Talk:Mendel Sachs

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Physics: Relativity / Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

So he has completed unified field theory? We should notify the Nobel Prize Committee![edit]

Response from Mendel Sachs: First, I have never (nor will in the future) ever attempt to persuade anyone to nominate me for a Nobel Prize. My singular goal, as a scientist, is to investigate, in an honest and responsible way, problems of theoretical physics. I have no other goal in mind. The hope is that I may discover some new scientific results that increases our understanding of physical phenomena. Second, it is totally false that I have personally written this article for Wikipedia. I was delighted to see the article on the internet. Indeed this article did come close to the ideas of my research program on unified field theory. The readers who wish to confirm that I didn't write the Wikipedia article should contact the editors. Third, The critic says that I have not completed Einstein's unified field theory. But then he (or she)goes on to admit that they do not know what a unified field theory is! Then how do they know that I have not completed Eintein's unified field theory? Fourth, the critic did not refer to any of the technical points in the Wikipedia article. His only unhappiness was that he could not find references by other physicists to my publications on this subject. I do not believe that this proves the falsity of a theory in physics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.135.132 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important discovery since Einstein's works... No, seriously, how long could we allow this man to write wikipedia articles about himself??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.137.231 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion, but there needs to be a registered user to carry out the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mendel_Sachs. The article only contains around three sentences of biographical material, and it's not clear whether Mendel Sachs is notable enough. If he is, then the biography needs to be lengthened and well-sourced.

The main issue of this article is that it makes very large claims in regards to theoretical physics. The references are only to books written by Mendel Sachs himself. In the first paragraph it is claimed that Sachs has finished Einstein's unified field theory. It is not clear as to what Einstein's unified field theory even is, and as it stands, the paragraph makes little sense. The only reference to back up this monstrous claim is simply a biography of Albert Einstein.

The only results found when searching Google for Mendel Sachs are his books (such as on sites like Amazon.com) and his own personal website and forums, and these are the only sources that constitute the references given. I haven't been able to find any references to his work by any third-party person, researcher, or organization.

But it doesn't pay to call for deletion at first glance. It would be good to hear other discussions on the validity of the claims given. If indeed the article's contents contain true and certifiable results, then these need to be back up by appropriate references and reviews. As it stands, the article seems to promotes a fringe theory, and should be deleted if kept in its current form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.27.150 (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. Jujutacular ^talk 01:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is no basis for opinion[edit]

Studying Einstein led me, by natural progression, to Sachs. If anyone wants details of either's work, all you have to do is read it!

Sachs is nothing but a first-rate scholar. Beginning in the 1950s, by 2010 he had published upwards of 200 times on completion of Einstein's theory and related subjects, articles in reputable journals and books by reputable science publishers.

Yes, it is Nobel Prize quality. It is only an embarrassment that the physics community has become so closely-knit that only one road is deemed worthy of not being labeled "quackery," the quantum road. Yet, Einstein himself -- largely credited with having given birth to that which would be labeled "quantum" -- insisted that quantum theory "offers no useful point of departure for future development," but, rather, that a complete theory would depend on "finding the field equations for the total field," having transformation group not "any narrower than that of the continuous transformations of co-ordinates." This is the unified field theory that Sachs completed, having shown Einstein to be correct within 15 years of his death!

So you tell me why no one will read it.

SJRubenstein (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]