Talk:Firewall (physics)

Unprotect, please?

Surely, there is some better way of resolving this silly edit-warring, than having a protected page? This page is in utterly horrible condition, being a compendium of assorted sensationalism copied form the popular science newsmedia. Converting this into something other than a zombie from the black lagoon of mis-information will require actual editing by actual editors who actually understand the topic. Page protection does nothing but embalm it's stunningly poor physique. At any rate, a single-line claim of priority for Winterberg seems entirely reasonable, hardly something to edit-war over. If there's any additional mis-behavior, then surely other standard methods can be applied to that? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to propose edits or additional sources (unless, of course, the mainstream physics community doesn't "understand the topic" either, in which case you're just out of luck.) Rolf H Nelson (talk)

Yeah, I looked more carefully at the edit warring. Never mind. Its a shame. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello editors. I'd like to get the Winterberg credit back in. I'm confident that he's correct. Is there a place offline where I can explain why? It's because of this. JohnDuffield (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, hello? Is there anybody there? JohnDuffield (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

JuhnDuffield "Confidence" has nothing to do with it. In order to credit Winterberg, we need WP:RELIABLE sources giving him credit which we can use to WP:Verify the claim. He is noted in a footnote in the AMPS paper. Along with several other people. He has made publications which it can be argued are in that space. "Argued" is another way of saying WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which is forbidden on wiki. If winterberg's claim is legitimate,and important, then someone would have (or will) write about it giving him credit/priority/whatever. To my knowledge they have not done so. Indeed, the AMPS team has explicitly said (To me privately) that interpreting their footnote to mean Winterberg has priority is wrong, and that if credit is due it is due to OTHERS in the footnote list (Mathur in particular). . While their private correspondence is also not a source which can be used in Wikipedia, it does greatly strengthen my resolve to not let Winterberg or his fans make a claim to priority without proper sources. there are many sources giving the AMPS team credit. It is possible that that may be an injustice. But it is an injustice which will not be corrected on Wikipedia first. It must be corrected elsewhere, and then Wikipedia can be updated. For an analogous example please see WP:FLAT. Additionally, Wikipedia is driven by WP:CONSENSUS. The current consensus was arrived at via RFC (an RFC that I note was swamped with WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT puppets of Winterberg and his supporters). A new RFC would be required to override the current consensus. But I tell you very plainly, unless there are sources which explicitly give Winterberg credit or priority, that RFC is very unlikely to gain any traction. You have been fighting this fight for years now JohnDuffield. Unless there is new WP:SECONDARY evidence to show, you should give up. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Einstein-Cartan out of scope

I do not think the remark "Einstein–Cartan theory precludes altogether singularities such as that of the big bang and black holes." is appropriate here, as the singularities that Einstein-Cartan removes are the ones at the center of black holes, and not the (apparent) ones at the event horizon, where the discussed firewall is conjectured to be. To my understanding, the reverse is true: The Einstein-Cartan vacuum is identical to the GR vacuum, so whatever arguments support (or preclude) the firewall in GR, they do in Einstein-Cartan as well, so Einstein-Cartan theory is not a solution to the problem the firewall was invented to solve. I will take that remark out.WikiPidi (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)