Background. The reason for the present fiasco is that the founder of Wikipedia says he wants “peer reviewed” material. He has no knowledge of the Wikipedia entry for “paradigm shift” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift . However, this fiasco was even more inevitable because in T S Kuhn’s key book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, which defines “paradigm shift”, Kuhn fails to notice that “Peer review outlaws paradigm shift.” He fails to notice that defenders of Kuhn’s “normal science” will suppress “revolutionary science”. Of course, all the state funding committees, editors of journals and heads of universities want to keep to “normal science”, and know that any involvement in “revolutionary science” will damage them and their institutions.

Wikipedia Thought Police will cooperate with other gatekeepers to ensure that, now that science is professional, never again will there be a paradigm shift like phlogiston or caloric.

Lurking in the background is the late Tolly Holt’s epigram “Without barriers to communication there can be no communication”. See "Rise and Fall .... " , which makes a nonsense of Wikipedia’s original intent, which would inevitably be sabotaged.

The Decline of Science.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.

The article by Miles Mathis http://milesmathis.com/schek.pdf opens up the opportunity to develop theory about “The Wiki [thought] police and all the other gatekeepers” in what the late Hiram Caton called “Truth Management in the Sciences” and “Product Control in the Truth Industry”. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm

The example of “self resonant frequency” gloriously illustrates a serious weakness in the Truth Industry, which is the lack of sufficient coordination between various gatekeepers, or Thought Police, in this case Google gatekeepers and Wikipedia gatekeepers.

On Google, “self resonant frequency” [SRF] has 6,000,000 hits and “self resonant frequency” + capacitor [SRFC] has 500,000 hits.

Numerous hits are to college courses telling students how to find the self resonant frequency of a capacitor, so the subject is mainstream and kosher.

Ivor Catt posted a number of www pages which asserted that “self resonant frequency in a capacitor” did not exist, and bringing a number of web pages to task for teaching fantasy. Over the years, those web pages have been removed, but millions remain.

When Ivor Catt’s www pages asserting that SRFC did not exist rose to top position on Google, above the Wikipedia entry, he began to try to insert a hyperlink from the Wikipedia entry on the fantasy to his web pages. This hyperlink was always removed within hours, with the comment that my web page was “inflammatory” and “self serving”. Catt’s pages are entitled; “Nonsense about so-called ‘self-resonant frequency’ of a capacitor.”

However, the Catt pages continued to rise in the Google hierarchy, today reaching nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9 for SRF and nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 for SRFC – more or less half the first ten Google hits.

Rather than allow a humiliating (For The Truth Industry) admission, the Wikipedia entry for “Self Resonant Frequency” has been removed.

A Google search for "self resonant frequency" + wikipedia finds that the first three entries out of 500,000 are Catt. The first of these is particularly funny, because it is something which Wikipedia failed to fully remove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASelf-resonant_frequency

Talk:Self-resonant frequency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....

A capacitor has no internal series inductance.[edit]

Today, the Wikipedia page on "self resonant frequency" is hit no. 1 out of 300,000 on Google. My pages are hits no. 2 ( http://www.ivorcatt.com/2603.htm ) , 5 and 13. Every time I add a sentence to the Wikipedia page, it is immediately removed. The record of these removals is in the "history" section of the Wikipedia page. Ivor Catt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.13.199 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the gatekeepers managing Truth could not allow the unfashionable admission that capacitor SRF does not exist, Wikipedia gatekeepers decided it would be better to remove all SRF from their encyclopaedia, including that in an inductor, which does exist. Thus, in order to try to suppress the fact that mainstream was wrong to think that it existed in a capacitor, it was preferable to suppress any information about any SRF, whether it existed or not.

All information on SRF for an inductor [SRFI] had to be suppressed in order for the Truth Mafia to save face, and for mainstream dogma (including fantasy) to survive.

Ivor Catt 19 December 2013

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SRF

About 6,030,000 results (0.21 seconds)

Learn more

Search Results

1. Self-resonant frequency of Inductors - Clifton Laboratories

www.cliftonlaboratories.com/self-resonant_frequency_of_inductors.htm‎