Talk:GRSI model

Notability?

Is this model actually notable? The 2003 preprint (it's only on arxiv, not peer reviewed) lists no citations in NASA ADS, the citations to the 2009 paper are almost all self-cites by Duer, and other than the review by Oks there are no secondary references. There's also a very strong criticism of the model by Barker, Hobson & Lasenby 2023 that isn't mentioned here. If there is almost no coverage of Duer's work, it doesn't really deserve to have a page, and certainly doesn't deserve sections in other cosmology articles. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Peterjol: Are there any secondary sources showing the notability of this theory? Deur's work has very few citations other than self-cites. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The GR-SI model is a frequent topic of discussion on physics and astrophysics forums as well as in blogs. A Google search for the author's name (Deur) along with the subjects 'Deur "dark matter"' or 'Deur "dark energy"' returns 71,600 or 51,800 hits respectively. I am aware that it is also widely debated in Germany; for instance, a search for 'Deur "Dunkle Materie"' yields 4,200 hits, or the reference by Prof. T. Moeller in this month's issue of Leserbrief Physik Journal (12 2003). This general interest is one reason I thought a dedicated wikipage would be useful.

The other reason for a dedicated page is because the model addresses numerous dark matter and dark energy related phenomena whose corresponding wikipages cite alternative solutions, such as MOND or the work by Cooperstock and Tieu concerning rotation curves (which are also strongly criticized by dark universe proponents). Hence, a specific GR-SI page seems logical rather than providing a brief descriptions of GR-SI in each of those Wikipedia pages (dark matter, dark energy, galactic rotation curves, and Microwave Background Anisotropy...)

That the paper is not widely cited within academia isn't surprising. Scholars in the field of dark matter/energy typically ignore alternate solutions, see for ex. Chapter 13 of the book 'The Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle Over General Relativity' by Pedro G. Ferreira, which gives an objective discussion on this issue. Nonetheless, the criterion for a wikipedia page is about general interest, which I think is there as google searches show, rather than consensus within the academic spheres. After all, Wikipedia hosts pages on topics like homeopathy, Big Foot, and the luminiferous ether, none of them part of the academic consensus. Peterjol (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It being a topic of conversation on blogs and discussion forums doesn't make it notable in the academic literature. As I noted, there are a couple of very strong responses that claim the model is not viable; you didn't include any of those in this article. "Typically ignore alternate solutions" - if those solutions aren't viable, then they won't get much coverage. MOND and TeVeS have had plenty of coverage, because they briefly appeared to be good alternatives. Comparing this model to junk science topics like homeopathy doesn't help your case: homeopathy has an article because it's well known and there are millions of articles about it. Non-standard cosmologies are a dime a dozen, and need significant academic interest to be worth their own article. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Merging the page

It was suggested to merge the page with the page "Alternatives to general relativity" (first choice) or "Non-standard cosmology" (2nd choice). The first choice is actually not proper since the articles on GR-SI insists on the model being squarely within the purview of General Relativity. Consequently, unless there are objections, I will move the article content to the "Non-standard cosmology" page (I will wait a few days to see if this is fine or misguided.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjol (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)