Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spin vs. Torsion

The user 208.100.225.180 insists that spin field is scientific, unlike torsion field, although throughout some of the references that he added to the article the terms are used interchangeably. Does anyone have specific definitions for those? Personally I think it's just an attempt to dissociate from the public scandal that torsion field was, but I'm biased towards science. Cubbi 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Read the referenced articles CAREFULLY. You are confused regarding the words "spin" and "torsion". These are two different actions. Spin is rotation about an axis. Torsion is twisting, resulting in torque, for example. Spin can cause torsion. Torsion can cause spin. But they are two different creatures, especially in terms of fields. I have published works in Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Russia, all involving the spin field and its analogs. I have personally demonstrated the spin field to many people during the past 10 years, by application of a device I imported from Khazakstan. Since I discovered that the effective range of the field produced by this device is limited to about 2.5 cm., I have not had a failed demonstration. You can reach me at rnboyd@iqonline.net I can offer you a personal demonstration if you are in the USA. I was part of the Sarfatti group when Shipov came to San Francisco from Russia to demonstrate his "torsion field" generator. It failed miserably. There can be no doubt that the torsion field is theoretically possible, but no one has ever demonstrated a functional torsion field generator. I have a functional SPIN FIELD generator.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY

== SPIN FIELD ==

ENTRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had the torsion field and the spin field nicely seperated out into two distinct entries, WHICH THEY ARE, and you came along and erased all my work based on ignorance regarding the distinction between the spin field and the torsion field. It appears that you do not understand either of them, based on your comments above. I have provided references found at the bottom of the article. Please find the time to read them and understand them. If you will send me your email address, I will forward you a copy of my St Petersberg paper dated August 2006, which is also relevant.

Best Regards,

Robert Neil Boyd, Ph. D.

April 17, 2007 (April 17, 2007 (User:208.100.225.140))

I reverted your april 17 change because: 1) This is a "torsion field" article, not a "spin field" article. 2) Most references use the words "torsion" and "spin" interchangeably. 3) You rewrote the definition of "torsion field" from the Controversy paragraph using the word "spin", even though it was based on the original torsion field publication (which, again, shows me that spin field is just a new name for torsion field). 4) Your changes to the Controversy paragraph made it illiterate. Please create a spin field article with original content (rather than an exact copy of "torsion field" article). Cubbi 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an existing entry called Spinor field 195.137.203.137

It's different though. The "spin field" used by the guys here is a mystical physical field that makes water act like vodka and teleports people between planets, and spinors are, well, spinors. I'll disambig the spin field though. (Actually, I just remembered, some torsion authors do call their field 'spinor field') --Cubbi 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read your references. The creator of your "spin field generator" writes "Every substance creates the spin-field in the space surrounding it when polarized by spins. (This field is also called ‘torsion field’ or ‘axion field’ in different works)." (http://www.pmicro.kz/~ufl/ALMANACH/N3_95/S4_1a.htm). Cubbi 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, (not cubbi) it seems you're focusing more on semantics and less on the actual differences between the two. Just because something doesn't work, doesn't neccesarily mean that it has to be removed from the wikipedia or not have an article, because it can still serve as a reference for those who want to know the original definition of torsion fields and their relation to spin fields. 212.219.39.146 10:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the primary purpose of the user named "Cubbi" is to lend confusions and disinformation whereas my purpose has been toward clarification and reproducable facts. "Cubbi" has an irrational focus on the failure of Shipov's torsion field generator and refuses to admit the experimental evidence of the spin field generator, while in fact, "Cubbi" does not understand the physics of either the spin field or the torsion field, as he demonstrates in his below comment "...I wish he could explain his formulas in simple terms in that paragraph.", making it painfully clear that "Cubbi" does not understand basic mathematical physics, especially differential forms, which are commonly used in the physics literature. "Cubbi" has also not taken any initiative to date, to request a personal demonstration of the spin field, which I have offered to any persons who will travel to the location of the apparatus. This failure does not lend any particular credence to his supposedly sincere desire for expressing the truth. RN Boyd 11-14-2007 7:00PM (208.100.224.69 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

More Spin Vs. Torsion

Be aware that there is a lot of disinformation being issued by RUssian sources about torsion fields.

• It is not clear to me that Akimov (who was evidently sponsored by the KGB) was or was not a charlitan.

Now, I have met 1 on 1, G. Shipov, one of his early co-workers. IT IS MY OPINION that SHIPOV is not a charlitan. HE IS A SERIOUS WORKER WHO INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT THAT THE PHYSICAL VACUUM CAN ADMIT AFFINE TORSION (GLOBALLY RESTRICTED TO ADMIT PARALLEL TRANSPORT). Although I am not sure that his dream of using torsion to propel space ships will be practical, he is a serious scientist. I EXTENDED HIS IDEAS TO INCLUDE A LOCALLY CONTINUOUS VERSION OF AFFINE TORSION, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PARALLEL TRANSPORT CONSTRAINT. SEE arXiv:gr-qc/0602118

• In all cases the concept of Affine Torsion is related to a basis frame [F] of functions

that serve as a Vector Basis (usually on a 4D variety of independent functions (x,y,z,t). Remember that Affine torsion is not (always) the same as Cartan torsion. In my opinion, affine torsion is related to electromagnetic charge, the field excitiation (D,H, not E,B) 2-forms G, and then to the Topological Spin 3-form, A^G, -- in the sense that if G = 0, then there is no charge (the closed deRahm integral of G), no D, H, and no A^G.

• The concept of Affine Torsion is not the same as Topological Torsion.

Affine Torsion is expressed as a vector array of 2-forms. The exterior differential of the Basis Frame [F] is closed, and produces the matrix of Cartan connection 2-forms. The antisymmetric components of the Cartan connection of 1-forms define a "vector" array of 2-forms, generally defined as Affine Torsion.

• d[F] = [F] [C]
  

[F] |ds> = |A> a vector array of 1-forms.
[F] [C]^|ds> = |dA>
Vector array of Affine Torsion 2-forms = |G> = [C]^|ds>
Note that the vector array of two forms = |G> can be mapped into the anti-symmetric matrix [G] of field excitations.

• If any component of the vector array of 1-forms A is not integrable,

such that the 3-form A^dA is not zero, then Topological Torsion does not exist. If any of the |A> are NOT integrable, then topological torsion EXISTS.

• Topological Torsion is a composition of 3-forms.

Affine Torsion is a composition of 2-forms.

• Spin (in my view) is not a 2-form.

Topological Spin is a composite 3-form, equal to the product of A^G.

---

Remarks have been made by certain Russians that Shipov is a fake and that many of the points in his CV are untrue. Yet a number of the diatribe of accusations have been shown to be false. I do not know the problem, but I suspect Russian disinformation.

---

ON ANOTHER LEVEL, for a thermodynamic system encoded in terms of a 1-form of Action, A, I have establihed that TOPOLOGICAL TORSION A^F ( a 3-form) is an artifact of Thermodynamic NON-Equilibirum. THIS is not the Spin 3-form, A^G. HOWEVER, the existence of Non-Equilibrium processes implies that Work 1-form of the First Law need not be closed. IN FACT it appears that the no0n-zero Topological Torsion of the Work 1-form, W^dW, is a requirement that the Process is not THERMODYNAMICALLY Reversible. (see my website)

regards
RM Kiehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.203.137 (talk) 13:49, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

Hey, isn't the person above is that very guy from the article? 195.137.203.137

Yes, I made that paragraph since most torsion sources mention him as a reference, and I wish he could explain his formulas in simple terms in that paragraph. --Cubbi 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{totallydisputed}}

Something has gone wrong here. The article starts with a reasonable and sober introduction but then all sorts of nonsense are presented as research facts. The fig leaf "controversy" section doesn't help much then. --Pjacobi 09:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this how all pseudoscientific articles are written? All sort of nonsense is presented as "fact", because that's exactly how the published references present it. If it was written from the point of view of rational people from the beginning to end, it would be called bias. --Cubbi 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the article should be nuked from the orbit. I guess these things have been allowed to stay for so long because it's a relatively obscure topic. I like some of the easter eggs inside the article, though. Reinis^talk 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

torsion field theory is a legitimate branch of physics. quantum theory is a legitimate branch of physics and all sorts of pseudo-scientific claims are made for it as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash.starwalker (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 July 2008

Over 500 million founds in Russian best Hidden Secret - Pseudoscience?? (no way) vs. Pseudoskeptics? they are for sure

Urgently remove definition paragraph because you are making Einstein fraudulent with your expressions !!! Read einstein`s torsion field expression "an affine torsion field" and take action immediatley - REMOVE URGENTLY your pseudo-negative-words!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory

also read rules NO ATTACK (skeptics included) wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to give definition of word fraud you cand find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

And if you want to accuse Akimov and Shipov of fraud you better prove it.. because there was noone convicted of anything . NO PROVES ..Noone is in jail ..

Why some user posts articoles about torsion field fraud when there is only one person who says so ? Torsion field is real .. is not a fraud ! neither is Shipov ..maybe he`s collegues are because they didnt receive a part of Shipov`s work !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Urgently review the definitions and the sources !!

Please modify the first definition paragraph because it is false ! Torsion field it is not a spin field and the source you mentioned it is a personal webpage http://humanism.al.ru/en/ .. the policy of wikipedia dont allow such pages !!

PLease make a better definition or add a better source for torsion field  ! If you dont have one.. just try later after you search .. but remove the first source !

Wikipedia must not be a definition place or a battleground for skeptics paid work !! please remove all sources which are not accepted by wikipedia rules and policyes !

Attention: The truth about torsion field : ... THere is no fraud .. its a conspiracy against people who didnt want to share theyr projects with Academician Kruglyakov.. so all the internet websites if you search very deep .. are related to personal vendeta of this specific person !

Torsion fields are generated by spin (considering classical spin) or by angular momentum. There exist both right and left torsion fields (depending on the spin orientation).Electrostatic or electromagnetic fields without a torsion component do not exist. On the strict level this is shown by G.I.Shipov . Strong torsion fields are generated by high electrical potentials and by devices with organized circular or spiral electromagnetic processes. (Probably the first researcher to investigate torsion fields by this type of generators was Nikola Tesla. In Russia, similar results were obtained by S.V.Avramenko and others.) ( http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/tors3.html ) In our days we know that torsion-fields have the nature of the psychological and energoinformational influence. ( http://www.geo.lt/Earths_fields.pdf )

In the language of physics, particles “excite the vacuum’s ground state.” Russian physicists Anatoly Akimov, G.I. Shipov, and V.N. Binghi produced a mathematically elaborated theory of this excitation. In their theory the vacuum is a physical substance extending throughout the universe: it registers and transmits the traces of charged particles and objects built of such particles. All particles and objects create torsion-waves in the vacuum. The vortices of these waves are information carriers, linking physical events nearly instantly: their group speed is of the order of 109 c — one billion times the speed of light! http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/backissue/s2006/laszlo-1.shtml

Torsion technology is said to derive from a new discovery in the Science of Physics. Science has developed from Galileo, Newton, Einstein, but now we may see a new theory which will show the incompetence of the “old” scientific principles we have adhered to over the past 50 years. The proponents say this new concept of physics will allow development of technologies which have no analogy in present day practices.

The two primary Russian Scientists backing Torsion technology are A.E.Akimov and G.E.Shipov.

Akimov and Shipov suggest that: “Torsion technology can be used to formulate new more efficient torsion transport (including torsion propellers to create flying saucer look-alikes), torsion communications, torsion technologies to create new economies of production, torsion construction materials, torsion geology and geophysics, in heating systems, in ecology to purify the radio-active polluted territory, in agriculture and in medicine”.

So during the last 30 years in Russia a team of scientists have been developing theory, principles and practice based on the theory of vacuum physics or the physical vacuum. It is said at least 500 million rubles was invested in this technological development by the Russian/Soviet State up until 1991. However in 1991, as in 2004, not all Russian scientists were of a like mind about Torsion technology.

How many people “flip” when they hear the word flying saucers? Such is our conditional mind. However a visit to the web site www.newscientist.com and to an article about Russian scientist Evgeny Podkletnov and NASA will reveal work NASA has funded to explore gravity-powered space ships, which is among NASA’s brief to seek out new and exotic forms of propulsion. However mention the anti-gravity subject to traditional scientists and their persecution drums role. Why? Because the proving of a new form of transport propulsion will destroy much of the theoretical physics accepted by most scientists today. If you try to destroy someone else’s set belief system in religion, politics, love, business or science, see what response you get!

The views of scientists Akimov and Shipov are not simply voices in the scientific wilderness. Famous USA physicist and writer Dr. Erwin Laszlo referred to them both in one of his recent books, where he suggested the work of Akimov and Shipov may start a new revolution in physics.

However not all scientists agree that Torsion technology can be realized. As the amazing Russian lady Helena Blavatsky found, usually the greatest critics come from ones own backyard and this is no exception in modern day Russia. In fact those who represent the traditional science, through the Russian Academy of Science, are adamant in their criticism, saying Akimov and Shipov are fraudulent in their presentation of torsion technology. These opponents include Russian Academy of Science Academician Dr.Edward Kruglyakov and Dr.V.L.Ginzburg, the latter being the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2003. Both reject the maths and science used as the basis of Shipov’s 1993 book and also reject all Akimov’s claims about new Torsion technology being practical and achievable. They say Akimov is involved in “pseudoscientific projects and is a charlatan aiming only to swindle funds from hopeful clients and investors” ( http://www.nevanews.com/index.php?id_article=154&section=4 )

What does cold fusion research have in common with astrology, mysticism and occultism? By the way, Edward Kruglyakov is laboratory head and deputy director of the largest institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics). Academician Kruglyakov is the State Prize (1986) and Artsimovich award (2001) winner. Born in 1934 he is a graduate of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He is certainly not a pseudoscientists. But his attitude toward cold fusion does not look very scientific to me. ( http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/86kruglyakov.html )

Why has Shipov so exasperated the strict, mistrustful scientific world? Even the subject of his research, "mysterious torsion fields", is like a nail in the shoe of physicists, very inconvenient! But, scientists today are recognizing that "spinning fields" really do exist. Just as electromagnetic fields are caused by a charge and gravitational fields are caused by weight, torsion fields are created by any rotating objects. ( http://www.eioba.com/a85528/torsion_fields_theory_of_physical_vacuum_shipov_and_heim )

Russian Academicians G.I. Shipov and A.Ye. Akimov have scientifically proven not only the existence of a physical vacuum and of torsion fields, but also the dependency of natural and cosmic phenomena (including catastrophic ones) on the thoughts and worldview principles of mankind, and the state of consciousness of masses of people. A. Einstein also approached an understanding of how the state of affairs on the planet depends on human consciousness. ( http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_1-9/2008-6/pdf/10-19_3506.pdf )

Torsion field communication has also been demonstrated. Digital signals were sent over a 22 km distance in which a hill and concrete apartment buildings intervened.The already achieved results prompt a conclusion that the 21st century technologies will be torsion technologies. ( http://www.newenergytimes.com/FIC/N/N199703.PDF )

And do not post "fraud" word in definition paragraph.. you can posted at criticism .. or other observation .. because Einstein -Cartan invented what you call fraud now.. dont make yourself look bad in front of millions of people who reads Wikipedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it seem to anyone that Hitler used pseudoscience? :)

I really dont think so, skeptics are zero for this kinda thing:).. so who ever posted that "nonsense" definition of torsion field being pseudoscience please replace it with the correct definition! wich can be for example:

Torsion fields are generated by the classical spin, or by the spin angular momentum density (on a macroscopic level) of any object. The spinning of an object sets up polarization in two spatial cones, corresponding to a left torsion field and a right torsion field. At an atomic level, nuclear spin as well as full atomic movements may be the source of torsion fields. This means that all objects in nature, live or dead, generate their own torsion field.

Thank you!

“The (Nazi) Bell was said to be extremely dangerous, causing illness,
mutation and death in animal and possibly human subjects. One of Nick Cook's
scientist contacts in The Hunt for Zero Point even went so far as to claim that
The Bell was a torsion field generator and that the SS scientists were
attempting to build some sort of time machine with it.” - Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 00:15, December 4, 2008 (UTC)

Cern LHC is also pseudoscience ...haha maybe wiki also?

What about now? still think that torsion field is pseudoscience ..when Cern was made for that? haha feel free to contact me: userpsy@yahoo.com

Torsion field at Cern Lhc

Torsion potential at Cern Lhc

Torsion models constitute a well known class of extended quantum gravity models. In this paper we study some phenomenological consequences of a torsion field interacting with fermions at LHC. A torsion field could appear as a new heavy state characterized by its mass and couplings to fermions. These new states will form a resonance decaying into difermions, as occurs in many extensions of the Standard Model, such as models predicting the existence of additional neutral gauge bosons, usually named Z′.

There are many experimental and theoretical arguments saying that the minimal Standard Model (SM) is not a complete theory and it should be extended. One possibility is to extend it in such way to include also gravity. This inclusion should predict the observable value of the cosmological constant and bring new observable effects in high energy elementary particle physics. The SM is described using three types of fields: scalar, vectorial and spinorial, by the other hand general relativity has in addition the metric field which describes the geometric property of space-time. A strong candidate to be included in the SM is the space-time torsion field which adds some independent characteristics to the space-time geometry as is shown in the general relativity with torsion.

Here you have a lot of "torsion field" expression .. is this powerfull Geneva LHC a pseudoscience experiment? with the best scientist in the world involved? ...again i repeat for the ignorant or pseudoignorant who posted "torsion field" as pseudoscience ...review those links and remove your ignorant definition faster..because this is the next step of science and human being evolution!

http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=torsion%20field —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telesio-galilei.com/L%20P%20Horwitz%20Summary%20of%20Scientific%20Contributions.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As the torsion field is characterized by a neutral gauge boson, its mass signal at LHC could be the same of a new heavy neutral resonances, like Z′. In order to identify the signal nature, if its is found, we define an accumulated asymmetry, that is given by the forward-backward asymmetry as a function of Mee evaluated at increasing ranges of the final electron invariant mass Mee. The lower range limit is at a fixed value MTS/2 and gradually increasing the upper limit up to MTS + 500 GeV. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpsy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

this whole subject has been biasly left pretty blank due to everyone ASSUMING its psuedoscience, i'm also not surprised, I thought this was an encyclopedia, where is the model? where is some data? haven't you got something better to do than undermine human society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.97.116 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New post

I am in the process of rewriting the spin field and torsion field sections. I will again separate them out into two distinct entities, as they should be, and ARE. If you want to put more of your vitriolic unfounded ignorant biased expressions regarding topics which you know nothing about into either of these sections, I can just as easily delete your unsupported and ignorant rhetoric as you have deleted my rigorous and strongly supported arguments, in the past. This time, I'm going to make several copies of all that I put in these two different sections, into my personal computer, so all I'll need to do is a single "select all" then a "delete". Then a "copy" and "paste" operation will restore all that I have bothered to write here, as ignorantly confused and skeptically opposed by you and your past irresponsible alterations and deletions of my efforts here in the past. I am also going to reinstall my references from Professor Keihn, and many others. I wish there were some sort of peer review process here, to weed out personal ignorance and personal biases. But alas, there is not. So I'll just keep doing cut-and-paste operations until you get tired of bothering to interfere with your abysmally ignorant and biased skepticisms. Science is not a popularity contest. And the sciences surrounding Information Physics are empirically and experimentally supported, whether these results are popular with you or not. And the instrumented read-outs don't lie, regardless of whether or not you want to believe them.

68.155.18.55 (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)RN BOYD, Ph. D.

Dear Herr Professor Doctor Boyd, Ph. D.,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have been here before, so I will be brief. First of all, see the above reply: this article is about the kind of "torsion field" used in pseudophysics, not spinor fields (for which there already is an article, quite independently of this one). Secondly, indeed there is such a thing as a torsion field, but it seems that there is already an article about this: Einstein-Cartan theory. Please present here — without threats, insults, or other such — a detailed explanation of why the "torsion fields" referred to here (i.e., the ones that predict psychic phenomena and so forth) have received mainstream treatment in scientific journals. In the event that you are unable to do so, please suggest how this article can be renamed to make way for a more legitimate concept of torsion field. Personally, I think the article should be deleted altogether, but unfortunately you weren't around for that particular discussion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC), B.Phil., M.S., M.A., Ph. D., F.R.S.

Some information on controversion history

Destruction of torsion research in Russia - sorry, Russian only so far. Влад Жигалов (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****

I have nothing more to say to you people, nothing. take your bias and go work in news media so serious researchers can see the facts and data and not opinionated bull**** like the contents of this article. do not reply to me, I already tried to tell you people before but you wouldn't listen and you won't now. perhaps someone will see this and realise they should be looking elsewhere for facts. perhaps an actual library. 90.210.41.131 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wiki

Dear Wiki: Explain how placebo effect influence water taste under torsion field device! You cant ... users bellow already brought a lot of references.. and noone bothers to read ... so this Article must not exist as it is with intention driven in the pseudo direction by wiki admins!

Search google engine - please type "torsion field" Guess what is the answer 2 pseudo(from wiki and personal revenge from commission for fighting pseudo-science ..in fact just one person representing that Kruglyakov, Edward P!) versus 313.000 links proving torsion field existence..wow.. explain this? Just mix the words torsion field and Cern lHC on google search.. and guess what.. The biggest experiment in the World is using torsion field technology! Is anyone blind?

So manny years and wikipedia admins and helpers insisted in a pathetic manner to sustain the torsion field article as pseudo-science in spite of logical references (deleted of course: history link tells all) brought by different users ..when there is a general accepted existence of torsion field discovered By N. Tesla and Einstein used at Cern LHC!! Sorry ..This is something personal from wiki with love.. it seems! Good luck ... and ...all the best in harvesting~!

So please delete the subject.(its too much for all) Thank you!

213.233.103.156 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Cern's LHC uses the theories by Shipov and Akimov. Cern uses a completely different theory that happens to have the same name. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WOW ..so torsion field not only has a different definition but they exist as no placebo effect in other countryes!.. haha ..that is the best opinion i ever heard .. since when wiki accept opinions anyway? .. rules changed in this article ..as i see they changed the first reference wich userpsy below asked for .. so they had a false reference against wiki rules.. i wonder why was accepted in the first place..

I wonder how many times will references about pseudo change until they meet the requirement of wiki rules.. and why they are accepted now although they dont respect wiki rules!

Anyway, excuse me 500 mill $ for torsion fields..and you call it pseudoscience.. ..that is defying the intelligence of a little child!

The article is marked as pseudo..with non-neutral tone as it is presented in all references! So the references are false and they must not be accepted as guide for individuals information! that is very wrong!

213.233.101.63 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia: Get your shit off my search results. I don't want your anti-scientific remarks telling me that everything outside your conservative ghetto is pseudoscientific and that your pseudoscientific beliefs are in some way rational. You need to ask yourself why it's necessary to twist words around to be taken seriously, because those of us here on the outside think you're a hive of nut jobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.164.53 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

This page was just released on AfD. I disagree and will be voting speedy keep, but I do think this article is poorly written. Several of the (valid) criticisms are written as if the author agrees with them, rather than being presented as criticisms by others. At least one important claim ("and some appear to work due to placebo effect") should really have a separate source citation.

I've tagged the article with NPOV, plus RESCUE. I think this article is quite improvable, but it does need some rewriting. -- BenTels (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already made a number of corrections to the language. Some citations are still needed that I cannot add myself. -- BenTels (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard (if possible at all) to find reliable sources that are not critical in nature, whether they discuss the business practices of the people mentioned here or the supposed theories. I actually started this article off with a few paragraphs written as if it was real (example), but they were eventually pruned out by other editors, lacking any sort of credibility. I sure wouldn't mind giving it more time.. if I had any. --Cubbi (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've pulled out the critical tone and Enric has done some redacting of layout. So all in all I think the article is getting into pretty good shape. The main point that bothers me is the citation requirement for the placebo effect (I'm not bothered that much about the individual citations for homeopathy and such). If you can add a citation for the placebo effect (it might be in the Russian texts, I can't read them), then I think we're pretty much done. -- BenTels (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)