Leaving out the conspiracy angle, what you say is more or less true. However, wikipedia (with known reservations) is still a useful guide to current scientific understanding. While some people with axes to grind have been known to vandalise wikipedia pages to push their own view, a page such as the one I linked to will tend to get edited back to "correct" when this happens - because there are more people who understand science than there are cranks.
Originally Posted by Totally Skeptical
Really, the main point of posting that Wikipedia link, was to show that one of the issues you raised in your post is already well understood. Do you really want to say that what's in that wikipedia page is totally unreliable? The bit I quoted agrees with you.
Of course, you are welcome to provide your own references to current science, on this topic. It would be good for all of us.
Edit: to be more specific, in a discussion around here you don't get to write-off a reference to Wikipedia by simply saying "it's Wikipedia so it can't be trusted". You'd need to provide your own alternate references that are somehow more reliable.
(You are also welcome to start a new ATM thread (when your current ATM thread has had its 30 days) to present your own ideas on escape velocity - with whatever references you wish to provide.)
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Jun-01 at 06:03 AM.
Get up, a get-get, get down.