There is a seemingly inevitable systematic bias to Wikipedia's publication rule that states that only material that has been directly cited by established conventional media can be used to support an edit of an existing science article. The bias arises because only material that is consistent with the overall scientific convention is likely to get published. "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." Material that runs directly counter to the consensus is actually discriminated against because editors of journals and books likely use the same criterion. It is a "catch 22".
For instance, I wrote that the Friedmann equations article should include a caveat or two. I said that the equations depend on these two disputed premises: 1.) The Cosmological Principle and 2.) The Ideal Gas Law. I maintain that these assuptions are indeed in dispute.
The debate about Friedmann's use of the Cosmological Principle has been spearheaded by George Ellis. (I am sorry, but I have not yet mastered the HTML tools to include a bone fide citation according to the pure Wikipedia format.) I refer to this fact. There are several investigators who have picked up on Ellis' criticism and have proposed new metrics that support whole new proper interpretations of general relativity. Now, I could indeed include specific citations. Is this what Wikipedia moderators and administrators demand? If I do so, will my edits be approved, provided they are otherwise acceptible?
This is interesting because it gives me experience getting along with chief editors and publisher administrators.
Wikipedia instructs all contributing editors "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." But, what about Wikipedia's own inherent bias that I mention above? Is there no mechanism to ameliorate this effect? Does Wikipedia pretend to be 100% unbiased?
I intended one of the caveats to the Friedmann equations to address the issue of the assumption of the ideal gas law. Clearly, the universe is not an ideal gas. It does not fit the definition of an ideal gas or a "continuum" in Einstein's sense of a perfect fluid. Furthermore, it is not a subsystem within a larger system. (At least, this has not been proven.) So, it is meaningless to presume that the universe can be treated like an adiabatic local laboratory subsystem. It is also meaningless to presume that the universe can do "work" on the larger laboratory system, the meaning of the parameter "w" in the Friedmann equations. It is not called "w" by accident. It is also meaningless to presume that pressure, "p", can be negative. A negative pressure denotes suction. What is sucking on the universe? Or: Does the Universe Suck? On itself, I mean. This is a good idea for a T-shirt.
Is there, in fact, such a thing as pressure in the overall universe? Pressure is defined as the force exerted by a fluid on the walls of its container. Just because we could theoretically place a large segment of the universe in a vast container and measure the pressure exerted on the container walls does not mean that there actually is a large container enclosing the whole universe against which a pressure is exerted.
How might we measure the pressure within an explosion? Pressure measurement implies that the process is reversible. To the extent that the universe may resemble a big explosion and is a dynamic process, not the static process assumed by the Friedmann equations (despite the claims for it), the universes' evolution is irreversible. It may also be turbulently chaotic, but this is another issue.
Must I search or research critiques of this assumption? Why? This criticism is self evident.
Self evident material should be exempt from the rule of verifiability. The presumption is that a consultation with common modern textbooks will verify the obvious or common sense assertions made by the volunteer editor. Do the moderators and administrator demand that we submit voluminous virtual new articles or books with numerous citations and a regular bibliography as if they were mere edits? This is what the demand for fully documented verifiability in all cases, even in trivial or common sense cases would mean if it were to be blindly enforced.
I understand the situation that moderators are in. There must be safeguards against cranks and crackpots. The integrity of Wikipedia must be protected against frivolous changes and additions. Wikipedia must maintain the standards of good journalism. In fact, it is a real encyclopedia with a reputation to nurture and protect. As an author who pretends to the same standards of journalism, I sympathize.
So, I would suggest that the rule not be rigidly enforced, as it appears to be in my case. I would like to submit an amendment to the rulebook. I would use a rule that is made more flexible by application of principles that have been used by the courts to judge what a defendant "may have known or should have known" by common knowledge or modestly intelligent deduction. The defendant in this case would be the reader.
If the problem stems from a lack of citations or my ignorance of the formatting tools to include citations that I have given in the Wikipedia style, please tell me.
Respectfully,
Kentgen1 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
KENTGEN1 PROFILE Part 1
editMy name is Gary Kentgen and I use the pseudonym "Gary A Kent" as a writer and photographer. I have a virtual Ph.D. in the physical sciences (chemistry) having completed all the requirements demanded, including research, except the dissertation and thesis defense. I ran out of money. I was being supported by a fellowship, but the university fellowship fund ran out of $$$ and my academic department could not fill the gap.
I got my M.S. degree in 1985 from the Illinois Institute of Technology, which is located in Chicago (main campus) near the new Comiskey Park. I consider myself to have a Ph.D. (abd) not only because I "just missed" but because I.I.T. is a very rigorous school where an M.S. would be a Ph.D. anywhere else.
Before getting interested in cosmology I specialized in a form of analytical chemistry called chemical microscopy. This analytical technique uses the polarized light microscope, which is like a petrographic 'scope, to analyze small crystals, precipitates and small particles. It was used by Dr. Walter C. McCrone to debunk the Shroud of Turin and the Vinland Map.
I used it to analyze particulates problems for a large pharmaceutical firm. It will not do to have small particles in your freeze dried parenteral injectibles and in other liquid bottled medications.
I will add to this profile from time to time and you may respond, like a blog. Please do.