliography subpage. In general, however, CZ discourages non-English references because it cannot be assumed other Citizens can read them. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (''Engineeering Workgroup Editor'') | ||
: [[Reactionless propulsion]] sounds good. Consider to rename the article, leaving the redirect. | |||
: About references: I copypasted them all in order to indicate that there is a lot of cryticizm, but few of it appears in serious journals. One has no need to speak Russian in order to see the amount. For this reason, I cited them all together. The English sources cited are sufficient to see that all these "gravitsapas" are just milking of funds for pseudo-science, supported by suppressing of scientists and murdering of critical journalists. (Do you know who was [[Trofim Lysenko]]?) | |||
: As tor the "warp drives", it seems, some distributors of funds do not make difference between [[science]], [[science fiction]] and [[pseudo-science]]. I wrote about this, http://www.ils.uec.ac.jp/~dima/PAPERS/2010mestoe.pdf and I think about mofication of the article [[Science]] (in order to exclude all the "wrap drives", the "gravitsapas" and the [[Reactionless propulsion]] automatically, since the beginning). You may see the sandbox [[User:Dmitrii_Kouznetsov/Science]] and criticize it; it is my proposal for [[Science]]. [[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]] 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:31, 2 March 2010
|
| Metadata here |
I try to fill the subpages... Dmitrii Kouznetsov 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I did all I could, and I cannot improve it more; so, I nominate it. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Some comments from a Constable
Hi, Dmitrii, glad to see you back in action! There are, however, a couple of problems with the creation and edits of this article. First, you cannot make up your own WorkGroup categories, such as "Russian space science" -- you can only use existing WorkGroups such as "Physics" or "Chemistry" and such-like.
Second, an Editor who has worked on an article cannot nominate it himself. Here are the relevant guidelines:
If the editor has worked on it herself as an author, he/she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work as authors on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it. (These rules are to prevent a single person from approving his or her own work without involving review by experts who were not authors.)
This means that you will have to find some other Editors to make the initial nomination. In the meantime I have removed the Approval template from the article.
Best wishes, Constable Hayford Peirce 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Hayford, for the explanation (First, I misunderstood the recommendations about the subpages). Also, I like your improvements. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Title and scope
Reactionless propulsion is probably the more general term for non-Newtonian methods. Is this article intended to be general about the subject (e.g., science fiction "warp drives" and more serious speculation about tachyon or gravitational technology) or simply address Russian work?
Most of the Russian references about criticism belong in a Bibliography subpage. In general, however, CZ discourages non-English references because it cannot be assumed other Citizens can read them. --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (Engineeering Workgroup Editor)
- Reactionless propulsion sounds good. Consider to rename the article, leaving the redirect.
- About references: I copypasted them all in order to indicate that there is a lot of cryticizm, but few of it appears in serious journals. One has no need to speak Russian in order to see the amount. For this reason, I cited them all together. The English sources cited are sufficient to see that all these "gravitsapas" are just milking of funds for pseudo-science, supported by suppressing of scientists and murdering of critical journalists. (Do you know who was Trofim Lysenko?)
- As tor the "warp drives", it seems, some distributors of funds do not make difference between science, science fiction and pseudo-science. I wrote about this, http://www.ils.uec.ac.jp/~dima/PAPERS/2010mestoe.pdf and I think about mofication of the article Science (in order to exclude all the "wrap drives", the "gravitsapas" and the Reactionless propulsion automatically, since the beginning). You may see the sandbox User:Dmitrii_Kouznetsov/Science and criticize it; it is my proposal for Science. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)