Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby michael.suede » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:36 pm

I added a little update.

Like an entire criticism section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

enjoy.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby tayga » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:07 pm

It's very good too. How long do you think it will survive?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby michael.suede » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:07 pm

hopefully forever.

I already duked it out with some guy from JPL in the discussion section.

We'll see if it sticks.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:16 am

Nice!
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby peter09 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:39 am

I believe that the reconnection effect of field lines has been 'in principle' demonstrated through real world physics in actual events in contour lines.

A few years ago - in Chile- I believe, some contour lines reconnected and caused a landslide which inundated a village. Demonstrating fully the principle of reconnection.

Further, in Arizona, there are found some 'frozen in' contour lines which actually span a valley. Scientists believe that these lines are waiting for a proposed entity ' a Dark Cartographer' to approach, when they will then snap back to normal.

:D
peter09
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:25 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby michael.suede » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:46 am

It is important that you all monitor the wiki page and undo any attempt to eliminate the criticism section.

Some guy just deleted it because he said it did not represent the consensus view.

Obviously a criticism section is not supposed to represent the consensus view and consensus is not required for criticism.

Undo all attempts to edit the page.

It takes more people than just me.

One person can only undo the section three times, which means it takes more people to undo it than just me.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby michael.suede » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:54 am

They finally managed to give me the boot and remove the criticism section.

You can read the original criticism section here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =419843114

They even booted me from making changes to the discussion page hahaha.

Now they are calling for the entire discussion page to be archived because it is piled full of links to actual research papers and real science.

I'm sure if any of you make changes you will immediately be branded as a "sock puppet" without any proof.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby michael.suede » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 am

A made a video and an article on the censorship if any of you care to watch and read:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQynU1K3P8Y

http://fascistsoup.com/2011/03/20/wikip ... onnection/
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby mharratsc » Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:45 pm

If you've read any of the other 'Wikipedia' threads, you certainly can't be surprised by the behavior and tactics of the 'Illuminati' of Wikipedia, Michael.

For instance- look at what they did to Eric Lerner... the man can't even edit his own birth date on his article in Wikipedia! Simply because he stands with plasma cosmology and is an ardent critic of the Big Bang theory, he can't even relay via WP when to actually send him a birthday card. :roll:

Wikipedia sucks... more for its fascist editors than its information. :P
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

"Magnetic reconnection" criticism section DELETED from Wiki

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:59 am

This is scandalous, but it has become yet another example of the scientific group-think that infects Wikipedia. Just have a look at the discussion here concerning the deletion of the section:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magne ... sm_Section

The discussion ends with a scientist who claims that "magnetic re-connection" has been proven and posts links to 29 papers. But has it really been proven in "laboratory, space, and solar plasmas"?
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Shrike » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:14 pm

This end line sums it up quite a bit
unfortunately a large fraction of scientific literature is not open access

Why are they so afraid to publish it openly for everybody to read and to scrutinize or to concur ?
Shrike
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:29 pm
Location: Netherlands (Nederland, Holland)

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby mharratsc » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:22 am

Because it keeps the info only in the hands of the scientific 'elite'. No on can call B.S. on the lack of common sense of their fantastical ramblings and imaginative flights of fantasy. Then they will get one of the 'scientific journalist 'spin doctors to dress it up and make it more palatable for consumption by the general public. :x
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:34 am

* Can anyone post what Micheal had posted on Wikipedia that they removed? I thought it was a good reference for the upcoming Electric Sun debate.
* Thanks for any help on that.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:51 am

Hey Lloyd.

No problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =419843114
and then the "discussion" on why this is apparently all wrong at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magne ... tion.3F.22
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby rjhuntington » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:47 am

tayga wrote:It's very good too. How long do you think it will survive?

It survived exactly one week before it was removed with this revealing comment:

"Removed the section entitled 'Criticism of the reconnection conecpt' because it does not represent the scientific consensus among researchers in the field of magnetic reconnection."

It matters not one bit to Wikipedia that magnetic reconnection is absurd to anyone trained in electrical engineering. The only "researchers" in the "field of magnetic reconnection" are not electrical engineers and have a deliberate bias against the very electricity that supports magnetic fields and thus their consensus view is going to support their nonsense theory, and so that's what Wikipedia believe in.

Wikipedia's official policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About] "defines Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia of existing recognized knowledge" which for practical purposes means the mainstream view on any topic and categorically excludes all new, controversial and minority-held theories. "Recognized knowledge" means mainstream consensus views and established theories only.

Couple that ultra-conservative -- some might say regressive -- article-acceptance policy with editorial policy that permits anonymous authorship of one's own articles and anonymous revision of others' articles, and Wikipedia is seen for exactly what it is: a non-scholarly repository of folk wisdom, some good, some not so good, including plenty of misinformation and factual failings with generous dollops of bias by authors and editors who can't be challenged on their credentials or sources.

In other words, Wikipedia is useless as a research tool, unless one is concerned only with the consensus view on some topic, which may be all right for topics that are not controversial in any way but is not suitable for scientific purposes.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron