Comments on: Scientific Censorship of Wikipedia: Magnetic Reconnection

By: Oreganocaves

Oreganocaves — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:20:00 +0000

It is hilarious how authority-mired you are. That you think of PEOPLE, rather than IDEAS, as credible – that really says it all.

By: Oreganocaves

Oreganocaves — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:16:00 +0000

“peer-reviewed papers” – oh noes! Someone who doesn’t even work in the church is challenging scripture!!!1

By: To STOPWHINING!

To STOPWHINING! — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:30:00 +0000

Why was the wikipedia article on the Electric Universe removed?Why not let it be there. You can still simply “ignore” it.
Why didn’t you just “ignore” this article? Like the “actual, credible, credentialed experts”.

Who’s really whining here?

By: STOPWHINIG!

STOPWHINIG! — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:34:00 +0000

Nobody is censoring anything. Those papers you list are all open and readily available next to any of the THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed papers discussing reconnection science. There’s no conspiracy to censor such papers; they are being ignored because they are at best out-dated, and at worst completely irrelevant to the current state-of-the-(reconnection)-science. That is why nobody is paying attention to them. It’s not a conspiracy to win proposals. Stop representing yourself as this lone voice reason. You’re not a credible scientist.

By: STOPWHINING!

STOPWHINING! — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:12:00 +0000

FFS, Stop whining! There is no scientific censorship going on here; actual, credible, credentialed experts, who work in the field are simply refuting a crackpot theory. Anyone who reads the wiki talk page will see that you are ignoring, or dismissing as conspiracy, piles of evidence in observations, calculations, and laboratory experiments. You’ve not only been shown the equations themselves, but also have been given ample explanation of what they mean. YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. YOU ARE NOT WORKING IN THE FIELD. ALL you are doing is quote mining famous scientists from decades ago who turned out to be incorrect. (Yes, Alfven was a genius, nobody is denying that; however, he was wrong in this case. Scott wrote a paper refuting his own misunderstandings of the field.) Stop representing yourself as credible.