Jump to content

Talk:False Doppler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.24.125.47 (talk) at 13:33, 7 October 2005 (→‎Deletion discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion discussion

Article kept after previous AfD. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler --HappyCamper 21:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with removing Eric Baird's name from this article. This article was created by Eric to express his particular point of view of the Doppler effect, and he created the term "false Doppler" to suggest that the scientific community doesn't understand or is confused about the Doppler effect. It is not a historical term. It is misleading to present the term without stating up front where it came from. Of course, as soon as we state where it came from, it raises the question of why there is a Wikipedia article about it. Good question.

A review of Erk's contributions to Wikipedia shows that he has created a whole batch of articles all trying to smuggle in his own "theory" of the Doppler effect, under various names. All of them are patently POV. None of them contain suitable content for Wikipedia articles. Needless the say, the sensible thing is to simply delete this article, since there is no such thing as "false doppler", but since the motion to delete the article failed, we ought to at least be honest and present it for what it is: an essay by Eric Baird on his own particular POV of science (a POV which happens to be misguided and erroneous according to consensus scientific opinion). Same goes for the Erk articles "Accoustic Doppler", "Doppler Equations", "Spatial Doppler Effect", "Lorentz Term", "Classical Theories and Relativity", and probably others that I haven't noticed.

The current version of this article is not bad, but only because it has been completely re-written from the original "Erk" version. The only problem with the current article is that it essentially consists of an explanation of why there is no such thing as "false Doppler". So it's like having an article on "blidgetous moons" and then explaining in the article that there's really no such thing, and we just made up that expression.130.76.32.16 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thats a good idea for an article! --The Minister of War 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_Doppler&oldid=24975048"