Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)#Requested move

{{Old AfD multi| date =2008-02-08 | result = Speedy Keep | page = Torsion field | date2 = 2010-09-22 | result2 = Speedy Keep | page2 = Torsion field (2nd nomination) | numbered = yes }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 2

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive %(counter)d

}}{{Archives|age=30}}

Real torsion fields

Hey y'all, I'm not the one to make the edits but this is a poor quality page on torsion fields as it pertains to physics. Most people mean "actual torsion fields", and you will see a reference on the Torsion disambiguation page to Einstein-Cartan theory, and a mention about alternative formulations of GR. So why is this nonsense the canonical article?

A non-vanishing torsion field term is one of the few ways in which the cosmological constant Λ can be predicted from first principles. What's interesting about this is that it fits the empirical Hubble Type Ia supernovae data, as well as the observations of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.

Students and researchers are directed to this page, which leads the novice to believe that "torsion fields are just a bunch of nonsense". The idea of twisted spacetime is an interesting research topic and has almost nothing to do with this article. Is there a better way to separate these topics so that the first page Googlers aren't misinformed?<~Evi~> (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:Torsion field directs people to three other pages. This one is not "canonical". You are free to make a new page about the real variant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)