Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubling theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources do not establish notability in a scientific context, and there are not enough independent sources to establish notability in a non-scientific context. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling theory

The article starts: "The doubling theory, developed between 1996-2000 by Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet and Philippe Bobola can explain the electronic stability of the atom, corrects the Titius-Bode Law, and defines the fine structure constant in the solar system." These are big claims and a decent, unbiased article should explain how the scientific community views the theory (see WP:NPOV). However, the scientific community seems to have ignored the theory; at least, I could not find any independent evaluations. This makes it impossible to write a neutral article, and it also shows that the theory is not notable (see WP:SCIENCE). Hence the article should be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the remarks by Eep², I concede that the theory may have gained some traction in some fields of knowledge that I'm not familiar with (e.g., The Science of Extraterrestrials). Therefore, I abstain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google turned up one relevant hit: A conference proceedings that cannot be accessed for free. Google scholar came out even worse (namely nothing). Based ont his it is safe to say that this fails WP:SCIENCE and almost certainly also fails WP:NOR.--EMS | Talk 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are not independent. Theory is mystical nonsense. Αργυριου (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this is still a relatively new theory, it appears to be more popular in France, where it originated, allegedly. A Google search turns up several (not one, EMS) relevant hits: American Institute of Physics, an British Computer Society, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (which gets plenty of Google Scholar hits, email from a French physicist, Xavier Hebras (Google Scholar or Hebras Xavier, working with the same Phillipe Bobola--Google Scholar--Malet is), who mentions a quantum physics "doubling theory" of time (in relation to ermanometry, financial market analysis by William Erman). Also, there are other doubling theories: morphological doubling theory (Sharon Inkelas), etc (Google Scholar). Regardless of so-called "wide" scientific acceptance, this theory is notable. As far as Argyriou's biased "mystical nonsense", that isn't very civil or neutral... It deserves an article as much as any conspiracy theory, spiritual idea, or philosophy does, at least. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Extraterrestrials: 2007 the Year of Explanations by Eric Julien, 2006 (and a review by Don Reed) mentions Galet and analyzes and applies his theory:

"As closest to his Absolute Relativity theory, he discourses at length on the work of J.P. Garnier Malet. Malet characterized true time as “stroboscopic”, a series of moments of observation intersected by times of non-observations. In this so-called doubling theory, a particle in its horizon is always a horizon of particles like Russian dolls nesting inside each other(horizon = two particles twice as small). Time and space are thus fractally proportional. Time dilation occurs at the exact point where a particle crosses a curved line and another crosses a straight line. In this sense, a horizon is an observation boundary and the interactions demarcate time flow deviations. Similarly, the result of an interaction can be anticipated as doubling time elapses more quickly than time on the scale in question."

"Therefore, the exchanges of interactions would correspond to time accelerations and decelerations, precisely concurring with Kozyrev’s observations. This is the consequence of the doubling generating possible exchanges of trajectories (and therefore information) between internal particles (accelerated time) and external particles (decelerated time). The internal horizons, which he called “temporal openings”, are defined by stroboscopic observations. Julien then extrapolates from Malet’s theory that, as accelerated time (that which reaches a point more quickly) exists side by side with the observer’s real time, it would be legitimate to argue that the future is visible (premonition/precognition) in the present. Accordingly, he claims that intuition finds its roots in the future, where time is accelerated, and usually guides us in our decision-making."

"The author observes that in terms of unraveling the current enigmas in physics, the Malet theory demonstrates that the instantaneous potential of doubling particles is the result of a fundamental property of time that may solve the EPR paradox. As far as technological advances which might result from applying the theory, Julien claims that rotational motion of a body coupled with a change in its vibratory state (the similar protocol used by Kozyrev with gyroscopes), might cause change in relativistic parameters: gravitational potential, local time-flow and energy. The rotation of bodies then constitutes the link between inertial reference frames (motions) and sinusoidal changes (i.e., time fractals/vibratory states). Also, since Malet, upon applying the doubling theory, showed the speed of light is related to the maximum deviation of a doubling transformation - seven temporal fractals between observer and horizon – Julien argues that one could legitimately call velocity c as a boundary between two reference frames, without being absolute. Consequently, using this reasoning, he speculates that UFO technology might incorporate a time dilation larger than the seven steps described by Garnier Malet. In a later chapter in the “Explanations” section Julien actually uses the reasoning above to propose a possible operating technology for UFOs, involving the following components: double-rotor, crystal oscillator, and superconductor network involving a spinning electromagnetic field."

"Due the brief summary here, sincere apologies are extended for possibly taking Julien’s fascinating time theory out of context. The author himself suggests that experts who wish to skirmish on this frontier in greater depth should consult J.P. Garnier Malet’s website (www.garnier-malet.com) for further formalistic development of the doubling theory, and of course Julien’s own possibly breakthrough treatise."

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the theory is apparently supposed to be a scientific theory, at least that's what the Malet's website at http://www.garnier-malet.com/ states. As such, we should be primarily concerned about notability as a scientific theory, i.e., are the scientific publications referring to the theory? As far as I can see, no.

In French, the theory is called "la théorie du dédoublement". This term is indeed mentioned in some web forums (e.g., [1]), but I couldn't find any academic discussion. Another théorie du dédoublement, by Stéphane Lojkine, might be notable, but that's a different theory, and I don't think we should somehow add up the notabilities of all doubling theories. Anyway, almost all French scientists publish in English, so if the theory had seen substantial scientific evaluation, it would be in English.

You say "it deserves an article as much as any conspiracy theory, spiritual idea, or philosophy does, at least." Well, not every conspiracy theory, spiritual idea or philosophy deserves an article. For instance, I'd say that conspiracy theories need at least to be mentioned in a couple of major newspapers. I'm also rather reluctant to have us rebrand the theory as a spiritual idea or philosophy, where the author maintains it's a scientific theory. Is there any source supporting this rebranding? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we should be primarily concerned about notability as a scientific theory", you'd think that, wouldn't you. However, scientific notability is only part of the package. Notability in ANY field is acceptable as notability. For example, OJ Simpson. He is a sports star, an actor and was the defendant in an internationally covered murder trial. Any one of these things would give him sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry of his own. It's the same with other topics, a scientific hypothesis that is hijacked by UFO-watchers (for example) can be considered to be notable if it is notable in science or in Ufology, or both. Equally, even if it was only marginally in both that fact that it is marginally notable in several areas could make it notable overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major newspapers don't need to mention a theory, spirtual idea, and/or philosophy in order for those things to be notable--there's a lot of underground and non-mainstream-media things that are notable--to people who follow those things. Obviously, if there's a conference/convention for these kinds of pseudoscience/spiritual/new age ideas (and a lot less significant/notable and superficial crap, I might add), then that is notable in that context, just as there are conspiracy conventions dealing with conspiracy theories, new age conventions for new age/spiritual things, and, oh yes, videogame conventions--notability is relative/subjective. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, belief and notability in fringe areas can operate entirely independently from the mainstream. For example, a viral meme spread through message boards can attract millions of believers yet never be covered by the mainstream media - perfectblue 07:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if there is a conference or convention dedicated to the doubling theory, with say 10 people giving talks, then that would be enough. There are plenty of ways to show notability; major newspapers was just one example. For conspiracy theories it seems not too much to ask, but it's not a good criterion for philosophy. If you can show notability as a spiritual / new age / philosophical idea or pseudoscience, then we can say in the article that doubling theory is generally considered one of those and support that statement with sources. At the moment, we cannot, and that's where the problem lies: we cannot adhere to the fundamental policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, thus the article has to be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this post for more info about other people who have refined/expanded the doubling theory, specifically Ari Letho and William Tifft. I have to go now but please check out this post for more info. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back (damn work). Don Reed's review of Eric Julien's book, The Science of Extraterrestrials, appears in the May/June 2007 issue of Infinite Energy magazine, p.51.[2] Don't think Infinite Energy is notable? Think again.[3] The doubling theory is notable. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a "Greek text about the Doubling Theory of Jean-Pierre Garnier-Malet and Ancient Greeks" by Yannis Piljoy'ni (translated) mentioned on http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm (by Michael Lahanas--see [4] search results for exact name--PhD in physics, according to his CV). Unfortunately, I don't know Greek, the Google translator doesn't do Greek, and the AltaVista Babelfish translator gives an error decoding it (copy-pasting the entire text into Babelfish yields an unformatted poor translation, however--sorry, no direct link). :/ ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of the translation that mentions the theory, specifically:

"This recent theory of (Djtto'titas) [Doubling theory] that it revises drastically the significance of Time is result of work of 17 years of Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet, natural, writer of recent book for the wide public "CHANGES YOUR FUTURE WITH the OPENINGS of TIME" (Editorial house JMG, France, December 2003) and became object of many scientific publications (1997-2005). In December 2003 the periodical Third Eye published a article of Dr Garnier Malet with general presentation of basic beginnings of theory and her repercussions in each one us and in the total, while one two-day seminar from the himself in Athens in February 2004 assembled 80 individuals. ... Charm in the theory of Djtto'titas (Doubling theory) it is now anymore possible we occupy the fundamental importance of Greek language and her alphabet that codes in the perfection the strictly scientific significances of this theory. ... The caduceus, symbol of clairvoyance of Ermi', uses the double helix of Djtto'titas. ... The Greek mythology, that has been twisted by millennia of obscurantism [obscurity?], allows the teaching of creative beginning of a'lfa [?] and Wme'ga [?] that can be observed so much in the galaxj'es [galaxies?] what in particles. It is henceforth possible we explain the bond between the arhaj'as [?] Greek writing and the theory of Djtto[']titas."

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your investigations. This leads me into terrains I do not know. It does make me doubt whether we should delete the article, so I'm switching to abstain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the multiple Google hits!. Each and every one of them refers you back to the same conference presentation! IMO, that is only one reference, even if it is linked to from multiple places. --EMS | Talk 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just one conference presentation, but at least 3 different presentations in 3 years of the same conference (that I could find). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy would ease the pain. WP:BOLLOCKS and completely non-notable one person's theory. --Pjacobi 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one person's theory; did you even bother to read the article (let alone this deletion review), Pj? Note how it says "by Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet and Philippe Bobola". <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one person's theory is metaphor for a theory which has no standing and no impact in its field. --Pjacobi 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define impact (then define the degree of impact to which you aspire to judge this theory by). Obviously, the theory has impacted the International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (which, again, gets plenty of Google Scholar hits). I'd say the theory has standing, even if it doesn't appear to be accepted by mainstream science. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is useful tool for a quick look into issues (and it is a free service), but it is not anything like a real Citation index, which is one of the measures of acceptance in science. --Pjacobi 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if it should ultimately be kept or not, but it doesn't seem obvious that it can't evolve beyond a stub. Give it some breathing room. However, Pjacobi may be right that Eep should save time and not bother... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The link to the conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems seems mildly interesting to me, but I can't see that any notability for this theory can be demonstrated without substantially better referenced sources than at present. — BillC ^talk 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep somewhat sourced. JJL 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe theory with no mainstream acceptance. Nick mallory 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "mainstream" acceptance is unnecessary if it's achieved relative notability--which it obviously has given the references. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Easily fails the proposed WP:SCIENCE guideline and also clearly fails WP:N and WP:OR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.