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?

Go to the official Physica Scripta journal web page [1] and type in Eue Jin Jeong for the author search and you will see the title and the author of the paper and the abstract. You can purchase the article in the pdf format from the Journal directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyonics (talk • contribs)

The article is empirically falsified. An ultracentrifuge rotor - approaching 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

— Preceding unsigned comment 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 and 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyonics (talk • contribs)

I hope someone in the physics community with high degree in physics comment on it. In fact, can someone bring Dr. Kip Thorne on this debate? — Preceding unsigned comment 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 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)[reply]

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 it 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 see 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 such is here to document existing human knowledge instead of potentially emergent knowledge. That this theory is potentially controversial does not "cut the mustard" with us. Instead, this topic becomes acceptable only if and when it 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)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

It is easy to knock down a silly (nonsensical) theory out of the circulation 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 people know of a physical theory that has been published in the major journal even if it is a voice of a minority. You may be missing a huge chunk of important truth by not letting it. 69.148.169.32 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Yours is an "extremely limited minority" at this time. Also, the focus here is not on truth but on verifiability. Unless this 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 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.35.26 (talk • contribs)

LOL! I think the Galileo has a lot of support in the scientific community 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 ideas, for much the same reasons and without regrets later. In 1908, the endorsement of Max Plank and the work of Hermann Minkowski make relativity a topic that cannot be ignored. Maybe in 1907 the controversy is brewing, but I am not sure as to what level it was being dealt with in the literature. I do know that starting around 1910, relativity was a subcategory for articles 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 the last. I myself have my own OR that I am doing, but it is not even published. I will tell you that I will never start an article on my own work myself: a sanity check for its having become notable is someone else seeing fit to create the article. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

While those subjects may have been interesting intellectual curiosity, none of them touched the real issues the present cosmology faced today.

Dark matter problems, jets from the black hole accretion discs, anomalous red shifts, gamma ray bursts, while all these issues are either direct or indirect consequences of dipole gravity, all those problems have been left out of touch of general relativity only to be handled by tons of ad hoc assumptions as you see them today.

The current state of the matter in this field is truly a cosmological anarchy.

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)[reply]

Precaution: but I don't want people to think it will be such an easy experiment that they might be able to do it in their garage.

We are talking about 3-5 meter diameter solid metallic hemisphere (ultra precision micro balanced) mounted on a magnetically levitated wheel bearing enclosed in a ultra high vacuum sealed chamber to reduce the air friciton and a ultra sensitive gravitometer which may be one of those that was developed by Ho Jung Paik at the University of Maryland for the detection of minute gravity effect.

The detector has to be flexible and be able to move around all different angles and distances to measure all the angular and length dependencies of the force.

I'm sure there are tons of brilliant minds who can figure out the most suitable configurations for this experiment. 70.249.35.26 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for this page and it was gone for a long time. I don't know why these people(whoever running wikipedia) decided to put it back. Has it become "notable" now?

Wikipedia proved itself that it is a JOKE. They obvioulsy don't know what is notable and what is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.94.110 (talk • contribs) 15:44, June 13 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

You are going to have to explain this remark. Dipole antigravity itself remains gone, while this deletion log is retained in the Wikipedia space as a permanent record of why it was deleted. Beyond that, it is not impossible for a previously non-notable topic to attain notability, but for speculations like dipole antigravity I will admit that its becoming notable is highly unlikely to occur. --EMS | Talk 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a Joke. Period. It will be gone. You don't have an inch of idea what you are talking about. You violated the first ethics of being any part of an encyclopedia. Namely, you don't judge materials submitted without first, second, third and many other's opinions while yourself being ignorant of any content it. Non expression of opinion can not be interpreted as non consent, because it can quitely be regarded as unilateral consent. You freely interpreted it as dissent, by your own faulty assumption. That's a cardinal rule to avoid. You committed the cardinal sin to qualify yourself as being an editor. You may have to remove yourself being any part of an editor or anything for that matter.

You are not the only one who thinks wikipedia sucks, read following interesting comments,

TalkBack: Wikipedia - a dictatorship of idiots! | reader response ...Wikipedia - a dictatorship of idiots! Reader post by: Misouinfo. Posted on: April 7, 2007, 7:37 PM PDT. Story: Coop's Corner Podcast: Folly of Web 2.0 ...

Agreed.

Wikipedia removed this article? IMO that is foolish, a reflection of the idiocy of present humanity. IMO the published work of Dr. Eue Jin Jeong is to good for wikipedia. No, I am not Dr. Eue Jin Jeong.