The article is based on the publication of the theory in the journal

Scripta {Non-Newtonian Force Experienced by Gravitational Dipole Moment at
the Center of the Two Mass Pole Model Universe, Eue Jin Jeong, Phys. Scr.

No 5 (1999) 339-343} peer reviewed and a renowned physics journal

by the Royal Academy of Scineces in Sweden.

Did this person Jim Black ever read the content of the paper or the

in detail?

Go to the official Physica Scripta journal web page [1] and type in Eue

Jeong for the author search and you will see the title and the author of

paper and the abstract. You can purchase the article in the pdf format

the Journal directly. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Tachyonics (talk . contribs).

The article is empirically falsified. An ultracentrifuge rotor -

a spinning hemisphere - does not manifest anomalous gravitation effects.
Given a homogeneous isotropic mass distribution (radius=R, spherical
coordinates [R, theta, phi], maximum surface gravity is not a hemisphere -
it is the bulging half of a "schmoo",

Sphere, r(theta) = 2Rcos(theta)
Schmoo, r(theta) = 5^(1/3)Rsqrt[cos(theta)]
(6/5)(5/8)^(1/3) = 2.6% better

-The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.130.244 (talk .
contribs).

The anomalous dipole gravitational effect from the rotating hemisphere can
only be measured by the ultra sentive gravitometer not by your sense of
touch or feelings in the skin, although it depends on the size and the
rotational speed of the hemispheres, it is a second order gravity effect

you have to remember you can not feel the gravity from your 2000 lb car by
your sense but it is still there and pulls you toward it. -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tachyonics (talk . contribs).

I hope someone in the physics community with high degree in physics

on it. In fact, can someone bring Dr. Kip Thorne on this debate? -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.169.32 (talk . contribs).

A note to the both of you: This issue here is NOT whether this theory is
true, but instead whether it is notable. If this had sparked a major
scientific debate or gotten plenty of press coverage, it would be eligible
for inclusion in Wikipedia due to its being notable even with its being
proven totally and absolutely false. See WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:N, and
WP:SCIENCE. Feel free to state an opinion in the project page (either Keep
or Delete and a short explanation as to why). Just be advised that "this

true" and "this is false" don't wash here. Wikipedia is not a research
journal, nor is it a school. It is not our job to rule on whether

is really true or not. --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can start a hotted debate here, can't we? It is already published
in the major journal regardless of false or truth. Wikipedia can only say

is a published article in the refereed journal and it is potentially very
controversal with no judgement.

I don't see why it should hurt the readership of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can
flourish by controversy. Leave it there and see what happens. I begin to

the beauty of this forum. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
69.148.169.32 (talk . contribs) 18:13, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Instead Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as

is here to document existing human knowledge instead of potentially

knowledge. That this theory is potentially controversial does not "cut the
mustard" with us. Instead, this topic becomes acceptable only if and when

becomes controversial. The policies are here for a reason, and that is
because for every one thing like this that will be worthwhile, there are
thousands of things that never will be, and no way to tell between them in
advance. The decision long ago was to wait for the few things that gain
traction and become highly controversial to show their worth by actually
doing so. --EMS | Talk 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has already become a part of a human knowledge. Regardless of
controversy or not it is permanently recorded in a renowned Journal. The
level of controversy depends largely on its merit as a truly viable theory
that really representing the nature. Something like Fischibach's theory of
fifth force raised a lot of attention only to become a trash physics.

The theory is viable and has great potential to change the lanscape of the
future physics. Let it run and see the controversy blooming.

I serioulsy suggest Dr. Kip Thorne to revise his text book, "Gravitation".
He knows this theory and he could not dispute it in the several personal
email exchanges.

I think it is a scholastic dishonesty knowingly concealing the important
physical discovery from the public as a public servant. -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tachyonics (talk . contribs) 21:02, April

2007 (UTC)

1.. I strongly suspect that you are Dr. Eue Jin Jeong. Please see
WP:COI.
2.. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It cannot say whether this theory
will come to have an impact or not.
3.. Being an obscure Wikipedia article will not help your theory gain
any traction.
4.. This theory has no potential to change the landcape of physics

and unless other physicists start taking it seriously.
Overall, this work just plain is not notable, not even
scientifically. --EMS | Talk 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW - You should sign all of your talk page posts by placing 4 tildes
(~~~~) at end. Thay will be replaced with your user-id and a timestamp
automatically. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to knock down a silly (nonsensical) theory out of the

by simply pointing out a few key inconsistencies in it. I haven't seen any
of those. All of these discussions(?) is about if it has been cited by
others and by how many times etc etc.

Look, if you cite this theory in your paper, you immediately become a
heretic in the gravitational physics community. Not because it is a wrong
theory but because it is obviously and stupendously the right theory but
politically incorrect. An encyclopedia has the responsibility to let

know of a physical theory that has been published in the major journal

if it is a voice of a minority. You may be missing a huge chunk of

truth by not letting it. 69.148.169.32 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Yours is an "extremely limited minority" at

time. Also, the focus here is not on truth but on verifiability. Unless

is written about by others in the peer-reviewed literature, we have no
comfirmation that this is a notable topic. --EMS | Talk 04:42, 11 April

(UTC)
Galileo was an "extremely limited" minority, actually he was the only one
when he was tried by his accusers. So was Jesus Christ. But the eventual
losers were the blinded ones who judged them. Truth rules.

What's the use of 1000 garbage papers, when one paper rules them all. -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.35.26 (talk . contribs).

LOL! I think the Galileo has a lot of support in the scientific

of the time. His standing in "the church" was somthing else.
I think that a better example is in Einstein and special relativity. If
this was 1905, I would bounce SR just the same as I am bouncing your

for much the same reasons and without regrets later. In 1908, the
endorsement of Max Plank and the work of Hermann Minkowski make relativity

topic that cannot be ignored. Maybe in 1907 the controversy is brewing,

I am not sure as to what level it was being dealt with in the literature.

do know that starting around 1910, relativity was a subcategory for

being abstracted, making it more than notable at that time.
You are not the first person to chafe at these rules, nor will you be

last. I myself have my own OR that I am doing, but it is not even

I will tell you that I will never start an article on my own work myself:

sanity check for its having become notable is someone else seeing fit to
create the article. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)



Except that if they had come out openly to support Galileo, they would

faced the same fate like him. There are thousands and thousands of
supporters of the theory of dipole gravity out there. They will not come

until this theory gets a big publicity.

I really don't care whatever you guys decide to do. It's not my business.

Einstein had lived long enough, he would have been very happy to see the
theory of dipole gravity came out of his own, demonstrating the true

of it.

Those Princeton, Wheeler group of people did very little to expand general
relativity beyond the black hole and its hairs for the last 90 years. And
those quantum bubble wormholes, whatever that might be.. LOL.

And the LIGO is in LIMBO.

At a fraction of the cost of LIGO, general relativity can be proven

a shadow of doubt by using a hemispherical wheel and a ultra sensitive
gravitometer.

This theory can save billions of dollars of tax payer's money.

Think about it. 70.249.35.26 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from

The article is based on the publication of the theory in the journal Physica
Scripta {Non-Newtonian Force Experienced by Gravitational Dipole Moment at
the Center of the Two Mass Pole Model Universe, Eue Jin Jeong, Phys. Scr. 59
No 5 (1999) 339-343} peer reviewed and a renowned physics journal published
by the Royal Academy of Scineces in Sweden.

Did this person Jim Black ever read the content of the paper or the article
in detail?

A note to the both of you: This issue here is NOT whether this theory is
true, but instead whether it is notable. If this had sparked a major
scientific debate or gotten plenty of press coverage, it would be eligible
for inclusion in Wikipedia due to its being notable even with its being
proven totally and absolutely false. See WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:N, and
WP:SCIENCE. Feel free to state an opinion in the project page (either Keep
or Delete and a short explanation as to why). Just be advised that "this is
true" and "this is false" don't wash here. Wikipedia is not a research
journal, nor is it a school. It is not our job to rule on whether something
is really true or not. --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has already become a part of a human knowledge. Regardless of
controversy or not it is permanently recorded in a renowned Journal. The
level of controversy depends largely on its merit as a truly viable theory
that really representing the nature. Something like Fischibach's theory of
fifth force raised a lot of attention only to become a trash physics.

The theory is viable and has great potential to change the lanscape of the
future physics. Let it run and see the controversy blooming.

I serioulsy suggest Dr. Kip Thorne to revise his text book, "Gravitation".
He knows this theory and he could not dispute it in the several personal
email exchanges.

I think it is a scholastic dishonesty knowingly concealing the important
physical discovery from the public as a public servant. -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tachyonics (talk . contribs) 21:02, April 10,
2007 (UTC)

Except that if they had come out openly to support Galileo, they would have
faced the same fate like him. There are thousands and thousands of
supporters of the theory of dipole gravity out there. They will not come out
until this theory gets a big publicity.

I really don't care whatever you guys decide to do. It's not my business. If
Einstein had lived long enough, he would have been very happy to see the
theory of dipole gravity came out of his own, demonstrating the true beauty
of it.

Those Princeton, Wheeler group of people did very little to expand general
relativity beyond the black hole and its hairs for the last 90 years. And
those quantum bubble wormholes, whatever that might be.. LOL.

And the LIGO is in LIMBO.

At a fraction of the cost of LIGO, general relativity can be proven without
a shadow of doubt by using a hemispherical wheel and a ultra sensitive
gravitometer.

This theory can save billions of dollars of tax payer's money.

Think about it. 70.249.35.26 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is based on the publication of the theory in the journal Physica
Scripta {Non-Newtonian Force Experienced by Gravitational Dipole Moment at
the Center of the Two Mass Pole Model Universe, Eue Jin Jeong, Phys. Scr. 59
No 5 (1999) 339-343} peer reviewed and a renowned physics journal published
by the Royal Academy of Scineces in Sweden.

Did this person Jim Black ever read the content of the paper or the article
in detail?

A note to the both of you: This issue here is NOT whether this theory is
true, but instead whether it is notable. If this had sparked a major
scientific debate or gotten plenty of press coverage, it would be eligible
for inclusion in Wikipedia due to its being notable even with its being
proven totally and absolutely false. See WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:N, and
WP:SCIENCE. Feel free to state an opinion in the project page (either Keep
or Delete and a short explanation as to why). Just be advised that "this is
true" and "this is false" don't wash here. Wikipedia is not a research
journal, nor is it a school. It is not our job to rule on whether something
is really true or not. --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has already become a part of a human knowledge. Regardless of
controversy or not it is permanently recorded in a renowned Journal. The
level of controversy depends largely on its merit as a truly viable theory
that really representing the nature. Something like Fischibach's theory of
fifth force raised a lot of attention only to become a trash physics.

The theory is viable and has great potential to change the lanscape of the
future physics. Let it run and see the controversy blooming.

I serioulsy suggest Dr. Kip Thorne to revise his text book, "Gravitation".
He knows this theory and he could not dispute it in the several personal
email exchanges.

I think it is a scholastic dishonesty knowingly concealing the important
physical discovery from the public as a public servant. -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tachyonics (talk . contribs) 21:02, April 10,
2007 (UTC)

Except that if they had come out openly to support Galileo, they would have
faced the same fate like him. There are thousands and thousands of
supporters of the theory of dipole gravity out there. They will not come out
until this theory gets a big publicity.

I really don't care whatever you guys decide to do. It's not my business. If
Einstein had lived long enough, he would have been very happy to see the
theory of dipole gravity came out of his own, demonstrating the true beauty
of it.

Those Princeton, Wheeler group of people did very little to expand general
relativity beyond the black hole and its hairs for the last 90 years. And
those quantum bubble wormholes, whatever that might be.. LOL.

And the LIGO is in LIMBO.

At a fraction of the cost of LIGO, general relativity can be proven without
a shadow of doubt by using a hemispherical wheel and a ultra sensitive
gravitometer.

This theory can save billions of dollars of tax payer's money.

Think about it. 70.249.35.26 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is based on the publication of the theory in the journal Physica
Scripta {Non-Newtonian Force Experienced by Gravitational Dipole Moment at
the Center of the Two Mass Pole Model Universe, Eue Jin Jeong, Phys. Scr. 59
No 5 (1999) 339-343} peer reviewed and a renowned physics journal published
by the Royal Academy of Scineces in Sweden.

Did this person Jim Black ever read the content of the paper or the article
in detail?

A note to the both of you: This issue here is NOT whether this theory is
true, but instead whether it is notable. If this had sparked a major
scientific debate or gotten plenty of press coverage, it would be eligible
for inclusion in Wikipedia due to its being notable even with its being
proven totally and absolutely false. See WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:N, and
WP:SCIENCE. Feel free to state an opinion in the project page (either Keep
or Delete and a short explanation as to why). Just be advised that "this is
true" and "this is false" don't wash here. Wikipedia is not a research
journal, nor is it a school. It is not our job to rule on whether something
is really true or not. --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has already become a part of a human knowledge. Regardless of
controversy or not it is permanently recorded in a renowned Journal. The
level of controversy depends largely on its merit as a truly viable theory
that really representing the nature. Something like Fischibach's theory of
fifth force raised a lot of attention only to become a trash physics.

The theory is viable and has great potential to change the lanscape of the
future physics. Let it run and see the controversy blooming.

I serioulsy suggest Dr. Kip Thorne to revise his text book, "Gravitation".
He knows this theory and he could not dispute it in the several personal
email exchanges.

I think it is a scholastic dishonesty knowingly concealing the important
physical discovery from the public as a public servant. -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by Tachyonics (talk . contribs) 21:02, April 10,
2007 (UTC)

Except that if they had come out openly to support Galileo, they would have
faced the same fate like him. There are thousands and thousands of
supporters of the theory of dipole gravity out there. They will not come out
until this theory gets a big publicity.

I really don't care whatever you guys decide to do. It's not my business. If
Einstein had lived long enough, he would have been very happy to see the
theory of dipole gravity came out of his own, demonstrating the true beauty
of it.

Those Princeton, Wheeler group of people did very little to expand general
relativity beyond the black hole and its hairs for the last 90 years. And
those quantum bubble wormholes, whatever that might be.. LOL.

And the LIGO is in LIMBO.

At a fraction of the cost of LIGO, general relativity can be proven without
a shadow of doubt by using a hemispherical wheel and a ultra sensitive
gravitometer.

This theory can save billions of dollars of tax payer's money.

Think about it. 70.249.35.26 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)