Talk:Torsion field

Revisions needed

After I read the entire article, I still only have the dimmest idea of what we're talking about here. I'd suggest the following:

• A explanation of the concept.
• How they fit into conspiracy theories and the reality.
• Etc.

--The Madman (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)The Madman

The explanation is at the link in footnote 3. http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm.

I'll look at ways of importing some key parts of that text. It's not a conspiracy theory, but it sure is pseudoscience, dead center, copper-bottomed and brass-bound. --Ithaca (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There -- I did my best. --Ithaca (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I still have no idea what a "Torsion field" is or what exactly these guys are trying to prove.--TiaC (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic

This entire article needs to be classified as a stub or the like, rewritten, and re-sourced, its content is biased against the subject matter, which is not explained at all. Also the language is vulgar and personal, which it shouldn't be. Better redacted and sourced articles have been erased, modified or stub-ed for being un-encyclopedic, this one should definitely be.^{— Unsigned, by: 190.95.191.114 / talk / contribs 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}

This is RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. There are a lot of differences between the two. For a start, RationalWiki is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you have any specific issues with wording or un-sourced statements, please point them out.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)