Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Neologism

I restored the word "cosmologist", which according to my Oxford English dictionary, has been in use since 1792. It also seems to me that ANY type of cosmology, such as "Tresman cosmology", would grammatically describe its adherents as "Tresman cosmologists" either officially or informally. --Iantresman 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, we've had this discussion before. Please read the archives as per Wikipedia guidelines. To wit, the problem isn't with term "cosmologist" and trying to claim that it is smacks of being extremely disingenuous. "Plasma cosmologist" is rightly replaced with the term "plasma cosmology advocate" referring to someone who advocates "plasma cosmology" so that the plasma cosmology neologism isn't corrupted in favor of creating a new conglomerated neologism.

--ScienceApologist 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmologist" is a perfectly accepted contruct. Just because you're not familiar with the term, is no reason to remove it. I find nothing in the archives to suggest otherwise, and there is nothing in Wiki policy that prohibits the construct (yes, I've read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) --Iantresman 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I'm totally familiar with the term. Please, read the archives and stop mischaracterizing what I'm saying. It is very ironic that a person as adroit as yourself at using search engines cannnot find the previous discussion of this in the archives. Respond to my valid criticisms please before engaging in edit wars. --ScienceApologist 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it! Here. It does dispute who is a cosmologist. Art LaPella 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual you can't backup your claims. It is incumbent on yourself to provide a quote from the archives and Wiki policy to substantiate your position. And I did ask. As usual, you're familiar with the term (just as you're familiar with "intrinsic redshift", "non-cosmological redshift"), but you've taken it on yourself to become the word police, contrary to Wiki policy on Word ownership. Yet again, I shall provide a verifiable reference: Rem B. Edwards' book "What Caused the Big Bang?", start of Chapter 3 (published in 2001). --Iantresman 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a reference to a philosopher who is admittedly not conversant with discussions about cosmology hardly qualifies as a reasonable good-faith effort to get a citation and fails to address my major concerns. The point is simply that a "plasma cosmology advocate" neutrally describes those who advocate plasma cosmology. A "plasma cosmologist" implies a cosmologist who somehow has "plasma" associated with them. Obviously, there are cosmologists who study plasma who are not plasma cosmology advocates. To be perfectly clear, we should use the term itself ("plasma cosmology") when refering to those who make statement in support of its suppositions. Your continued promotion of nonsense regarding word ownership and "verifiable references" simply make me more convinced that you just enjoy being disruptive and don't have any desire to actually help in writing this encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A more neutral phrase would be "plasma cosmology adherents". — goethean ॐ 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is "plasma cosmologist" ~~not~~ less neutral? --Iantresman 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant that my phrase is more neutral than "plasma cosmology advocate". I don't see anything wrong with your phrase. In philosophy (and cosmologies are inherently philosophies as well as sometimes being a field of science), "plasma cosmologist" is considered equivalent to "plasma cosmology adherent". Maybe there should be a note in the text that use of the phrase "plasma cosmologist" doesn't imply that there's actually anyone working in the scientific field. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have such a qualification at all? Simple get rid of the term and its a non-issue. --ScienceApologist 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmologist" is the normal term in the English language for an adherent to plasma cosmology. Your phrase, "plasma cosmology advocate", is certainly not neutral. Would it be appropriate to replace "atheist" with "atheism advocate"? My suggestion was intended as a compromise. — goethean ॐ 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "plasma cosmology" is the term and to change it to "plasma cosmologist" is to have "plasma" modify "cosmologist". There are many cosmologists who study plasma who are not "plasma cosmologists". Why discriminate against them? The point is to avoid ambiguity. --ScienceApologist 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, I would go with "plasma cosmology adherent" then to distinguish between adherents to this theory and cosmologists who study plasma. — goethean ॐ 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. --ScienceApologist 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another pointless nit-pick argument from ScienceApologist, who seems to have nothing more interesting to argue about at the moment. Most readers would understand by simple context inference that the term "plasma cosmologist" in an article about plasma cosmology refers to those who study plasma cosmology. We don't have to assume they are that stupid. In this usage case, it is no different from "Big Bang cosmologist", "Steady State cosmologist" or "Brie Cheese cosmologist". By his own rationale, the appearance of the word "cosmologist" in the Big Bang page should be replaced with "Big Bang advocate". Jon 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, by my rationale that is absolutely not the case. --ScienceApologist 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

VERIFIABLE FACTS:

"Plasma cosmology" as a term has been in use at least since 1992 [1]
"Cosmologists" has been in used since 1792, and is a natural construct of the word cosmology.
The actual phrase "plasma cosmologist" has been used in print [2]. The phrase has been used by more than one editor in the archives numerous times. Anthony L. Peratt himself describes himself as a "plasma cosmologist" [3]

You have provided NO VERIFIABLE FACTS, nor quotes from the Archives (as requested), nor from Wiki policy (as requested), despite your claim to the contrary, and consequently is merely a peronsal point of view.
Provide some verifiication, or butt out. --Iantresman 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Let me know when you are ready to actually engage me in dialogue. Until then, I have removed the reference to the people altogether. Why fight about a name when you don't need to? And please, Ian, remember to be civil and not violate 3RR as you just did. --ScienceApologist 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yawn? There's really no need to be so condescending. Ian has quite precisely engaged you in dialogue, with material you are now admitting you are either unwilling (bad faith) or unable (incompetence) to reply to. It seems pretty simple to me. How about we don't spend any more time nit-picking about the term "plasma cosmologist", and you cease your tiresome, beligerent edits. Jon 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To substantiate your opinion, I've asked you to provide quotes (a) from the archives you mentioned (b) from Wiki policy, and you've provided neither. That's called "dialogue". --Iantresman 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the contrived "plasma cosmology adherents" to "plasma cosmologists". I've provided my reasons above, and would expect a change to "plasma cosmology adherents" or "plasma cosmology proponents" to be backed-up with equally verifiable reasons. Basically Eric Lerner is a plasma cosmologist, Anthony Peratt describes himself as such, and it's a perfectly valid grammatical construction. --Iantresman 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You still have yet to respond to my point that calling someone a "plasma cosmologist" is ambiguous as it has the appearance of being a cosmologist who has the property of a "plasma" and corrupts the term itself "plasma cosmology" which is adopted by Wikipedia as the term up for description. Compounding neologism onto neologism is no excuse and your absurd requests for "verifiable reasons" has been answered clearly by my point. --ScienceApologist 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. In the context of this article, it is patently clear that "plasma cosmologist" is a grammatical derivative of "plasma cosmology". Unless you have evidence otherwise. --Iantresman 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you have continued to ignore my salient points, I can only assume you have decided to begin being a POV-warrior again. There are many cosmologists who study plasma but they are not adherents to plasma cosmology. Do you deny this fact? Do you deny that "plasma cosmologist" implies that the "plasma" is modifying the "cosmologist" as though a) people like Eric Lerner with questionable credentials are "cosmologists" and b) the only people who study cosmology and plasma are adherents to the junk promulgated in this article? Do you deny any of these points? I think you do, but you have no verification to back yourself up so you continue to bluster about hot air. When you're ready to return to civil engagement, let me know, but right now you are on the POV-warpath and are not ammenable to listening to any editorial points in the least. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more utter nonsense from Joshua Schroeder. If you feel that plasma cosmology is junk, that's fine, but please argue the topic itself instead of coming up with these ridiculous time-wasting assertions. Really, that "plasma cosmologist" can be misconstrued by anyone with an IQ greater than that of a cabbage as "a cosmologist made of plasma" is surreal; I can't believe you're that desperate. How stupid do you think Wikipedia readers are? Neither "plasma cosmology" nor "plasma cosmologist" are neologisms. This nonsense is not consistent with the behaviour of an editor acting in good faith. Jon 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are cosmologists who study plasma, and who are not adherents of plasma cosmology. I believe they're called "cosmologists who study plasma", or "plasma physicists". I have found no evidence of such people being called "plasma cosmologists", unless you can provide a verifiable citation to the contrary.

Yes, the word "plasma" acts as an adjective when used before the word "cosmology". And "plasma cosmology" is a recognised science (as evidenced by the numerous references provided), and "plasma cosmologist" is a grammatically correct, derivation, that is also used, as evidenced by the references I have already provided.

Eric's credentials are completely irrlevent to the discussion; I believe this is an ad hominem since it is not addressing the article.

Is Eric a cosmologist? Again, our opinions are completely irrelevent. By I notice several articles on the subject by one Eric Lerner [4]

"...junk promulgated in this article..."; Let's see, shall I consider a subject based on Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfvén, or ScienceApologist, whose best critique is to argue over whether someone who studies "plasma cosmology" is a called a "plasma cosmologist".

"... no verification to back yourself up..."; having provide more citations on this particular point that you've provide over the WHOLE time you've been discussing this article. No other editors have major objections to using "plasma cosmologist". You are out-verified and out-numbered.

--Iantresman 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether "Adherent of x" is "contrived" is beside the point — its a perfectly normal expression in the English language. You have adherents of major world religions, adherents to philosophical positions, etc. And its more neutral than either of the other options on the table at this point. — goethean ॐ 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "plasma cosmology adherents" is EQUALLY grammitically correct as "plasma cosmologists". The difference is that "plasma cosmology adherents" is not used by anybody (evidence please). A quick Google test (excluding Wiki results) shows that "plasma cosmologist" or "plasma cosmologists" is found on over 300 pages [5]; yet "plasma cosmology adherents" is found on just 50... all of which appear to come from the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology. --Iantresman 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "[citation needed]" tag to the phrase "plasma cosmology adherents", which while maybe grammatically correct, is not used in preference to "plasma cosmologist" for which I have provide citations. --Iantresman 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is descending into the surreal. While I prefer "plasma cosmology adherents", presumably for the same reason SA does, is it really worth all this petty bickering from both sides? –Joke 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. You only have 76,895 more to go. — goethean ॐ 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no contention over the words "adherent", "proponent" or "cosmologist". However, the compound phrase "plasma cosmologist" is used, verifiable, and what adherents of plasma cosmology call themselves. --Iantresman 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy's accusations.

(removed repeated quote not written by me --ScienceApologist 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Tommy Mandel wrote the above, not ScienceApologist. Art LaPella 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote SA directly --His statement is only a couple paragraphs above. I copied it below.

Making a reference to a philosopher who is admittedly not conversant with discussions about cosmology hardly qualifies as a reasonable good-faith effort to get a citation and fails to address my major concerns. The point is simply that a "plasma cosmology advocate" neutrally describes those who advocate plasma cosmology. A "plasma cosmologist" implies a cosmologist who somehow has "plasma" associated with them. Obviously, there are cosmologists who study plasma who are not plasma cosmology advocates. To be perfectly clear, we should use the term itself ("plasma cosmology") when refering to those who make statement in support of its suppositions.:::==''''' Your continued promotion of nonsense regarding word ownership and "verifiable references" simply make me more convinced that you just enjoy being disruptive and don't have any desire to actually help in writing this encyclopedia.=='''''

ScienceApologist 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC) "

Wrong again Art, it is a copy of a quote by Joshua which he directed at one of the few authentic plasma people here. As everyone knows, SA is a big bang advocate, and so are you Art, and I am wondering why he is here, and you too Art, so concerned about what we have to say. I can imagine a few possible reasons but I can't imagine that someone who professes to know science would stoop to such lows. Certainly someone who ignores the evidence is just as guilty as someone who invents his own evidence. Tommy Mandel 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one --"I, Ari Brynolfsson, find that Ian Tresman's article on “Intrinsic Redshift” is good and very neutral. It does not advocate anything and reports the facts. I was therefore surprised to read this morning that ScienceApologist wants to consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy! I find also that the use of a “fringe scientist” for any one that disagrees with some of the absurdities in the contemporary Big Bang cosmology improper. I believe that the use by Ian Tresman of “Intrinsic Redshift” was dictated by the fact that most of the processes he mentioned are more likely to work where the densities are high, such as those found very close to stars, galaxies and quasars. Such redshifts are properly called intrinsic redshifts. The use of “Alternative Redshift Theories” for “Intrinsic Redshifts” is possible, especially, when people like ScienceApologist think that only Doppler like redshifts and/or expansion of the Universe can explain the cosmological redshift.

Plasma redshift (see arXiv:astro-ph/0401420) is special in that it shows that only very hot and sparse plasmas produce the “plasma redshift”. The plasma redshift cross section was, therefore, easily overlooked in the past, as it does not apply to ordinary laboratory plasmas. Plasma redshift applies to the coronas around the Sun, stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. It produces significant redshifts that are properly called “intrinsic redshifts”. In each case it is important that the photon energy lost in the redshift turns into heat in the plasma. For example, it is the main cause for the steep temperature rise in the transition zone to the solar corona. The plasma redshift starts exactly in the transition zone, and results in the steep temperature increase. In addition, the plasma redshift explains the cosmological redshifts. This is possible, because the photon energy lost in the plasma redshift heats the sparse intergalactic plasma. Before we knew about the plasma redshift, the physicist had no means of heating the intergalactic plasma. They were therefore forced to assume that it was very cold. This contradicted many observations. They even had no means of heating the relatively dense coronas around galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The interesting fact is that the same plasma densities and plasma temperatures that are predicted by the good fit to the magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SN Ia, also explain the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The densities and temperatures of the intergalactic plasma explain both the blackbody temperature and the uniformity of the angular intensity. These plasma densities and temperatures also result in the right intensities of the cosmic X-ray background. No adjustment parameters such as “Dark Matter” and “Variable Dark Energy” are needed to explain the observations.

It is misleading to call plasma redshift a “tired light theory”, because it has many characteristics that are not found in the “tired light theory”. Ari Brynjolfsson.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Intrinsic_redshift."

And here is another quote by the Apologist ---

"Moreover, I find the Intrinsic Redshift page to be a blatant example of a POV-fork perpetuated by Ian Tresman because he is upset that consensus went against his ways. This is why I AfDed the article, but the enormous amounts of text on this page makes it unlikely that an administrator will touch it because it looks like it is too treacherous. We need to keep the discussion simple: Ian made the article because he didn't like the direction of the redshift article. That is called a POV-fork and it is against Wikipedia Policy. That's why the article needs to be deleted. Some of the information might be relevant for inclusion on Halton Arp's page or on the nonstandard cosmology page or on the Plasma cosmology page or any number of other pages that are about this subject, but this kind of posturing isn't helping the encyclopedia become any better. --ScienceApologist 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)"

"Intrinsic redshift" is well described in the literature [6] (200+ references)
It is not even acknowledged, let alone described in the Redshift article, so it can't possibly be a "POV-fork". Indeed, your removal of any mention of "intrinsic redshift" in the redshift article, is contrary to its extensive use in the literature,
Either (a) you're not familiar with the concept so are unable to explain it to others, (b) are familiar with the concept, but for reasons unknown, are unwilling to explain to other readers

--Iantresman 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua's facorite saying "not here, over there..."

It is clear that the big bang advocates in particular and perhaps many of the cosmologists as well are not willing to listen to reason, let alone deal with it. It is not so much that they disregard reason, what they are doing is placing their reason on the pedestal as if what they say is all that is reasonable. Their intellect is telling them that their intellect is right. But some of them go even further, and try to demean the reasoning of their adversaries. This is to be expected in politics, and, sadly, acceptable around the dinner table, but when it is practiced by a scientist, or a wannabe scientist, it becomes an act of intellectual terrorism

Tommy Mandel 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carefuly, Tommy. You're bordering on personal attacks. If you want to keep editting here, make sure you keep your accusations of terrorism to yourself. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, any scientist who ignores the evidence and then promotes what the evidence proves wrong is guilty of fraud. In other words a crook. Do you agree? Tommy Mandel 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshie, stop fuq'ing up this article. It is intellectual terrorism. 204.56.7.1 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if all the latest accusations of Mr. I-Love-to-Tell-a-Story [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] (who respects my honesty) [18][19] were true, how prudent would it be for me to help a dragon fight St. George? Art LaPella 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The song is titled "Aint't ready to make nice" by the Dixie Chicks.

You're right, I'm not always nice, and I'm not as politically correct as Wikipedia policy, either. I "have not resolved even one issue" scientifically (others do that better), but if you invent quotes, for instance,

Do you mean this quote? Your continued promotion of nonsense regarding word ownership and "verifiable references" simply make me more convinced that you just enjoy being disruptive and don't have any desire to actually help in writing this encyclopedia.ScienceApologist 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)==

Of course not, I found that quote and said you were right about it. I meant this quote: "Forgive, sounds nice, forget, not sure I could..." Show me where ScienceApologist said that,

I mis-said, you mis-read. SA did not say that, it was from a song I was listening to, a spur of the moment thing that happened to say what I was feeling at the moment. It should have been a new paragraph.

Tommy Mandel 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Let's see how you explain the quote that comes before: "Really? Could you remind us where ScienceApologist agreed to such a deal? Art LaPella 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Sure, above." (from the newest archive file) Above where? Art LaPella 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not tricking me into doing your work? Alright, I'll look for it. Tommy Mandel 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

and I might believe your points about quantized redshift or whatever. Art LaPella 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Art, if you are smart, you wouldn't believe anyone. Everything you hear has been tainted by the subjective slant of whoever is saying it. What you could do is go directly to the source and read what he says. If you do that, Hubble didn't believe in expansion, Inflation came along because the original big bang didn't work out. Black holes were hypothesized because they couldn't explain the huge OUTFLOW of matter. Darwin didn't believe in selection, his second book clearly shows him advocating love as the evolutionary principle. Competition is not how the world works, it is by means of synergy, integrative systems, symbiosis that matter self-organized into you and me. Unity is not achieved by the victory of one over the other. You need to find truth in yourself because that is the only place it is to be found. It is not to be found somewhere else, at some other time, given by some person or book. It exists, for you, right here and now. Tommy Mandel 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

then why should I trust your judgment on the cosmological significance of plasma, or on anything else you say? Science without old-fashioned honesty is worthless. But I do "make nice" compared to your own statements on this subject, and I wish you would memorize them. Art LaPella 19:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is made clear by simply accessing the talk page of the big bang entry, that ScienceApologist, Art Lapella and Joke are the primary editors there. I question what they are doing here as if they own the place. I cannot come to believe that they suppoprt Plasma cosmology, and thus are not qualified to write about Plasma cosmology. If Wikipedia allows people to dominate a controversial page AND the alternative page, then Wikiscience will be little more than a religion. There are several words that come to mind, ethics, honesty, forthrightness, integrity, reliability, Faithfulness, It is obvious when one has these attributes and it is just as obvious when they don't. Tommy Mandel 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether someone supports an idea or not has no bearing on whether they are qualified to write about said idea. --ScienceApologist 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't say anything about qualifications, e-t-h-i-c-s. One quarterback is just as qualified as the other, but does that give the quarterback any right to join in on the opposing tems huddle? Besides, you have a few holes in you knowledge, can you tell me about the Whorfian Principle of Linguistic Relativity? You know, the bit about how one's theory is stated in the liguistic tradition native to the writer? You have made it clear that you are a supporter of the big bang theory. There is a huge controversy concerning the acceptance of the big bang theory and the alternatives. As a supporter of the big bang, you are not eligible to write for the alternatives. Your attempts to do so resulted in the inclusion of falsehoods and the exclusion of observational evidence. You may not be aware of doing this, then it is a case of ignorance. If, however, you are aware of what you are doing, then it is a case of intellectual fraud. And Art, before you jump on the spelling, what I am talking about is the continual deletion by ScienceApologist of any reference to the observed and confirmed quantized redshift anomaly on this page, at intrinsic redshift, and big bang itslef. Deletion of that evidence is an error, and if the intent was to deceive or coverup, then it becomes more than a mistake. It becomes, and Art, this is ScienceApologist's word not mine -- "evil."

Tommy Mandel 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Will the real User:Tommysun please stand up? Quote from 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC): "I cannot come to believe that they suppoprt Plasma cosmology, and thus are not qualified to write about Plasma cosmology." Quote from 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC): "Didn't say anything about qualifications." --ScienceApologist 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The "future" section

We should not wait until this late in the article to point out that every mainstream scientist rejects this theory. This should be stated second or third sentence. Additionally, this section uses too many weasel words and is written from the POV of plasma cosmologists. "Mainstream scientists explain this bias..." is POV because it presents the "fact" that the lack of funding for cosmology is a "bias" as undisputed and gives the "last word" to cosmologists, essentially like an essay arguing from the POV of cosmologists. ~~I'm going to see what I can do to NPOV this and move it to the intro.~~ I preserved the facts and reference and that section and moved them to the intro. I think it is better to state them without taking a position for or against plasma cosmology. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this a dozen times before you came on board. The statement you deleted is factually true and is referenced to a reputable source.Be warned that continual reverts will lead to banning. ScienceApologist has already been warned.Elerner 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, "you say We should not wait until this late in the article to point out that every mainstream scientist rejects this theory." You need to realizew that plasma is not a theory anymore than solids and liquids and gases are "theories". Do you have proof that "every mainstream scientists rejects this theory"? I seriously doubt that a good scientists would ignore observation and proven fact. I would say that a more accurate assessment would be something like "every mainstream scientist is not aware of plasma cosmology". That is evidenced by the exclusive emphasis on gravity by the theorists, and those who do acknowledge magnetism yet fail to grasp electrical current flows

And the so called "bias" that you want obscure was discussed in great detail by Thomas Kuhn in his book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" aka paradigm shift. It is well known, and documented, that the prevailing theory is supported by those who referee the journals. It is not a POV that science is biased. It's just not very bright. Tommy Mandel 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't picked on ELerner lately. 1. "through this a dozen times" True, assuming the number isn't significant. 2. "The statement you deleted is factually true and is referenced" He gave one statement a more pro-Big Bang spin, kept the reference, deleted a pro-Big Bang sentence and a pro-plasma cosmology sentence. 3. "reverts will lead to banning". True, but one might mention the last revert was ELerner's, and I think he's the only one here to be temporarily banned for reverting. Art LaPella 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey SA, Art, Joke et al. Plasma cosmology has explanations for everything observed, (sooner and better) with one exception - plasma cosmology does not predict Doppler Reshift. Is that reason enough to mention it here? Tommy Mandel 05:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am so over this crap. Why can't Eric Lerner share the burden of talking some sense into you, if that is indeed possible? –Joke 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You, SA, and Art are big bang editors. This page is about a different explanation that does not start with "Once upon a time..." You feel like crap Joke, because you are away from home, The three of you and maybe some others are so kind and thoughtful to want to help us present our case which actually is in opposition to the standard theory. That sounds good Joke. So I am not surprised that big bang editors would want to take advantage of Wiki's openness policy. However, you and the others have not resolved even one issue, arguing instead about the semantics of Plasma cosmology, for example. And you did all this while allowing the statement that plasma is electricity as part of the definition probably for as long as you have been around. I don't know what the three of you are liike as persons, but your actions as scientific researchers are not in keeping with the grand purpose of science. Your actions are such that if the science court were to be aware of what you do they would ban you from science forever. Art takes this as a hobby, and he seems to accept whatever you all say anyway, but if you Joke, and SA are planning on becoming scientists, be addvised that the manipulation of evidence to support one's own view is not acceptable. Especially if it is evidence that goes against your own theory. If you want specifics, quantized redshift is key evidence of the inconsistency of the standard theory, and a true scientist would not only accept such evidence but would embrace it in hopes of falsification. Tommy Mandel 17:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rant on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK.

If you have the guts to stand up for your theory, then by all accounts you should be more than willing to take on all evidence because in the end, my friend, the truth will out. And if you think this is a rant, read Kuhn.

Tommy Mandel 23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read Kuhn. He didn't write a rant. –Joke 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've come late to this, however it seems obvious to me that this argument (most of the arguments on this page, in fact) is strongly reminiscent of the scientists who argued against the Copernican model for our solar system. As an essentially dispassionate third party (I neither support nor reject either theory) I find it odd that there is so much contraversy in what should be an antiseptic discussion involving the facts, as observed. I have become increasingly "disenchanted" with the absoluteness that BB supporters flourish merely because they happen to control the purse strings. There has been an unacceptible level of supression, ridicule and outright dismissal of explanations and theories which ACCURATELY predict a number of observed phenomenon, and which the BB theory does not predict or is even able to begin explaining. It would seem to me to be fact that most mainstream cosmologists whom are trained by the universities by BB supporters would, of course, be BB supporters themselves, however just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it have more weight, unless it is backed up by hard evidence. This entire debate, in other words, is merely an extension of the act of denying Halton Arp his telescope time because he showed that the Emporer had no clothes.

If the BB wants to survive, it should not depend on its monopoly of the educational and monetary resources (which only exists because of Einstein and the Manhattan project) but rather it should be able to predict things in a more coherent fashion than other theories. In my time spent reviewing this material it seems that the BB may be lacking in some crucial areas that PC does, in fact, predict. Deep Impact, for example, exhibited the exact behavior that Wal Thornhill predicted, however NASA rejected immediately that comets could possibly be charged bodies and are "at a loss" to explain why the event occured as it did. There are many more examples, and much more rigorous discussion involving greek letters, however that is my essential problem with the basic character of the proceedings here. We can argue about little points all year long, but that is the basic flaw that needs to be rectified.

So, I only ask that people take a breath and look at things as simply, and as scientifically (which means objectively and without bias) as possible. This article on Plasma Cosmology is heavily polluted by adherents of the BB model, which I believe is innapropriate since there is so much political tension between these two camps. It would be easy to take away from this article that PC is in fact 'crackpot' science, when in actuality there are a great number of tremendously respected scientists whom adhere to the model, and whom are engaged in legitimate research in this vein.

Personally, I think that a middle road will be found, and that people will realize at some point that BOTH camps were right about some things, and wrong about others, once all the facts come in. This bickering and marginalization serves noone in science, and certainly not the public.

Knomegnome 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

redshift and plasma

I had to go to the big bang talk to find out what SA has to say about redshift. He does get around, but the results are usually the same. ScienceApologist is wrong that Doppler redshift is an observation. Tommy Mandel 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang"

Observed vs. inferred velocities

[redacted Joke 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)]

The only theory?

[redacted Joke 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang"

OK, so where is he wrong? What Hubble observed was a relationship between distance and redshift. That redshift also meant expansion was not directly observed, instead "C" as the velocity of light, was ADDED to his original equation, which then gave the appearence of Doppler redshift. Hubble did not agree with this "INTERPRETATION" but others took it as a fact. Doppler redshift is at the root an assumption. It is an assumption that so far has not been observationally confirmed. Doppler redshift is an untested hypothesis at best.

It should be noted that scientific results are almost always interpretations.(see subjective/objective) Furthermore, all observations depend on how and what one is looking for. And it is now known that what one looks for one finds. (see wave/particle paradox)

Tommy Mandel 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A better way to direct people to such dialog: Talk:Big Bang#Observed vs. inferred velocities and Talk:Big Bang#The only theory? Art LaPella 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what you just did is Wikilegal. It certainly could be grounds for a lawsuit in the real world. I could argue an obstruction of justice charge. If you would have asked or suggested...as it is you didn't do a smart thing. Tommy Mandel 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reported your legal threat to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as such commentary is explicitly against Wikipedia policy. Please consider removing this statement. --ScienceApologist 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Tommy meant to accuse Joke (I don't think it was me) of an arguable Wikipedia analog of an obstruction of justice charge, not a real world lawsuit or charge. That is, (in Tommy's world) removing the Talk:Big Bang quotes is protecting his enemies from retribution by Wikipedia administrators. It's still off the wall - the dialog is still linked, and he should at least be citing Wikipedia policy before making such an accusation. And he should clarify that he isn't going to sue anybody. Art LaPella 06:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in controversial articles for years and this is the first time I've ever seen somebody use an "analog" to a lawsuit in discussions on the talkpage. I cannot fathom what Tommy hopes to get out of making such statements. In any case, this kind of behavior is extremely disruptive and it's getting more and more difficult to know how to take it. --ScienceApologist 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my general opposition to one's getting upset over baseless legal threats and notwithstanding Art's note that perhaps Tommy was writing apropos of Wikijustice, even as his locution and irrespective of the fact that there are very, very few civil causes of action that stem from "obstruction of justice", I must say that Tommy's comment there is surely the strangest quasi-legal threat ever I have seen here (and, as we all know, there are often some odd ones). Joe 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Having come here from the administrators' noticeboard, I must say that, irrespective of its baselessness, that is surely the strangest quasi-legal threat ever I have seen here. Joe 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Quantized Redshift section

ONE

If you recall, quantized redshift was brought up for mention in all cosmology articles. I have included four references which include the original author, a corroboration paper, a second confirmation and a statistical analysis paper. If I remember correctly, you stated elsewhere on at least two different occasions something to the effect that "quantized redshift has been shown not to exist," citing small number statistic error. Please show me your paper. Here is mine.

A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims

Author: Napier W.M.1

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 285, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9) Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Abstract: Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicities are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artifacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.

If you are unable to find your paper, then we are forced to assume that the above paper is correct. (note; you may be thinking about a paper which didn't show quantization until the motion of the earth was taken into account which by itself says a lot)

I also have three papers which establish, verify and confirm quantized redshift. How would you like to word the notification?

TWO

It has often been stated that Hubble's law proves that the Universe is expanding. However, Hubble did not observe expansion, he observed a relationship between redshift and distance. Velocity entered the picture when "c" was added into his equation. Strictly speaking Doppler effects are assumed.

Hubble's actual position on expansion

::"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953)."

This from THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621 EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953 By Allan Sandage

THREE

And now we can discuss what a quantized redshift means. Does it mean that Hubble was right about his reluctance to assume expansion? And if it is true that Doppler redshift is not an indicator of expansion, then is it also true there is no need for an extrapolated beginning from nothing? Tommy Mandel 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating though this might be, can we discuss it on the Redshift page instead? There's nothing in plasma cosmology at the moment about this phenomenon, real supposed or otherwise. Jon 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, better yet, why not at the redshift quantization page? --ScienceApologist 03:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory --

You cannot just add commentary onto an article without providing justification for the subjects and citations to the more controversial assertions. Redshift quantization is definitely a subject that deserves discussion in Wikipedia, but I don't think this is the page for it. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC) I don't understand your reasoning, one of the major assumptions of the standard theory is that redshift is Doppler induced. This leads to the conjecture of expansion. A quantized redshift is not consistent with a Doppler interpretation which predicts a random distribution, as well as expansion, which would blur the spectral lines. Without expansion there is no need to go back in time for the beginning. And this is one of PC's assumptions - there was no big bang moment. Quantized redshift is observational evidence which supports our assumption. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?

I acknowledge and agree that commentary should be justified and backed up with proper citations. What you are asking is to essentially write a scientific paper, and to top it off, you want it in a couple sentences. OK.

In his paper titled REDSHIFT PERIODICITIES, THE GALAXY-QUASAR CONNECTION, W. G. Tifft discusses his observations of quantized redshift. He write:

"Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613

This was confirmed by M.B. Bell1 and S.P. Comeau1 as reported in their paper "Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is the Great Attractor a Myth?" They write in their abstract: "Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow." Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305112

And Napier W.M A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims

"...that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them." Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)

So what is producing the redshift?

"The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams. You can find papers including references in arxiv.org, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press)."

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.pdf

A Major Cosmic Surprise: New Cosmic Model Predicts Enhanced Brightness of Galaxies, SN, Quasars and GRBs With z > 10 Robert V. Gentry∗ The Orion Foundation, P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912 (Dated: April 1, 2002)

Bahcall [1] has enthused “The Big Bang is bang on” because recent Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) measurements [2] at z = 2.34 match its prediction of 9.1 K. He laments, however, this means he and like-minded colleagues will now miss the excitement of searching for a new cosmic model. His lament is premature. This Letter explores the exciting prospect that the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI), a relatively new cosmic model [3], equally qualifies as being ‘bang on,’ first because it accounts for the 2.73 K CBR locally, plus the more recent measurements at z = 2.34 and z = 3.025 [4]. Secondly, because it provides a new explanation of the enhanced brightness of high-z supernovae [5], and the dipole velocity distribution of radiogalaxies [6]. Thirdly, because it makes brightness predictions for even higher redshift (z > 10) objects that strongly suggest they should be detectable. And fourthly because, in a report that has thus far received scant attention [7], I describe what may be a potentially exciting discovery of evidence showing GPS operation reveals the universe is governed relativistically by Einstein’s static solution of the field equations, with its fixed in-flight photon wavelength (λ) prediction, and not big bang’s Friedmann-Lemaitre (F-L) solution, with its hypothesized in-flight λ variation and cosmological redshifts. Unless this discovery is refuted, then: (i) It follows that cosmological redshifts – upon which all of big bang is hinged – are not genuine physical phenomena and, (ii) an alternative astrophysical framework of the cosmos must exist that incorporates the Einstein static solution with its fixed in-flight λ, along with radically different initial conditions. " Tommy Mandel 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Joshua, now what? How can we perfect this presentation such that it will meet with your approval in all the relevant entries of Wikipedia? Would you like me to summarize all of them? Right now, their own words are doing a good job. Perhaps you would like more? The above are the original sources, I've got plenty of interpretations we could discuss.

Also, I presume that you are a man of integrity, so it goes without saying that you favor the correct theory and disfavor the incorrect theory. Am I correct? So then you must agree that, in principle, quantized redshift (an observation) is infered/implied/predicted by the correct theory, and is not infered/implied/predicted by the incorrect theory. Correct?

Let me try it this way.

William Tifft observed a periodicity or quantization of the cosmological redshift. This was later confirmed by Bell and Comeau, and statistically verified by Napier. Tifft contends that while the standard theory presumes redshift to have a Doppler cause, a quantized redshift would seem to rule this interpretation out. Do you agree that this accurately reflects the literature? Now, let's go to the subsequent implications...

Without a Doppler redshift, no basis for expansion exists. Without expansion, the big bang is not a plausible explanation for the evolution of the Universe. This leaves, as alternate theories, the non-standard cosmologies as the only acceptable theory. Certainly, Joshua, these conclusions which nullify the standard theory, and justify the non-standard theories, one of which is Plasma Cosmology, must be, in order to preserve neutrality, inserted in all the appropriate places. So let us continue with your criticisms...Tommy Mandel 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy to plasma cosmology still not explained. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmology conforms to every observed phenomenon except one. It does not account for the Hubble redshift, the very phenomenon (and the only one) that led to the development of the Big Bang. Dr. Lerner gives several theories that attempt to explain the Hubble shift in terms of the plasma universe, but none are firmly rooted in observed fact, like plasma theory itself. Fortunately, it does not matter. In architectural terms, the Big Bang is an incorrect structure. A broad, complex theory rests on an extremely narrow foundation, in fact, just one brick (the Hubble shift). The plasma universe, meanwhile, rests on an extremely broad foundation of observation. It does not require the creation of any new, exotic building materials, just the reliable concrete and steel of ordinary physics. If the "Hubble brick" is not added for a while, the building will not collapse. On the other hand, a light gust of solar wind (made of plasma, naturally) has brought the Big Bang building crashing to the ground. "

From http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbang3.html

Is this better?

Plasma cosmology is widely considered to be an non-standard cosmological theory. The standard theory uses the Doppler interpretation of Redshift to support it's main premise, that the universe expanded from a point beginning. Plasma cosmology does not study such a beginning because it assumes that expansion did not take place. Quantized redshift in the standard theory is an anomaly. Expansion and quantization cannot both be true, they are inconsistent with eachother. As such, quantized redshift constitutes a falsification of expansion and by imnplication, a falsification of the big bang theory itself. If the standard theory is falsified, it is not a valid scientific theory, leaving, as the only possible theory, plasma cosmology. When plasma cosmology becomes the new standard theory,it will be because quantized redshift was observed.

That is how quantized redshift is relevant to plasma cosmology. Not only relevant, it will make it happen. Like it or not SA. Tommy Mandel 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, "quantized redshift (an observation)" is wrong because the sentence refers to ScienceApologist's opinion, and he believes quantized redshift studies are mistaken. Art LaPella 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Very insightful of you Art. Tommy Mandel 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, show me your paper.

Tommy Mandel 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is a forum to discuss improvements to the article. The article is about plasma cosmology. If there are prominent plasma cosmologists (whatever you want to call them), who believe that quantized redshifts are relevant to plasma cosmology, then they should be cited. (As I mentioned before, I think the ideas are contradictory.) If there are not, then this is not the proper place for any of this thread, and it should be stopped. --Art Carlson 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiReason forum

Here's something I've just stumbled upon - WikiReason.net, which seems to be set up for staging debates. Perhaps this may be of some use, to cut down the volume of traffic on this talk page. What do we think? Jon 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the result would likely change their name from "WikiReason" to "The Tommy Site". Art LaPella 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

FOR EXAMPLE

If one were to take what is written about plasma cosmology literally, then one is led to the conclusion that plasma cosmology has been discredited by most cosmologists. This is a rather serious assertion, can it get more serious than this?

When actually what is happening is that most cosmologists are not familair with Plasma electronics, so it is more accurate to say that plasma cosmology is unknown by most cosmologists, I can say this because plasma is not a theory to be someday accepted or rejected. Plasma is a fact of life and the only wuestion is how much of the fact of life is plasma?

Here's how the American Physical Society wrote it

Rationale and Background It has been recognized for the last four decades that the physics of plasmas plays a crucial role in several astrophysical phenomena. Among the ranks of astrophysicists, one can identify several outstanding plasma astrophysicists who through the years have incorporated fundamental plasma physics concepts in the elucidation of astrophysical observations. It is fair to assert, however, that the plasma astrophysicists have been a fairly small and select group in the much larger milieu of astrophysicists. Astrophysics being the vast subject it is, including as it does astronomers, atomic and molecular physicists, cosmologists, high-energy physicists, hydrodynamicists, nonlinear dynamicists and relativists, the recognition that an understanding of the physics of magnetized plasmas is not only invaluable but may be essential in some cases for a proper explanation of observations has been relatively slow. In the meantime, the field of plasma physics, with strong impetus from fusion, laboratory and space plasma science has grown to significant maturity. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that this mature body of knowledge is likely to have a significant impact in the eventual resolution of some of the outstanding questions in astrophysics. We cite a few examples: the origin and dynamics of magnetic fields is astrophysical systems ("the dynamo problem"), the mysteries of x-ray emitting coronas and the role of magnetic reconnection, the acceleration of charged particles and cosmic rays, the ejection of winds and jets from highly-evolved stars with convecting outer layers and supernova remnants, and the turbulence of the magnetized plasma in the interstellar medium and the solar wind." http://www.aps.org/units/gpap/index.cfm Tommy Mandel 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, notice the rest of us don't copy such long quotes, especially when a link would accomplish almost the same thing. Like this: Here's how the American Physical Society wrote it.] Art LaPella 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have made my intent clear. It was written by your group of big bang advocates, I'm sure to help us with our task, that

"Plasma cosmology has been widely discredited by most cosmologists."

The excerpt above, by the American Physical Society, states quite a different view if you took time to read it. (It is not merely FYI stuff, it is supporting evidence and Wikipolicy is to have that available.

So one of the two viewpoints presented, that "plasma cosmology has been widely discredited" and "plasma astrophysics, grown to significant maturity, is widely unknown" is wrong. Do you have an authoritative source stating that plasma cosmology has been "discredited".

Keep in mind that discredited is a very strong word and means a lot more than "not accepted" In effect you are saying that there is scientific evidence that plasma cosmology is not credible, according to Wikipolicy, you must back that up. So where is your paper?

ScienceApologist, and where is your paper backing up your stated claim that quantized redshift has been refuted?

Don't forget that willful misrepresentation of evidence is not Wikilegal. I am not sure what the cabel says about admin editing of evidence without verification, I know that I can't do that and get away with it. So I think it is time for you to move fast, and correct the error immediately or verify that it is not an error.

But if you cleverly change the subject again, we will continue this discussion about Wikikegal activities.

So, SA, back to your reply to my discussion about quantized redshift. You say that it should not be discussed here. You say it should be discussed at intrinsic redshift. But I did edit that page, and you reverted it. So let's just stay right here until we both come up with a mutually agreeable explanation of state-of-the-art redshift. Why? Because if the non-standard explanation of reshift is true, then plama cosmology is the only game in town. And that deserves a mention at least doncha think?

Unless a citation from a plasma cosmologist is found, claiming that quantized redshift is an important aspect of plasma cosmology, any discussion of quantized redshift here is out of place. That's the rule, and it makes sense. --Art Carlson 06:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0406437 From: Ari Brynjolfsson [view email] Date (v1): Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:25:53 GMT (61kb) Date (revised v2): Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:36:39 GMT (61kb)

Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia Authors: Ari Brynjolfsson Comments: 7 pages, 1 figure

The measurements of the absolute magnitudes and redshifts of supernovas Ia show that conventional physics, which includes plasma redshift, fully explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation of the supernovas. The only parameter that is required is the Hubble constant, which in principle can be measured independently. The contemporary theory of the expansion of the universe (Big Bang) requires in addition to the Hubble constant several adjustable parameters, such as an initial explosion, the dark matter parameter, and a time adjustable dark energy parameter for explaining the supernova Ia data. The contemporary Big Bang theory also requires time dilation of distant events as an inherent premise. The contention is usually that the light curves of distant supernovas show or even prove the time dilation. In the present article, we challenge this assertion. We document and show that the previously reported data in fact indicate that there is no time dilation. The data reported by Riess et al. in the Astrophysical Journal in June 2004 confirm the plasma redshift, the absence of time dilation, dark matter, and dark energy. Tommy Mandel 07:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly like I said. Not a word about quantized redshift. Let's get back on topic. --Art Carlson 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0404207 From: Jerry W. Jensen [view email] Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 16:11:40 GMT (1144kb)

Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus Authors: Jerry W. Jensen Comments: 34 Pages, 21 figures. To be presented at the APS April Conference, May 4, 2004 Alternative Redshift Session, Denver CO

Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing. This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time dilation in the light curves of supernova. A non-relativistic distance modulus is proposed, which is based on the predictable attenuation of light by an intergalactic CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on Incoherent Light) radiation transfer functions.

AND

Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0401529 From: Jacques Moret-Bailly [view email] Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:49:42 GMT (10kb)

Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma Authors: Jerry Jensen, Jacques Moret-Bailly Comments: 10 pages

Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without any blurring of the images or altering the order of the spectra. CREIL operates in gases having quadrupolar resonances in the megaherz range, and it is easily confused with Doppler effects. When CREIL is taken into account, the propagation of light in cosmic low pressure gases involves a complex combination of absorptions and frequency shifts. Current star theory predicts very bright accreting neutron stars. These should be small, very hot objects surrounded by dirty atomic hydrogen. CREIL predicts spectra for these stars that have exactly the characteristics found in the spectra of the quasars. The intrinsic redshifting in the extended photosphere of Quasars as defined by CREIL events drastically reduces both the size and distance to quasars, and clearly identifies the missing neutron stars as quasar-like objects. A full interpretation of quasar spectra does not require jets, dark matter, a variation of the fine structure constant, or an early synthesis of iron. CREIL is useful in explaining other astrophysical problems, such as redshifting proportional to the path of light through the corona of the Sun. CREIL radiation transfers may explain the blueshifting of radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11. Tommy Mandel 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to take me for a ride? Again, no mention of quantized redshift. I've had enough. Let's get back to work! --Art Carlson 12:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, stop kicking up dust.

Art Carlson (who, as best I know, works in plasma astrophysics), Ian Tresman, Science Apologist, Jon, Eric Lerner and I all agree that conventional astrophysics thinks plasma is important for some effects but not others. The others include the cosmological formation of large scale structure. In plasma cosmology, large scale structure is formed, at least in part, by plasma processes. In conventional cosmology, it is not. There is no contradiction here, except in your mind. You can say that plasma is responsible for A and not B and still make perfect sense, even if some people will disagree with you.
I don't know where this quantized redshifts tangent comes from, but above you quote some papers about the periodicity of the redshift distribution of clusters and galaxy number counts. We discussed these in the archives (search for Einasto). These results indicate a peak in the power spectrum, not any kind of "quantization". A peak in the power spectrum is, actually, in stark contradiction to plasma cosmology's prediction that the power spectrum is a pure fractal up to the largest scales, and thus has nothing to do with plasma cosmology. It is only in your mind that plasma cosmology has anything to do with quantized redshifts.
Likewise, you seem to be the only one who thinks the other editors on this page don't have a good idea what plasma is, even if we may have quibbles over wording. Nobody thinks plasma is current, we all think it is a phase of matter composed, at least in part, of free electrons and ions, because that is what it is.

I am having an increasing amount of trouble attributing your failure to change tack and actually listen to anything more than intransigence. If you continue to spam the talk page in this unproductive way, it may be necessary to lodge an RFC or take other action because you seem to be exhausting the patience of the other editors. –Joke 15:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur Jon 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur Art LaPella 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PLASMA HISTORY 11

There are little secrets in Plasma physics too, that don't pop out until the whole picture comes into view. So let's begin with background. This is important because we want to get it right. And a lot has been said about the credibility of Plasma science. I have copied over, fair use, an excerpt from a plasma cosmology site, authoritative enough for our discussion, which I feel tells the real story from an insiders point of view.

This is what they say. Really.

And when you have separated charges, and you have a circuit, you have current flows, it is these current flows, I think so far, that sets plasma apart from gases.

So it is not correct to say that most mainstream cosmologists do not accept plasma cosmology, it most certainly cannot be said that most mainstream cosmologist find plasma cosmologynot not credible, most mainstream cosmologists, and even some plasma cosmologists, are not cognizant of all the Plasma effects. (And to the plasma cosmologist I specifically am referring to the electrical currents overlooked in the standard plasma concept.) (or so they say).

Incidently, if plasma is regarded as above, as separated charges, then we have all the necessary elements of the system where emergent properties give rise to new wholes which in turn have properies not found in the parts.

And when plasma is taken as a system, what is of interest are the interactions of the process. It is these interactions of the plasma that create redshift, well known in spectroscopy as the CREIL effect.

The observation of redshift is not in question. How does Plasma account for redshift is certainly a fair question. That redshift is not reporting a Doppler effect is an assumption of plasma cosmology.

Therefore, quantized redshift, also an observation, is proof that redshift is not Doppler. It is the proof of the assumption of Plasma cosmology and certainly qualifies for inclusion. Tommy Mandel 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please please please please stop pasting vast amounts of text into this talk page when a simple link would do, and just summarise (in your own words) the argument. From this, I can't tell which bits are you waffling and which bits are from the article. Jon 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me summarize as best I can.

Plasma Cosmology is considered a non-standard cosmological theory. The standard theory of cosmology is the highly regarded big bang theory. These two theories are the primary contenders for the scientific explanation of the cosmology, which most cosmologists consider the big bang the theory f choice. The big bang theory is the model of an expanding Universe, Reversing the expansion leads to a point beginning - the moment of the big bang, and the creation of all matter.

Plasma cosmology is a model of an ongoing Universe, with matter being created on the fly. Some cosmologists contend that matter is flowing outward from stars and galaxies. This is direct constrast with the standard theory which has matter flowing inward.

No, it isn't. Despite much fuss to the contrary, plasma cosmology is not some catch-all crazy-magnet for anyone dissatisfied with the Big Bang. Jon 15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A primary support for the expanding big bang theory is the Doppler redshift of starlight. That is, the spectral redshift is measuring a relationship between velocity and distance. From that relationship it is inferred that the Universe is expanding outward. And the farther out the faster it goes. However, this measurement of Doppler efects is an assumption, gained by adding "c" the speed of light to Hubble's equation, The assumption is based on the second assumption that the observed redshift was not caused by any other effects.

The big bang theory has the Universe expanding. Plasma cosmology does not have the Universe expanding. The big bang theory contends that the observed redshift is a Doppler shift, which then is evidence of ecpansion. Plasma cosmology contends that the observed redshift in an intrinsic product and therefore is not indicative of velocity. Plasma cosmology does not assume that redshift is Doppler related, and subsequently has no reason to assume expansion.

The question then becomes the first question asked by Hubble himself, and asked in principle by almost all cosmologists since, is there a cause for redshift other than Doppler? And why would there be a different cause for redshift?

It is expected by the standard theory that the spectral lines would follow a smooth random path along the lines of the velocity/ distance relationship being looked at. Astronomical observations however show that the spectral lines are quantized, they appear periodically rather than smoothly. Some have suggested that quantization of the redshift is not consistent with expansion.

What has plasma cosmology got to do with quantized redshift? Obviously plasma cosmology has to account for the observations and we do in fact observe a redhift. Plasma cosmology accounts for this redshift as the effects of interacting plasma. Tommy Mandel 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

While the intrinsic redshift thing is intriguing, it (so far) isn't mentioned anywhere in the small amount of plasma cosmology literature, let alone the rest of astrophysics.

I'm afraid you are right at least about not being found in plasma cosmology literature, what's intrguing to me is how come? I can understand why a big bang theorist might choose to ignore it, but why is it being kept secret by the non-standard group? I don't think it is because it has been refuted, several papers have been written confirming quantization. And Van Flandern points out that if it were refuted, the papers would be published right away, and the authors would be famous.

Where it is mentioned (usually by Arp, Burbidge, Bell et al) it is in a Steady-State (QSSM, Narlikar variable-mass, Hoyle etc.) context, which (as far as I am aware) is a distinct model from plasma cosmology.

Here's where I break ranks with the rest. I don't believe that any single one of the non-standard theories has the whole picture, It is clear to me anyhow, that each of them has something right about them, and also has something wrong about them. Scientists in all domains seem to suffer from this "misplaced generality" syndrome. Just because plasma is a fact of life soes not mean that EVERYTHING has to be explained in terms of Plasma. The same goes for gravity, also a fact of life, but how much can really be explained by gravity? So I wonder exactly what is this thing called Plasma Cosmology? Plasma is a fact of life as much as the air we breathe. But what does plasma cosmology mean? Does it mean that it is that aspect of cosmology which is responsible for explaining what plasma does? Does it mean that plasma cosmology does not explain gravity?

Without an authoritative cite or reference (usually a peer-reviewed journal paper, or some other published work) that specifically deals with the quantised redshift phenomenon in a plasma cosmology context, we can't really include it in this article.

I guess you are right about that.

It can certainly go in the non-standard cosmology article somewhere, and I seem to recall writing about it there back in the stone age.

That's where I started out at. But my edit was reverted. That was my introduction to Wikiediting.

I think Eric Lerner does deal with a quasar model involving a plasma pinch effect, but I can't recall whether that deals with intrinsic redshifts. Jon 15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, plasma ought to be in any theory. It certainly is part of the theory of the Sun, which is referred to as a plasma star. Could it be that regardless of which cosmological theory wins out in the end, the theory of Sun-plasma will not be affected? I like to think of all this stuff in a generic sense. I even tried to create a generic cosmology page but they told me to get a life. Well, betcha that in the end gravity and EMF and plasma theories will be unified.

Having put it the way you put it, I can only agree with you. It will be interesting to see how quantized redshift plays out.

I would like to make note of a misconception about plasma. Plasma is not a theory, it is something that is observed. So it is not a question of being accepted, or not, by others, The statement "is not widely supported by cosmologists" has nothing to do with plasma's validity. A more accurate statement would be something like "is not widely known by cosmologists." Notice the subtle difference in meaning...The onus is not on plasma science to prove itself, but on others to learn and understand plasma science.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is plasma cosmology, not plasma, that "is not widely supported by cosmologists." Plasma physics is used widely and even routinely throughout astrophysics.

I was trying to make the same point but from a different direction. I don't think we can assume the reader will know that plasma is a given, and plasma cosmology is the conjecture. Plasma is not questionable. We should state that plasma is an observation, plasma cosmology is an interpretation, or something like that.

Plasma cosmology however is a distinct cosmology model, that is still under development and in places incomplete, that uses plasma physics as its starting assumptions, and emphasises the scalability of laboratory plasma phenomena to the largest observable scales.

I'd like to come back to this statement you make. You point out that plasma cosmology is a model. Of course, that describes plasma cosmology perfectly. A model. Then you mention that it is "still under development" I like this a whole lot better than "has been discredited". You recognize that there is more to learn as opposed to what has been learned is not good enough. Very accurate picture. I don't agree with the nomenclature you use to bring in plasma phsyics. "as its starting assumptions"...Basis is more like it.

"Plasma cosmology however is a distinct cosmology model, that is still under development and in places incomplete. Plasma cosmology uses plasma physics as the basis for its assumptions. made possible by the scalability of laboratory plasma phenomena to the largest observable scales.

I think that should be in the article.

Tommy Mandel 04:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to say that plasma cosmology "derives" its starting assumptions from (the observations of)plasma physics? Nice explanation.

This is where PC diverges from Big Bang cosmology - the assumptions, where they lead, and the resulting predictions and explanatory power.

Nice again! So, the most important assumption for the big bang is the Hubble redshift. Taken as a Doppler redshift Plasma cosmology does not assume A Doppler redshift, attributing it to some intrinsic property. With no Doppler redshift, then no expansion, no inflation, no black this and that, yes, well, a whole lot that plasma cosmology does not have to explain.

PC is not just a collection of bits of cosmology that involve plasma physics. Jon 03:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It is, like you say, "developing" so it lacks that development as a theory. As a science it is well developed but relatively unknown. The article should tell about this I would think. Rather than twisting it around to sound like PC is "largely known to be undeveloped." Tommy Mandel 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go Jon, you and I came up with a good edit but as soon as I put it in plece, the big bang guys reverted. Didn't edit it, didn't discuss it, simply reverted it. It apparently doesn't work when it is done their way. Why would they do that? Don't they realize that their adminship is on the line? Personally, I think they are scared. Scared because what we are talking about, you and I, amounts to a falsification of the big bang theory. Quantized redshift, CREIL effect, are observations not consistent with expansion, regardless which field of cosmology lays claim to having discovered them. CREIL comes from spectroscopics. Quantized redshift is an astronomical observation, It may be that science can be twisted around in Wikipedia by invoking NPOV, but science itself does not read Wikipedia, nor will the Universe, in the end, play according to Wikirules. I don't blame them for being scared, but that does not give them the right to manipulate the knowledge to tell the story their way at the same time claiming that they are being NPOV. Tommy Mandel 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the communication Wikipedia expects has broken down, although we have tired of re-explaining why. Art LaPella 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please not rant and rave about the impending collapse of civilisation? Cheers Jon 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Tommysun's contributions are not relevant to this page. I suggest we remove them so that discussions about editting the article can continue. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting - the precedent is scary and could easily be used against yourself, but the status quo isn't getting anything done either. Quote from Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: "Refactoring of talk pages on Wikipedia is important. New editors to a page need to be aware of past controversies without having to read 50,000 words beforehand, which for some pages (Talk:Mother Teresa, for example) is how much of the talk archives have accumulated." Also see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Remove off-topic comments. Art LaPella 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While I sympathise, I think that's (as usual) too heavy-handed. Jon 08:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate proposal? --Art Carlson 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving people a lot of slack on the talk pages, but Tommy has used up all of his. In his latest post, he copied 400 words where he could have used a single link. The consequence he drew for the editing of the article (the only justification for posting anything on a talk page), namely that quantized redshift should be mentioned, does not follow from this quote any more than from the previous ones. In fact, quantized redshifts are not mentioned anywhere on the www.plasmacosmology.net site. I share the other Art's reluctance to remove contributions from talk pages, but the Wiki policies he cites give us ample justification in this case. If someone wants to take the trouble to clean up past contributions or to create an extra page for collecting Tommy's drivel, more power to him. I will personally remove any posts of his in the future which are not (1) germane to the editing of the article, (2) half-way coherent and logical, and (3) reasonably terse. --Art Carlson 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hubble's opinion

What is the point of including in the article Hubble's opinion of the origin of the Hubble relation? An interesting bit of historical color? Argument from authority? Considering the progress in observational and theoretical cosmology in the last 70 years, it can hardly be considered relevant for the scientific argument, particularly since his objections appear to be philosophical, not observational, i.e. he just didn't like the idea of a finite-age universe. --Art Carlson 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it has been stated in many places that "Hubble proved the Universe is expanding" when in fact Hubble did not believe that. And what you call historical color is also called prior research. And what you call argument from authority is called verifiable research. And he did not base his opinion on philosophical grounds. So all your arguments are misleading and baseless and very suspicious as to motives Tommy Mandel 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, and would not object to its removal based on that argument. --Iantresman 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To start, Doppler redshift is not an observation, it is an assumption.Hubbles did not agree with the standard assumption. Second, many cosmologists do not agree with the standard view that the redshift indicates expansion. While early attempts to account for the redshift were fruitless, recent research such as the CREIL effect can account for redshift. Thirdly, mentioned or not by other cosmologists, Tift's findings are observations that are not consistent with expansion. Therefore, it is likely that redshift does not have a significant Doppler component. If this turns out to be the case, then Hubble's thinking is on the mark and thus revevant to the upcoming change in thinking. Expecially when it is being claimed by many that "Hubble proved expansion." Lastly, if you read Sandage's account, philodophy does not enter into it. Tommy Mandel 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with Plasma cosmology. Revert. --ScienceApologist 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain about that, Joshua? There is an established body of knowledge which is essentially saying that the redshift is not caused by the assumed Doppler effect. Of course, as a big bang supporter, you realize that if this is true, then the big bang theory is no longer a viable theory. And then Plasma cosmology would rise to the occasion and become the theory of choice. Recall that Doppler redshift was not observed, it was added to Hubble's original equation by including "c" the velocity of light. This is what Hubble couldn't agree with, that by doing so a relationship between distence and expansion was established.

I would also like to remind you, that intrinsic redshift is indeed a property of plasma. Essentially the evidence is indicating that the redshift is caused by interaction with plasma, although most cosmologists prefer to use the generic term "matter." Certainly you are aware that when matter is heated, by the center of a galaxy for instance, it becomes ionized, i.e., plasma?

At any rate, Hubble's opinions belong to "prior research" which all of science is committed to. Tommy Mandel 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add, that in the real world, it is being stated over and over that "Hubble proved" the universe is expanding. This belief that Hubble "proved" expansion is not true. The relationship was assumed, not observed. As evidence, I submitted Hubbles true beliefs, which you then discarded. One would expect an encyclopedia to be informative about such situations. However, a serious researcher probably would not depend on Wikiinfo, nevertheless, students find it convenient, and there will be a price to pay if this encyclppedia promotes a theory which in the future will be shown to be false. I am not sure of the legal implications. Much depends on "intent to deceive" as well as the actual act of deception. The promotion of a theory which in the end is false, is indeed deceptive to start with. If it was purposely done, then the intent to deceive is also present. It is possible then, for Wikipedia to be sued by some party who can show she or he was injured by the deception. And in the case of the big bang theory, there are plenty of those.

Tommy Mandel 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If that isn't a legal threat, it's dancing on the edge. Art LaPella 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that if Wikipedia knowingly publishes false information and thus can be sued by those who are injured by that false information, even if Wikipedia is a third party, is not a threat, it is a warning. I would, if I were you, be very careful

Tommy Mandel 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a legal threat. You were warned before. I have notified the administrator who blocked you before for such behavior and we'll see what he says. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also spurious one, and a complete waste of everyone's time.

While you had me blocked for warning you, a campaign manager resigned because he edited the opponents Wikipage. Tommy Mandel 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot of this page with great interest. It's amazing, really, that such a subject could be so emotive. You'd think it was politics or religion. To introduce myself, I'm just a humble physics student at Cardiff University, Wales. I have no opinion as to which is correct, or more correct, big bang cosmology or plasma cosmology. Having read up on the subject a little, however, it seems to me that both have problems. I don't know whether any of you have heard of Prof. Mike Disney, of Cardiff University. He gave a seminar recently, that I attended, called "Cosmoslogy in Crisis". I don't remember all of what was said, and some of it I didn't understand, not yet being very advanced in astro. However, one aspect of cosmology that he addressed could be called the "free parameter problem" (my words not his). It regards the fact that, for most scientific theories, the method by which the theory is verified as good and useful involves accumulating significant observations until they far outnumber the free parameters used in the theory. Otherwise, you can just play around with the free parameters, or invent new ones, so that the theory isn't excluded by the observations. What was asserted is that new free parameters had been introduced to the cosmological model apace with actual observation, such that the "balance" of significant observations to free parameters has barely changed since modern mainstream cosmology's inception. In other words, whenever an observation has created problems for the theory, ad hoc modifications have been made to preserve the fundamentals of the theory. I understand this as referring, amongst other things, to entities such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation theory (and of course its attendent unobserved "inflaton"). It could be asserted, I gathered, that any other branch of physics trying to pull the same stunt would be laughed out of town. As I say, I have a fairly neutral standpoint on this, partially because I don't have quite the emotional attachment to the issue that I have observed in some. I would however, be interested to see what the fiesty individuals frequenting this page make of this "free parameter" issue, because I think it's an interesting philosophical point. Thank you. --Kimonokraken 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several issues here. First there is the description of a minority subject such as this one, where one of the editors has admitted that they consider it "junk" science, or "pseudoscience", and even want to see non-mainstream views removed from articles. You can imagine that when other editors just want to describe a theory, in a neutral manner, just about every statement is challenged. You'll notice that as a result, this article has four times as many references as the article on the Big Bang

I've not heard it described as the "free parameters" issue, but assume that this refers to the theories based on various assumptions that are subsequently used to support other assumptions. If your very first assumption turns out to be false, then the entire body of theory could collapse. The best example of this is Hubble's Law (or should that be Hubble's theory or Hubble's hypothesis?), that redshift = distance. The only thing that everyone is agreed upon is that there is a Doppler redshift (since it is something that can be readily demonstrated in radar guns, etc); so what is the excess redshift? Cosmological? Intrinsic? You won't find any article in Wikipedia explaining why the cosmological redshift is considered over "intrinsic redshift", and indeed, there is a massave argument on whether the phrase "intrinsic redshift" should be merely mentioned in the Redshift article that has resulted in Mediation.

There are many more examples. For example, plasma cosmologists have a theory that may explain the Galaxy rotation problem, but if you read the page, you'd never know that the theory exists, because one editor has decided on its merits on your behalf, and removed it.

Just a note to say that I am not claiming that any of these minority theories are true, or even have merit. Only that they exist, have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and are consequently notable. I'm not trying to represent my own theories, theories that not peer-reviewed, nor theories for which there is just one paper.

--Iantresman 09:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a professional scientist either, but I'll try to address the question Kimonokraken actually asked. It is well known that even my wife's tantrums can be precisely "modeled" with 6 parameters if they only have to match 6 observations. So I presume mainstream cosmologists have at least 7 observations to confirm their 6 parameter model, and that any sloppy error margins have been considered. To my knowledge, none of the mainstream cosmologists have listed those 7+ observations for us on Wikipedia. Art LaPella 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The observations are generally considered to be the moments of the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Each one of these represents a different spherical harmonic mode which is independent of the others. Up to now observations are "good" up to 1000 or so observations of these moments (that is, well-determined) using the WMAP probe. Tie this in with the measurements of big bang nucleosynthesis (which include light-nuclei of half-a-dozen or so elements), the correlation functions from the large-scale structure of the universe (either using dark matter or light matter survey by means of weak/strong lensing, galaxy counts, peculiar velocity traces from Hubble diagrams), a measurement of the Hubble parameter and the deceleration parameter from supernovae 1a light curves, and you more than enough observations. You can even adjust the paramters yourself at Max Tegmark's page. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The anisoptropy moments aren't really 1000 independent observations, that's a bit of a stretch. Besides which we still have the persisitent weirdness in the low harmonics, and the entire WMAP thing is completely dependent on a whole bunch of interconnected assumptions (eg. the foreground cleaning algorithms). The nucleosynthesis numbers don't actually fit all that well (particularly 7Li and D) and we have to postulate dark matter and inflation first, before the numbers make any sense, which is arse-about-face (Ian's original point). However, for some observations (such as the redshift-brightness) we only have the prevalent model to go by. This doesn't mean it is right, only that it is prevalent. Just because we don't have a better explanation for something, does not mean that the prevalent explanation is correct or unassailable. There is also no solid coherent explanation (yet?) for Arp's various quasar observations (the real and statistically valid ones at least).

The fervent gesticulating and constant pissing-contests that occur on this page have much more to do with intellectual fundamentalism and self-righteousness than science. Those who question and prod the Big Bang model are seen by some of its enthusiasts as various shades of rabid nutcases. Whilst this is sometimes true, there are others who are trying to seriously investigate alternative explanations in a scientific manner (falsifiable repeatable experiment, and so on).

If both sides can recognise that their side has large gaps in knowledge and even some flaws, we'd be better able to conduct some science. Otherwise, it's priests arguing about dogma. Geologists don't throw out evolution just because there's a whole bunch of missing fossils, and astronomers shouldn't throw out models (LCDM or Plasma cosmology) just because they don't fully explain everything, because the truth is, neither can do that, despite what proponents may think. Jon 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the moments are not independent is to belie mathematics. WMAP's foreground subtraction can be done, but doesn't have to be done to obtain the same measurements -- you can just look at the galactic poles and you get the same measurements with slightly larger error-bars. More than this, claiming that BBN models don't fit because of D and 7Li is missing the point of how BBN fitting works. You have to fit all light nuclei observations simultaneously. There are some light nuclei that are more abundant and thus they are stronger parameter fits than others. No one is saying that the Big Bang explains everything, only that it doesn't suffer from the same shortcomings as alternative models and that there is a great deal of independent consistency (e.g. If dark matter didn't exist, the anisotropies in the CMB would not be explainable. If dark energy didn't exist, likewise. Though these two claimed "ad hoc" phenomena were discovered in different settings, there is a level of consistency that exists across cosmological tests -- something not seen in any other cosmological model.) In short, most people who criticize Big Bang observations really haven't spent very much time researching them. Jon is a good example of such a person. He generally parrots ideas he's come across without doing the legwork to really find out what is going on. --ScienceApologist 12:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I understand how BBN works and how WMAP fits are made, but we come to different conclusions because our assumptions are different, not our understanding of the process involved. Jon 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a pathological skeptic of the Big Bang explain why he or she disagrees with the assumptions that are made. These assumptions, in fact, are being tested even now. --ScienceApologist 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The assumptions of the big bang have been such that they don't work without invisible "untestable" inventions. And I would think that a belief in invisible unseen stuff is pathological. Tommy Mandel 13:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations... may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be." - Roger Cotes (17th cent.) Jon 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The point really is that the anti-Big-Bang crowd are not visionary mavericks being unfairly undermined by a narrow-minded scientific establishment; they are just crackpots. The difference can be quite subtle and even subjective, but in this case it's pretty clear." - Sean Carroll (last year) ScienceApologist 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Inquisition just exectued people with heretical views, so I guess that name-calling is an improvement, though I can't help but notice the analogy with those who call African Americans, gays, Jews and Communists with perjorative names. Let's hope that the number of people who engage in "scientific" name calling are a smaller minority than the scientists they jibe. --Iantresman 09:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Crackpot is a rather tame descriptor, actually, considering the intellectual company the "anti-bangers" keep: "And yes, young people who disbelieve in the Big Bang are unlikely to get invited to speak at major conferences, or get permanent jobs at research universities. Likewise astrophysicists who believe in astrology, or medical doctors who use leeches to fight cancer. Just because scientific claims are never proven with metaphysical certainty doesn't mean we can't ever reach a conclusion and move on." - Sean Carroll (last year). --ScienceApologist 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to jest and jump to conclusions, but leeches are used in medicine [20] [21], and seem to have been approved by the FDA, and used to fight cancer. --Iantresman 12:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Leeches don't fight cancer. They're just bloodsuckers. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you are quite correct, they don't fight cancer, but are used after the treatment of cancer. --Iantresman 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah, another pointless argument that achieves nothing. How is pathological skepticism any different from pathological indoctrination or pathological credulity? Seems it's the pathology, and it's everywhere. Jon 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that. The previous paragraph has more detail than I found at Lambda-CDM model. Should something like the paragraph be edited into that article? Art LaPella 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, and here I stress once more that I'm not advocating one cosmology or another, that simply deleting chunks of what plasma cosmology actually professes to be from this article, simply because you don't agree with plasma cosmology, is somewhat pointless, and wrong. After all, the article is about the history and details of plasma cosmology, not about whether plasma cosmology is correct or incorrect. As in "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (I'm paraphrasing I suspect). Deletion is not the same as disagreement. It's like an advocate of intelligent design going to a page on evolution and chopping out chunks of the page. I'm in no way equating big bang cosmologists with intelligent design advocates, by the way, but the act is just as wrong.--Kimonokraken 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating either cosmology either, but what plasma cosmology advocates call censorship is what Big Bang advocates call weeding out extreme fringe viewpoints according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight policy. Neither side is very interested in quantifying how big a fringe viewpoint has to be to be described. Art LaPella 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what "observations" are you talking about SA? Redshift is observed, Doppler redshift is assumed. Expansion has not been observed, it is assumed based on the Doppler redshift assumption. A beginning point is not observed, it is assumed based on the assumed expansion extrapolated backwards. Inflation is not observed, it is based on the assumption of a point beginning which, incidently was falsified. That radiation cooled is not an observation, it too is an assumption. That matter is collected by galaxies and stars has not been observed, what is observed is the opposite, an outflow of matter. Black holes have not been observed, they were postulated to account for the outflowing matter. So tell us exactly what is being observed?

Tommy Mandel 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is really getting off-topic. If you would like to continue, please bring it at least to userpages. Thank you. --ScienceApologist 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, wasn't it you who wrote about pathological crackpots? Isn't it you who believes in stuff from nothing expanding to a Universe faster than light, and stopping just as fast? Wasn't it you who wrote above about "observations"? Answer my questions, SA, exactly what observation proves that redshift is Doppler related? What we actually observe is that redshift (cosmological) is not Doppler related.

Tommy Mandel 13:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tommy, that your education is lacking and your understanding is limited, but Wikipedia Talkpages are not places for you to engage in this kind of yammering. You can ask a question elsewhere. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't take much education to figure out that something doesn't come from nothing, especially a whole Universe. I wonder why you think that attacking the person gets you somewhere? I know fully well how educated I am and what I understand and what I don't understand, and your insults about me and many others is more telling about you than it is about your victims, or don't you understand that? Personally, I think you are desparate, like a possum trapped in a corner.

Well, let's see, I was editor of Today's News Today (TNT) my first two years of college, worked my way up to editor in chief my last year at a university, self published two journals, have three or four papers in the ISSS proceedings, and have an article "Operating Principlle of the Universe" in press at a refereed journal. I was the founding webmaster for seven years of an international systems society, and am webmaster of two other sites. What have you done original SA?

Tommy Mandel 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also invented a new "notation" which Lou Kauffman at UIC says well let me quote him: "I would not now (I know I said something like this earlier) say that tectronic notation extends Spencer-Brown or generalizes Frege. It is actually related to these articulations of conncetivity, logic and distinction just as it is to graph theory. It is better to say that tectronic notation lends insight into these subjects and that these subjects lend understanding to tectronic notation."

Tommy Mandel 16:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that Plasma cosmology is not a fringe viewpoint

I have blanked this section. This is ordinairily a Bad Move in Wikipedia. I think it is clearly justified in this case because:

There is no relevance to the editing of the article. The article does no currently describe plasma cosmology as a "fringe viewpoint", and there is no suggestion of how the article can be improved.
The contributions are inappropriately long. In particular, citations are included where links would suffice. This makes it hard for the rest of us to carry on a focussed and efficient discussion.
The contributor (Tommy Mandel) has a history of plastering the Talk Page with irrelevant, illogical and interminable comments. (See above, here and here.)

--Art Carlson 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"The key to misleading people about a given belief is to control the flow of observational data that is relevant to that belief. To promote a given belief, screen out any observational data that contradicts that belief, and, at the same time, present only observational data that supports that belief. If the belief is false, then fabricate, distort, or misrepresent observational data, as needed. As long as a person is only aware of observational data that supports the belief, then that person's mind, by means of its analytic abilities, will find that belief supported and reasonable."

Even if we wanted to decide if "Plasma cosmology is not a fringe viewpoint", my crude calculation summarizes it better. Or if we wanted to prove plasma cosmology, that ignores Wikipedia:Verifiability. Art LaPella 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ICOPS 2006

Editors and readers of this page may be interested in The International Conference of Plasma Science (ICOPS 2006), being held at Michigan State University, Traverse City, 4-8 June 2006. One of the sessions is 1.2 Space Plasmas, organised by Anthony L. Peratt, where you can personally ask him about his published work which has been mentioned in this article, and those of other plasma cosmologists. --Iantresman 13:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pathology of arguments

"Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others have the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject as oneself. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology." Tommy Mandel 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea - call me crazy but how about everybody read each others' papers thoroughly, all the way to the end (rather than just the abstract and conclusion) no matter how crackpot we might think it is, so that arguments are intelligent and informed rather than mud-slinging pissing contests? For a start, how about Big Bang apologists read thoroughly the Brynjolfsson hot plasma redshift paper? I completely admit that I need to read the 1998 Reiss supernovae paper. Jon 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Brynjolfsson's papers are horrendous in that they contain almost no citations (except to his own papers) and they make rather silly claims about the ultimate explanatory power of "plasma redshift theory". He handwaves most of his arguments claiming, for example, that while there is no time dilation in his non-expanding universe, there is a Doppler shift of electrons that causes twice the dependence that should be expected. Then he says that the overshoot on the error is compensated for the fact that the distance modulus is different even though this calibration is done by the cosmic distance ladder and not the Hubble Law. So how do we evaluate such a truculent and non-mathematical pile of suggestions? --ScienceApologist 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this one is within your capabilities, but remember if you accept it, then you have to agree that the big bang has thereby been falsified...

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp January 10, 2005

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?

By Kim McDonald

An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?

Tommy Mandel 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Even if quasars tomorrow were discovered to be dust on astronomers telescopes there would still be more than enough evidence to show that only the Big Bang correctly describes the evolution of the universe. 2) In a 3D universe there are clearly instances where objects will coincide in 2D projection on the sky. --ScienceApologist 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

2) It is true that that are clearly instances where a distant object will appear along with a nearby object and in 2D projection both will appear to coincide with each other. But this in no way means that is always the case.

1) It is also true that the big bang correctly describes itself. But that does not mean the theory is true. As far as "only" what about this?

History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson(1)

André Koch Torres Assis* & Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves**

http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

"...We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang."

?

Tommy Mandel 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Their suggestions do not explain the isotropy of the CMB. --ScienceApologist 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I Perhaps that is because they don't have to.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310511 Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0310511 From: Craig Copi Multipole Vectors--a new representation of the CMB sky and evidence for statistical anisotropy or non-Gaussianity at 2<=l<=8

"We find that the result from comparing the oriented area of planes defined by these vectors between multipole pairs 2 ≤ ℓ1 6= ℓ2 ≤ 8 is inconsistent with the isotropic Gaussian hypothesis at the 99.4% level for the ILC map and at 98.9% level for the cleaned map of Tegmark et al. A particular correlation is suggested between the ℓ = 3 and ℓ = 8 multipoles, as well as several other pairs. This effect is entirely different from the now familiar planarity and alignment of the quadrupole and octupole: while the aforementioned is fairly unlikely, the multipole vectors indicate correlations not expected in Gaussian random skies that make them unusually likely."

Tommy Mandel 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And this: To quote from http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311430

"The five coincident axes indicate physical correlation and anisotropic properties of the cosmic medium not predicted by the conventional Big Bang scenario." Tommy Mandel 02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And this one...

THE HOT AND COLD SPOTS IN THE WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE DATA ARE NOT HOT AND COLD ENOUGH David L. Larson Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA Benjamin D. Wandelt "We find that on average, the local maxima (high temperatures in the anisotropy) are too cold and the local minima are too warm. In order to quantify this claim we describe a two-sided statistical hypothesis test which we advocate for other investigations of the Gaussianity hypothesis. Using this test we reject the isotropic Gaussian hypothesis at more than 99% confidence in a well-defined way."

Ande this one: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4 Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky? "...To their surprise, the new method revealed at high statistical significance (99.9% CL) that the observed quadrupole and octopole are inconsistent with a Gaussian random, statistically isotropic sky (the generic prediction of inflation)."

Finally, From: g starkman http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/tree/browse_frm/month/2004-12/873ac9b329b80836?rnum=241&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.research%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2004-12%3F

"As an author of the study in question...There are other such effects that I oculd list, but I think you get the point. While each of these is a posteori, they are also each odd, and, we would argue, taken together they are seriously troubling."

So, certainly all this is outlined in the appropriate Wikiarticle, right? Would you be so kind as to point me to that article, please?

"Be wary of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." — Pravin Lal

Tommy Mandel 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/tree/browse_frm/month/2004-12/6667bf1b09a49bac?hl=en&rnum=251

From Tony Smith's website:

... The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the plasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect. Tegmark et al ... have shown that the quadruple and octopole component of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. ... the plasma explanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will be needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in qualitative agreement with the new observations. ...".

Please see Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 5#Change 5. This issue has already been discussed. There is some contradictory literature, and it is discussed both here and on the cosmic microwave background page. Incidentally, we didn't learn more about it with three year data, although the WMAP team corrected for the non-Gaussian distribution of foreground power – since it is a power spectrum, the distribution is not Gaussian even though the underlying multipoles are, except at large l where the law of large numbers kicks in – and for their foreground removal to move the quadrupole up, so only the alignment remains. –Joke 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Microwave Background section

I have a problem with the first line of the section, "It has long been noted[25] that the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of helium-4 is the same as the amount of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."

First, the line that follows it is a serious non-sequiter: it refers to "such galaxies" that are not mentioned in the previous line. Also, cite 25, R. H. Cuybert, "Primordial nucleosynthesis for the new cosmology: Determining uncertainties and examining concordance", Physical Review D 70, Issue 2, id. 023505 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0401091., doesn't actually say anything about energy released from He-4 being the same as the energy in the CMB, as far as I can tell. Since he's supporting Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, I think he would not want to draw that conclusion, since the CMB is just supposed to be the last scattering surface and should have little to do with BBN.

Then again, I could be wrong, and since this is a controversial article I don't want to make any edit myself... it might be something to look at during mediation. --Keflavich 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Official party doctrine of the status of the universe in Communist Russia

The Soviet Union, through the official party line of Dialectical Materialism, came to many conclusions that could be considered a plasma cosmology to the universe; opposing the big bang theory (which they argued might support belief in a supernatural creator, if there was a 'beginning in time'). Someone with specific citations should incorporate this, that it was the state recognized cosmology of the Soviet Union, into the article. Nagelfar 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion will probably outrage proponents, on the grounds that this would be damning by association, but you are right: this is noteworthy enough to be briefly mentioned. Did you see the recent BBC news item on the endangered and formerly top secret Soviet photo archives? That is, the unretouched photographs, not the published ones.

Mention of Soviet publishing houses like Mir always reminds me of the weirdly murky photographs from Soviet era books, apparently a holdover from a Stalinist decree that all photographs published in the Soviet Union must be airbrushed to remove all background detail, least the wily capitalists figure notice that some office wall appeared shabby or that some celebrated citizen of the Soviet Union sported a facial mole :-/ They were still airbrushing out details from all the photographs in popular science books intended for export to the West as late as the eighties! Kinda like the real-life counterpart of "the moon-landing was faked!" conspiracy theorists, but with a salutory lesson: real government "conspiracies" tend to be so clumsy that everyone knows what is going on, which generally vitiates all the effort.

And no, I am not "patriotically" ignoring recent and clumsy American government "conspiracies"--- was anyone really surprised to learn that the American government has a huge database of calls placed by its citizens, Google searches by its citizens, etc.? Of course not. We all knew what was probably going on even without being told, and apparently most of us were and remain untroubled by this activity. Sigh... As Orwell probably recognized, the capitalists can do everything better, including mass surveillance of the citizenry. Just offer 'em an (apparent) price cut, and most Americans will happily volunteer to be spied upon (those ubiquitous grocery cards). But I digress, don't I? ---CH 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the doctrinal view is verifiable, there is no reason why it can't go in the article. Conversely, if an equally verifiable view criticising the standard dogma can be found, there is no reason why it can't go in the article on the Big Bang, for example. --Iantresman 08:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a country that made the Big Bang the state-recognized cosmology? --ScienceApologist 10:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

According to my source, Dialectical Materialism by Gustav Wetter; The works of Ambarzumyan, and such statements by those such as M. S. Eigenson, that the "infinitude of the universe is the fundamental axiom at the basis of Soviet cosmology". Others like N. I. Guriev point out that a concept of the "spatio-temporal infinity of the universe" is a Soviet philosophical adherence. I don't know if there were ever any such mandates, rules or laws making this the case ever, but it wouldn't really have ever served any point to do so if the party line had such a good hold on everything published in the scientific community regardless. It would make them appear non-forward looking if they didn't make their vision of the universe appear to be discovered by open and unbiased science. Nagelfar 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Used to be a joke, that the Russians are always claiming they invented it first...ha ha ha. Turns out that in actuality, the Russians really did invent it first. Dialectical materialism may be a philosophy of some sort, but in actuality it comares with the international "system", something Western science is just beginning to learn about. Dialectics fails to achieve generality because it assigns a value to the interaction, and thus equates this relationship to the opposites. They reegard the relationship of opposites to be atagonistic, a kind of competition. But Unity is not to be achieved by the victory of one over the other, instead it will be attained by coming together. Plasma, the interplay of positive and negative charges, is an example of how a system works. So what are the emergent wholes found in plasma physics? Tommy Mandel 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Vatican City? I'm sure this is fascinating, but it's completely irrelevant. How about we move on to something more interesting... Jon 09:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the Vatican City does not have a state-recognized cosmology. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Why did you even bother to find out?) Sorry, I was joking at the expense of the Catholic Church to make a point. Jon 05:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it is a joke...Many have said that the Big Bang is a product of the Church, that it supports the inexplicable aspects of the Bible...Tommy Mandel 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging Plasma cosmology with Plasma Universe

It's been suggested by user:Nagelfar that these two article merge. While I note the similarities, Plasma cosmology is a sub-set of Plasma Universe, with the latter planned to include various sections that are not relevant to Plasma cosmology. For example, the formation of stars, planetary rings, jets, quantized redshift, the Titius-Bode law, origin of synchrotron radiation, cosmic rays, cellular nature of space, electric currents/circuits in cosmic plasmas, jetstreams, Hetegony, etc. Undoubtedly, there will be some overlap, but I think there will be more than enough original material that is not seen in the existing Plasma cosmology article. --Iantresman 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that the merge may make sense in the other direction. Right now, this article is entirely too extensive and drones on-and-on without being very illustrative or helpful. I wouldn't mind seeing it pared down and included under the Plasma Universe page. As I understand it, Perrat doesn't really see Plasma Cosmology as separate from his ideas anyway (he just wants plasma to be discussed everywhere). ScienceApologist 12:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Peratt mentions in the introduction of his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe: "this book deals with the plasma universe whose elements transcend many disciplines, from laboratory controlled fusion experiments to cosmology", and that is the only time that he uses the word "cosmology" in the whole book. It does seems that "Plasma Universe" is considered by Peratt to be more far reaching than just "plasma cosmology".

Alfvén's book, Cosmic Plasma feature six chapters, of which the last one is titled "Cosmology". The other five chapters deal with an overview of aspects of the plasma universe. It does seem that the "Plasma cosmology" is a fraction of the "Plasma Universe". I guess this is similar to "Standard cosmology" being a proportion of "astronomy". --Iantresman 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are we in agreement on something, Ian? --ScienceApologist 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alas I don't think so. While I think that Plasma cosmology is a subset of the Plasma Universe, I don't think Plasma cosmology should be pruned because (a) I don't think it is long, nor appears to drone on (b) appears to have the sixth of the coverage of the Plasma universe. I expect that in due course the Plasma universe article will grow in size, and then spin-off separate articles on galaxy formation, cosmogeny, plasma circuits, etc. All part of my cunning agenda to provide Wikipedia with a significant presence on the Plasma universe... when the revolution comes, we want to be ready ☺ --Iantresman 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If cosmology is the theoretical basis for all objective astronomy (even if those respective sciences have different starting points), I was thinking that if you agree one article is the subset of the other, that the term Plasma cosmology could be the main article in which Plasma Universe observations could be included as one article. At least this was my original feeling. Astrophysical plasma seems fine as a separate article to me, maybe aspects from Plasma Universe could be added to Plasma cosmology in some respects and to Astrophysical plasma in others. Nagelfar 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that, is that the current Plasma cosmology is already quite long, and I anticipate the Plasma Universe article to be at least equal in size. --Iantresman 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)