Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 29 November 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Magnecule page were merged into Ruggero Santilli. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-08. The result of the discussion was keep.

Page seems to be giving credibility

Misplaced Pages Fringe theories policy - states:

...and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

Are this man's claims that his ideas are being suppressed because of scientific magazine ownership by Jews, and that he was on his way to refuting Einstein's theory, but was stopped by Jewish scientists the way to affirm the marginal idea to the mainstream ideas?

It seems to me the way the article is written now, it is giving the man full credibility. There is no mention of fraud or refuted science in the headlines till the last one, so his biography and subjects of research, discovery and theories are all adding to his seeming credibility. Finally, the section about conspiracies (even that section is called: 'scientific paradigms AND conspiracies') is read as if the scientific establishment is just another POV. Or rather "Point of Jew".

I'm not sure what policy should be flagged on the page, but I'm sure some wp editors can help me find it.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to that kind of stuff, what usually happens is that someone swoops by and marginalizes the article by removing about 3/4ths or more of the material even when there are sources. I don't really like it when that happens, but then again, there are better sources than Misplaced Pages for fringe theories with merit. I understand that he has had others verify a process of nuclear fusion undergoing some of his latest reactor designs (http://www.world-lecture-series.org/) but the conservative nature of academic science doesn't really allow for hypotheses in an alternative mainstream-dismissing paradigms with the same respect. I am neither surprised nor charmed that little attention has been paid to this man's ideas about physics.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First, Kmarinas86, I think you're confused, because Pashute is arguing that there should be less information on the page, because she/he considers all of Santilli's theories to be WP:FRINGE. Pashute, the situation we have is that even though Santilli's theories have been either ignored or rejected, they were reported somewhat widely in the popular press. Thus, they deserve coverage here, but not anywhere else. That is, it's not promoting Santilli's theories to describe them on the page about him, so long as we don't include his theories on any actual articles about science. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think I am confused about?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
14:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to change the editors of Santilli's article

I request a change of the editors in control of my article because of excessive biased abuses of authority and violation of scientific dignity, let alone the violation of basic rules at Misplaced Pages. As last the example among too many, my article was edited this past weekend with a series of papers published in refereed journals but their content opposes the interest of the editors and they were totally removed via excessively dishonest motivations. Since most of the editors such as Arthur Rubin and his known supervisors are Jews, my continued mistreatment and discrimination by Jews initiated by Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow when I was at Harvard thirty here ago (Il Grande Grido and three volumes of documentation) and increased rather than decreased in time, is causing a world wide wave of "justified anti-Semitism" in the scientific community of which I do NOT want to be responsible.

In the event the editors of my article have any dignity, let alone honesty, they should add the dubbing of "fringe scientist" to the article on Steven Weinberg for his support of the farfetched big bang conjecture, and add the same dubbing in the article on Sheldon Glashow for his known support of the extremely farfetched conjecture of dark matter, both proved to be structurally inconsistent, unable to represent the data for which they were ventured, and disproved by years of experimentation on earth (how can anyone want more!). Additionally refereed papers should be equally removed from their articles. It is unfortunate for the Jewish people at large that, as it happened so many times in their history, they do not see the damage they suffer because of this continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists such as myself for so many decades just because we have technically expressed dissident view3s published in refereed journals.

Above all, following about a century of imposing scientific theories in all fields based on organized ethnic interests on Einstein, rather than physical reality, until they are permitted to remain in control by the silent majority, Jewish physicists will unlikely see that they are heading for their sealing in the dark side of scientific history because scientific truth always emerges, and the later it will emerge, the bigger the historic damage. Ruggero Maria Santilli, email: basicresearch(at)i-b-r9dot)org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.25.14 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that there is a process for choosing Misplaced Pages editors for topics, and for changing editors when one set is unsatisfactory. There is not. The set of editors for this article is entirely self-selected, and consists of whoever finds the topic to be an interesting one to edit. Additionally, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV: Misplaced Pages is not a forum for promoting your beliefs, but should only be for material that can be sourced to reliable publications that are independent of the subject and discuss its merits objectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that so far we have no way of ascertaining whether the IP is Santilli. Though in practice it makes no difference. Misplaced Pages does not pander to the prejudices of article subjects, or to contributors, and we sure as hell aren't going to exclude people from editing on the basis of ethnoreligious affiliation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Equations give credibility?

There cannot be equations in this article (cf. this revision) because that would give Santilli too much credibility‽--Geremia (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting. There cannot be assertions that Santilli proved important theorems without reliable secondary sources (i.e. published works by other people) saying that the theorems are important and that Santilli was the one to prove them. If the equations are there only as part of the explanation for the theorems, they need to go too. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case why would we have equations here? This isn't an article on mathematics, and the average reader wouldn't understand them. David's explained that having them there as an explanation isn't a good reason and we certainly can't have them here as some sort of proof. And if we had his equations we'd have to have equations from other people discussing his, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Geremia, David and Dougweller, please do not derail the issue to prevent further damage t us (Misplaced Pages). We are under attack at scientificethics(dot)org, and I am told elsewhere abroad, not on the issue of equations, that is normally decided by the editors, but for removing from the article the quotation of refereed papers, particularly for removing the experimental refereed papers authored by independent scientists. Also, with due respect, Wiki's rule of equanimity prohibits your argument that a certain refereed quotation cannot be accepted because it gives too much credit to Santilli, because then we should remove the quotation of Nobel Prizes in other articles. Please do not assume that everybody out there shares your derailing or intent because too clearly specific for this article..... Then people then ask Why? What's under this? and you end up fueling credibility to scientificethics(dot)org. Zkurcko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't care that a bunch of crackpots think our coverage of fringe topics is unfairly dismissive of their fringe nature — if anything that adds to Misplaced Pages's credibility rather than requires us to defend anything. And I am a little bemused by your use of "we" to represent Misplaced Pages when as far as I can see you have done nothing to actually improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

David David, why are you bemused at my use of "we" intended in your friendly support? By asking you provide support to the crackpots view that you and Rubin have a tight control of all "we" handling this article thus supporting Santilli's request for a change to stop all the jazz. I can provide you evidence of other articles I have edited under a different nickname when Wiki was much more pleasant and less fanatics than today, with all these endless debates on individual words such as "fringe" when, let me say to stop the jazz, everybody knows that its use is in violation of Wiki's rules and 'political'. You should know that if I provide you that info I would give credit to the crackpots because that's derailing the scope of these comments. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fringe

HEAR THIS! HEAR THIS! Santilli's criticisms of Misplaced Pages have been uploaded at scientificethics(dot)org. I plan to send in a rebuttal and hope other will too but, to be credible, changes are in order. For instance, "fringe" is very damaging to our credibility (see the post) because Misplaced Pages rules specifically require to inform visitors without pre-judgments. Also, papers in refereed journals should be quoted without excuses otherwise, quite honestly I would feel uneasiness with any rebuttal. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Zkurko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Who is 'our'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At http://www.scientificethics.org/Wikipedia-corruption.htm, look up the word "fringe".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy, do you have any more interesting staff to use your time and mine? Thanks. Zkurko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I inspected the attacks to Misplaced Pages at www(dot)scientificethics(dot)org and, after dumping the trashy language, I have to admit that keeping the "fringe" bash in Santilli's article causes serious credibility and other damage to Arthur Rubin and his associates such as Geremia, David and Dougweller while providing no benefit I can see. Zkurcko did square the issue of reporting without pre-judgments. Additionally, I studied for weeks the experimental papers on Santilli isoredshift, magnecules, and nuclear fusions. Please cut out the issue of acceptance because premature even to discuss it. However, I regret to see that, in my small view, calling all these measurements "fringe" science while praising farfetched and unverifiable conjectures in other articles, can be easily interpreted as huge confirmation of the attacks. Also, in Google the Wiki's article and the other references appear next to each other, so people compare with easy conclusion certainly not in favor of "fringe" and the editors who force it to stay there against Wiki rules of avoiding pre-judgments..... LouisTheSmall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisTheSmall (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the slightest bit interested in the opinions of random new accounts clearly created solely to promote Santilli's theories. Misplaced Pages describes these theories as fringe because that is what they are, according to multiple published reliable sources. Our policy on such matters is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI opened. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy (??) and company, I am afraid that with your statement you have confirmed all claims I saw at www(dot)scientificethics(dot)org because you call "random new accounts clearly created solely to promote Santilli's theories" experimental papers published in reputable refereed journals by independent scholars. Equally outrageous is the posture of "non-negotiable" on open scientific issues. This is passing all levels of decency into clear BS. I have to agree with Prof. Santilli that you act like Nazis, you make me puke, and that "America is doomed" because of your organized schemes. Goodby all of you anti-American crackpots since you forced me to be hereon an open Santilli supporter beginning with the passing of screened copy of your trash to the criticized journals and their editors. LouisTheSmall — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisTheSmall (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've become an associate? I don't think so. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Six months ago, our committee hired an Investigative Agency (comprising former CIA and Massad operative) to peek into your operations. I copy their report below. Luca Petronio luca(at)scientificethics(dot)org "hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificEthics (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Santilli's Lie-admissible treatments of Irreversible systems

Allow me to report that I personally received at my lab rather serious criticisms against "us" (or "you" if you elected to cut me out editing against Wiki rules) on "our" ("your") removing from Santilli's article the quotation of his initiation in the 1960s with papers at the SIF/IPS of the Lie-admissible treatment of irreversible processes as a covering of the usual Lie treatments of the usual reversible processes. The grounds of the criticisms are: A) these Lie-admissible formulations are the best known for the field; B) they are much needed to start, after one century of reversible theories, quantitative studies of combustion and energy releasing processes; C) the opposition of "our" ("your") friends Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman at Harvard in the late 1970s against these studies is well know world wide from Il Grande Grido; D) everybody also knows, let's stop again this fuss at least for important aspects, that the opposition at Harvard by "our" ("your") friends was due to the fact that Lie-admissibility implies the opposed surpassing Einstein's theories by quite a lot; E) the need for basic advances in irreversibility is set by just looking at what's happening in the environment. Thus, the grounds of the criticism are that, by trashing out Santilli's 1960s papers published at the SIF/IPS "we" ("you") confirm the opposition to these studies by Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman of three decades ago by therefore providing a huge credit to scientificethics(dot)org. You know, there comes a point in life when realities have to be faced to avoid self-destruction and unjustifiable abuses such as this one cause serious damages you better take into consideration because, after all, you seem to forget or do not care that the image America is at stake here. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The image of America? Misplaced Pages is a privately owned website, owned by a non-profit foundation. The editors are found in countries all over the world. it has no connection with either the US government or its agencies. In any event, almost nothing in the rest of your post has any value for us; you seem to be arguing about the actual physics involved, and/or something about the personalities. This is the wrong website for that. All we do here on Misplaced Pages is take what reliable sources say, summarize them, and put them into a coherent article. This is not the place to try to either promote or denigrate someone's theories (and, in fact, I can't even tell which one you're doing). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, thanks for the clarifications. If truly implemented, they will trash out all criticisms in Wiki's favor, To test your Foundation, I am working to add a short section to Santilli's article entitled "Lie-admissible formulations" without equations and with the quotation of Santilli's paper at the SIF?IPS of the 1960s, his latest also at the SIP/IPS of 2006 and the proceedings of the 2011 Nepal Conference. In accordance with Wiki rules, I "request" that this section is not abusively trashed out, but editing be discussed in these comments without, this time, the usual abuses. Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand you better. Now, before you do that, could you please provide some reliable sources that discuss the papers in question? Keep in mind that conference papers are not that regularly cited by other writers, especially since most conferences don't peer review them, the main exception being if they were published in the Conference Proceedings. We need some evidence that these papers are of interest to the mainstream scientific community; just because Santilli wrote them does not mean that we should devote any space to them. Academics of all types publish numerous papers and usually present at countless more conferences, and we don't routinely include details about all of them. Heck, we don't even usually list all conference papers a person has made (that's what CV's on university/institution websites are for). So before you go to all the effort to draft up those sections, let's first establish that they are "important". Qwyrxian (talk)15:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't test the foundation by editing here. Misplaced Pages doesn't have that sort of hierarchical structure. They don't control editing here. And I have no idea what this business of friends is about. And I endorse what Qwyrxian says above. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (and Dougweller), sincere thanks the comments. Your points are sound and legit. I will do as suggested, i.e., identify and suggest main references in these comments prior to creating a new section in the article (which new section is suggested to be short in any case). However, I have to lament self-damaging abuses in the past, such as the removal in Santilli's article of a refereed paper by Prof. J. Dunning-Davies of the University of Hull, England, and others on grounds that "he is a friend of Santilli." But then most independent references in other articles must be eliminated to prevent violations of Wiki's rules. Also, allow me a slight divergence of views. Wiki correctly quotes important statements even when there is no refereed publication because the content in physics is more important than its conduit. Note, sorry!, from scientificethics(dot)org the invitation for Santilli to come to the USA because his studies on irreversibility were and are important for NASA during spaceship reentry, and that the Department of ""Energy"" invited Santilli when at Harvard to do the same because of evident need of irreversibility treatments for all energy releases. This national relevance alone, allow me that because true, is sufficient, in my view, for a short section. Its content is up to you and the other editors. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving! Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Any content added to the article will have to comply with Misplaced Pages's rules - which don't make exceptions on the basis that something was supposedly "important for NASA". If NASA considered it important cite a reliable source which says so. And no, scientificethics(dot)org isn't a reliable source as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Chemistry articles
• Low-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles