Talk:Laura Mersini-Houghton

message: I can't see where the said predictions are made in the referenced paper. Please could we get a more detailed reference or corrected reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.51.77 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: foot note 4

message: I've copied the following from the Multiverse article's Talk page, as it seeems relevant here too:
Can anybody check whether she even claimed in 2007 to have predicted the CMB Cold spot in 2006, let alone whether the 2006 paper contains such a prediction? I can't access the 2007 reference at all, and can only access the summary of the referenced 2006 paper which does indeed predicted possible voids, but it's unclear how well the detailed predictions match what was detected. In any case, due to my limited knowledge of Physics, I probably wouldn't be sure what detailed predictions had been made, even if I could access the full paper. But at least one anonymous contributor to the Mersini Talk page claims he sees no clear predictions in 'the referenced paper', though I don't even know if it's the same paper as the one currently referenced. There's also the problem that I seem to recall a 'great void' having being discovered long before 2006, admittedly by direct observation rather than via CMB data, but it would suggest that a vague prediction of possible voids might not be particularly impressive. This is similar to the problem with 'predictions' about Dark Flow, where a flow towards the so-called Great Attractor had been known about since the 1970s, as pointed out in the Dark Flow article. And I'm unable to even find where to link her third alleged prediction, nor to find any discussion of its significance. But I remember looking at the WMAP article yesterday, and if I understand right, the Mersini article has her 'predicting' in 2006 a fluctuation value below 1, when it was already 0.9 +/- 0.1 before 2006 on the WMAP data. I think it's important (due WP:NPOV) to balance claims that Multiverse theories are untestable, and so on. But I am a bit worried that I may be unwittingly spreading some questionable fantasies of some Mersini fan club (one of whom already implies on her Talk page that she's the next Einstein).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mersini's alleged predictions 

message: Section Research, paragraph two claims:
:Soon after the discovery of the landscape,
sounds like some natural phenomenon was discovered. Instead, what was discovered was that one in string theory can find 10500 levels of false vacua. From my sceptical POV, this means that what was discovered, was that the string theory lost one other prediction value, rather than that it described a multitude of universes. The multiverse hypothesis used to detect the existence of foreign universes? Even though the article actually describes testable theories that have some prediction values, a reader may get the impression that the text provides some kind of circular reasoning covered up behind some reification fallacy. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural POV error

message: Agree with sentiment of last few comments here - this article needs a WP:NPOV / WP:OR / WP:SYN / WP:V check, and rebasing on secondary sources. I tagged as such. Widefox; talk 09:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: COI, sources

message: These are to make it easy for others to check the sources; if the article is kept, I will trim these quotes substantially as per rules to safeguard copyrights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes within the citations 

message: Please note that this article is under relist revision ("to be re-listed") for deletion discussion. Closing seemed premature given that the article had numerous issues as seen by countless tags for years. This means numerous editors had seen this article as problematic to say the least. Not enough time has passed for even a fraction of those editors to get familiar with the ongoing delete nomination. Note also that the article has a rather nervous proponent of keeping the article, who immediately after the delete nomination attempted to forge a major overhaul without any discussion whatsoever. He repeated this suspicious deed immediately after the closing too. His edit is biased at best since it tries to portray the person the article is about as notable despite the fact that this person does not meet any academic notability criteria, as noted by several editors during delete discussion. If you read his proposed intro paragraph you'll see that the person's claimed notability is in "proposing a controversial theory" which however is nonsense: there are thousands of theories and all are controversial until proven correct. Do not edit the article until the revision is completed. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Clearly user  has a POV-pushing agenda of removing any article on Laura Mersini-Houghton. When the article was revamped to a much improved version with numerous references, Holybeef reverted it here and again here, back to the same problematic poorly referenced version that Holybeef wanted to delete. Further, then Holybeef writes above that s/he doesn't want anybody else to edit the problematic version while he tries to get the closure decision reversed by writing Do not edit the article until the revision is completed. Holybeef refuses to accept the community's decision not to delete this article and is essentially committing WP:VANDALISM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move for article deletion relisting 

message: There are currently a huge number of citations in the lede, most heaped on the claim that she's a "proponent of the multiverse theory". They mostly more or less support that, I suppose, but it's a bit overkill. I moved the one that actually uses the word "proponent" to the front. I think they will probably be able to support other statements, potentially in the "Research" section, so hopefully that section can be expanded and we can spread some of them around instead of having them all clustered in one place. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in lede 

message: Given this is fast becoming an edit war, and the IP editor's demeanor has become decidedly uncivil, I thought it was appropriate to escalate this to WP:AN/I, as it seems likely that we're not going to see an end to the disruptive editing without some administrative action. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion, the thread is here. Obviously this is independent of the content dispute. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, that Mersini has notability though many editors pointed out she has none, being an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you with your conspiracy theories. As explained in my response to your new insinuation: the reason why I had only covered 2 articles that interest me so far is simple - I joined recently, and unlike you I'm not a professional 24/7 editor (but still made a significant contribution to those few at least.) But I did warn you about your resorting to conspiracy theories as you did in Alan Guth Talk page. You're just making a fool of yourself and misleading/jeopardizing other editors. Holybeef (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with  entirely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No one cares, actually. Busted. Holybeef (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident being discussed at the adminstrator's noticeboard. 

message: Wondering if the current description of her latest research claims could use a little more precision. Right now it is worded as:
In September of 2014, she claimed to demonstrate mathematically that black holes cannot exist. She claimed that Hawking radiation causes the star to shed mass at a rate such that it no longer has the density sufficient to create a black hole.
I believe more accurate description of the current research is a "claim to demonstrate mathematically that black hole singularity cannot form in the process of a massive star collapsing, due to the effects of Hawking radiation."
This by itself doesn't exclude singularities from existing -- such singularities could have formed by other yet-to-be-understood means. However, should her claims prove correct or get support from her scientific peers, it would exclude a popular idea that a massive star could collapse into a singularity.  She also does not exclude black holes per se, if understood as objects massive enough to prevent light from escaping from their gravity wells, but the idea of singularity at the center of such an object. The wording is a little problematic since the definition on Wikipedia for a black hole does not directly equate it to a singularity. She's talking about singularities in particular.
Some more detail can also be viewed in her "Out of the Darkness" talk at this URL: http://iai.tv/video/out-of-darkness#
Is our understanding of black holes fundementally wrong? Presenting ground breaking new research, Laura Mersini-Houghton explains why event horizons and singularities might simply be a myth.
Have not made edits since followed the recent edit-war and deletion discussion and am coming from a new unverified account.
Tunkki-1970 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor has made changes (Oct 16th) to the black hole research section that now gives a more accurate description of the work. My comment no longer applies. Tunkki-1970 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision on the black hole research claims [UPDATED] 

message: Hello,
I just saw television show What Universe Are We In,  I believe we share identical opinions/theories.
I was also astounded, reading your article with regard to your theories about black holes.
I absolutely agree with you
I am so excited, someone else thinks along the same lines. Gregory J  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.208.10.31 (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: What universe are we in 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laura Mersini-Houghton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714220221/http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/something-big-found-beyond-edge-universe/ to http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/something-big-found-beyond-edge-universe/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Mersini-Houghton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816162029/http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/could-big-bang-ripples-prove-the-existence-of-a-parallel-universe-gravitational-wave-discovery-paves-the-way-for-the-multiverse/231161/ to http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/could-big-bang-ripples-prove-the-existence-of-a-parallel-universe-gravitational-wave-discovery-paves-the-way-for-the-multiverse/231161/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021024434/http://www.wncn.com/story/26606303/unc-professor-says-black-holes-cant-exist to http://www.wncn.com/story/26606303/unc-professor-says-black-holes-cant-exist
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have proposed this article for deletion, as it is poorly written and the subject lacks notoriety. There are several thousands of theoretical physicists with more impressive scientific track records that do not have wikipedia pages, and she has not published any notable peer-reviewed articles since 2004: http://inspirehep.net/author/profile/L.Mersini.Houghton.1
Her recent papers on black holes are also not nearly as well received in the science community as this page purports, as demonstrated by their lack of citations. Gluonic (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why do we have no birth date for this person? This seems like a fundamental piece of data to include for any notable individual. If she has authored anything her birth date is probably out there. JettaMann (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date