"I feel current copyright laws are so one sided as to be ignored." OK, you can "feel" whatever you like, but let's take a check on what you "know":
"I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law." False.
"Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law." False.
"Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law." False.
In examples 1 & 3, the uploader may be breaking the law, but you are not. In any case, I "feel" you don't know enough about copyright law to have an interesting opinion.
You mean, the part the programmer chose to display as black?
Fractals aren't magic. Quantum mechanics isn't magic. The fact that you don't understand them doesn't make them magic or mean they might threaten the structure of the universe.
Yeah, so we're planning a whole moon mission, and we need boosters for one of the modules. Clearly the best solution is to match orbits with the ISS and tether our module to it. Designing our whole mission around getting to some random impractical orbit, using vast amounts of additional fuel; definitely a better idea than just putting boosters on the thing we want to boost. Or planning for the decay and sticking it into a higher orbit to begin with.
Leaving a module in earth orbit to come back to is not a terribly useful idea in the first place. Going to some orbit not picked for your mission is even less so.
I too wish there were some useful purpose (any useful purpose) for the ISS, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Based on my understanding, you're going to "break into earth orbit" upon return anyway; it's a matter of whether you keep breaking and re-enter, or orbit a bit first.
Now, matching orbits to rendezvous with a previously deployed package may be a different matter; It will be no problem if everything goes perfectly. but if that rendezvous is required in order to re-enter, you're going to want a healthy safety margin on your ability to do it, and that margin will consist of fuel. Probably enough to weigh more than whatever you're leaving in earth orbit.
The key, I think is that almost all the thrust for getting to the moon gets used in getting from the ground to low earth orbit. Any weight savings from anything you do after that won't make much difference.
Of course, we could achieve massive savings, and skip re-entry problems entirely by leaving behind the pointless humans...
Yes, sending it "randomly flying" is exactly what I proposed.
You put the package in whatever orbit is convenient (as opposed to the ISS, which isn't convenient), and you know its position as surely as you know that of the ISS, or any other sattelite. Space navigation doesn't involve any "finding", ever.
If you really know more than the support guy, don't call him. If you do call him, be prepared to let him solve the problem.
I did support for a while, and periodically got users who didn't want to go through the first 10 basic steps of diagnosing the problem. They would assure me that they already tried that, and that's not the problem. 9 times out of 10, they are wrong, and some stupid thing they would swear they on their mothers grave they already tried fixed the problem.
Maybe you're that 10th guy, every single time you call. But it's unreasonable to expect the support guy to believe that, and frankly, you're probably not. Note that the other 9 guys are all just as sure they actually know what they are talking about too.
"EU Theory states that space plasmas are being mathematically modeled improperly, and that we should look to laboratory plasma physics to understand how plasmas in space behave.
27 words."
Well, you can count (assuming "EU" is one word). But perhaps you misunderstood, the 50 words or less were not supposed to be just chosen at random, they were supposed to answer my questions:
What does your theory propose as an explanation for what we know? What does it predict that is different from the standard model?
No links please; if you can post 3 page long comments you can give me my 50 words (well, if you had something even resembling a theory you could). I'm done reading anything else from you.
The parallels are not there, and totally irrelevant. Nobody is being starved to produce an artificial surplus. The US has a real surplus of food production.
"As far as healthy food is concerned, it is mostly imports" [Citation needed]
We produce a lot of unhealthy food based around corn, corn and corn because that's what's most profitable. But we have plenty of capacity to produce all the healthy food that will sell. We've simply got a stupidly huge amount of good farmland in this country. Besides importing (un)seasonal produce from the southern hemisphere, there's no economic reason we need to import food, healthy or otherwise.
So I asked for a concise description of what EU claims, and a single piece of evidence for it, and I get another fountain of pointless drivel. You argue like a creationist. No, actually they have no problem stating what it is they actually believe, so they're one up on you there.
Before you claimed other theories predicted COBE better. As soon as that obvious BS is challenged, it is abandoned, and now it's inaccurate measurements that just happen to align with the predictions? Perhaps realizing how stupid that is, you hint at the ultimate fallback of pseudoscience: It's a vast conspiracy. Heck, how do we know they even launched a satellite? Pick an explanation please.
I particularly love your challenge to the "theory" of stellar deflection. Stellar deflection is not a theory. It is a fact that has been independently observed by countless people, including me. Get yourself a good camera and wait for a solar eclipse, you can check it yourself. If your theory says stellar deflection shouldn't happen, your theory is wrong, because it does happen. You will not convince me otherwise, because I've taken the pictures, and measured the positions of the stars all by myself, and they were different.
Relativity says it should happen, and notably said it should happen before anyone knew it did. That's what scientific theories do. They propose an explanation for the facts we know, and use that explanation to predict something we don't know. Something different than what other theories predict. Then we check.
Your inept, misinformed critiques of existing theory are not interesting. The questions whose answers I might find interesting are:
What does your theory propose as an explanation for what we know? What does it predict that is different from the standard model?
"I haven't flown for the last 30 years, so I don't know anything about the security today."
Nor do you need to to see the problem in your idea. A clock makes a fine detonator. If you're trying to stop bombs, worrying about anything except explosives is dumb.
"The discovery of the 2.7 degree background was the clincher for the current cosmological model, the hot Big Bang.? And astrophysicist Michael Turner: ?The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology.? Did the measurement of the CMBR actually confirm a prediction of the Big Bang hypothesis? The truth is that predictions by other theorists, who did not base their estimates on the Big Bang, were a great deal closer."
That is false. The standard model predicted not a single number, but rather predicted the entire CMBR spectral curve. COBE measured this curve at dozens of frequencies, to extreme precisions (as it was designed to). Every one of the observations matched the standard model predictions to well within those precisions. It is not possible for other predictions to match better, as the standard models predictions matched exactly. It is possibly the most dramatic experimental confirmation in Science; along with stellar deflection and relativity I suppose. Both of which EU will have to explain if it hopes to replace the standard model.
The spectral curve stuff is also an entirely different set of data than what Verschuur is talking about. Conflating the two can only indicate an attempt to produce confusion.
"It will certainly all seem unrelated so long as you refuse to understand the argument being made."
Does Verschuur understand the argument being made? Because he doesn't think it's related either. Not that I claim to understand the argument because I don't see any argument. "Electric force is significant at cosmic scales" I take to be the conclusion, but I don't see any evidence being presented. Verschuur's work is not evidence for this. If Veerchur is right (which seems unlikely), EU is wrong. If the people who say Verschuur is wrong are right, EU is wrong. If EU is right, Verschuur entire disagreement with most cosmologists is entirely meaningless, as the entire context of their discussion (modern physics) is wrong. Verschuur's work depends on the assumption that gravity is the dominant force at cosmic scales.
EU is proposing that a model that has made countless accurate discoveries is wrong, and that a radical, incoherently stated supposition should take it's place. And despite the fact that such a wildly different model ought to make all manner of easily testable predictions, no evidence is presented. What is presented is an avalanche of references to work that doesn't actually support the thesis, and quotes pulled wildly out of context to imply they mean something in reference to EU, which they don't.
"My goal is to get you to listen to evidence" You might start by presenting any. No, wait; start by stating what it is your presenting evidence for, then describe some evidence. Note that if you care to name any real scientific theory, I can accomplish both those tasks in under 50 words. If you accept my formulation of the claim ("Electric force is significant at cosmic scales") that leaves you 42 words to name a single piece of evidence for EU.
Yes of course. If everybody laughs at you, it must be because you are brilliant. You'll show them! One day they'll see! If it quacks like a delusion of grandeur...
Actually, I love to read, and I love new ideas. It's not that I think EU is wrong, it's that I don't think it's parseable. EU stuff out there onyhe web pulls together all sorts of completely unrelated stuff just because it mentions electricity and space in the same paragraph, and makes no attempt to tie them together. There does not appear to be any sort of short summary of what EU claims. By sifting through a bunch of stuff, I gather the central tenet is that the effect of Electricity is significant (compared to gravity) at interstellar scales.
As evidence of my love to read, I read the article you linked, and a bunch more stuff from Verschuur. Verchuur thinks there are certain details of the COBE data being misinterpretted. Basically nobody else thinks he's right. But he hasn't been dismissed out of hand; people have done extensive statistical analyses to demonstrate there is in fact no evidence for his hypothesis.
All of which is beside the point, because Verchuur in no way subscribes to the Electric Universe, nor would his hypothesis about interstellar hydrogen support the Electric Universe. The entire framework whithin which his hypothesis contradicts the conventional view contradicts the Electric Universe (to the extremely limited extent that the Electric Universe actually says anything intelligible).
Just because someone use "don't understand" and "plasma" in the same sentence doesn't mean he supports someone elses non-sensical ravings that also use the word "plasma" a lot. Such a quote is aparently the best an EU proponent can do. A physicist talking about something entirely unrelated.
"It's great that in 10 minutes or so you were able to cover all of the arguments that it took me 18 months to investigate."
Sanity has its advantages; A rudimentary understanding of physics is also helpful. Look, I didn't know you or anything about EU before this thread, and, yes, in a very small amount of time, I've concluded that you're hopelesly bonkers. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you get this sort of reaction pretty regularly. It could be that almost everyone in the world is just hopelessly enamored of mainstream cosmology; just because everybody disagrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong. But it does mean you should probably seriously consider the possibility.
Sorry, I'm actually trying to be nice here, and see things with an open mind, but EU just doesn't even resemble a coherent theory sufficiently to say anything meaningful about it. I haven't got any motivation here except compassion for a fellow human being, and with that in mind I'm going suggest you seek help.
So previously I was just trying to help you understand Wikipedias function, because you seemed to not understand it. I specifically avoided any discussion of the validity of EU theory, because I was not very familiar with it. Thanks to this thread, I did a bit of looking around and now have a much more thorough understanding of the claims of EU theory, and of your efforts to promote it. I will not continue to try to persuade you, as it is quite clear that your misunderstanding is willful and entrenched.
Further, as a mostly disinterested observer, perhaps I can offer a simple observation that might help you make more sense of the worlds resistance to your ideas. It is hard to put this diplomatically, but it appears that you are, as they say, "bat-shit crazy". If you really want to get on wikipedia, I think you should get together with the Time Cube guy. You'll note there's a Wikipedia page about his theory. True, it's not all that complimentary, but it's there. On the other hand, his theory may make slightly more sense, so that could be a problem.
Well, best of luck in any case.
Wikipedia is not being used to stop the acceptance of the Electric Universe Theory. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what Astrophysics theories get accepted. Convince most Astrophysicists, and wikipedia will follow. Your theory is not widely accepted by the scientific community. Wikipedia is not the place for new theories to "get a word in". Wikipedia has not "squandered their own opportunity to place themselves at the center of this impending debate.", as Wikipedia does not seek to be at the center of any debates. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, and does not want to be. If you do not gain acceptance in traditional scientific journals, and then you go and stick stuff in Wikipedia, you're going to get a smack down.
Wikipedia is not the place for the Electric Universe Theory at this time. This is true regardless of whether it is a brilliant breakthrough about to revolutionize physics, or loopy new age bullshit. Neither is appropriate content for Wikipedia.
"But there are peer review papers appearing right now throughout the peer review system that support EU Theory" Great. After they are published in real journals, a summary of their findings might be appropriate for Wikipedia. But why the hell are you screeching about bias before that?
You appear to assume this is false. I think it is true. The powers that be at Wikipedia think it is true. Despite your suggestion that this will force people to other sources, I'll note that the reference section of the library and LexisNexis both also believe this is true.
"I'm arguing that the concept of the encyclopedia should evolve to more accurately reflect the scientific method"
An encyclopedia should reflect the current state of human knowledge. The scientific method is used for acquiring new knowledge.
"If it does not, then we will call the useful sites of similar function of the future something other than encyclopedias."
No, the encyclopedias contents will simply change as human knowledge does.
"A brief review of the history of science reveals that ideas that are currently thought to be absurd will one day prove to not be so."
A brief review of the history of science reveals that almost all ideas that are currently thought to be absurd will one day prove to be just obviously absurd. Which has nothing to do with the vast majority of Wikipedias content, which is not about scientific theory (it's historical, geographic, biographic etc.)
"This is important because unless we have really 'figured it all out',"
We haven't, and nobody claims or thinks we have.
"there will eventually be a high-profile event of some sort that demonstrates that wikipedia was wrong, and the entire model for the site will be subsequently abandoned. This is a challenge to the very concept of wikipedia."
There are daily events that demonstrates human understanding was wrong, and then someone edits Wikipedia. This is the fundamental strength of the concept.
"It threatens its own invincibility as a product because it opens up an opportunity for competitors. It's a bit of an issue because the owners of the site will eventually have to decide if they will defend reality or the product. They will be forced to choose between the interests of their own pockets and the interests of the human race. It is surely the price you pay for putting all of your money down on whatever is popular. A smarter gambler would spread his bets a bit more."
How many drugs are you on? Owners pockets? Product? It's a non-profit encyclopedia anyone can edit. Decisions about it are made largely by consensus amongst volunteers. To the limited extent I can even tell what you're saying here, you appear to be calling for Wikipedia to include more bullshit in case it turns out to be true? Thanks for your input, but... no.
No, I'm saying I find it *because* of the notability purges; Wikipedia is not clogged with irrelevant information. Every example I've seen of something purged for lack of notability was legit. The threat I perceive to Wikipedias usefulness is being flooded with irrelevant junk because people perceive social status in there being a Wikipedia page about the band they played in twice in their buddies back yard.
Slashdot Mirror
A copyright that lets me forbid people from copying a work isn't worth much if I can't grant someone the right to copy it.
"I feel current copyright laws are so one sided as to be ignored."
OK, you can "feel" whatever you like, but let's take a check on what you "know":
"I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law."
False.
"Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law."
False.
"Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law."
False.
In examples 1 & 3, the uploader may be breaking the law, but you are not. In any case, I "feel" you don't know enough about copyright law to have an interesting opinion.
"'dark' part of a mandlebrot-like fractal"
You mean, the part the programmer chose to display as black?
Fractals aren't magic. Quantum mechanics isn't magic. The fact that you don't understand them doesn't make them magic or mean they might threaten the structure of the universe.
Yeah, so we're planning a whole moon mission, and we need boosters for one of the modules. Clearly the best solution is to match orbits with the ISS and tether our module to it. Designing our whole mission around getting to some random impractical orbit, using vast amounts of additional fuel; definitely a better idea than just putting boosters on the thing we want to boost. Or planning for the decay and sticking it into a higher orbit to begin with.
Leaving a module in earth orbit to come back to is not a terribly useful idea in the first place. Going to some orbit not picked for your mission is even less so.
I too wish there were some useful purpose (any useful purpose) for the ISS, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Based on my understanding, you're going to "break into earth orbit" upon return anyway; it's a matter of whether you keep breaking and re-enter, or orbit a bit first.
Now, matching orbits to rendezvous with a previously deployed package may be a different matter; It will be no problem if everything goes perfectly. but if that rendezvous is required in order to re-enter, you're going to want a healthy safety margin on your ability to do it, and that margin will consist of fuel. Probably enough to weigh more than whatever you're leaving in earth orbit.
The key, I think is that almost all the thrust for getting to the moon gets used in getting from the ground to low earth orbit. Any weight savings from anything you do after that won't make much difference.
Of course, we could achieve massive savings, and skip re-entry problems entirely by leaving behind the pointless humans...
Yes, sending it "randomly flying" is exactly what I proposed.
You put the package in whatever orbit is convenient (as opposed to the ISS, which isn't convenient), and you know its position as surely as you know that of the ISS, or any other sattelite. Space navigation doesn't involve any "finding", ever.
Why involve the ISS (besides politics)?
Just put whatever you want to rendezvous with in whatever orbit is convenient, it won't go anywhere.
"landing on land was preferred in terms of total life cycle costs for the vehicles."
Landing on land is cheaper, check.
"eliminating the 1500 lb airbags for landing has its appeal"
Landing on land lets it be lighter, check.
"A splashdown in water seems to be favored."
Huh? WTF? Am I supposed to go RTFA or something?
If you really know more than the support guy, don't call him. If you do call him, be prepared to let him solve the problem.
I did support for a while, and periodically got users who didn't want to go through the first 10 basic steps of diagnosing the problem. They would assure me that they already tried that, and that's not the problem. 9 times out of 10, they are wrong, and some stupid thing they would swear they on their mothers grave they already tried fixed the problem.
Maybe you're that 10th guy, every single time you call. But it's unreasonable to expect the support guy to believe that, and frankly, you're probably not. Note that the other 9 guys are all just as sure they actually know what they are talking about too.
"EU Theory states that space plasmas are being mathematically modeled improperly, and that we should look to laboratory plasma physics to understand how plasmas in space behave.
27 words."
Well, you can count (assuming "EU" is one word). But perhaps you misunderstood, the 50 words or less were not supposed to be just chosen at random, they were supposed to answer my questions:
What does your theory propose as an explanation for what we know?
What does it predict that is different from the standard model?
No links please; if you can post 3 page long comments you can give me my 50 words (well, if you had something even resembling a theory you could). I'm done reading anything else from you.
kthxbye.
The parallels are not there, and totally irrelevant. Nobody is being starved to produce an artificial surplus. The US has a real surplus of food production.
"As far as healthy food is concerned, it is mostly imports"
[Citation needed]
We produce a lot of unhealthy food based around corn, corn and corn because that's what's most profitable. But we have plenty of capacity to produce all the healthy food that will sell. We've simply got a stupidly huge amount of good farmland in this country. Besides importing (un)seasonal produce from the southern hemisphere, there's no economic reason we need to import food, healthy or otherwise.
But since we don't, you're still just wrong.
The US is a net exporter of food, any way you slice it. I know it's surprising, but it turns out Kansas is good for something.
So I asked for a concise description of what EU claims, and a single piece of evidence for it, and I get another fountain of pointless drivel. You argue like a creationist. No, actually they have no problem stating what it is they actually believe, so they're one up on you there.
Before you claimed other theories predicted COBE better. As soon as that obvious BS is challenged, it is abandoned, and now it's inaccurate measurements that just happen to align with the predictions? Perhaps realizing how stupid that is, you hint at the ultimate fallback of pseudoscience: It's a vast conspiracy. Heck, how do we know they even launched a satellite? Pick an explanation please.
I particularly love your challenge to the "theory" of stellar deflection. Stellar deflection is not a theory. It is a fact that has been independently observed by countless people, including me. Get yourself a good camera and wait for a solar eclipse, you can check it yourself. If your theory says stellar deflection shouldn't happen, your theory is wrong, because it does happen. You will not convince me otherwise, because I've taken the pictures, and measured the positions of the stars all by myself, and they were different.
Relativity says it should happen, and notably said it should happen before anyone knew it did. That's what scientific theories do. They propose an explanation for the facts we know, and use that explanation to predict something we don't know. Something different than what other theories predict. Then we check.
Your inept, misinformed critiques of existing theory are not interesting. The questions whose answers I might find interesting are:
What does your theory propose as an explanation for what we know?
What does it predict that is different from the standard model?
50 words or less will be fine.
"I haven't flown for the last 30 years, so I don't know anything about the security today."
Nor do you need to to see the problem in your idea. A clock makes a fine detonator. If you're trying to stop bombs, worrying about anything except explosives is dumb.
My standard is, when do I expect to be done writing this program?
An hour from now: use a scripting language, maybe Python.
Six months from now, in cooperation with 4 other developers: C++ please.
They're just radically different beasts. Trying to use either in the others role will naught but tears.
"The discovery of the 2.7 degree background was the
clincher for the current cosmological model, the hot Big Bang.? And
astrophysicist Michael Turner: ?The significance of this cannot be
overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology.? Did the
measurement of the CMBR actually confirm a prediction of the Big Bang
hypothesis? The truth is that predictions by other theorists, who did
not base their estimates on the Big Bang, were a great deal closer."
That is false. The standard model predicted not a single number, but rather predicted the entire CMBR spectral curve. COBE measured this curve at dozens of frequencies, to extreme precisions (as it was designed to). Every one of the observations matched the standard model predictions to well within those precisions. It is not possible for other predictions to match better, as the standard models predictions matched exactly. It is possibly the most dramatic experimental confirmation in Science; along with stellar deflection and relativity I suppose. Both of which EU will have to explain if it hopes to replace the standard model.
The spectral curve stuff is also an entirely different set of data than what Verschuur is talking about. Conflating the two can only indicate an attempt to produce confusion.
"It will certainly all seem unrelated so long as you refuse to understand the argument being made."
Does Verschuur understand the argument being made? Because he doesn't think it's related either. Not that I claim to understand the argument because I don't see any argument. "Electric force is significant at cosmic scales" I take to be the conclusion, but I don't see any evidence being presented. Verschuur's work is not evidence for this. If Veerchur is right (which seems unlikely), EU is wrong. If the people who say Verschuur is wrong are right, EU is wrong. If EU is right, Verschuur entire disagreement with most cosmologists is entirely meaningless, as the entire context of their discussion (modern physics) is wrong. Verschuur's work depends on the assumption that gravity is the dominant force at cosmic scales.
EU is proposing that a model that has made countless accurate discoveries is wrong, and that a radical, incoherently stated supposition should take it's place. And despite the fact that such a wildly different model ought to make all manner of easily testable predictions, no evidence is presented. What is presented is an avalanche of references to work that doesn't actually support the thesis, and quotes pulled wildly out of context to imply they mean something in reference to EU, which they don't.
"My goal is to get you to listen to evidence"
You might start by presenting any. No, wait; start by stating what it is your presenting evidence for, then describe some evidence. Note that if you care to name any real scientific theory, I can accomplish both those tasks in under 50 words. If you accept my formulation of the claim ("Electric force is significant at cosmic scales") that leaves you 42 words to name a single piece of evidence for EU.
Yes of course. If everybody laughs at you, it must be because you are brilliant. You'll show them! One day they'll see! If it quacks like a delusion of grandeur...
Actually, I love to read, and I love new ideas. It's not that I think EU is wrong, it's that I don't think it's parseable. EU stuff out there onyhe web pulls together all sorts of completely unrelated stuff just because it mentions electricity and space in the same paragraph, and makes no attempt to tie them together. There does not appear to be any sort of short summary of what EU claims. By sifting through a bunch of stuff, I gather the central tenet is that the effect of Electricity is significant (compared to gravity) at interstellar scales.
As evidence of my love to read, I read the article you linked, and a bunch more stuff from Verschuur. Verchuur thinks there are certain details of the COBE data being misinterpretted. Basically nobody else thinks he's right. But he hasn't been dismissed out of hand; people have done extensive statistical analyses to demonstrate there is in fact no evidence for his hypothesis.
All of which is beside the point, because Verchuur in no way subscribes to the Electric Universe, nor would his hypothesis about interstellar hydrogen support the Electric Universe. The entire framework whithin which his hypothesis contradicts the conventional view contradicts the Electric Universe (to the extremely limited extent that the Electric Universe actually says anything intelligible).
Just because someone use "don't understand" and "plasma" in the same sentence doesn't mean he supports someone elses non-sensical ravings that also use the word "plasma" a lot. Such a quote is aparently the best an EU proponent can do. A physicist talking about something entirely unrelated.
The answer is always obvious if your completely ignorant of the question.
"i dont remember seeing biogs in Encyclopedia Britannica..."
Um, yeah. There's like, a couple at least.
"It's great that in 10 minutes or so you were able to cover all of the arguments that it took me 18 months to investigate."
Sanity has its advantages; A rudimentary understanding of physics is also helpful. Look, I didn't know you or anything about EU before this thread, and, yes, in a very small amount of time, I've concluded that you're hopelesly bonkers. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you get this sort of reaction pretty regularly. It could be that almost everyone in the world is just hopelessly enamored of mainstream cosmology; just because everybody disagrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong. But it does mean you should probably seriously consider the possibility.
Sorry, I'm actually trying to be nice here, and see things with an open mind, but EU just doesn't even resemble a coherent theory sufficiently to say anything meaningful about it. I haven't got any motivation here except compassion for a fellow human being, and with that in mind I'm going suggest you seek help.
So previously I was just trying to help you understand Wikipedias function, because you seemed to not understand it. I specifically avoided any discussion of the validity of EU theory, because I was not very familiar with it. Thanks to this thread, I did a bit of looking around and now have a much more thorough understanding of the claims of EU theory, and of your efforts to promote it. I will not continue to try to persuade you, as it is quite clear that your misunderstanding is willful and entrenched.
Further, as a mostly disinterested observer, perhaps I can offer a simple observation that might help you make more sense of the worlds resistance to your ideas. It is hard to put this diplomatically, but it appears that you are, as they say, "bat-shit crazy". If you really want to get on wikipedia, I think you should get together with the Time Cube guy. You'll note there's a Wikipedia page about his theory. True, it's not all that complimentary, but it's there. On the other hand, his theory may make slightly more sense, so that could be a problem.
Well, best of luck in any case.
Wikipedia is not being used to stop the acceptance of the Electric Universe Theory. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what Astrophysics theories get accepted. Convince most Astrophysicists, and wikipedia will follow. Your theory is not widely accepted by the scientific community. Wikipedia is not the place for new theories to "get a word in". Wikipedia has not "squandered their own opportunity to place themselves at the center of this impending debate.", as Wikipedia does not seek to be at the center of any debates. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, and does not want to be. If you do not gain acceptance in traditional scientific journals, and then you go and stick stuff in Wikipedia, you're going to get a smack down.
Wikipedia is not the place for the Electric Universe Theory at this time. This is true regardless of whether it is a brilliant breakthrough about to revolutionize physics, or loopy new age bullshit. Neither is appropriate content for Wikipedia.
"But there are peer review papers appearing right now throughout the peer review system that support EU Theory"
Great. After they are published in real journals, a summary of their findings might be appropriate for Wikipedia. But why the hell are you screeching about bias before that?
Only certain things are worth remembering.
You appear to assume this is false. I think it is true. The powers that be at Wikipedia think it is true. Despite your suggestion that this will force people to other sources, I'll note that the reference section of the library and LexisNexis both also believe this is true.
"I think that we ultimately agree together,"
Well, you're wrong.
"I'm arguing that the concept of the encyclopedia should evolve to more accurately reflect the scientific method"
An encyclopedia should reflect the current state of human knowledge. The scientific method is used for acquiring new knowledge.
"If it does not, then we will call the useful sites of similar function of the future something other than encyclopedias."
No, the encyclopedias contents will simply change as human knowledge does.
"A brief review of the history of science reveals that ideas that are currently thought to be absurd will one day prove to not be so."
A brief review of the history of science reveals that almost all ideas that are currently thought to be absurd will one day prove to be just obviously absurd. Which has nothing to do with the vast majority of Wikipedias content, which is not about scientific theory (it's historical, geographic, biographic etc.)
"This is important because unless we have really 'figured it all out',"
We haven't, and nobody claims or thinks we have.
"there will eventually be a high-profile event of some sort that demonstrates that wikipedia was wrong, and the entire model for the site will be subsequently abandoned. This is a challenge to the very concept of wikipedia."
There are daily events that demonstrates human understanding was wrong, and then someone edits Wikipedia. This is the fundamental strength of the concept.
"It threatens its own invincibility as a product because it opens up an opportunity for competitors. It's a bit of an issue because the owners of the site will eventually have to decide if they will defend reality or the product. They will be forced to choose between the interests of their own pockets and the interests of the human race. It is surely the price you pay for putting all of your money down on whatever is popular. A smarter gambler would spread his bets a bit more."
How many drugs are you on? Owners pockets? Product? It's a non-profit encyclopedia anyone can edit. Decisions about it are made largely by consensus amongst volunteers. To the limited extent I can even tell what you're saying here, you appear to be calling for Wikipedia to include more bullshit in case it turns out to be true? Thanks for your input, but... no.
No, I'm saying I find it *because* of the notability purges; Wikipedia is not clogged with irrelevant information. Every example I've seen of something purged for lack of notability was legit. The threat I perceive to Wikipedias usefulness is being flooded with irrelevant junk because people perceive social status in there being a Wikipedia page about the band they played in twice in their buddies back yard.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, a scientific journal, or a blog.
I think that observation really answers your entire post, but I can't leave this one alone:
"something much more is needed to counter the perception in science that everything has been figured out"
I don't think that perception really needs urgent countering, as I have not in fact met, nor even imagined, a single person who holds it.