I haven’t tried it but projection, in a similar way to viewing an eclipse, may also work. I’ll give this a try when it’s a) daytime and b) when there’s sunspots about.

“On 11 May 1999, the number density of this “solar wind” decreased to remarkably low values (~0.2 particles/cm3, compared with an average value of 10/particles/cm3). A special session of the American Geophysical Union 1999 Fall Meeting (1) was devoted to discussing this extraordinary event and its consequences.” [Wow, scientists in a swivet! You've seen this movie.]

“‘Because the solar wind density was so low, the strahl electrons were relatively unscattered by collisions in the solar wind, and they arrived near Earth in an unusually intense and narrow beam that was able to penetrate into the polar region. The electron collisions with the atmosphere generated “the strongest x-ray emissions ever seen from the polar cap’ (D. Chenette, Lockheed-Martin, Palo Alto, CA).” [Neat! Strahl electrons! Look that up in your Wikipedia.]

“Although the density of energetic electrons in the solar wind returned to normal on the following day, the density of very high-energy electrons in the magnetosphere dropped once again the next day and remained severely depleted for nearly 2 months, despite the fact that the solar wind flux had returned to its usual value. This raises interesting questions about the refilling of the radiation belts.” [Sounds like a serious electron shortage. There's never a strahl electron when you want one.]

“Why periods of very low density wind occur remains unknown. It is interesting to note, as N. Crooker (Boston University) pointed out, that such low wind flux periods tend to appear on the ascending portion of the solar activity cycle, a period in which we are in now (2). Discussions of low solar wind flux periods will undoubtedly occupy solar physicists for years to come.” [Judging from this comment section, maybe even longer.]

I think the world ended which explains the mess we are in now.

Harold, you’re entitled to your opinion, but… :p

I completely disagree that calling rainbows and icebows “similar” is a falsehood (examples of falsehoods is what I challenged you to provide). Obviously the word “similar” is subjective, so I think you could argue that the article should be written in a way that doesn’t use that word, but that’s not a falsehood. I personally think it’s appropriate, but I can’t say I know all that much about icebows.

As for your reluctance to provide another example… well, if wikipedia is as bad/unreliable as you seem to think it is, it shouldn’t be all that hard to find plenty of examples. Simply going to a random article and clicking the links within it should quickly lead to “falsehoods” as you call them.

About the rest, I think you’re making my point for me. Wikipedia DOES potentially change very fast, and that is PRECISELY what makes it great. Vandalism and “falsehoods” are usually fixed very quickly, and new information can be added to articles as soon as it comes out. Static encyclopedias are often outdated, and if something is wrong (which it often is, since only a small number of people edit it), it takes a long time (relative to wikipedia) for it to be fixed. Sometimes the layout or wording may not be optimal (as the icebow example shows), but in my experience, wikipedia is quite accurate a high percentage of the time.

Harold, you’re entitled to your opinion, but… :-p