Cheapest way to make artificial gravity?

[KJbushway]

*******?
what does that spell?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Shaw on the other hand IS one of the references used on wikipedia and already has a better grasp on the subject of conversation here (and the mathematics behind it) than a large portion of the contributors to Wiki.

And so? No reason to be an arrogant ******* about it. He didn't even try to discuss it and correct things that the article might be wrong about. Instead he just went like "oh, you cite wikipedia, you're not worth my time"

Focusing on Wikipedia misses the point. Shaw was stating, perhaps less than diplomatically, that if someone's understanding of relativity comes mostly or solely from reading Wikipedia articles, they aren't educated enough on the subject to discuss it intelligently, especially knowing that Wikipedia often gets facts about complex subjects dead wrong--and it stays wrong because, again, too few qualified people are writing and editing the articles.

 

[sojourner]

Shaw on the other hand IS one of the references used on wikipedia and already has a better grasp on the subject of conversation here (and the mathematics behind it) than a large portion of the contributors to Wiki.

And so? No reason to be an arrogant ******* about it. He didn't even try to discuss it and correct things that the article might be wrong about. Instead he just went like "oh, you cite wikipedia, you're not worth my time"

I was illustrating the difference between Shaw not using Wiki and KJBushway not using it. KJBushway has in other threads used a bias of Wiki as an excuse to remain wholly ignorant on topics of conversation. He refuses to even trust the references given, never mind the articles themselves.

 

[Christopher]

Focusing on Wikipedia misses the point. Shaw was stating, perhaps less than diplomatically, that if someone's understanding of relativity comes mostly or solely from reading Wikipedia articles, they aren't educated enough on the subject to discuss it intelligently, especially knowing that Wikipedia often gets facts about complex subjects dead wrong--and it stays wrong because, again, too few qualified people are writing and editing the articles.

Which is needlessly judgmental. I know the subject; I have a physics degree. However, if I want to communicate that subject to someone else, it's a handy timesaver to refer them to an existing discussion thereof. And while Wikipedia's content may be questionable in some areas, particularly areas of controversy or opinion, I've found that its scientific content tends to be relatively reliable, at least for the purposes of an informal conversation on a lay discussion board (I mean, come on, it's not like we're writing dissertations here).

I find it disingenuous to dismiss Wikipedia as a source. Yes, it's imperfect, but so is every other reference source in human history. And its advantage over those is that its errors are easily corrected, so that it has the potential to get more accurate over time -- just like science itself does. Of course Wikipedia should not be relied on as an exclusive source of information on any subject, but neither should any other reference. Even if I were referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica, the same principle would apply. It's just basic scholarship that you never treat any source as authoritative without corroboration, so I shouldn't even need to mention it. So condemning Wikipedia as completely worthless -- let alone sinking to ad hominem aspersions against the intelligence of anyone who cites it -- is nothing more than elitism, the kneejerk rejection of the new and different.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Focusing on Wikipedia misses the point. Shaw was stating, perhaps less than diplomatically, that if someone's understanding of relativity comes mostly or solely from reading Wikipedia articles, they aren't educated enough on the subject to discuss it intelligently, especially knowing that Wikipedia often gets facts about complex subjects dead wrong--and it stays wrong because, again, too few qualified people are writing and editing the articles.

Which is needlessly judgmental. I know the subject; I have a physics degree. However, if I want to communicate that subject to someone else, it's a handy timesaver to refer them to an existing discussion thereof. And while Wikipedia's content may be questionable in some areas, particularly areas of controversy or opinion, I've found that its scientific content tends to be relatively reliable, at least for the purposes of an informal conversation on a lay discussion board (I mean, come on, it's not like we're writing dissertations here).

I find it disingenuous to dismiss Wikipedia as a source. Yes, it's imperfect, but so is every other reference source in human history. And its advantage over those is that its errors are easily corrected, so that it has the potential to get more accurate over time -- just like science itself does. Of course Wikipedia should not be relied on as an exclusive source of information on any subject, but neither should any other reference. Even if I were referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica, the same principle would apply. It's just basic scholarship that you never treat any source as authoritative without corroboration, so I shouldn't even need to mention it. So condemning Wikipedia as completely worthless -- let alone sinking to ad hominem aspersions against the intelligence of anyone who cites it -- is nothing more than elitism, the kneejerk rejection of the new and different.

If Wikipedia is your only source, then that's a problem. I believe that's all Shaw was saying. Clearly, this would not apply to you since you have credentials well beyond that.

 

[KJbushway]

Shaw on the other hand IS one of the references used on wikipedia and already has a better grasp on the subject of conversation here (and the mathematics behind it) than a large portion of the contributors to Wiki.

And so? No reason to be an arrogant ******* about it. He didn't even try to discuss it and correct things that the article might be wrong about. Instead he just went like "oh, you cite wikipedia, you're not worth my time"

I was illustrating the difference between Shaw not using Wiki and KJBushway not using it. KJBushway has in other threads used a bias of Wiki as an excuse to remain wholly ignorant on topics of conversation. He refuses to even trust the references given, never mind the articles themselves.

Hey man tone the insults down a little, I didn't say anything to you.