Scientific Censorship of Wikipedia: Magnetic Reconnection

reply to post by buddha


They go through all the trouble of blocking Alfven's criticism because their research funding is at stake.

If enough scientists were to evaluate Alfven's criticism and agree with it, the current research projects would face monumental problems.

They especially don't want up-and-coming students to see this kind of research.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Anyone taking the trouble to peruse the talk page related to that article will note two things.

First, that your confrontational and insulting attitude to the other contributors is almost custom-designed to make them want to see the last of you.

Second, that your arguments on the issue are superficial and agenda-driven. As boncho says, this isn't about censorship; this is about protecting real scientific data from pseudoscientific trolling on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but that's all there is to see here.

reply to post by Astyanax


I really enjoyed how this person replied to the OP.

LOL. "There most certainly is a grand conspiracy." Yes! The entire professional astrophysics, plasma physics, fusion research, fluid dynamics, aerospace, and turbulence communities across the entire world is conspiring to disagree with your position - and have shown again and again for decades that the double-layer instability and reconnection two different phenomenon. But, if you are so sure of this, by all means join the conversation - of course, joining conversation means you will have to understand what has already been done and why, so that you may understand why the field has developed as it stands. By all means, you are free to get a Ph.D. in physics from any university you wish, and come to work in the field. You are free to submit papers to the peer reviewed literature. You are free to attend our conferences/meetings/workshops. You are free to propose to our peer-reviewed competitions. In effect, you are free to make your case that all reconnection events are just double-layer instabilities. If reconnection has been definitively figured out, that means everybody can move onto other exciting research. We encourage you to join the conversation.

reply to post by boncho

Yes, and this, too – heavy irony by the same person, riffing on mnemeth1’s charges of a conspiracy in science:

Oh wait. It's a giant, worldwide conspiracy to keep the vast majority of astrophysicists, plasma physicists, fusion scientists, turbulence researchers, and engineers all over the world, all paid on the govt gravy train - because the govt is the only one funding astrophysical, plasma, fusion, fluid and turbulence research, and all get paid oh so well. Because there really is no such thing as peer review in the journals or the proposal review panels.

Seriously? Govt gravy train? ... Ok. You figured it out. The vast majority of astrophysicists, plasma physicists, and fusion researchers, throughout the entire world - from US govt labs like NOAA, NASA, and Los Alamos, to private labs like UCAR, CFA, and JPL, to titan private defense corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, to small private companies like Predictive Science Inc, to pretty much every single major public and private university like Michigan, Harvard, Princeton, CalTech, Dartmouth, Univ of New Hampshire, Martyland, Arizona, UCLA (etc. etc. etc.), as well as all their counterparts in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Russia, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan - don't really understand science at all.

We didn't really spend 6 years in graduate school taking courses like mechanics, statistical physics, electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, or any of the math analysis stuff. Nor have we spent years researching ever conceivable aspect of this stuff, and discussing this stuff with each other. Nobody has ever thought about the issues you are discussing. As a group, we have never investigated every conceivable plasma instability in astrophysical systems, or fusion systems, or planetary magnetospheres, or stellar winds, or accretion disks, or pretty much every situation we can possibly think of. We are fabricating observations, experimental results, and incorrectly solving the equations of particle kinetics, Maxwell, fluid dynamics, and turbulence - if we ever knew how to write them down correctly in the first place. You know, cause we've all been indoctrinated by our liberal elitist university professors, who really want to impose a new world order. We're all just taking our marching orders from Al Gore, who says, "Let's go boys. RIDE THAT GOVT GRAY TRAIN."

Eloquent sarcasm. Wasted on mnemeth1, I fear; he’s a veteran of the internet culture wars, and has heard it all before.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Before I begin please understand that I believe that your criticism was well thought and conveyed. However, I don't think wikipedia is doing anything wrong here.

I agree with the second part but not the first part of that statement. Do you not see the inappropriateness of these types oc comments included in the criticism?

en.wikipedia.org...:Magnetic_reconnection

There most certainly is a grand conspiracy. It happens every time the government takes money from me against my consent and hands it to people like you. You people are incapable of seeing the obvious because the obvious would put you out of a job.

I've come to expect comments like that from mnemeth1 on ATS and he's allowed to express his opinion like that on a discussion board. But on the talk page he's engaging in discussion with PhDs who have spent years in graduate school studying every aspect of this and then spent many more years studying other research and doing their own research. To say to these people "you people are incapable of seeing the obvious" after they have already responded with detailed mathematical counterpoints to the allegations is not what I would consider "well-conveyed". In addition to the facts, a more objective attitude would help. Spacehippy did note your hehavior as not helping (in adition to the facts)

The behavior on this talk page (personal insults, etc.) didn't help his case.

mnemeth1, at a minimum, I'd suggest reading Dale Carnegie's book "how to win friends and influence people", because I think you'll find that saying things like that aren't conducive to your goal of influencing others, though sometimes I wonder what your goal really is? Is it really to convince others that your view is right? Ir is it to criticize all mainstream scientists and tell them all what a bunch of morons they are? If you want to try to influence others with your quotes, at least change your behavior to one of attempting to influence rather than one of attack.

This is a quote from the wikipedia neutral point of view document

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.

WikiPedia.org

That's right, their site, their rules.

And even though you've gone to great lengths to cite Alfven as your source in the ATS thread, the quotes from Alfven are old for one thing and research is advancing all the time. Further you are accused of taking even those old Alfven quotes out of context:

This section is just collection of number misquoted citations from various mainstream papers. The citations are purposefully selected to misrepresent the cited papers. The only recent paper that is critical of reconnection is by an odd electricity professor, who suddenly decided that he knows a lot about cosmic plasma (when, in fact, he seems to know very little).

He's referring of course to Don Scott, who is the Achilles heel of your arguments. While his quotes are more current, he's not seen as a competent professional in this field by the rest of the community, which right or wrongly makes him "fringe" as defined by Wikipedia.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
HOWEVER - EVEN IF THE MINORITY VIEWPOINT RULE IS INVOKED LEGITIMATELY- IT IS STILL SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION!!!!!

So Wikipedia should allow a dissenting opinion on the flat earth? It's their site, their rules, just like ATS.

You've done what you CAN do, you've set up your own website and you've bragged about how many hits you're getting from universities so if that's true then people are seeing your research and it's not being suppressed completely. But personally I don't want to read about any flat Earth theories when I go to Wikipedia.

And while I don't claim to be an expert on magnetic reconnection, it's clear that some of those commenting on the wikipedia talk page ARE. But I have read enough of Don Scott's material on other topics to conclude that he really is not very credible on some things I have personally researched, and since he's your main recent source, that's a huge problem for your fringe viewpoint.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Oh wait. It's a giant, worldwide conspiracy ...

Seriously? Govt gravy train? ... Ok. You figured it out. The vast majority of astrophysicists, plasma physicists, and fusion researchers, throughout the entire world - from US govt labs like NOAA, NASA, and Los Alamos, to private labs like UCAR, CFA, and JPL, to titan private defense corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, to small private companies like Predictive Science Inc, to pretty much every single major public and private university like Michigan, Harvard, Princeton, CalTech, Dartmouth, Univ of New Hampshire, Martyland, Arizona, UCLA (etc. etc. etc.), as well as all their counterparts in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Russia, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan - don't really understand science at all.

Sarcasm, or an admission of guilt, from the OP's perspective? Isn't it obvious that one guy named Don Scott (who thinks the grand canyon was formed by electricity rather than erosion) knows more than all of them?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by john_bmth
Yes, but this is coming from the person who emphatically states "all science is a lie" and "Einstein was an idiot". Somehow the idea of you presenting your argument in a balanced and objective manner doesn't strike me as plausible.

ad hom attacks against me do nothing to refute the science published by Nobel Prize winning physicists.

Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on MHD theory.

That wasn't an "ad hom attack", it was an observation. You HAVE stated that "Einstein was an idiot" and you HAVE stated that "all science is a lie" so the idea of you being unbiased and objective does not strike me as plausible in the slightest. It matters not what your message is, your arrogance completely clouds any point you try to make, regardless of whether or not it has merit.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Anyone taking the trouble to peruse the talk page related to that article will note two things.

First, that your confrontational and insulting attitude to the other contributors is almost custom-designed to make them want to see the last of you.

Second, that your arguments on the issue are superficial and agenda-driven. As boncho says, this isn't about censorship; this is about protecting real scientific data from pseudoscientific trolling on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but that's all there is to see here.

LOL

Clearly my attitude defines whether or not the data should be displayed in the main article.

And clearly my arguments are pulled entirely out of my ass with no references to any peer reviewed publications.

Are you claiming my criticism is invalid because I gave it with a bit of an attitude, therefore anything I said has no scientific merit?

I find it laughable that you claim MY arguments are pseudo-scientific.

Lets see what Alfven had to say about YOUR arguments:

ntrs.nasa.gov...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87dcc3dea3a5.jpg[/atsimg]


Also, I'd love to hear your explanation for WHY magnetic reconnection occurs.

reply to post by mnemeth1

We, the actual scientific community, have 50 years of research, and hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed journal papers (in every one of the well-established, professional, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that deal in any way with plasmas, astrophysics, fusion, fluid dynamics, or mathematics), observing, studying, investigating, the very real phenomenon of magnetic reconnection.

You ever question yourself when you say things like:

And clearly my arguments are pulled entirely out of my ass with no references to any peer reviewed publications.

According to you, peer reviewed papers have no merit whatsoever, because you clearly discount all science research that does not support your argument.

You would be best off to develop a grand theory that has repeatable results and can be adopted by everyone in every field, if you wish to re-landscape the the scientific community.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The bottom line is that the criminals in charge of the “magnetic reconnection” page are engaging in scientific censorship to prevent science that refutes their lies from being placed on Wikipedia.

Ahhh, yes. The old 'scientific conspiracy'.

Why, this is virtually the David & Goliath story of magnetic reconnection.

Originally posted by boncho

According to you, peer reviewed papers have no merit whatsoever, because you clearly discount all science research that does not support your argument.

Haven't you heard? All science is a lie, dumb**s.

mnemeth1, one of the wiki posters on the talk page is right on the money. With your towering intellect (who can so easily dismiss Einstein as an idiot), you are more than welcome to write up your findings in a paper and get it published in a prestigious physics journal (something you would breeze, surely) for the entire scientific community (and world) to see and marvel at your genius. You may have to jump through the hoops and get yourself the backing of a credible institution first, but something like a PhD would be a walk in the park for you. Your talents are wasted editing wiki pages, hit them where it hurts, in their peer-reviewed family jewels.

Every thread you make on here and every prominent scientist you dismiss as an idiot on these boards is time that could be well spent writing up your findings. Enough playing court to scientifically illiterate types on a conspiracy forum, I think you're ready to take on the wider scientific community. Move over, Einstein!

You may argue that you are the only a champion for the scientists who have had their work suppressed. Of course this wouldn't be the case because the last thing you'd be wanting to do is championing ideas you don't fully understand, or dismissing established science you don't fully understand. You clearly have a good enough grasp of the science to dismiss it out of hand and declare "All science is a lie!" so pick up the torch where your suppressed brethren left off and build on their work. Get it published, bask in your glory, mission accomplished. Otherwise you'd just another internet armchair scientist who goes round starting threads on conspiracy boards or editing wiki pages, and I KNOW you're not that. Enough internet posturing, enough video blogs, do the science and get the work published!

reply to post by mnemeth1

Clearly my attitude defines whether or not the data should be displayed in the main article.

Not on its own, by any means, but it doesn't help.

This was made pretty clear in my earlier post. If I need to explain it to you twice, you clearly have a problem with understanding even very simple statements. That doesn't inspire much confidence in your ability to understand anything else, does it?

And clearly my arguments are pulled entirely out of my ass

Judging by the fragrance of their presentation, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

with no references to any peer reviewed publications.

No, but your quotes are out-of-context and usually misrepresent the intent of the authors.

Are you claiming my criticism is invalid because I gave it with a bit of an attitude, therefore anything I said has no scientific merit?

Do you realize what a stupid question this is? And that you are repeating it for a second time?

It seems clear from the general tenor of replies on this thread that you have exhausted your credit on yet another web site. Even your fellow electric-universists have failed to rise to your defence this time. Perhaps it is time to fold up your electromagnetic tent and steal away? Crystalinks forums, perhaps?

reply to post by Astyanax


The only thing taken out of context are your quotes of me.

Anyone that bothers to actually read the papers referenced will see you are full of bs.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Anyone that bothers to actually read the papers referenced will see you are full of bs.

Oh yes?

Anyone who reads the article will instantly see your claims are ridiculous. Source

Anyone who actually bothers to read the article before commenting will see your claims are ridiculous. Source

Anyone that knows better will assume you have no idea wtf you are talking about. Source

Anyone with half a brain can see... Source

But they never do see, do they? Clearly the validity of your claims is far less evident than you appear to think it is. Which is hardly surprising, because all you ever post is bullying, boorish poppycock.

reply to post by Astyanax


I've provided you with an explanation of what is going on.

I don't expect you to read it.

fascistsoup.com...

reply to post by mnemeth1

How the devil do you expect me to read, let alone take seriously, a purpotedly scientific article that contains grade-school howlers like this?

A plasma can basically be considered to be an electrically conductive gas.

You'd have to pay me to read garbage like that. Pay me a lot, too.

reply to post by Astyanax


mhd theory treats it as a magnetically conductive fluid.

of course, you would know this if you read the article, which you obviously didn't read.

If you think my analogy is garbage, then you must assume that the standard theory of magnetic reconnection is also garbage.

I don't see any problem here. If I am looking for non-mainstream view, I don't go to Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia isn't considered a valid reference in science, I fail to see any repression. Its not like a scientist who does research in this field goes to Wikipedia to learn about magnetic reconnection. Any outsider is not going to have any useful input on the subject anyhow.

reply to post by mnemeth1

mhd theory treats it as a magnetically conductive fluid.

That’s your justification for saying a plasma is a gas? Then you should also call a gas a liquid.

If a plasma was the same thing as a gas, why would you even need a science of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD to experts like yourself, I’m sure)? Why not just use ordinary hydrodynamics?

reply to post by -PLB-

You make a valid point; a star for it. Perhaps the OP’s next thread should be a complaint about Physical Review Letters’ refusal to publish a paper exposing Einstein as a mountebank and a fraud.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

mhd theory treats it as a magnetically conductive fluid.

That’s your justification for saying a plasma is a gas? Then you should also call a gas a liquid.

If a plasma was the same thing as a gas, why would you even need a science of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD to experts like yourself, I’m sure)? Why not just use ordinary hydrodynamics?

edit on 24/3/11 by Astyanax because: of kindergarten stuff,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Shock Wave Propagation in an Infinitely Electrically Conductive Gas

www.hypertherm.com...

This electrically conductive, ionized gas is called a plasma

yufind.library.yale.edu...

The spiral motion of an electrically conductive gas

www.springerlink.com...

We study supersonic flows of an electrically conductive gas

etc.. etc.. etc..

You should stop now before you dig yourself a deeper hole.